Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ewan McNay]

Nice idea - thanks, Todd.

I noticed a couple of errors as I went through it (fast, so I
make no claim for this to be a proof-read, and I'm omitting the
spelling/grammar stuff):

In the first bound, the German CinC elects no to approach nor
march, but is later stated to have moved (and hence be ineligible
for a staff move).

In the first bound of the cavalry combat, the german CinC rolled
+1 but was not given his additional IrrA +2 (which would have
routed the Roman CinC on contact, and altered the battle outcome).

It's probably worth noting that the German CinC does *not* get a
+1 to his waver roll for second disorder, because not *all* of
his hth opponents routed.

I didn't check it at the time, but were there no more waver tests
for seeing the Roman army standard rout? Seems to me now that
there might have been.

Again, nice idea and execution.

e

[Todd Schneider]

Ewan,

Check out Slide 66. I am pretty sure thats the one
your addressing.

Thanks for the comments,
Todd

--- Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@...> wrote:

---------------------------------
Nice idea - thanks, Todd.

I noticed a couple of errors as I went through it
(fast, so I
make no claim for this to be a proof-read, and I'm
omitting the
spelling/grammar stuff):

In the first bound, the German CinC elects no to
approach nor
march, but is later stated to have moved (and hence be
ineligible
for a staff move).

In the first bound of the cavalry combat, the german
CinC rolled
+1 but was not given his additional IrrA +2 (which
would have
routed the Roman CinC on contact, and altered the
battle outcome).

It's probably worth noting that the German CinC does
*not* get a
+1 to his waver roll for second disorder, because not
*all* of
his hth opponents routed.

I didn't check it at the time, but were there no more
waver tests
for seeing the Roman army standard rout? Seems to me
now that
there might have been.

Again, nice idea and execution.

e



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

[Todd Schneider]

Ewan, I know which slide your talking about now.

That can be fixed...

Todd
--- Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@...> wrote:

---------------------------------
Nice idea - thanks, Todd.

I noticed a couple of errors as I went through it
(fast, so I
make no claim for this to be a proof-read, and I'm
omitting the
spelling/grammar stuff):

In the first bound, the German CinC elects no to
approach nor
march, but is later stated to have moved (and hence be
ineligible
for a staff move).

In the first bound of the cavalry combat, the german
CinC rolled
+1 but was not given his additional IrrA +2 (which
would have
routed the Roman CinC on contact, and altered the
battle outcome).

It's probably worth noting that the German CinC does
*not* get a
+1 to his waver roll for second disorder, because not
*all* of
his hth opponents routed.

I didn't check it at the time, but were there no more
waver tests
for seeing the Roman army standard rout? Seems to me
now that
there might have been.

Again, nice idea and execution.

e



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

[Ewan McNay]

Todd -

- slide 55. First bound of cav combat.

E

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Schneider <thresh1642@s...>
wrote:
> Ewan,
>
> Check out Slide 66. I am pretty sure thats the one
> your addressing.
>
> Thanks for the comments,
> Todd
>
> --- Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...> wrote:
>
> ---------------------------------
> Nice idea - thanks, Todd.
>
> I noticed a couple of errors as I went through it
> (fast, so I
> make no claim for this to be a proof-read, and I'm
> omitting the
> spelling/grammar stuff):
>
> In the first bound, the German CinC elects no to
> approach nor
> march, but is later stated to have moved (and hence be
> ineligible
> for a staff move).
>
> In the first bound of the cavalry combat, the german
> CinC rolled
> +1 but was not given his additional IrrA +2 (which
> would have
> routed the Roman CinC on contact, and altered the
> battle outcome).
>
> It's probably worth noting that the German CinC does
> *not* get a
> +1 to his waver roll for second disorder, because not
> *all* of
> his hth opponents routed.
>
> I didn't check it at the time, but were there no more
> waver tests
> for seeing the Roman army standard rout? Seems to me
> now that
> there might have been.
>
> Again, nice idea and execution.
>
> e
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.