Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 1/25/2006 19:20:09 Central Standard Time,
JonBecker@... writes:

So here's my question. When does an opponent have to answer the question:
"Tell me what your figures represent?">>


Any and every time he asks.

Jon



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[John Garlic]

Hi Jon,

Is this the case? I know your list should be available after the game, but
free access to your list during the game includes morale which I thought didn't
have to be revealed. Just wanted to clarify this.

John Garlic

In a message dated 1/25/2006 7:20:03 PM Central Standard Time,
JonBecker@... writes:
If I recall correctly, the forum
has discussed what is hidden and what isn't hidden. I also remember hearing
that your opponent's list is not secret and can be looked at anytime before,
during or after a warrior game.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 1/25/2006 20:39:26 Central Standard Time,
jmgarlic@... writes:

Hi Jon,

Is this the case? I know your list should be available after the game, but
free access to your list during the game includes morale which I thought
didn't
have to be revealed. Just wanted to clarify this.

John Garlic



No, the list is not open to your opponent til after the game. Morale is
only revealed after it has been used in the game and then only to the extent
necessary.

Jon


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Greg Regets]

I've never really had a problem just laying my list on the table
during the game and letting the guy look for himself.

In my opinion, with guys that have been playing awhile, it is almost
transparently obvious how morale will be purchased. I just don't see
it as a great mystery, and as a useful tradeoff, anything that speeds
up the game can only be a good thing.

g


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 1/25/2006 20:39:26 Central Standard Time,
> jmgarlic@a... writes:
>
> Hi Jon,
>
> Is this the case? I know your list should be available after the
game, but
> free access to your list during the game includes morale which I
thought
> didn't
> have to be revealed. Just wanted to clarify this.
>
> John Garlic
>
>
>
> No, the list is not open to your opponent til after the game.
Morale is
> only revealed after it has been used in the game and then only to
the extent
> necessary.
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[Tim Brown]

Jon,

What exactly is that statement supposed to mean? You roll a six for a
waver or counter check and simply state " I passed - you don't get to
know my morale class" ? How about a 4 for instance? Am I entitled to
know your morale class when you say " I passed" Maybe you did, maybe
you didn't. Who knows - until the morale class is revealed. My
suggestion: state the morale class the first time a test is required
before the die roll. Simple. Drop "...only to the extent necessary".
Falls in line with the philosophy of revealing all weapon types,
orders, i.e. hidden darts, etc,etc. It's a little late afterwards in a
critical situation to discover those Reg B's actually failed on a two
because of disorder, uneasiness, etc. Do we really have to go through
the deductive debate routine of: "Gee... they passed on a 3. Let's
see...can't be D class. Could be C class...are they uneasy and does
that apply? Disordered? Okay...must be B class..." each and every time
a check is done?

Tim Brown

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> Morale is
only revealed after it has been used in the game and then only to the
extent
necessary.

Jon

[joncleaves]

Ok.
Any objections if I drop that clause?

J

-----Original Message-----
From: browntj007 <browntj007@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:41:50 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Question on Deployment


Jon,

What exactly is that statement supposed to mean? You roll a six for a
waver or counter check and simply state " I passed - you don't get to
know my morale class" ? How about a 4 for instance? Am I entitled to
know your morale class when you say " I passed" Maybe you did, maybe
you didn't. Who knows - until the morale class is revealed. My
suggestion: state the morale class the first time a test is required
before the die roll. Simple. Drop "...only to the extent necessary".
Falls in line with the philosophy of revealing all weapon types,
orders, i.e. hidden darts, etc,etc. It's a little late afterwards in a
critical situation to discover those Reg B's actually failed on a two
because of disorder, uneasiness, etc. Do we really have to go through
the deductive debate routine of: "Gee... they passed on a 3. Let's
see...can't be D class. Could be C class...are they uneasy and does
that apply? Disordered? Okay...must be B class..." each and every time
a check is done?

Tim Brown

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> Morale is
only revealed after it has been used in the game and then only to the
extent
necessary.

Jon











Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Greg Regets]

No objection from me.

I'm in complete agreement with Tim on this. It will go a long way to
eliminate the "I forgot that those were C's" argument. ;-)





--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> Ok.
> Any objections if I drop that clause?
>
> J
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: browntj007 <browntj007@y...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:41:50 -0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Question on Deployment
>
>
> Jon,
>
> What exactly is that statement supposed to mean? You roll a six for
a
> waver or counter check and simply state " I passed - you don't get
to
> know my morale class" ? How about a 4 for instance? Am I entitled
to
> know your morale class when you say " I passed" Maybe you did,
maybe
> you didn't. Who knows - until the morale class is revealed. My
> suggestion: state the morale class the first time a test is
required
> before the die roll. Simple. Drop "...only to the extent
necessary".
> Falls in line with the philosophy of revealing all weapon types,
> orders, i.e. hidden darts, etc,etc. It's a little late afterwards
in a
> critical situation to discover those Reg B's actually failed on a
two
> because of disorder, uneasiness, etc. Do we really have to go
through
> the deductive debate routine of: "Gee... they passed on a 3. Let's
> see...can't be D class. Could be C class...are they uneasy and does
> that apply? Disordered? Okay...must be B class..." each and every
time
> a check is done?
>
> Tim Brown
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> >
> > Morale is
> only revealed after it has been used in the game and then only to
the
> extent
> necessary.
>
> Jon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[Mark Stone]

Jon,

In Lancaster I've pretty much always seen people declare morale class for a body
at the first die roll that involves morale class for that body, and I've never
heard anyone object to this practice.


-Mark Stone

[Ewan McNay]

This is kinda like the definition of democracy - 'the worst voting system
imaginable. Except for all the others'

I don't like disclosing morale until game-end; but then I also dislike
disclosing flank marches, posession of a pig, or whatever. And there have
been too many problems with morale-of-convenience for eliminating them not
to be a good thing.

So: no objection here either. I like that your opponent has to do
something to cause the check to find out, and would *not* want to see that
eliminated.

Greg Regets wrote:

> No objection from me.
>
> I'm in complete agreement with Tim on this. It will go a long way to
> eliminate the "I forgot that those were C's" argument.
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
>>Ok.
>>Any objections if I drop that clause?
>>
>>J
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: browntj007 <browntj007@y...>
>>To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
>>Sent: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:41:50 -0000
>>Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Question on Deployment
>>
>>
>>Jon,
>>
>>What exactly is that statement supposed to mean? You roll a six for
>
> a
>
>>waver or counter check and simply state " I passed - you don't get
>
> to
>
>>know my morale class" ? How about a 4 for instance? Am I entitled
>
> to
>
>>know your morale class when you say " I passed" Maybe you did,
>
> maybe
>
>>you didn't. Who knows - until the morale class is revealed. My
>>suggestion: state the morale class the first time a test is
>
> required
>
>>before the die roll. Simple. Drop "...only to the extent
>
> necessary".
>
>>Falls in line with the philosophy of revealing all weapon types,
>>orders, i.e. hidden darts, etc,etc. It's a little late afterwards
>
> in a
>
>>critical situation to discover those Reg B's actually failed on a
>
> two
>
>>because of disorder, uneasiness, etc. Do we really have to go
>
> through
>
>>the deductive debate routine of: "Gee... they passed on a 3. Let's
>>see...can't be D class. Could be C class...are they uneasy and does
>>that apply? Disordered? Okay...must be B class..." each and every
>
> time
>
>>a check is done?
>>
>>Tim Brown
>>
>>--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>>
>>> Morale is
>>
>>only revealed after it has been used in the game and then only to
>
> the
>
>>extent
>>necessary.
>>
>>Jon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

I agree w/ Ewan on this one.
Steve Rawls

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 12:30:25 -0500, Ewan McNay wrote
> This is kinda like the definition of democracy - 'the worst voting system
> imaginable.  Except for all the others'
>
> I don't like disclosing morale until game-end; but then I also dislike
> disclosing flank marches, posession of a pig, or whatever.  And there have
> been too many problems with morale-of-convenience for eliminating them not
> to be a good thing.
>
> So: no objection here either.  I like that your opponent has to do
> something to cause the check to find out, and would *not* want to see that
> eliminated.
>
> Greg Regets wrote:
>
> > No objection from me.
> >
> > I'm in complete agreement with Tim on this. It will go a long way to
> > eliminate the "I forgot that those were C's" argument.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> >
> >>Ok.
> >>Any objections if I drop that clause?
> >>
> >>J
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: browntj007 <browntj007@y...>
> >>To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> >>Sent: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:41:50 -0000
> >>Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Question on Deployment
> >>
> >>
> >>Jon,
> >>
> >>What exactly is that statement supposed to mean? You roll a six for
> >
> > a
> >
> >>waver or counter check and simply state " I passed - you don't get
> >
> > to
> >
> >>know my morale class" ? How about a 4 for instance? Am I entitled
> >
> > to
> >
> >>know your morale class when you say " I passed" Maybe you did,
> >
> > maybe
> >
> >>you didn't. Who knows - until the morale class is revealed. My
> >>suggestion: state the morale class the first time a test is
> >
> > required
> >
> >>before the die roll. Simple. Drop "...only to the extent
> >
> > necessary".
> >
> >>Falls in line with the philosophy of revealing all weapon types,
> >>orders, i.e. hidden darts, etc,etc. It's a little late afterwards
> >
> > in a
> >
> >>critical situation to discover those Reg B's actually failed on a
> >
> > two
> >
> >>because of disorder, uneasiness, etc. Do we really have to go
> >
> > through
> >
> >>the deductive debate routine of: "Gee... they passed on a 3. Let's
> >>see...can't be D class. Could be C class...are they uneasy and does
> >>that apply? Disordered? Okay...must be B class..." each and every
> >
> > time
> >
> >>a check is done?
> >>
> >>Tim Brown
> >>
> >>--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> >>
> >>> Morale is
> >>
> >>only revealed after it has been used in the game and then only to
> >
> > the
> >
> >>extent
> >>necessary.
> >>
> >>Jon
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
Miniature wargaming Wargaming Four horsemen
Warrior
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
 Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.
>    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.

>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

That's the way we will go.

I am working on a comprehensive list of what is secret and until when for 14.0
and this was the last blank to be filled in.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stone <mark@...>
To: warrior <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 17:29:04 +0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Question on Deployment


Jon,

In Lancaster I've pretty much always seen people declare morale class for a body
at the first die roll that involves morale class for that body, and I've never
heard anyone object to this practice.


-Mark Stone





Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Hi,

I'm of the opinion that in some cases it is a problem revealing your
list. For instance, the arab conquest can have camels disquised as camels.
Revealing that this is in your list is perhaps going to far. Doing this allows
for sloppy and lazy play on the part of your opponent. Most intelligent players
take the time to see what their opponent has in their list in as far as
requirements and options. If one is not inclined to check out one's opponents
list prior or during the game, that is their failing and not that of their
opponent. Additionally, Knowing one's moral and training class can have
disasterous effects on the owning player if the unit is of A or E class. This
will effect the game by giving one's opponent too much information about an
enemy unit. As an example, I understand that in the last KC team tournament, one
team was using a unit of Irg E troops in their games. The unit was put in a
forward position and used as bait for the enemy to kill and in the eyes of the
enemy cause massive waiver tests. The reality was, they smashed E's and became
vulnerable to a nasty flank hit by lancers in their pursuit the following round.
Full disclosure would end cool tactics like this. And diminishes the game.

kw

Greg Regets <greg.regets@...> wrote:
No objection from me.

I'm in complete agreement with Tim on this. It will go a long way to
eliminate the "I forgot that those were C's" argument. ;-)





--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> Ok.
> Any objections if I drop that clause?
>
> J
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: browntj007 <browntj007@y...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:41:50 -0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Question on Deployment
>
>
> Jon,
>
> What exactly is that statement supposed to mean? You roll a six for
a
> waver or counter check and simply state " I passed - you don't get
to
> know my morale class" ? How about a 4 for instance? Am I entitled
to
> know your morale class when you say " I passed" Maybe you did,
maybe
> you didn't. Who knows - until the morale class is revealed. My
> suggestion: state the morale class the first time a test is
required
> before the die roll. Simple. Drop "...only to the extent
necessary".
> Falls in line with the philosophy of revealing all weapon types,
> orders, i.e. hidden darts, etc,etc. It's a little late afterwards
in a
> critical situation to discover those Reg B's actually failed on a
two
> because of disorder, uneasiness, etc. Do we really have to go
through
> the deductive debate routine of: "Gee... they passed on a 3. Let's
> see...can't be D class. Could be C class...are they uneasy and does
> that apply? Disordered? Okay...must be B class..." each and every
time
> a check is done?
>
> Tim Brown
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> >
> > Morale is
> only revealed after it has been used in the game and then only to
the
> extent
> necessary.
>
> Jon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>







---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

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.


---------------------------------






---------------------------------

What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

te:
> > >
> > > Morale is
> > only revealed after it has been used in the game and then only to
> the
> > extent
> > necessary.
> >
> > Jon

My only take on all of this is that it would be fairly obvious in
some cases to a unit looking out over the battlefield, which enemy
units looked like they were ready and wanting a fight, and those that
looked like they really wish they were someplace else. For instance
if you see enemy foot chained together, chances are they are not very
happy about being there. If you had been raiding the Roman empire in
a particular area, you may come to recognise shield patterns and know
which units were best not to tangle with ect.

So I think the rule above is a nice compromise. I mean a player can
look at an army on the field and know by number, and composition of
the rest of the army which troops are likely to be of higher morale
then others, so you get to keep the mystery alive until contact.
After contact a quick check of the army lists should give you an idea
of what else is there from that point.

Back to lurking
Cya
Brad