Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Chris Damour]

Folks,
(I know, I know, I've said it before, but I can't resist.) Do you
mean there are orders OTHER than attack? <<grin>>

--
Christopher Damour

[scott holder]

(I know, I know, I've said it before, but I can't resist.) Do you
mean there are orders OTHER than attack? <<grin>>

>Well, I'm seriously looking at the possibilities of running Irr A armies with
Delay orders:):)

[Ewan McNay]

Holder, Scott wrote:

> (I know, I know, I've said it before, but I can't resist.) Do you
> mean there are orders OTHER than attack? <<grin>>
>
>>Well, I'm seriously looking at the possibilities of running Irr A armies with
Delay orders:):)

There were a couple of wrinkles for future use from the weekend. One
was getting to grips a little more with the current teleportation - I
mean, interpenetration rules. Need to make your elephants move three
feet? Just expand out the LI next to them, then enter one end of the
LI unit - and bingo .

A second was the use of Wait orders combined with terrain placement.
Requires, usually, an opponent on attack or at least probe, but that's
OK; and you get to 'reserve' first charge opportunities until desired.

And a third was unfortified BUAs. I gather this is one of Frank's pet
tricks, and I see why - they have a very interesting set of features.
Should be in every peltast's kitbag.

[joncleaves]

 One
>was getting to grips a little more with the current teleportation - I
>mean, interpenetration rules.  Need to make your elephants move three
>feet?  Just expand out the LI next to them, then enter one end of the
>LI unit - and bingo .>>

The clarifications limit this somewhat:

"6.52 (Pg 54) Add a sixth paragraph: Interpenetration and Combat. If
interpenetration results in any element of a body moving further than its
tactical move distance, it cannot conduct preparatory shooting or declare a
charge. Note also that troops who this bound were interpenetrated by a moving
friendly body or exchanged ranks cannot shoot (8.84)."

the alternative was a seemingly draconian rules addition limiting interpens to
only those that could be made within the tac move distance of the
interpenetrator - which was unworkable.

>
>And a third was unfortified BUAs.  I gather this is one of Frank's pet
>tricks, and I see why - they have a very interesting set of features.
>  Should be in every peltast's kitbag.>>

I cannot say for sure, but a first look at what might happen to the new 14.0 is
a limit on villages to one - you can choose more than one, but once you get one,
no more can be placed. I think they need to be in the game, but not sure about
refighting stalingrad with Warrior. In any case, that is just an idea at this
point - I will be doing 6.0 before I do a 14.0 draft.

I also played Frank and have been aware of his like of UBA's for some time, but
that has nothing to do with the review of 14.0. Instead, I am looking at it
from an entirely different perspective than when we first wrote it as the
player's wishes are directly counter to the philosophy under which it was
written. The 'standard' competition format in the second printing will be far
more exactingly written (and this includes fire arrows, TF's, terrain
descriptions, forced marches, etc.).


Jon

[scott holder]

The clarifications limit this somewhat:

"6.52 (Pg 54) Add a sixth paragraph: Interpenetration and Combat. If
interpenetration results in any element of a body moving further than its
tactical move distance, it cannot conduct preparatory shooting or declare a
charge. Note also that troops who this bound were interpenetrated by a moving
friendly body or exchanged ranks cannot shoot (8.84)."

the alternative was a seemingly draconian rules addition limiting interpens to
only those that could be made within the tac move distance of the
interpenetrator - which was unworkable.

>And I can think of many instances where players were unaware of this very
effective limitation on the seemingly massive amounts of move given in certain
interpenetration situations.

>I might also add that players NEED to have clarifications written into their
rules. Hardly anybody did at Hcon. Because of the massive amounts of plumbing,
reflooring work I was doing up until I left for Hcon, I left my rules behind in
the chaos of packing, etc, argh. I'm serious here folks, if you're going to
show up and play, you really really really need to have your rules up to date.

scott

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
>> was getting to grips a little more with the current teleportation
>> - I mean, interpenetration rules. Need to make your elephants
>> move three feet? Just expand out the LI next to them, then enter
>> one end of the LI unit - and bingo .>>
>
>
> The clarifications limit this somewhat:
>
> "6.52 (Pg 54) Add a sixth paragraph: Interpenetration and Combat.
> If interpenetration results in any element of a body moving further
> than its tactical move distance, it cannot conduct preparatory
> shooting or declare a charge. Note also that troops who this bound
> were interpenetrated by a moving friendly body or exchanged ranks
> cannot shoot (8.84)."
>
> the alternative was a seemingly draconian rules addition limiting
> interpens to only those that could be made within the tac move
> distance of the interpenetrator - which was unworkable.

Sure. Elephants are especially nasty, however, because their
appearance causes disorder among mounted and they are so invulnerable
to mounted attack.

[An interesting ethical question. If I make a legal interpenetration,
knowing that I cannot e.g. charge, but my opponent does not know this,
am I obliged to make him aware of such? I don't think so, although
bridge players here may recognise us geetting into the ACBL's 'active
ethics' arena.]

[scott holder]

[An interesting ethical question. If I make a legal interpenetration,
knowing that I cannot e.g. charge, but my opponent does not know this,
am I obliged to make him aware of such? I don't think so, although
bridge players here may recognise us geetting into the ACBL's 'active
ethics' arena.]

>So much for sportsmanship:( If you know this and declare the charge
knowing this, well, I'll leave it for others to define that behavior.

soctt

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/27/2004 4:43:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
hrisikos@... writes:

>Ewan wrote:
>>  And a third was unfortified BUAs.  I gather this is one of Frank's pet
>>  tricks, and I see why - they have a very interesting set of features.
>>    Should be in every peltast's kitbag.
>>
>>
>
>Ewan,
>
>   Explain please.>>

Unlike woods, a UBA provides cover to all but JLS yet it also permits the
employment of LTS. It can also be larger than a woods....currently.. ;)

J

[Ewan McNay]

Holder, Scott wrote:

> [An interesting ethical question. If I make a legal interpenetration,
> knowing that I cannot e.g. charge, but my opponent does not know this,
> am I obliged to make him aware of such? I don't think so, although
> bridge players here may recognise us geetting into the ACBL's 'active
> ethics' arena.]
>
>
>>So much for sportsmanship:( If you know this and declare the charge
knowing this, well, I'll leave it for others to define that behavior.

I don't think (well, hope not) anyone would declare a charge in such a
circumstance. But would one be obliged to tell one's opponent that
they do not need to go through contortions to get out of charge range?

[Ewan McNay]

What he said. Specifically the LTS part.

JonCleaves@... wrote:

> In a message dated 7/27/2004 4:43:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
hrisikos@... writes:
>
>
>>Ewan wrote:
>>
>>> And a third was unfortified BUAs. I gather this is one of Frank's pet
>>> tricks, and I see why - they have a very interesting set of features.
>>> Should be in every peltast's kitbag.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Ewan,
>>
>> Explain please.>>
>
>
> Unlike woods, a UBA provides cover to all but JLS yet it also permits the
employment of LTS. It can also be larger than a woods....currently..
>
> J
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/27/2004 4:31:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Holder, Scott"
<Scott.Holder@...> writes:

>[An interesting ethical question.  If I make a legal interpenetration,
>knowing that I cannot e.g. charge, but my opponent does not know this,
>am I obliged to make him aware of such?  I don't think so, although
>bridge players here may recognise us geetting into the ACBL's 'active
>ethics' arena.]>>

Assume that 'active ethics' applies to Warrior, too. And such a player can be
thankful that Scott is the ump and not I...

>>So much for sportsmanship:(  If you know this and declare the charge
knowing this, well, I'll leave it for others to define that behavior.>>

I *think* Scott may have worded this poorly. Doing this and then declaring a
charge would be cheating of the worst sort. I think the original question
concerns just doing the interpen and appearing threatening without reminding
your opponent you cannot charge, which is not cheating, but not a behavior I
support either.

J

[Bill Chriss]

Ewan wrote:
> And a third was unfortified BUAs. I gather this is one of Frank's pet
> tricks, and I see why - they have a very interesting set of features.
> Should be in every peltast's kitbag.
>
>

Ewan,

Explain please.


-(Peltast loving) Greek

[joncleaves]

You guys may be working on honorary Greek status.>>

Does it come with land on Mykonos?

[Bill Chriss]

>> [An interesting ethical question. If I make a legal interpenetration,
> knowing that I cannot e.g. charge, but my opponent does not know this,
> am I obliged to make him aware of such?


It depends what you mean by obliged. If you mean is it the right thing to
do, the answer is yes.


-the Greek (bearer of seminary degree in Orthodox Christian theology;
professor of political philosophy; fan of Socrates)

[Bill Chriss]

> In a message dated 7/27/2004 4:43:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> hrisikos@... writes:
>
> >Ewan wrote:
> >>  And a third was unfortified BUAs.  I gather this is one of Frank's
> pet
> >>  tricks, and I see why - they have a very interesting set of features.
> >>    Should be in every peltast's kitbag.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Ewan,
> >
> >   Explain please.>>
>
> Unlike woods, a UBA provides cover to all but JLS yet it also permits the
> employment of LTS. It can also be larger than a woods....currently..
>
> J
>


and I thought I had found all the neat terrain stuff and strategems for
peltasts! You guys may be working on honorary Greek status.



Greek