Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 1/21/2004 21:28:09 Central Standard Time,
loki_in_oz@... writes:
Jon, I saw in one of the postings about having the CinC as rash and
then rolling up on his orders. Is this possible? Does the CinC
need to interpret his own orders and can he "misunderstand" himself?

Next to last sentence of 4.22 Tactical Orders:

"RUSH and RETREAT orders cannot be given; they occur only as a result of
battlefield events (interpretations, 4.43 and demoralization, 5.15). "

First sentence of 4.43 Interpretations:

"The following rules apply only to sub- and ally generals, never to CINCs. "

So, no. That could never happen.

My question to the original poster and to you is - did you check the rulebook
first, or just ask me 'cause its easier? lol Seriously - I am here to
answer rules questions, but all I did is look up the orders and interpretation
rules.....

80% of the rules questions I get seem to be of this type. I'm not trying to
be a pain, but Warrior time here is a zero sum game - every minute spent
answering questions is a minute not working on the next product. I am NOT
trying
to discourage questions. I am trying to discourage questions before the asker
looks it up himself.

The ones I truly hate are the ones that begin, "hey, Jon, I don't have my
rulebook here, so what is....." lol

Jon


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

Jon, I saw in one of the postings about having the CinC as rash and
then rolling up on his orders. Is this possible? Does the CinC
need to interpret his own orders and can he "misunderstand" himself?

"Did I really mean attack? No! I meant RUSH! Follow me my men!"
as he disappears downrange with wild crys of "Inty em!" "Inty em!"
(old Scottish warcry. Translated in to English - In to them.)

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 1/21/2004 22:34:54 Central Standard Time,
fredthebaddy@... writes:
I suspect the questions coming from Australia are all related to our
tournament this weekend in Canberra - it looks like we will have
about 16-20 players - 6 rounds over three days, 15mm, 1500pts, one
list, preset terrain.
Awesome!

Ask away. Don't mind the grinch....


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

At the start of 4.43 Interpretation it says:

"The following rules apply only to sub- and ally- generals, never to
CINCs".

Therefore, having your CINC rash or otherwise may affect eagerness
or similar but will not require that general to roll to interpret
his own orders. A CINC's command may never be on rush.

It is great reading the rules on the train into work and having them
with you at work - I was wondering about the same thing Steve!

Adrian Williams

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Honeyman"
<loki_in_oz@y...> wrote:
> Jon, I saw in one of the postings about having the CinC as rash
and
> then rolling up on his orders. Is this possible? Does the CinC
> need to interpret his own orders and can he "misunderstand"
himself?
>
> "Did I really mean attack? No! I meant RUSH! Follow me my men!"
> as he disappears downrange with wild crys of "Inty em!" "Inty em!"
> (old Scottish warcry. Translated in to English - In to them.)

Adrian, Since moving from Sydney, I no longer spend 5 hours per day
commuting, now only 15 minutes and the ACT police frown of people
reading and driving at the time.. See you at CanCon? I promise
NOT to bring the dismounted Knights of StJohn.

Cheers



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Adrian Williams"
<fredthebaddy@h...> wrote:
> At the start of 4.43 Interpretation it says:
>
> "The following rules apply only to sub- and ally- generals, never
to
> CINCs".
>
> Therefore, having your CINC rash or otherwise may affect eagerness
> or similar but will not require that general to roll to interpret
> his own orders. A CINC's command may never be on rush.
>
> It is great reading the rules on the train into work and having
them
> with you at work - I was wondering about the same thing Steve!
>
> Adrian Williams
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Honeyman"
> <loki_in_oz@y...> wrote:
> > Jon, I saw in one of the postings about having the CinC as rash
> and
> > then rolling up on his orders. Is this possible? Does the CinC
> > need to interpret his own orders and can he "misunderstand"
> himself?
> >
> > "Did I really mean attack? No! I meant RUSH! Follow me my
men!"
> > as he disappears downrange with wild crys of "Inty em!" "Inty
em!"
> > (old Scottish warcry. Translated in to English - In to them.)

I suspect the questions coming from Australia are all related to our
tournament this weekend in Canberra - it looks like we will have
about 16-20 players - 6 rounds over three days, 15mm, 1500pts, one
list, preset terrain.

Adrian Williams

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 1/21/2004 21:28:09 Central Standard Time,
> loki_in_oz@y... writes:
> Jon, I saw in one of the postings about having the CinC as rash
and
> then rolling up on his orders. Is this possible? Does the CinC
> need to interpret his own orders and can he "misunderstand"
himself?
>
> Next to last sentence of 4.22 Tactical Orders:
>
> "RUSH and RETREAT orders cannot be given; they occur only as a
result of
> battlefield events (interpretations, 4.43 and demoralization,
5.15). "
>
> First sentence of 4.43 Interpretations:
>
> "The following rules apply only to sub- and ally generals, never
to CINCs. "
>
> So, no. That could never happen.
>
> My question to the original poster and to you is - did you check
the rulebook
> first, or just ask me 'cause its easier? lol Seriously - I am
here to
> answer rules questions, but all I did is look up the orders and
interpretation
> rules.....
>
> 80% of the rules questions I get seem to be of this type. I'm not
trying to
> be a pain, but Warrior time here is a zero sum game - every minute
spent
> answering questions is a minute not working on the next product.
I am NOT trying
> to discourage questions. I am trying to discourage questions
before the asker
> looks it up himself.
>
> The ones I truly hate are the ones that begin, "hey, Jon, I don't
have my
> rulebook here, so what is....." lol
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

All too true I'm afraid. Three fun filled days of cut-throat lead
pushing. I've girded my loins and am preparing for my usual caning.


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Adrian Williams"
<fredthebaddy@h...> wrote:
> I suspect the questions coming from Australia are all related to
our
> tournament this weekend in Canberra - it looks like we will have
> about 16-20 players - 6 rounds over three days, 15mm, 1500pts, one
> list, preset terrain.
>
> Adrian Williams
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 1/21/2004 21:28:09 Central Standard Time,
> > loki_in_oz@y... writes:
> > Jon, I saw in one of the postings about having the CinC as rash
> and
> > then rolling up on his orders. Is this possible? Does the CinC
> > need to interpret his own orders and can he "misunderstand"
> himself?
> >
> > Next to last sentence of 4.22 Tactical Orders:
> >
> > "RUSH and RETREAT orders cannot be given; they occur only as a
> result of
> > battlefield events (interpretations, 4.43 and demoralization,
> 5.15). "
> >
> > First sentence of 4.43 Interpretations:
> >
> > "The following rules apply only to sub- and ally generals, never
> to CINCs. "
> >
> > So, no. That could never happen.
> >
> > My question to the original poster and to you is - did you check
> the rulebook
> > first, or just ask me 'cause its easier? lol Seriously - I am
> here to
> > answer rules questions, but all I did is look up the orders and
> interpretation
> > rules.....
> >
> > 80% of the rules questions I get seem to be of this type. I'm
not
> trying to
> > be a pain, but Warrior time here is a zero sum game - every
minute
> spent
> > answering questions is a minute not working on the next
product.
> I am NOT trying
> > to discourage questions. I am trying to discourage questions
> before the asker
> > looks it up himself.
> >
> > The ones I truly hate are the ones that begin, "hey, Jon, I
don't
> have my
> > rulebook here, so what is....." lol
> >
> > Jon
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]