Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Well, Greek, that is what concerns me. There has never been a rule in Warrior
allowing troops from different lines to mix in a unit just because they were the
same troop type. By that logic, one could mix and and or all of his LI into a
unit regardless of what line they were on... this is not the case.
Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: hrisikos@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 11:00:20 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Rules Question



> Ok, let's make sure we are talking the same thing.
>
> If you have light bolt shooters on a line and they allow you to upgrade
> to heavy, then they *can* be in the same unit.
>
> If you have LBS on one line and HBS on another, they currently cannot.
>
> I am considering changing that - in the case of ART *only* to allow any
> Art to be in the same unit regardless of line.
>
> This does not in any way change any list organization rule regarding HC
> or any other troop type.
>
> Jon


I understand your point now, but did not realize it until a thread on the
subject about 3-4 months ago. Before that I played it as you are now
contemplating changing over to. My previous post was only meant to explain
why I was mistaken before, i.e., I thought the 'troop type' for unit
brigading purposes was 'ART', not bolt-shooters vis stonethrowers, etc.
Until the thread a few months ago cleared this up, I think a reasonable
person could have interpreted the rules either way. So, something for your
rules amendment/clarification pile whichever way you decide to go. Thanks
for the additional clarity.


Greek




Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Bill Chriss]

> Ok, let's make sure we are talking the same thing.
>
> If you have light bolt shooters on a line and they allow you to upgrade
> to heavy, then they *can* be in the same unit.
>
> If you have LBS on one line and HBS on another, they currently cannot.
>
> I am considering changing that - in the case of ART *only* to allow any
> Art to be in the same unit regardless of line.
>
> This does not in any way change any list organization rule regarding HC
> or any other troop type.
>
> Jon


I understand your point now, but did not realize it until a thread on the
subject about 3-4 months ago. Before that I played it as you are now
contemplating changing over to. My previous post was only meant to explain
why I was mistaken before, i.e., I thought the 'troop type' for unit
brigading purposes was 'ART', not bolt-shooters vis stonethrowers, etc.
Until the thread a few months ago cleared this up, I think a reasonable
person could have interpreted the rules either way. So, something for your
rules amendment/clarification pile whichever way you decide to go. Thanks
for the additional clarity.


Greek

[Mark Stone]

Jon,

I certainly see no problem in allowing artillery to mix regardless of artillery
type. I think you're right, that history will support that when artillery was
used in open field battles (remember, we aren't talking about sieges here),
generals tended to throw together whatever they had into a single (or perhaps a
couple of) unit. The French at Crecy, from the 100 Year's War, are an example of
this as I recall (though I don't have my references in front of me).

In terms of game mechanics and playability, I'd suggest you take a look at Ming
Chinese before you rule on this definitively. I'll confess I've been
scrutinizing that list with some interest, given the cart-mounted rockets and
mega stone throwers you can get. Being able to combine these into a single unit
would be appealing, and may be more than you want to give the Ming for game
balance reasons. I'd also suspect that what the Ming did with their artillery
is fairly well documented (though alas, not my period of history).


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

No apologies required or idiocy implied. Just wanted to be sure we were on the
same sheet.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: hrisikos@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 12:27:31 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Rules Question



> Well, Greek, that is what concerns me. There has never been a rule
> in Warrior allowing troops from different lines to mix in a unit just
> because they were the same troop type. By that logic, one could mix
> and and or all of his LI into a unit regardless of what line they
> were on... this is not the case.
> Jon
>


Yes, you have me there. I can only pleady idiocy and/or some form of
synapse damage from 20 years or more of TOG. My apologies.


Greek




Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Bill Chriss]

> Well, Greek, that is what concerns me. There has never been a rule
> in Warrior allowing troops from different lines to mix in a unit just
> because they were the same troop type. By that logic, one could mix
> and and or all of his LI into a unit regardless of what line they
> were on... this is not the case.
> Jon
>


Yes, you have me there. I can only pleady idiocy and/or some form of
synapse damage from 20 years or more of TOG. My apologies.


Greek

[Bill Chriss]

Jon,

2.55 says that the CINC may be independent of any command.

1. Is this true of CINC's that are part of 2E units, i.e., staff
element plus one bodyguard element?

2. Is this true of CINC's that begin the game as part of a unit more
than 2E in total size?

Thanks.

Greek

[joncleaves]

Yes and yes.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: hrisikos@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 20:13:00 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Rules question



Jon,

2.55 says that the CINC may be independent of any command.

1. Is this true of CINC's that are part of 2E units, i.e., staff
element plus one bodyguard element?

2. Is this true of CINC's that begin the game as part of a unit more
than 2E in total size?

Thanks.

Greek




Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Mark Mallard]

Hi jon,

in 14.2

any chance of adding table size of 8 x 4

as i mentioned before uk merchants dont stock 8 x 5

just a thought with new book coming out - to save on arguments.

mark mallard








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

[joncleaves]

In the revised rules, we use 8'x4' as an example of how to use table sizes not
listed as 'standard.'

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: markmallard7@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 07:51:40 EST
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Rules question


Hi jon,

in 14.2

any chance of adding table size of 8 x 4

as i mentioned before uk merchants dont stock 8 x 5

just a thought with new book coming out - to save on arguments.

mark mallard








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




Yahoo! Groups Links






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

I have put together a an early Ming army with lots of rocket launchers and stone
throwers.
List rules give me the option of unfettered incindiary purchasing. So,
questions:

1) Is a rocket automatically an incindiary?

2) the Ming were famous for using gunpowder and shrapnel bombs. As far as I can
tell,
incindiaries v. troops have only one effect - they disorder animals if they do
at least one
CPF. They have, as far as I can tell no effect on foot troops. So I don't see
how I can
simulate the enhanced effect of a trebuchet throwing a bomb instead of a stone.
Is it A) it
is not possible to simulate with Warrior or B) the difference between say a bomb
and a big
rock is considered small enough to not matter for effect or C) It is like a
firing rate thing:
bombs do more damage but have a smaller firing rate so their effect over one
Warrior
Phase evens out or D) I misread the rules and it is something totally different.

Thanks,
Jonathan

Jon,

we had two rules issues come up this weekend:

QUESTION 1
friendly light cav charges enemy light cav. They line up with an
overlap - both of their right flanks have a "dangling element" not in
face/face contact and so not in first round combat. HTH results cause
enemy light cav to break off. Friendly light cav pursues but the
overlap causes his right flank to run into an enemy pike block that he
overlapped but enemy light cav didn't.

looks like this(elc=enemy light cav, flc=friendlylight cav,p=pike,...
=ground):

before combat:

......ppppp
............
elcelc......
...flcflc..

after combat:

elcelc.....
...........
......ppppp
...flcflc..

So does the friendly light cav:

A) stop 40 paces away from the pike becasue it can't convert charge
this illegal target and because there isn't enough room to wheel past
it in the pursuit.

B) drop back elements as if passing a gap and pursue past the pike
block.

It seems to me that it should be "B" but the player controlling the
enemy light cav (not surprisingly) strongly disagreed.

QUESTION 2
My chariots have chariot support figures on the same base as the
chariot. The two figures, who fire bows as if from a rear rank:

A) can shoot while charging an enemy, adding their bowshots into that
of the chariot crew.

B) cannot shoot while charging; only the chariot crew can shoot their
bows.


Sorry for the long confusing questions and thanks for all the help.

Jonathan

[joncleaves]

1) I think your friend could benefit from reading the clarifications, which
state:


"6.161 (Pg 3 Add: "If a body of light troops encounters an illegal charge
target in the path of an otherwise legal charge, the light troops must wheel
and/or drop back elements to avoid the illegal 'target.' If the illegal
'target' is also charging this may not be possible and may result in the light
troops making contact with it."

Note that the above has nothing to do with gaps. But you were quite correct in
your resolution.

2) is A

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan <ccoutoftown@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:23:36 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] rules question


Jon,

we had two rules issues come up this weekend:

QUESTION 1
friendly light cav charges enemy light cav. They line up with an
overlap - both of their right flanks have a "dangling element" not in
face/face contact and so not in first round combat. HTH results cause
enemy light cav to break off. Friendly light cav pursues but the
overlap causes his right flank to run into an enemy pike block that he
overlapped but enemy light cav didn't.

looks like this(elc=enemy light cav, flc=friendlylight cav,p=pike,...
=ground):

before combat:

......ppppp
............
elcelc......
...flcflc..

after combat:

elcelc.....
...........
......ppppp
...flcflc..

So does the friendly light cav:

A) stop 40 paces away from the pike becasue it can't convert charge
this illegal target and because there isn't enough room to wheel past
it in the pursuit.

B) drop back elements as if passing a gap and pursue past the pike
block.

It seems to me that it should be "B" but the player controlling the
enemy light cav (not surprisingly) strongly disagreed.

QUESTION 2
My chariots have chariot support figures on the same base as the
chariot. The two figures, who fire bows as if from a rear rank:

A) can shoot while charging an enemy, adding their bowshots into that
of the chariot crew.

B) cannot shoot while charging; only the chariot crew can shoot their
bows.


Sorry for the long confusing questions and thanks for all the help.

Jonathan








Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Bill Chriss]

> 1) I think your friend could benefit from reading the clarifications,
> which state:
>
>
> "6.161 (Pg 3 Add: "If a body of light troops encounters an illegal
> charge target in the path of an otherwise legal charge, the light troops
> must wheel and/or drop back elements to avoid the illegal 'target.' If
> the illegal 'target' is also charging this may not be possible and may
> result in the light troops making contact with it."
>
> Note that the above has nothing to do with gaps. But you were quite
> correct in your resolution.
>


Jon,

I am a bit puzzled by the last sentence of your response. Perhaps I am
reading too much into it, so I'll ask. Do you mean to imply that the LC
can drop elements back and chase the target beyond the pike block EVEN
if there is only a one element wide gap between that pike block and some
other enemy body? Not a problem either way, just wondering if I have yet
more to learn about the rules system!

-Greek

[joncleaves]

No, what i was saying was, if there was just the pike block on one side and
nothing on the other, the LC could still drop back in this case.

-----Original Message-----
From: hrisikos@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:36:00 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] rules question


> 1) I think your friend could benefit from reading the clarifications,
> which state:
>
>
> "6.161 (Pg 3 Add: "If a body of light troops encounters an illegal
> charge target in the path of an otherwise legal charge, the light troops
> must wheel and/or drop back elements to avoid the illegal 'target.' If
> the illegal 'target' is also charging this may not be possible and may
> result in the light troops making contact with it."
>
> Note that the above has nothing to do with gaps. But you were quite
> correct in your resolution.
>


Jon,

I am a bit puzzled by the last sentence of your response. Perhaps I am
reading too much into it, so I'll ask. Do you mean to imply that the LC
can drop elements back and chase the target beyond the pike block EVEN
if there is only a one element wide gap between that pike block and some
other enemy body? Not a problem either way, just wondering if I have yet
more to learn about the rules system!

-Greek




Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Bill Chriss]

> No, what i was saying was, if there was just the pike block on one side
> and nothing on the other, the LC could still drop back in this case.
>
> -----Original Message-----

Thanks for the clarification. It is as I expected.

-Greek