Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Who won what?

Battle reports. Let's hear the tales of woe and carnage.

JM


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

[Don Coon]

> Yeah. Pretty much fit is a moot point now as bodies that can not pivot
> to
> conform are treated as if they are conformed, and bodies that can not
> line
> up are treated as if they are lined up. In fact the only case where we
> found fit to ever be an issue is interpentrating a friendly in a charge,
> and
> Jon is working to make that legal too. I think fit will soon be a
> dinosaur
> term.
>
> >At the risk of incurring the "Wrath of Jon", I must respectfully
> disagree. The reason the "must fit" rule exists is to avoid all the
> INCREDIBLY BOGUS CRAPOLA that yusta occur in 5th and 6th edition and
> early days of 7th. Guys would attempt to charge some millimeter
> frontage of a stand that was showing and then want to count it as an
> entire element frontage for melee etc. This type of move left scars on
> me for life (since my formative years were spent playing 5th edition
> with two of the most bogus slimey players imaginable) and so, you see
> the whole "must fit" concept that is, in fact, a carryover from the
> "interp" days of 7th edition (this sounds more like design philosophy
> now so hopefully the "Wrath of Jon" won't come hammerin down from
> Kansas). Moreover, "must fit" cleans up many many many more sore spots
> in the game's geometry than it creates.

Well the "wrath of Jon" is probably coming because you must not be reading
the same 6.165 and 6.163 that I am.

6.165 subpara "pivoting to conform" 4th para: If other bodies or terrain
features prevent the charging body from pivoting to conform, apply the
following: 1. If other bodies or terrain would not prevent pivoting the non
charging body, then do so. 2. If neither body can be pivoted due to other
bodies or terrain, treat them as though they conformed for all purposes and
conform them as the first part of any post melee movement if any takes
place.

6.165 subpara "lining up" 3rd para: If any other bodies or terrain features
prevent the body from lining up, apply the following: 1. If other bodies or
terrain would not prevent lining up the non charging body, then do so. 2. If
neither body can be lined up due to other bodies or terrain, treat them as
though they have lined up for all purposes and conform them as the first
part of any post melee movement if any takes place.

What 6,165 are you reading?

Also see para 6.163 subpara "fit" Fit is the term for a body being able to
physically occupy the space required by the body once contact is made with
the target of the charge AND the bodies have been pivoted and lined up.

Well lets see, fit depends on pivoting and lining up, and these two items
are not prevented by anything because if they do not occur they are treated
as though they had for ALL purposes.

Scott "unlearn what you have learned"

BTW - this all came about due to the old V issue. It was required so that
charge targets could not use cheesy angles to prevent a charger from
fitting. I beg to differ with your "must fit" cleans up many many many more
sore spots in the games geometry than it creates.

We have had ZERO problems with the wording of 6.165 and they way we play in
over 100 playtest games. Prior to this wording, we had problems every game.
As I said, once Jon allows interpenetration in a charge to violate the fit
rule, "fit will be a dead term in Warrior.

Don

[scott holder]

I'll let Jon weigh in on this when he returns. We might simply be
talking past each other on the issue or perhaps this is a case where
moving actual elements around on the table to demonstrate some of the
issues would help resolve any differences in how things are read.

Scott

[joncleaves]

Hmmm interesting thread here. No 'wrath', but I do have some observations:

> <<As I said, once Jon allows interpenetration in a charge to violate the fit
> rule, "fit will be a dead term in Warrior.>>


It is very much alive. I have no intent to do more with interpenetration in
a charge than I have with the current clarifications. Nothing is being done
on this in the lab at this time. Fit still matters in a huge way and will
continue to do so.

Not sure what you are saying here, Don, but the so-called 'just leave it'
options for pivoting and conforming have more to do with terrain and charging
two bodies than they do with fit.

Jon





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

[joncleaves]

And Tom, I am counting on those armies, so thanks. haven't decided on fixed
terrain yet.


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

[Don Coon]

I know this would be true. Once Jon and I tinkered with the idea of getting
together, drinking a beer and gaining full understanding of each other with
actual elements. We felt it would take in the neibourhood of 10 minutes. A
picture is worth 1000 words, but 6 or 8 elements on the table are worth
10,000.

Don


> I'll let Jon weigh in on this when he returns. We might simply be
> talking past each other on the issue or perhaps this is a case where
> moving actual elements around on the table to demonstrate some of the
> issues would help resolve any differences in how things are read.
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>

>
> Just a reminder, two weeks we'll be in KC running a 25mm Fast
Warrior Duplicate Tourney. At least one army pairing will be Russia
to coincide with the HMGS convention theme, most likely Post-Mongol
Russia vs Teuts.
> If I can come up with more lead, we'll do another variation of that
> using different armies. Everything else will be what I put together
> from my 25mm collection.
>
> Scott
> List Ho and occasional Umpire

Scott,
I am planning on being there and can provide the following 25mm
matched Fast Warrior army pairs.

Han vs Hsiung Nu
Alex Imp vs Maurian Indian
Early Imp Roman vs Armenian

I think there is one other but can't remember right now. Is this
going to be a fixed terrain tourney?

Tom Keegan

[Bill Low]

Scott, you did a great job at Cold Wars, as always. Don't sweat the small
stuff. Remember, one apology is a sign of personal strength, multiple
apologies a sign of insecurity. Let it go, Dude. And thanks for the beer.

I love the idea of big tables for the mini. Despite all the hoopla about
25mm being so great because it forces you to fight, the real world is not
limited to a set table size, and battles in the Ancient World were fought
in a setting that had no distinct boundaries. Let the players be set down
in a LARGE area, and leave it to blood lust to let them get at one another!
I'm ready to go.

If you want me to run the FW tourney on Sunday, let me know. I am not
always right on my rules interps, but I am more often right than wrong, and
I can study up.

At 09:43 AM 4/22/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> I apologize to everybody for not
> It will take some
>"" Until then, it's simply a question of
> I know things are
>"" Part of my problem is
> simply double checking things to make sure I realize what's changed and
> I kept
>"".
>
> I made a mis-ruling on breakthrus only to have Phil G point it out
> Many thanks Phil for finding that.
>
> I'd urge everyone to carefully read the sections on being able to fit a
> I think there was some confusion as to how
> they relate because while they are interconnected, they are separate
>"" them and coming to some wrong
>
>
> I'm
> This would
> Same 1200
>"" sized tables, ie 8x5 for
> I'd like to open up the table to see how it affects
> "umpire is
>" I'm also
>""
> note on my Umpire's page but will be conferring with Jon first over
> Let me stress, this is not a FHE rules
> clarification, it's simply an NASAMW's Umpire's statement on a
> tournament issue.
>
> FYI, since I won't be at Hcon, *sighs*, here is the Umpire lineup for
> the three days:
>
> Thu, Mini
> Ed Bernhart: Fri, Bronze Age Theme
> Jake Kovel: Sat, NICT, Open
> TBD: Sun, Fast Warrior Theme Tourney
>
> Note that last one, I plan on scheduling another Sunday morning Fast
> This will be Bronze Age just like the
>"" Armies will be the FW equivalent's
> Just about anybody
> We had 10 players for our first FW tourney at Cold
> Wars, a good time was had by all.
>
> Just a reminder, two weeks we'll be in KC running a 25mm Fast Warrior
> At least one army pairing will be Russia to coincide
> with the HMGS convention theme, most likely Post-Mongol Russia vs Teuts.
> If I can come up with more lead, we'll do another variation of that
> Everything else will be what I put together
> from my 25mm collection.
>
> Scott
> List Ho and occasional Umpire
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
-----------------------------------------------------
From Harold William Low

[Bill Low]

Yes, but remember that even under that "other game," the rules as written
called on chargers to line up "if possible" ... it never said that you had
to be able to "line up" in order to be able to charge.

"Fit" is actually a different concept, and really doesn't have all that
much to do with "lining up," other than in a collateral way.

At 12:56 PM 4/22/2002 -0500, jjendon@... wrote:
>
>
>
>> Pretty much fit is a moot point now as bodies that can not pivot
>> to
>> conform are treated as if they are conformed, and bodies that can not
>> line
>> In fact the only case where we
>> found fit to ever be an issue is interpentrating a friendly in a charge,
>> and
>> I think fit will soon be a
>> dinosaur
>> term.
>>
>>>"", I must respectfully
>> "" rule exists is to avoid all the
>> INCREDIBLY BOGUS CRAPOLA that yusta occur in 5th and 6th edition and
>> Guys would attempt to charge some millimeter
>> frontage of a stand that was showing and then want to count it as an
>> This type of move left scars on
>> me for life (since my formative years were spent playing 5th edition
>> with two of the most bogus slimey players imaginable) and so, you see
>>"" concept that is, in fact, a carryover from the
>>"" days of 7th edition (this sounds more like design philosophy
>>"" won't come hammerin down from
>> "" cleans up many many many more sore spots
>> in the game's geometry than it creates.
>
>"" is probably coming because you must not be reading
> the same 6.165 and 6.163 that I am.
>
>"" 4th para: If other bodies or terrain
> features prevent the charging body from pivoting to conform, apply the
> following: 1. If other bodies or terrain would not prevent pivoting the non
> charging body, then do so. 2. If neither body can be pivoted due to other
> bodies or terrain, treat them as though they conformed for all purposes and
> conform them as the first part of any post melee movement if any takes
> place.
>
>"" 3rd para: If any other bodies or terrain features
> prevent the body from lining up, apply the following: 1. If other bodies or
> terrain would not prevent lining up the non charging body, then do so. 2. If
> neither body can be lined up due to other bodies or terrain, treat them as
> though they have lined up for all purposes and conform them as the first
> part of any post melee movement if any takes place.
>
> What 6,165 are you reading?
>
>"" Fit is the term for a body being able to
> physically occupy the space required by the body once contact is made with
> the target of the charge AND the bodies have been pivoted and lined up.
>
> Well lets see, fit depends on pivoting and lining up, and these two items
> are not prevented by anything because if they do not occur they are treated
> as though they had for ALL purposes.
>
>""
>
> It was required so that
> charge targets could not use cheesy angles to prevent a charger from
> "" cleans up many many many more
> sore spots in the games geometry than it creates.
>
> We have had ZERO problems with the wording of 6.165 and they way we play in
> Prior to this wording, we had problems every game.
> As I said, once Jon allows interpenetration in a charge to violate the fit
>"fit will be a dead term in Warrior.
>
> Don
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
>
> 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.
-----------------------------------------------------
From Harold William Low

[Patrick Byrne]

I must second this statement. I've had the chance to play 1600pts on a
5'x16' table. All I can say is that is was way cool!
-PB

> I love the idea of big tables for the mini. Despite all the hoopla about
> 25mm being so great because it forces you to fight, the real world is not
> limited to a set table size, and battles in the Ancient World were fought
> in a setting that had no distinct boundaries. Let the players be set down
> in a LARGE area, and leave it to blood lust to let them get at one
another!
> I'm ready to go.
>

[scott holder]

Han vs Hsiung Nu
Alex Imp vs Maurian Indian
Early Imp Roman vs Armenian

>Lemme see what I have here as well. EIR vs Armenian sounds good. I'll
email ya later this week.

I think there is one other but can't remember right now. Is this
going to be a fixed terrain tourney?

>We'll go with select your own terrain since we can afford the time to
do so.

scott

[Kelly Wilkinson]

OOOOO! Tom,
Haven't we seen what those Cataphracts will do to
legionairii? It's not very pretty, I mean the brown
and red puddle that the legionarii make after they get
greased by the SHC, L boys! EEEEK!!!

kelly

--- keegantdad <jncsmom@...> wrote:
> >
> > Just a reminder, two weeks we'll be in KC running
> a 25mm Fast
> Warrior Duplicate Tourney. At least one army
> pairing will be Russia
> to coincide with the HMGS convention theme, most
> likely Post-Mongol
> Russia vs Teuts.
> > If I can come up with more lead, we'll do another
> variation of that
> > using different armies. Everything else will be
> what I put together
> > from my 25mm collection.
> >
> > Scott
> > List Ho and occasional Umpire
>
> Scott,
> I am planning on being there and can provide the
> following 25mm
> matched Fast Warrior army pairs.
>
> Han vs Hsiung Nu
> Alex Imp vs Maurian Indian
> Early Imp Roman vs Armenian
>
> I think there is one other but can't remember
> right now. Is this
> going to be a fixed terrain tourney?
>
> Tom Keegan
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/

--- In WarriorRules@y..., kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> OOOOO! Tom,
> Haven't we seen what those Cataphracts will do to
> legionairii? It's not very pretty, I mean the brown
> and red puddle that the legionarii make after they get
> greased by the SHC, L boys! EEEEK!!!
>
> kelly
>

The sound effects go something like...."Steady boys.....Steady"
SPLAT!

Tom

[scott holder]

And now you know why Kelly is in love with my Sassanids. .... After
being
greased at CTA i bought a ton of Parthians, are the Cataphract camels on
the
Warrior list???? Im dying to start painting them....

>Beats me:) Remember, those lists are a good ways down the
production pipeline. But, unless there's some widely accepted new hunk
o' info suggesting Parthian Camel Cataphracts didn't actually exist,
it's safe to say they'll "survive" me:):)

Scott
List Ho

And now you know why Kelly is in love with my Sassanids. .... After being
greased at CTA i bought a ton of Parthians, are the Cataphract camels on the
Warrior list???? Im dying to start painting them....


thanks to Mr. List Ho


----- Original Message -----
From: "kelly wilkinson" <jwilkinson62@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 10:53 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Quick Cold Wars post mortem


> OOOOO! Tom,
> Haven't we seen what those Cataphracts will do to
> legionairii? It's not very pretty, I mean the brown
> and red puddle that the legionarii make after they get
> greased by the SHC, L boys! EEEEK!!!
>
> kelly
>
> --- keegantdad <jncsmom@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Just a reminder, two weeks we'll be in KC running
> > a 25mm Fast
> > Warrior Duplicate Tourney. At least one army
> > pairing will be Russia
> > to coincide with the HMGS convention theme, most
> > likely Post-Mongol
> > Russia vs Teuts.
> > > If I can come up with more lead, we'll do another
> > variation of that
> > > using different armies. Everything else will be
> > what I put together
> > > from my 25mm collection.
> > >
> > > Scott
> > > List Ho and occasional Umpire
> >
> > Scott,
> > I am planning on being there and can provide the
> > following 25mm
> > matched Fast Warrior army pairs.
> >
> > Han vs Hsiung Nu
> > Alex Imp vs Maurian Indian
> > Early Imp Roman vs Armenian
> >
> > I think there is one other but can't remember
> > right now. Is this
> > going to be a fixed terrain tourney?
> >
> > Tom Keegan
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
> http://games.yahoo.com/
>
>
> 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/
>
>