Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[John Murphy]

Please forgive me if this sounds like a rant. It isn't and it doesn't
personally affect me but I am wondering.

The Warrior rules state there is no need for partial elements since
casualties are not removed. Yet the requirement for regulars to be in
even ranks is still there, and even amplified/clarified somewhat.

What happens to all those lists with the little half or other
fractional elements of regulars? Especially certain old lists which
more or less straight-jacket you into certain sizes for certain units?

This is another "good riddance" in my book but unfortunately in this
case some lists still in use make it difficult to get rid of. How the
heck do you make half elements of a three figure element anyway? Geez
what a mess.

I know this, like the L* question, is related to TOG. But since
Warrior is still tied to some of these lists for the time being I hope
you will not mind my asking.

And a hearty thank you to the FHE list writers who seem to have made
the effort to get rid of all this kind of garbage.

Even if Warrior allows partial elements I hope that the new army lists
will continue to avoid this kind of straight-jacketing by being a bit
more careful in language usage and open-minded to other unit size
interpretations than certain of the old ones were.

[scott holder]

This is another "good riddance" in my book but unfortunately in this
case some lists still in use make it difficult to get rid of. How the
heck do you make half elements of a three figure element anyway? Geez
what a mess.

>You don't. With old list questions, the rule of thumb is to simply
round up or down to the next nearest number of *even* elements. You
cannot round down to 0 to avoid mandatory purchases.

And a hearty thank you to the FHE list writers who seem to have made
the effort to get rid of all this kind of garbage.

>That would be me, List HOrseman, with copious amounts of support from
Bill the Legal HOrseman. Yes, part of the process is to clean up the
mess left behind by the old lists and the confusion resulting from
*some* of the new(er) lists.

Scott
List Ho

In a message dated Tue, 14 May 2002  3:04:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Holder,
Scott <FHWA>" <Scott.Holder@...> writes:

>>That would be me, List HOrseman, with copious amounts of support from
>Bill the Legal HOrseman.

Oh! So that is what HO is short for.

Silly me. I thought it was something else. :)

[scott holder]

All is explained at www.fourhorsemenenterprises.com.

>>> scribblerjohn@... 5/14/02 2:22:00 PM >>>
In a message dated Tue, 14 May 2002 3:04:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
"Holder, Scott <FHWA>" <Scott.Holder@...> writes:

>>That would be me, List HOrseman, with copious amounts of support from
>Bill the Legal HOrseman.

Oh! So that is what HO is short for.

Silly me. I thought it was something else. :)


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/