Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/21/2006 18:27:33 Central Standard Time, ncioran@...
writes:

As a result of the recent discussion of rounding I read through the
rulebook, and found that the rounding convention for Warrior is not
stated. This would seem to effect:

- Demoralizing a Command (with an odd number of bodies)
- Models shooting from a rear rank
- Models fighting from a rear rank>>
9.22 states: "Count figures fighting at half effect as half that number
rounded up."

Same for shooting.

Demoralization states when at least half.

Don't see the issue.

Jon


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

As a result of the recent discussion of rounding I read through the
rulebook, and found that the rounding convention for Warrior is not
stated. This would seem to effect:

- Demoralizing a Command (with an odd number of bodies)
- Models shooting from a rear rank
- Models fighting from a rear rank

Now, it seems that the convention is to round up for shooting and
fighting, but that's not actually stated in the rules for anyone
coming at it cold.

The situation has never come up with demoralizing a command, I'd
assume its the same, but again, not stated.

Further...

Mark Stone writes:
> rather than Cole's attempt to round off where no rounding off is
> needed, permitted, nor implied.

Mark, all I'm asking for is the convention for dealing with
situations where the limit is not a whole number to be clearly
stated in the rules. This would seem to be valuable because:

- The convention differs depending on the limit (0 - 1/x,1/x - 1/y,
and 1/x - all)
- The convention differs from that used elsewhere in the rules
- The convention differs from the previous edition (I'll have to
take Ed's word for this, as I didn't play WRG 7th)

Why is it that you seem to think ensuring clarity is such a waste?

Thanks
Cole

Thanks
Cole

[Mark Stone]

--- On February 21 Cole said: ---

>
> Why is it that you seem to think ensuring clarity is such a waste?
>

I admire clarity; it's redundancy I abhore.

And as Jon has pointed out, the rules do state when one rounds off, and in which
direction.


-Mark Stone (who has been paid for twenty years as an author, editor, and
publisher for his ability to be clear and not redundant)

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/22/2006 06:02:51 Central Standard Time, ncioran@...
writes:

hence reducing the need for
rounding statements in three places in the rulebook (where its
currently only in one)>>
[
I'll look and see if we can't get it into 1.26 at this point. But I might
be misunderstanding the above statement. It does indeed appear in all
relevant places in the rulebook (3) not just one.

Jon




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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/22/2006 06:14:56 Central Standard Time, ncioran@...
writes:

My apologies, I now see it now in 9.22. However its not in 8.7.>>
[
Its in 8.6.





And at least half in 5.15 is ambiguous, as there's no indication of
which way to round for half bodies >>
[
At least half, when it comes to demoralization, can only be interpreted one
way. If you have a command of 5 bodies, for example, 2 is not at least half
and 3 is. If you have a 4 body command, 2 is at least half....

I'm out of this one at this point.

Jon




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

Jon Cleaves wrote:
> 9.22 states: "Count figures fighting at half effect as half that
number
> rounded up."
>
> Same for shooting.
>
> Demoralization states when at least half.
>
> Don't see the issue.

My apologies, I now see it now in 9.22. However its not in 8.7.

And at least half in 5.15 is ambiguous, as there's no indication of
which way to round for half bodies (as 9.22 covers figures, and
Scott's clarifications will cover elements).

Thanks
Cole

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
> I admire clarity; it's redundancy I abhore.
>

Its funny when people feel the same, but fail to agree.

Ideally the "Key Concepts" could cover it all by stating that all
fractions of 1/2 round up (which is the case in the rules) with a
specific exception for the 0-1/2 case, hence reducing the need for
rounding statements in three places in the rulebook (where its
currently only in one)

Thanks
Cole

P.S. Its "abhor" :)

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@... wrote:
> I'll look and see if we can't get it into 1.26 at this point. But
> I might be misunderstanding the above statement. It does indeed
> appear in all relevant places in the rulebook (3) not just one.

That would be great, and you are right, I was looking in the wrong
section.

Thanks
Cole