Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Okay, more questions for you Jon -- I know you're excited. ;-)

*6.14 & .15 Detachments Rejoining Parents: both counters and
retirements can include a detachment rejoining a parent unit -- can
they rejoin, regardless of distance, or must they be able to reach
(with a tactical move) the parent unit to rejoin it?

*6.16 Charge Cancellation: Not real clear when cancellations occur
in the sequence of events in the charge phase, as listed here. Also
not sure about the order in which cancellations are decided -- for
instance, how do you get out of a circular reference (A's charge is
canelled by B, which is in turn cancelled by C, which is in turn
cancelled by A's, etc.)

*6.163 Charge Path: When do you "decide" whether the charge path is
going to be straight ahead before "OR" after the initial pre-charge
wheel?

*6.165 Charge Moves: if you are already "square" to your enemy --
both corners are equidistant -- can you choose to wheel either way,
or no wheeling allowed?

*6.165 Flank Charges: the requirement that a body attempt a flank
charge must be able to reach the intended flank with at least one
element ... this is true for all charges, no? Or do you mean that the
lineup/pivot move required to be properly lined up for the flank
charge in the final position is not a "free" lineup/pivot like it is
with "normal" charges?

*6.165 Mutual charges: rule states units wheel simultaneously ... I
assume that should say "in initiative order", no? Also, in the middle
right diagram on p. 43, why are the leftmost elements of unit U
pushed *forward* 20p -- I would have assumed they should be 20p
back ... though I don't know why they would be moved either way,
actually, since they wouldn't contact the enemy, even once the
pivot/lineup move happens.

*6.166 Evade Moves: bulleted list has three bullets: light troops,
bodies in skirmish formation, and bodies who evaded previous bound.
Isn't bullet #3 utterly redundant, or am I missing some nuance?

*6.166 Charges against evaders: if a pursuer opts to wheel more to
pursue evader, the rule states that they can turn no more than 45
degrees "altogether" -- does this "altogether" in this context mean
the initial, pre-charge and pre-evade wheel, PLUS the additionl wheel
needed to whack in on the evader, or something else?

*6.18 Echeloning: in the diagram, what happens next? Unit A has
echeloned, and doesn't need to pivot ... but it DOES need to lineup,
and it can't without splitting. Do you a) not move anything and
pretend they are lined up, or b) move attacked units X and Y so that
lineup is achieved. And a slightly different scenario, let's say unit
Y was at an angle to units A and X, so that unit A would need to
pivot to be flush with Y, but be flush already with X ... would Y be
forced to pivot to make the charge work?

*6.31 Recoils/Follow-ups: friendly light troops behind recoilers
must also recoil and then subsequently make a recall move (not sure
why ...). This happens if they are within 40p of the recoiler a)
before the recoiler performs its recoil, or b) after the recoiler has
recoiled?

*6.36 Recall Moves: first, a design question -- what are recall
moves, exactly? I don't quite understand what they represent. Also,
the rule states that troops must rally after a recall move ... does
that mean unsteady troops rally instantly, since recall moves and
unsteady rallying happen in the End Phase (and in that order)?

*6.41 Regular ranks: the regular unit rank restrictions seem mighty
restrictive. Because frontage can only generally be changed in 1-2
element increments, certain combinations of unit size and frontage
will be impossible to achieve, or once they ARE achieved (either by
initial setup or by passing a gap), the unit could be "jammed" in a
particular frontage. For instance, an 8E unit could have a frontage
of 1 (column), 2, 4, or 8 -- but moving between 4 and 8 is difficult.
A 9E unit can ONLY be in column or 3E-width block ...

*6.43 & .44 Testudo and Orb: This is unclear -- orb says a unit must
be in a block when it uses a manuver to enter the orb ... does the
unit retain its block shape and just turn stands to signify orb-
status? And what about testudo -- what formation should it be in
initially? And why do both formations revert to column in or after
combat -- is that true even if they weren't in a column before they
entered the formation, or in a column-like shape while they were in
the formation?

*6.45 Skirmish formation: rule states that a unit in skirmish
formation must evade if charged ... does that evasion cancel their
skirmishing status?

*6.52 Interpenetration: what exactly did you mean by "... troops can
voluntarily interpenetrate another friendly body DIRECTLY TO THEIR
FRONT OR REAR ..." I know from another thread here that you did NOT
mean that units had to be facing the same direction, ala DBx. So what
DID you mean? :)

*6.521 Interpenetrating and Disorder: one bullet says troops are
disordered if they interpenetrate moving bodies ... how does that
occur? A troop is the interpenetratOR if they are moving, and if
they're not moving, they would be interpenetratED ...?

*6.53 Gaps: when precisely is a regular body compelled who has
dropped elements back to fit into a gap (and thereby now has unequal
ranks) required to re-achieve equal-rank-hood? Or another way of
asking it -- what does "for the duration of the time it is in the gap
only" really mean?

*6.712 & .713 Terrain and moves: perhaps I missed this ... but is
there a rule somewhere that states when a unit may, "for free" like
passing through a gap, drop back elements to form a column for
terrain-crossing purposes? Is it for all troops and all difficult
terrain? Or just troops entering terrain types that require a column
formation for that troop type?

*6.714 Close order defenders: rule states that a close order body
becomes disordered as soon as it moves from its initial defending
positions ... can it regain that non-disordered status, or is it lost
for the entire game?

*6.73 Night movement march moves: why are march moves required? Am I
right in guessing that MOST moves could be march moves at night,
since the LOS distance is so short and therefore enemies
aren't "known" until shorter range ...?


Okay, that's it for now ... though you'll note, I still haven't
written down any combat questions yet. ;-)

-Jeff

One question for you Jeff. I know you have read the latest FAQ (v1.01). But
have you also updated your rules book with the clarification/errata sheet
(found on the FHE website, and this Yahoo group site)?

Just wondering, I don't want to add questions to the FAQ that are already
covered by the clarifications sheet. My work is hard enough.

--Kurt (Grand Warrior FAQ Keeper)



----- Original Message -----
From: "jeffchrisope" <jeffchri@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 11:36 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Questions, Round 2


> Okay, more questions for you Jon -- I know you're excited. ;-)

--- In WarriorRules@y..., "jeffchrisope" <jeffchri@m...> wrote:<

<snip>

No offense, but now I remember why I quit playing 7th all those years
ago.

Anyone want to buy a copy of Warrior? Cheap?

andy

[joncleaves]

Jeff, I am in AZ on business and not currently able to answer questions - I
will answer them soon, but I would ask you this:

I answer rules questions because I intend to make Warrior the best supported
game system ever. I would prefer not to be used to read the rulebook for
someone else. I looked over the questions you sent and saw a pattern - they
are either quickly answered by a rule or are theoretical 'in game' questions
from someone I don't think has played a game yet. Could I ask you to go over
these again and make absolutely sure that:
1. You can't find the answer in the rules or clarification sheet.
2. You aren't asking me an in game or tactics question that isn't really
about the rules. Save those for later.

Like I said, I will answer (ALL of) these as soon as I am able, but if you
retracted a couple because you found them in the meantime, that would be ok.
:)

Jon

Andy, any set of rules with the **rich detail** contained in Warrior is
gonna generate questions about a lot of things, no rules are without them.
This is espesialy true of new players, including those who have NEVER played
7E. Also, no set of rules is perfect, even DBA has A LOT of Q&A generated
about it (and believe me, I know!!!).

The one thing that makes Warrior stand out in this regard is how well those
questions are resolved. Warrior has a well organized FAQ, as well as a
Clarifications sheet. Other rules, including DBA, and even Terry Gore's
AW/MW, really have only half hearted attempts at this. For example, Bob
Beatie has a NASAMW FAQ for DBA, and the DBA Resourse page has a mixed bag,
hardly official, FAQ. Thats about it. Nothing well organized or easy to use,
IMO.

Besides that, most of the questions put forth by Jeff are newbie questions,
not questions pertaining to potential rules problems. It's not that bad.
Warrior is a pretty tight game rules wise, IMHO.

--Kurt



----- Original Message -----
From: "andyjakes007" <andyjakes007@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 1:45 PM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Questions, Round 2


> --- In WarriorRules@y..., "jeffchrisope" <jeffchri@m...> wrote:<
>
> <snip>
>
> No offense, but now I remember why I quit playing 7th all those years
> ago.
>
> Anyone want to buy a copy of Warrior? Cheap?
>
> andy
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>

Damn, I mangled that word up BAD!!! Sorry..."especially "
--Kurt



----- Original Message -----
From: "Kurtus A. Brown" <sheol@...>

> This is especially true

[joncleaves]

And, Kurt, don't worry overmuch about this other guy who whined over Jeff's
questions - obviously just looking for an excuse to say something bad about
Warrior. I'd rather sell a few less copies and have guys like him go play
some other rule set.

It's Jeff I want to keep. :)

And Jeff, yes, there are some nuances there in your questions- one of the
attractions of Warrior. In many places you aren't reading the rule 'wrong'
and you aren't confused, you just can' t see why it is written that way yet.
No prob - like I said, when I get back near my copy I will answer all.....

Jon

--- In WarriorRules@y..., "Kurtus A. Brown" <sheol@e...> wrote:
> One question for you Jeff. I know you have read the latest FAQ
(v1.01). But
> have you also updated your rules book with the clarification/errata
sheet
> (found on the FHE website, and this Yahoo group site)?

Yes, I've updated my rulebook with the clarifications/errata. In a
few cases, the questions I have are based on additional confusion
from the errata.

[joncleaves]

Jeff Please relax. No offense meant. Look at the answers carefully when
i send them for what i was trying to say. Not trying to upset you. I can
see that "" does notwork for me.... Peace J

[joncleaves]

<< *6.14 & .15 Detachments Rejoining Parents: both counters and
retirements can include a detachment rejoining a parent unit -- can
they rejoin, regardless of distance, or must they be able to reach
(with a tactical move) the parent unit to rejoin it?>>

They must be able to 'reach'. See 2.53.

<<*6.16 Charge Cancellation: Not real clear when cancellations occur
in the sequence of events in the charge phase, as listed here. Also
not sure about the order in which cancellations are decided -- for
instance, how do you get out of a circular reference (A's charge is
canelled by B, which is in turn cancelled by C, which is in turn
cancelled by A's, etc.)>>

Cancellations occur when the canceling event occurs, such as the
identification of an uncanceled charge coming in against a body from out of
its own charge path. I cannot recreate such a circular reference as you
describe. Could you give me an actual example of that occurring?

<<*6.163 Charge Path: When do you "decide" whether the charge path is
going to be straight ahead before "OR" after the initial pre-charge
wheel?>>

The charge path is set after any wheel. Don't really understand the
question, though. You don't 'decide' on a charge path, it is set by the
body's facing (after any wheel).

<<*6.165 Charge Moves: if you are already "square" to your enemy --
both corners are equidistant -- can you choose to wheel either way,
or no wheeling allowed?>>

If both corners are exactly equidistant, you may wheel either way.

<<*6.165 Flank Charges: the requirement that a body attempt a flank
charge must be able to reach the intended flank with at least one
element ... this is true for all charges, no?>>

No, not all charges will have the charger contacting the flank.

<< Or do you mean that the
lineup/pivot move required to be properly lined up for the flank
charge in the final position is not a "free" lineup/pivot like it is
with "normal" charges?>>

Once determined to be a legal charge, it has the same line up and pivot rules
as any other.

<<*6.165 Mutual charges: rule states units wheel simultaneously ... I
assume that should say "in initiative order", no?>>

Incorrect assumption. It is simultaneously.

<< Also, in the middle
right diagram on p. 43, why are the leftmost elements of unit U
pushed *forward* 20p -- I would have assumed they should be 20p
back ... though I don't know why they would be moved either way,
actually, since they wouldn't contact the enemy, even once the
pivot/lineup move happens.>>

It is showing that the end element did not contact the flank within its
charge distance.

<<*6.166 Evade Moves: bulleted list has three bullets: light troops,
bodies in skirmish formation, and bodies who evaded previous bound.
Isn't bullet #3 utterly redundant, or am I missing some nuance?>>

Bullet three is not redundant. There are troops/situation combinations that
are not light and not in skirmish formation that evaded the previous bound.

<<*6.166 Charges against evaders: if a pursuer opts to wheel more to
pursue evader, the rule states that they can turn no more than 45
degrees "altogether" -- does this "altogether" in this context mean
the initial, pre-charge and pre-evade wheel, PLUS the additionl wheel
needed to whack in on the evader, or something else?>>

It means the combination of any initial wheel and any wheel to continue to
follow an evader cannot exceed 45 degrees.

<<*6.18 Echeloning: in the diagram, what happens next? Unit A has
echeloned, and doesn't need to pivot ... but it DOES need to lineup,
and it can't without splitting. Do you a) not move anything and
pretend they are lined up, or b) move attacked units X and Y so that
lineup is achieved. And a slightly different scenario, let's say unit
Y was at an angle to units A and X, so that unit A would need to
pivot to be flush with Y, but be flush already with X ... would Y be
forced to pivot to make the charge work?>>

X lines up. Doesn't look like Y needs to.

<< *6.31 Recoils/Follow-ups: friendly light troops behind recoilers
must also recoil and then subsequently make a recall move (not sure
why ...). This happens if they are within 40p of the recoiler a)
before the recoiler performs its recoil, or b) after the recoiler has
recoiled?>>

The former.

<<*6.36 Recall Moves: first, a design question -- what are recall
moves, exactly? I don't quite understand what they represent.>>

A body withdrawing from an exposed position on the initiative of the local
commander.

<<Also,
the rule states that troops must rally after a recall move ... does
that mean unsteady troops rally instantly, since recall moves and
unsteady rallying happen in the End Phase (and in that order)?>>

No, since you would have moved (the recall move) and you can't move in the
bound prior to the phase you rally. 5.42.

<<*6.41 Regular ranks: the regular unit rank restrictions seem mighty
restrictive. Because frontage can only generally be changed in 1-2
element increments, certain combinations of unit size and frontage
will be impossible to achieve, or once they ARE achieved (either by
initial setup or by passing a gap), the unit could be "jammed" in a
particular frontage. For instance, an 8E unit could have a frontage
of 1 (column), 2, 4, or 8 -- but moving between 4 and 8 is difficult.
A 9E unit can ONLY be in column or 3E-width block ...>>

Don't see a question here. Some unit sizes by training class and troop type
are 'better' than others in some situations. This is deliberate.

<< *6.43 & .44 Testudo and Orb: This is unclear -- orb says a unit must
be in a block when it uses a manuver to enter the orb ... does the
unit retain its block shape and just turn stands to signify orb-
status?>>

Yes.

<< And what about testudo -- what formation should it be in
initially?>>

Any legal one. 6.4.

<< And why do both formations revert to column in or after
combat -- is that true even if they weren't in a column before they
entered the formation, or in a column-like shape while they were in
the formation?>>

Good catch. That should be block (I think - have to look in more detail) and
is probably left there from the initial assumption that only a four element
unit would be doing this. Have to work on this one. Not sure from my hotel
in Arizona...

<<*6.45 Skirmish formation: rule states that a unit in skirmish
formation must evade if charged ... does that evasion cancel their
skirmishing status? >>

Yes. 6.166.

<<*6.52 Interpenetration: what exactly did you mean by "... troops can
voluntarily interpenetrate another friendly body DIRECTLY TO THEIR
FRONT OR REAR ..." >>

You can't interpenetrate to the side. You can to the front or rear.

<< I know from another thread here that you did NOT
mean that units had to be facing the same direction, ala DBx. >>

Correct.

<< *6.521 Interpenetrating and Disorder: one bullet says troops are
disordered if they interpenetrate moving bodies ... how does that
occur?>>

I think this is yet another situation you have not yet encountered. Say a
troop charges through a troop that is evading. They are both moving, both
disorder.

<< *6.53 Gaps: when precisely is a regular body compelled who has
dropped elements back to fit into a gap (and thereby now has unequal
ranks) required to re-achieve equal-rank-hood? Or another way of
asking it -- what does "for the duration of the time it is in the gap
only" really mean?>>

Once the body is no longer in the gap, it must return to a legal formation.

<<*6.712 & .713 Terrain and moves: perhaps I missed this ... but is
there a rule somewhere that states when a unit may, "for free" like
passing through a gap, drop back elements to form a column for
terrain-crossing purposes? >>

No.

<<Is it for all troops and all difficult
terrain?>>

If the 'it' is a free entry into column, no.

<< Or just troops entering terrain types that require a column
formation for that troop type?>>

Again, no, if I understand the question.

<< *6.714 Close order defenders: rule states that a close order body
becomes disordered as soon as it moves from its initial defending
positions ... can it regain that non-disordered status, or is it lost
for the entire game?>>

It is cessation cured. 5.221.

<< *6.73 Night movement march moves: why are march moves required?>>

You mean, design-wise? The simulation of command-control problems on an
ancient army marching at night.

<< Am I right in guessing that MOST moves could be march moves at night,
since the LOS distance is so short and therefore enemies
aren't "known" until shorter range ...?>>

That is possible, yes.

If my answers to your questions has offended you in any way, Jeff, you are
not 'hearing' my answers the way I intended them to be heard. Hope this
helps.
Jon

[Mark Mallard]

Email has a habit of upsetting people. As it is hard to convey warmth etc and
it is not possible to explain or qualify something straight away when someone
is feeling upset or attacked.

mm




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

[joncleaves]

<< Can't happen with a 3-unit circular path, of course. [One of the charges
would have to be on one's own side.] However, could happen if A and C
belong to one player, and B and D to the other (perhaps all LC units after
a flank march by one side?), with A charging B charging C charging D, all
charges at 90 degrees to one another. Unlikely, yes; and I think that all
charges would be cancelled under rules as current.>>

Yes, they would. But that one I gotta see. :)

<<> Bullet three is not redundant. There are troops/situation combinations
that
> are not light and not in skirmish formation that evaded the previous bound.

Right. Anyone who was in skirmish and evaded last turn may no longer be
in skirmish.>>

Not may, will not. Troops in skirmish that evade are no longer in skirmish
at the end of the evade move.

[joncleaves]

<< Can't happen with a 3-unit circular path, of course. [One of the charges
would have to be on one's own side.] However, could happen if A and C
belong to one player, and B and D to the other (perhaps all LC units after
a flank march by one side?), with A charging B charging C charging D, all
charges at 90 degrees to one another. Unlikely, yes; and I think that all
charges would be cancelled under rules as current.>>

Yes, they would. But that one I gotta see. :)

<<> Bullet three is not redundant. There are troops/situation combinations
that
> are not light and not in skirmish formation that evaded the previous bound.

Right. Anyone who was in skirmish and evaded last turn may no longer be
in skirmish.>>

Not may, will not. Troops in skirmish that evade are no longer in skirmish
at the end of the evade move.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/28/02 10:06:44 Central Daylight Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

<< No, may not. They might have gone back into skirmish during the counter
phase.

E >>

They are not in skirmish at the end of the evade move, just like I said.
Sure, they might be able to counter into skirmish (if steady and a couple
other conditions), but I was making the point of what a body looked like at
the end of an evade, not starting to list all the possible things that could
be done with that body after that point. Your sentence made it sound
(although I know YOU know better) that it was possible to be in skirmish at
the completion of an evade move and wanted to emphasize that it was not.

[Ewan McNay]

On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 JonCleaves@... wrote:
> Cancellations occur when the canceling event occurs, such as the
> identification of an uncanceled charge coming in against a body from out of
> its own charge path. I cannot recreate such a circular reference as you
> describe. Could you give me an actual example of that occurring?

Can't happen with a 3-unit circular path, of course. [One of the charges
would have to be on one's own side.] However, could happen if A and C
belong to one player, and B and D to the other (perhaps all LC units after
a flank march by one side?), with A charging B charging C charging D, all
charges at 90 degrees to one another. Unlikely, yes; and I think that all
charges would be cancelled under rules as current.

> Bullet three is not redundant. There are troops/situation combinations that
> are not light and not in skirmish formation that evaded the previous bound.

Right. Anyone who was in skirmish and evaded last turn may no longer be
in skirmish.

> <<*6.41 Regular ranks: the regular unit rank restrictions seem mighty
> restrictive. Because frontage can only generally be changed in 1-2
> element increments, certain combinations of unit size and frontage
> will be impossible to achieve, or once they ARE achieved (either by
> initial setup or by passing a gap), the unit could be "jammed" in a
> particular frontage. For instance, an 8E unit could have a frontage
> of 1 (column), 2, 4, or 8 -- but moving between 4 and 8 is difficult.
> A 9E unit can ONLY be in column or 3E-width block ...>>
>
> Don't see a question here. Some unit sizes by training class and troop type
> are 'better' than others in some situations. This is deliberate.

Note also that because they are regular, a unit can go from 4- to 8-wide
via double expansion, if steady.

> voluntarily interpenetrate another friendly body DIRECTLY TO THEIR
> FRONT OR REAR ..." >>
>
> You can't interpenetrate to the side. You can to the front or rear.
>
> << I know from another thread here that you did NOT
> mean that units had to be facing the same direction, ala DBx. >>
>
> Correct.

And to expand: to the front or rear of the *interpenetrating* unit. This
may involve an interpenetration through the *side* of the body being
interpenetrated.

e