Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Greg Regets]

Just a few questions/observations ...

1. This is a question for another player, because I pretty much already know the
answer . If the shooting target is physically occupying the space where the
'overlap' element is measuring from, is it a legal target? In this instance, we
are basically taking about a unit shooting to it's side'ish.

2. More of an observation here. In TOG, one couldn't combine an expansion and
contraction in any combination (I believe). In Warrior, contractions and
expansions are possible. this is the jicky'est (combines junky with icky) move
imaginable, especially when the expansion is part of forming skirmish. I would
love to see your garden variety of footman execute this sort of move in 15
minutes. :-)

3. Another probably stupid question. If a disordered rally is occuring, and said
unit executes a charge response, then gains a result in combat that does not
require a rally, does it then need to rally due to its initial 'must rally'
result from the previous bound?

4. Another observation ... field fortifications. I realize this has already been
visited back when the game was being written, but now that we have more bites at
the apple due to playing, perhaps we might consider how list rules could be used
to ameliorate our playing experiences - that being;

a. The vast majority of armies have nothing with which to make any more
than a brave, yet futile attempt to attack them.

b. They are given in large quantity at a very low price.

c. There are next to no restrictions on how they can be used.

d. Quite a large number of games lately seem to be turning into 'Hussite
Wars" type battles, and or "Hussite Civil War", where two lengths of
field fortifications are erected across from each other, and the
combatants basically play a game of DBA in the 18" or remaining space
available.

It might it be time to consider possible solutions, assuming one believes there
is a problem (just pre-empted Jon ~wink~). I came up with a few things that
might be considered.

1. Have an X-Rule that states that any opponent that is facing a field
fortification, may substitute troops for incendiary missiles, even if not part
of the list. This seems like a no brainer, as an army would know they were
facing these things, unless of course we are to believe a quarter mile length of
ditched palisade may be erected in secret.

2. Make them constitute a 'fort' meaning a nearly complete enclosure, rather
than a length of wall, or God forbid, a series of six-element segments with
convenient one-element gaps that may not be attacked through, but allow attacks
out.

3. Have them replace terrain rolls.

4. (sarcastic) Give every army attacking field fortifications Celtiberians, or
Almughavars, one unit per six element length of field fortifications.

Thats all for now. Had a great time at Winter Wars. Harlan Garrett did a
wonderful job running the thing, and everyone played great. This is the best
possible compliment to the FHE's ... we did not have a single "hot" issue the
whole weekend, and when we had one, it was small, easy to find the answer, and
did nto impact the game in a negative way. For all of our ribbing, you guys are
doing a great job and it is starting to show fruit in tournament attendance!

Greg ~the guy with the stone walls that doesn't know what they do~ :-)


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/3/2003 11:39:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, gar@...
writes:

> 1. This is a question for another player, because I pretty much already know
the answer . If the shooting target is physically occupying the space where
the 'overlap' element is measuring from, is it a legal target? In this instance,
we are basically taking about a unit shooting to it's side'ish.>>

It is possible. 12.42 has to be met, which means it can't be 'completely
side'ish'.

<<> 2. More of an observation here. In TOG, one couldn't combine an expansion
and contraction in any combination (I believe). In Warrior, contractions and
expansions are possible. this is the jicky'est (combines junky with icky) move
imaginable, especially when the expansion is part of forming skirmish. I would
love to see your garden variety of footman execute this sort of move in 15
minutes. >>

6.12 says this is illegal, not jicky. And not possible, either.

<<> 3. Another probably stupid question. If a disordered rally is occuring, and
said unit executes a charge response, then gains a result in combat that does
not require a rally, does it then need to rally due to its initial 'must rally'
result from the previous bound?>>

5.45 last sentence. It can't recover from disorder that way if it makes a
charge response - will have to go another turn.

<<> 4. Another observation ... field fortifications. I realize this has already
been visited back when the game was being written, but now that we have more
bites at the apple due to playing, perhaps we might consider how list rules
could be used to ameliorate our playing experiences - that being;
>
> a. The vast majority of armies have nothing with which to make any more
than a brave, yet futile attempt to attack them.
>
> b. They are given in large quantity at a very low price.
>
> c. There are next to no restrictions on how they can be used.
>
> d. Quite a large number of games lately seem to be turning into 'Hussite
Wars" type battles, and or "Hussite Civil War", where two lengths of
field fortifications are erected across from each other, and the
combatants basically play a game of DBA in the 18" or remaining space
available. >>

Only a few armies can have them, so what armies are you playing that can have so
much of it and don't have other 'vulnerabilities'?

<<> It might it be time to consider possible solutions, assuming one believes
there is a problem (just pre-empted Jon ~wink~). I came up with a few things
that might be considered.
>
> 1. Have an X-Rule that states that any opponent that is facing a field
fortification, may substitute troops for incendiary missiles, even if not part
of the list.>>

That is already a rule, Greg. 17.1 Incendiaries.

As to the rest of your fixes, I'll look at those when you give me some examples
of what armies you are talking about.

<<> Thats all for now. Had a great time at Winter Wars. Harlan Garrett did a
wonderful job running the thing, and everyone played great. This is the best
possible compliment to the FHE's ... we did not have a single "hot" issue the
whole weekend, and when we had one, it was small, easy to find the answer, and
did nto impact the game in a negative way. For all of our ribbing, you guys are
doing a great job and it is starting to show fruit in tournament attendance!>>

Awesome!

J

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/3/2003 16:10:27 Central Standard Time,
jjendon@... writes:

> The actual manuevers were contract, then adopt skirmish and change frontage
> (increase) by 2 elements. This is IMHO legal per the rules. It was not a
> contraction and expansion in the same turn as stated above in question
> number 2. In fact this has been asked before and answered I believe?
>

I believe it has...lol. We should have put the same caveta that is in
90-degree turns into 'adopt skirmish formation' in 6.45. We'll do that in
the 2d printing.


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/3/2003 16:20:35 Central Standard Time,
jjendon@... writes:

> I am unclear on the effect incendiary B or LB has on a palisade. 16.12 says
> to treat each element of the palisade as a 5 figure Tr element. Ok, then
> what? How long does it take to burn it? How much damage do you have to do
> to it?
>

16.12. You get 4 CPF on a transport target from incendiaries and it is
destroyed. One bullet up from what you just quoted..lol


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

[Greg Regets]

> 1. This is a question for another player, because I pretty much already know
the answer . If the shooting target is physically occupying the space where
the 'overlap' element is measuring from, is it a legal target? In this instance,
we are basically taking about a unit shooting to it's side'ish.>>

It is possible. 12.42 has to be met, which means it can't be 'completely
side'ish'.

<<<GREG>>> Agreed. In this instance, one little tick of the target qualified.
Both Don and myself judged it a legal target. We were both glad neither of us
was involved in that game, haha. I really don't have a problem with the way you
do shooting, as a matter of fact I had a problem in TOG where a trained archer
couldn't shoot at something that was "just right over there, Sir!!"


<<> 2. More of an observation here. In TOG, one couldn't combine an expansion
and contraction in any combination (I believe). In Warrior, contractions and
expansions are possible. this is the jicky'est (combines junky with icky) move
imaginable, especially when the expansion is part of forming skirmish. I would
love to see your garden variety of footman execute this sort of move in 15
minutes. >>

6.12 says this is illegal, not jicky. And not possible, either.

<<<GREG>>> What it says is that you can't expand and contract in the same
move. What it doesn't say is that you can't contract then expand. I know this
seems like splitting hairs, but of all the guys in the tournament, I think I was
the only one that thought this wasn't legal, so it must not be clear. Perhaps
saying 'you cannot combine and expansion and contraction in any move' might make
it easy to understand.


<<> 3. Another probably stupid question. If a disordered rally is occuring,
and said unit executes a charge response, then gains a result in combat that
does not require a rally, does it then need to rally due to its initial 'must
rally' result from the previous bound?>>

5.45 last sentence. It can't recover from disorder that way if it makes a
charge response - will have to go another turn.

<<<GREG>>> That's what I thought, and it was a stupid question. There are
times when each of us need assurances that what it says, is what it says! :-)


<<> 4. Another observation ... field fortifications. I realize this has
already been visited back when the game was being written, but now that we have
more bites at the apple due to playing, perhaps we might consider how list rules
could be used to ameliorate our playing experiences - that being;
>
> a. The vast majority of armies have nothing with which to make any more
than a brave, yet futile attempt to attack them.
>
> b. They are given in large quantity at a very low price.
>
> c. There are next to no restrictions on how they can be used.
>
> d. Quite a large number of games lately seem to be turning into 'Hussite
Wars" type battles, and or "Hussite Civil War", where two lengths of
field fortifications are erected across from each other, and the
combatants basically play a game of DBA in the 18" or remaining space
available. >>

Only a few armies can have them, so what armies are you playing that can have
so much of it and don't have other 'vulnerabilities'?

<<<GREG>>> I don't want to pick on any one army or player and please
understand that I was one of the guys that used field fortifications in each
game this weekend, so in part, I'm talking about myself. In one particular game
I was playing a Roman-British with my KofSt.J. He took six elements of ditched
palisade and I took two stone walls. The R-B had a climate +1, so made all his
terrain rolls. Flank march entry was closed by terrain, and if you have ever
tried to do an amphibious assault against a sound player, you will know that is
rarely an option. There was a grand total of about 12" of open space available
and on the R-B side it was lined by LTS guys, stacked so deep that you couldn't
pull a CPF (trust me, I tried). On my side I had units in skirmish, again so
deep that you coundn't get even a CPF shooting, and obviously the LTS couldn't
catch. We ended up fighting a battle with his three 16-fig units of LMI,JLS,Sh
against my six 8-fig units of LHI,JLS,Sh. There were some breaks, but nobody saw
them so there was no waver tests. Late in the game I changed orders and slammed
four units of SHK's into the spearmen, but obviously I bounced (no Up-3's
~haha~). There was just no way, mounted or dismounted, that I was going to get a
CPF, unless I had something going in @9, and obviously very few armies get that.
The only way to be aggressive, was to be stupid and give him the game.

<<<GREG>>> My concern is that we have worked so hard to make more armies
playable, and the scoring system wants you to be aggressive, and here we have
two things that greatly reduces both of those things. The problem is, that we
both knew the other could get it, and to not take it was to invite defeat. Had
either one of us not taken it, while the other had, there was a serious balance
of power swing. As a result, any solid player is going to take his if he can,
and if both take it, you have a sits-kreig. Perhaps all of this is unfounded,
but I can say in the game I mentioned, we both pushed as hard as we could given
the space available and did as much charging as space permitted, and the game
ended up 148-0 in points. The only advantage was LHI and smaller units.

<<<GREG>>> On to the positive ... . I'm glad to see we can get
incendiaries. Can I ask a few questions about how we will buy them? Can we
exchange guys for incendiary missiles after we know the enemy has
fortifications? This would only make sense ... right? It's not like they could
have kept fortifications a secret the day before the battle. Should the guy
using these things, have to declare the intent to use them before terrain is
rolled and lists are chosen? Can they be placed in an open space? (Obviously
they legally can, but is that really what you want?).

<<<GREG>>> Perhaps I'm making too much of this. That is highly possible,
~wink~. I just have not liked what I have seen so far, and I have noticed quite
a few guys making plans to build 'fort' armies. Even troops that can attack
these things, usually have to do so impetuously, and that means they chase, are
disordered, usually get smacked by el-cheapo cavalry right after that and get
wiped out. Even the best killer LO foot better think twice about attacking it,
if cavalry is close at hand. Likewise, if there are gaps in the fortifications,
attacking the palisades with archers can be problematic. Last but not least, do
stone walls burn?


<<> It might it be time to consider possible solutions, assuming one believes
there is a problem (just pre-empted Jon ~wink~). I came up with a few things
that might be considered.
>
> 1. Have an X-Rule that states that any opponent that is facing a field
fortification, may substitute troops for incendiary missiles, even if not part
of the list.>>

That is already a rule, Greg. 17.1 Incendiaries.

As to the rest of your fixes, I'll look at those when you give me some
examples of what armies you are talking about.

<<> Thats all for now. Had a great time at Winter Wars. Harlan Garrett did a
wonderful job running the thing, and everyone played great. This is the best
possible compliment to the FHE's ... we did not have a single "hot" issue the
whole weekend, and when we had one, it was small, easy to find the answer, and
did nto impact the game in a negative way. For all of our ribbing, you guys are
doing a great job and it is starting to show fruit in tournament attendance!>>

Awesome!

J

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



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



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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/3/2003 1:14:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, gar@...
writes:

> What it says is that you can't expand and contract in the same move. What it
doesn't say is that you can't contract then expand.>>

??? If you can't do two things together, doing them together in a particular
order is impossible.

<<Perhaps saying 'you cannot combine and expansion and contraction in any move'
might make it easy to understand.>>

You and all your group may substitute the above clause in quotes if necessary.
This is official.

To me, however, those are the exact same sentences.

> <<<GREG>>> I don't want to pick on any one army or player and please
understand that I was one of the guys that used field fortifications in each
game this weekend, so in part, I'm talking about myself. In one particular game
I was playing a Roman-British with my KofSt.J. He took six elements of ditched
palisade and I took two stone walls. The R-B had a climate +1, so made all his
terrain rolls. Flank march entry was closed by terrain, and if you have ever
tried to do an amphibious assault against a sound player, you will know that is
rarely an option. There was a grand total of about 12" of open space available
and on the R-B side it was lined by LTS guys, stacked so deep that you couldn't
pull a CPF (trust me, I tried). On my side I had units in skirmish, again so
deep that you coundn't get even a CPF shooting, and obviously the LTS couldn't
catch.>>

It isn't the availability of such items, which is historical, that is
problematic in tourneys. It is the fact that a player who hides behind TF's (or
gullies, or whatever) is a 'spoiler'. It can be done without any TF's, so TF's
aren't the problem. Players who enter tourneys but don't care if they score
what is needed to win are a problem for all tourney organizers and I am trying
to help NASAMW with a solution.
The basic solution is that such a player 'deselects' himself from competition.
The problem is that he also 'deselects' his opponent. There probably ought to
be a penalty to such behavior in a competition, but I have not found a good
answer yet. And believe me, I have been the victim of spoilers, so it is
something I have felt personally.

I'll take ideas, but taking TF's out of lists they belong in would not fix the
problem and isn't on the table as a solution.

<<<GREG>>> On to the positive ... . I'm glad to see we can get
incendiaries. Can I ask a few questions about how we will buy them? Can we
exchange guys for incendiary missiles after we know the enemy has
fortifications?>>

No. 3.1.

<<Can they be placed in an open space? (Obviously they legally can, but is that
> really what you want?).>>

Hmmm. Not what I want, I think - I don't have my list books handy. I'll have
to get back to you on that one.

J

[Don Coon]

> <<> 2. More of an observation here. In TOG, one couldn't combine an
expansion and contraction in any combination (I believe). In Warrior,
contractions and expansions are possible. this is the jicky'est (combines
junky with icky) move imaginable, especially when the expansion is part of
forming skirmish. I would love to see your garden variety of footman execute
this sort of move in 15 minutes. >>
>
> 6.12 says this is illegal, not jicky. And not possible, either.

The actual manuevers were contract, then adopt skirmish and change frontage
(increase) by 2 elements. This is IMHO legal per the rules. It was not a
contraction and expansion in the same turn as stated above in question
number 2. In fact this has been asked before and answered I believe?

Don

[Don Coon]

> <<> 2. More of an observation here. In TOG, one couldn't combine an
expansion and contraction in any combination (I believe). In Warrior,
contractions and expansions are possible. this is the jicky'est (combines
junky with icky) move imaginable, especially when the expansion is part of
forming skirmish. I would love to see your garden variety of footman execute
this sort of move in 15 minutes. >>
>
> 6.12 says this is illegal, not jicky. And not possible, either.
>
> <<<GREG>>> What it says is that you can't expand and contract in the
same move. What it doesn't say is that you can't contract then expand. I
know this seems like splitting hairs, but of all the guys in the tournament,
I think I was the only one that thought this wasn't legal, so it must not be
clear. Perhaps saying 'you cannot combine and expansion and contraction in
any move' might make it easy to understand.

See previous response. You have to watch your nomenclature here Greg. The
guy did not contract and expand. He contracted and adopted skirmish
formation. As part of the adoption of skirmish he changed his frontage by
two elements (increased it). He did not execute the manuever "expand" in
the same turn he executed the manuever "contract".

Don

[Don Coon]

> <<<GREG>>> On to the positive ... . I'm glad to see we can get
incendiaries. Can I ask a few questions about how we will buy them? Can we
exchange guys for incendiary missiles after we know the enemy has
fortifications? This would only make sense ... right? It's not like they
could have kept fortifications a secret the day before the battle. Should
the guy using these things, have to declare the intent to use them before
terrain is rolled and lists are chosen? Can they be placed in an open space?
(Obviously they legally can, but is that really what you want?).
> > 1. Have an X-Rule that states that any opponent that is facing a field
fortification, may substitute troops for incendiary missiles, even if not
part of the list.>>
>
> That is already a rule, Greg. 17.1 Incendiaries.

I am unclear on the effect incendiary B or LB has on a palisade. 16.12 says
to treat each element of the palisade as a 5 figure Tr element. Ok, then
what? How long does it take to burn it? How much damage do you have to do
to it?

Don

[joncleaves]

> Jon, can you please respond
> to the query with a yes that is legal, or a no it is not?

Assuming 'the query' is:



>
>
> >Can you contract on one flank, then form skirmish, expanding on another?
> >

Yes, that is legal. IF I understand what this sentence means. IF it means a
steady regular body is conducting the maneuver CHANGE IN FRONTAGE (6.12) and
using that maneuver to contract by one or two elements and then executes the
maneuver CHANGE IN FORMATION to adopt skirmish formation and in so doing adop
ts skirmish formation ' with up to two elements more or less frontage than
the prior formation' (6.45), then yes, that is legal.

Note that the above is NOT the same as executing two of the maneuvers CHANGE
IN FRONTAGE and using one to contract and one to expand, which is illegal.


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

[Greg Regets]

So what is the answer anyway ... lol

Can you contract on one flank, then form skirmish, expanding on another?

G
----- Original Message -----
From: JonCleaves@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Questions/Observations


In a message dated 2/3/2003 16:10:27 Central Standard Time,
jjendon@... writes:

> The actual manuevers were contract, then adopt skirmish and change frontage
> (increase) by 2 elements. This is IMHO legal per the rules. It was not a
> contraction and expansion in the same turn as stated above in question
> number 2. In fact this has been asked before and answered I believe?
>

I believe it has...lol. We should have put the same caveta that is in
90-degree turns into 'adopt skirmish formation' in 6.45. We'll do that in
the 2d printing.


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


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



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



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

[Don Coon]

So the palisade goes away. Its still a ditch and higher, but my next bow
shot will have an effect . Goodbye low class wallhuggers .

Don

> > I am unclear on the effect incendiary B or LB has on a palisade. 16.12
says
> > to treat each element of the palisade as a 5 figure Tr element. Ok,
then
> > what? How long does it take to burn it? How much damage do you have to
do
> > to it?
> >
>
> 16.12. You get 4 CPF on a transport target from incendiaries and it is
> destroyed. One bullet up from what you just quoted..lol

[Don Coon]

I was going to post this exact same sentence. Jon, can you please respond
to the query with a yes that is legal, or a no it is not?

Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greggory A. Regets" <gar@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Questions/Observations


> So what is the answer anyway ... lol
>
> Can you contract on one flank, then form skirmish, expanding on another?
>
> G
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: JonCleaves@...
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 4:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Questions/Observations
>
>
> In a message dated 2/3/2003 16:10:27 Central Standard Time,
> jjendon@... writes:
>
> > The actual manuevers were contract, then adopt skirmish and change
frontage
> > (increase) by 2 elements. This is IMHO legal per the rules. It was
not a
> > contraction and expansion in the same turn as stated above in question
> > number 2. In fact this has been asked before and answered I believe?
> >
>
> I believe it has...lol. We should have put the same caveta that is in
> 90-degree turns into 'adopt skirmish formation' in 6.45. We'll do that
in
> the 2d printing.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>

[Greg Regets]

I'm sure some slippery bastard will figure out a way to leave gaps in the
palisades, and make sure you only get to shoot at crap LI instead of palisade,
and that a general can't take the risk to direct your fire.

By the way, anyone seen any good crap infantry figures? ~wink~

G
----- Original Message -----
From: jjendon@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Questions/Observations


So the palisade goes away. Its still a ditch and higher, but my next bow
shot will have an effect . Goodbye low class wallhuggers .

Don

> > I am unclear on the effect incendiary B or LB has on a palisade. 16.12
says
> > to treat each element of the palisade as a 5 figure Tr element. Ok,
then
> > what? How long does it take to burn it? How much damage do you have to
do
> > to it?
> >
>
> 16.12. You get 4 CPF on a transport target from incendiaries and it is
> destroyed. One bullet up from what you just quoted..lol



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



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



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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Greetings Warriors (Especially the Gentlemen in the Great state of Texas!)
I want to personally thank all the gentlemen at Winter War who made me feel
welcome and made my visit so enjoyable! I got home a bit late this morning and
guess I didn't hear my alarm go off (but luckily, my principal is
understanding!) and I was a bit late getting to work but it was definitely worth
visiting! To those of you who have not had the pleasure of visiting the Texas
Warrior players' tournaments, you don't know what your missing! Thanks Harlan
and Company for your Texas style hospitality!
Next, I wish to address this fortifications issue. I was the player who played
the Romano-British. The list I used was the one edited by the FHE. If you as a
company or individual do not wish players to use options in your lists, then do
not make lists that allow them to be used in the friendly forward zones! I used
the fortifications specifically against armies that had SHC and SHK. My
intention was to channel my opponent into my only troops that had a chance and
that chance was thin at best. My units were 24 figure blocks of Reg 1/3 "C"2/3
"D" 2/3 LTS,Sh1/3 B,Sh. Head to head I will get pushed back by a 2 element
block SHK L, Sh unit who (on an even dice throw) will do 20 points of damage
while I will only return with 15 casualties. The result is my unit going
backwards disordered leaving it open for another SHK torpedo to charge in with 5
figures at a +7 who will do 30 casualties along with the SHK who followed up and
expanded --> will do 6 figures at a +5 which does 24 respectively. I on the
other hand do a mere 6 figures at a 0 to both units for a whoping CPF to both
the result of this is that my troops who are brittle to say the least "D" morale
test have a very good chance of shaking in the best case scenario if I fail
waiver(if my opponent rolls up with just one unit, I rout!). To make matters
worse for the poor Romano Britons, this is my best match-up against the Knights.
Since they are at least Reg "B" each of his units had a general thus making it
near impossible to roll down. Further, the maneuverability of the knights makes
this scenario less likely as I present more juicy targets such as loose order
JLS armed troops or my JLS armed Heavy Cav. My best chance to win therefore in
my opinion was to channel my opponent into the strength of my army and hope to
overwhelm him with a my numbers in a head to head struggle.
To imply that a player who uses list options (in a FHE edited list) to enhance
his chances of winning is a "Spoiler" or is somehow behaving improperly is
inappropriate especially when it is a list derived from FHE. Further, I
certainly always play to win. I ended up placing 4th out of a very veteran field
of excellent players. In the one game, I had verses an opponent who did not
contain SHK or SHC, I left the fort at home and brought the 72 untrained levy.
And I won that game against a person who I feel is one of the top players in the
country. The blood was bridle deep!
As Arthur "King of the Britons" (Said in my best Graham Chapman, "There's no
buggery in British Army!" Wink, Wink!) I did what was best for my army against
my nonhistorical opponents.
Good gaming All,
Kelly Wilkinson



JonCleaves@... wrote:In a message dated 2/3/2003 1:14:05 PM Eastern
Standard Time, gar@... writes:

> What it says is that you can't expand and contract in the same move. What it
doesn't say is that you can't contract then expand.>>

??? If you can't do two things together, doing them together in a particular
order is impossible.

<<Perhaps saying 'you cannot combine and expansion and contraction in any move'
might make it easy to understand.>>

You and all your group may substitute the above clause in quotes if necessary.
This is official.

To me, however, those are the exact same sentences.

> <<<GREG>>> I don't want to pick on any one army or player and please
understand that I was one of the guys that used field fortifications in each
game this weekend, so in part, I'm talking about myself. In one particular game
I was playing a Roman-British with my KofSt.J. He took six elements of ditched
palisade and I took two stone walls. The R-B had a climate +1, so made all his
terrain rolls. Flank march entry was closed by terrain, and if you have ever
tried to do an amphibious assault against a sound player, you will know that is
rarely an option. There was a grand total of about 12" of open space available
and on the R-B side it was lined by LTS guys, stacked so deep that you couldn't
pull a CPF (trust me, I tried). On my side I had units in skirmish, again so
deep that you coundn't get even a CPF shooting, and obviously the LTS couldn't
catch.>>

It isn't the availability of such items, which is historical, that is
problematic in tourneys. It is the fact that a player who hides behind TF's (or
gullies, or whatever) is a 'spoiler'. It can be done without any TF's, so TF's
aren't the problem. Players who enter tourneys but don't care if they score
what is needed to win are a problem for all tourney organizers and I am trying
to help NASAMW with a solution.
The basic solution is that such a player 'deselects' himself from competition.
The problem is that he also 'deselects' his opponent. There probably ought to
be a penalty to such behavior in a competition, but I have not found a good
answer yet. And believe me, I have been the victim of spoilers, so it is
something I have felt personally.

I'll take ideas, but taking TF's out of lists they belong in would not fix the
problem and isn't on the table as a solution.

<<<GREG>>> On to the positive ... . I'm glad to see we can get
incendiaries. Can I ask a few questions about how we will buy them? Can we
exchange guys for incendiary missiles after we know the enemy has
fortifications?>>

No. 3.1.

<<Can they be placed in an open space? (Obviously they legally can, but is that
> really what you want?).>>

Hmmm. Not what I want, I think - I don't have my list books handy. I'll have
to get back to you on that one.

J

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



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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

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