Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Hey Jon,
I have some questions from our Saturday Game:>>
Pat, I am replying on the group because I want all rules questions asked
here.... Really, I do. Please. lol

1. One buys incediary missles because his opponents army list has the ability
to have ditched palisades (pg. 96), but does that mean he can buy them for
all Temp Fortifications noted above like ditches & pits?>>
Yes for all TF. No to pits, which are not TFs.

2. How is an incediary HTW adjudicated? Are they thrown or do they just
figure in HTH? Page 91 (16.11) says Incendiaries in HTH will be issued with
list
books. However I don't remember seeing them, and besides, it looks like any
HTW army can buy them if the opponent has ditches, etc.>>
I am not aware that any of our lists has this option yet.
They will not be used in shooting, I can tell you that.

3. If I have Artillery that do not qualify for an advance (pg.23 4.52), then
if I have a 9 unit command under attack, must I advance 4 or 5 to meet
qualifications?>>

If you have one arty body (and no transport bodies) in a 9 body command, you
have to advance 4 under attack if none are already within 80p.


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/3/2004 21:01:32 Central Daylight Time,
sctrac@... writes:

A unit of Irr LI (8E 2 ranks X 4) was sitting 40 paces from a unit of enemy
LMI (which was
located to the LI’s front at the middle line of the table). During the
March phase units started coming on the board from a flank march and another
unit of enemy LMI ended it’s move 240 paces directly to the rear of the LI.
BTW the LI were located at about 200 paces from the table side edge and
there was
another enemy LMI unit located adjacent to the unit at the LI’s front
further away from the table’s side edge.

How can the LI move?>>
[
[
As it is now the march phase, the LI can't move, so I will suppose you mean
during approaches of the following bound.
Given that assumption, I see several ways the LI can move that does not get
it closer (because it is 40p from it) or further away (since this is the
approach phase) from the LMI. Are you looking for an example? if you are,
here
are a couple:
1. Turn 90 degrees facing away from the near side table edge. This way
when it evades any LMI charge, it may go straight to its rear.
2. Contract to the side 'most away' from the unit coming up behind.
<<Approach moves say that you cannot move further away from the closest enemy
defined at the beginning of the move>>
[
[
Yes, but you can stay the same distance away.
<<and both Counters and Retirement moves
require that you move no closer to an enemy who is within 240 paces.>>
[
[
It does appear from your description that counters and retirements for the
LI are now not an option.
<< The LI couldn’t charge the LMI (not that they would have wanted to)….

In that case are they stuck?>>
[
[
Not quite, but Warrior is specifically designed to make it suck to be
surrounded...lol
J


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

I think maybe my questions got lost in the shuffle, so I am resending.
Please see below:

Thanks.

Scott A McCoppin, AIA
mccoppinarchitecture, pa
704.560.4154

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott & Tracie McCoppin [mailto:sctrac@...]
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 4:32 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Rules Question


We had an interesting situation arise recently and we are wondering if we
interpreted the rules correctly.

A unit of Irr LI (8E 2 ranks X 4) was sitting 40 paces from a unit of enemy
LMI (which was
located to the LI’s front at the middle line of the table). During the
March phase units started coming on the board from a flank march and another
unit of enemy LMI ended it’s move 240 paces directly to the rear of the LI.
BTW the LI were located at about 200 paces from the table side edge and
there was
another enemy LMI unit located adjacent to the unit at the LI’s front
further away from the table’s side edge.

How can the LI move?

Approach moves say that you cannot move further away from the closest enemy
defined at the beginning of the move and both Counters and Retirement moves
require that you move no closer to an enemy who is within 240 paces. The LI
couldn’t charge the LMI (not that they would have wanted to)….

In that case are they stuck?


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




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here
<http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=129p59uqe/M=298184.5022502.6152625.3001176/D=groups
/S=1705059080:HM/EXP=1086294801/A=2164331/R=0/SIG=11eaelai9/*http://www.netf
lix.com/Default?mqso=60183351>


_____

Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


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

[Steve Hollowell]

When you have an offtable flank march and your command is under wait orders do
you still roll each turn to arrive? The way I understand it, there are no
arrivals with wait orders.

When a command is broken from combat during a bound, when do the retreat orders
take effect? Immediately? At the end of the bound? Beginning of next bound? An
example would be a command of 9 units, 5th one breaks during the bound, others
are still engaged in combat and not broken. Do they continue to fight normally
(assuming passing all wavers) or immediately try to break off?

Thanks in advance,

Steven Hollowell


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

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

[Ewan McNay]

Steven Hollowell wrote:

> When you have an offtable flank march and your command is under
> wait orders do you still roll each turn to arrive? The way I
> understand it, there are no arrivals with wait orders.

[Moreover, can a flank march unable to arrive on the opponent's table
side still force back a smaller flank march? (As written, yes,
regardless of the answer above, I think)]

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/15/2004 1:23:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Steven Hollowell
<sholl202000@...> writes:

>
>When you have an offtable flank march and your command is under wait orders do
you still roll each turn to arrive? The way I understand it, there are no
arrivals with wait orders.>>

"4.6 COMMAND AND CONTROL OFF-TABLE
An off-table body has the same order as the rest of its command. If it is still
off-table and this order becomes WAIT,
HOLD, DELAY or RETREAT, that body may not enter the table unless that order
changes."


>When a command is broken from combat during a bound, when do the retreat orders
take effect? Immediately? At the end of the bound? Beginning of next bound? An
example would be a command of 9 units, 5th one breaks during the bound, others
are still engaged in combat and not broken. Do they continue to fight normally
(assuming passing all wavers) or immediately try to break off?>>

"5.151 Effects of Demoralization: In the first order phase after demoralization
occurs, the command's order is automatically
changed to RETREAT (4.51)."

J

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/15/2004 1:32:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Ewan McNay
<ewan.mcnay@...> writes:

>
>
>Steven Hollowell wrote:
>
>> When you have an offtable flank march and your command is under
>> wait orders do you still roll each turn to arrive? The way I
>> understand it, there are no arrivals with wait orders.
>
>[Moreover, can a flank march unable to arrive on the opponent's table
>side still force back a smaller flank march?  (As written, yes,
>regardless of the answer above, I think)]>>

yes.

J

[Greg Preston]

Dear Jon,

We have a comp on down here in Oz this weekend coming. The theme is
Imperial warrior armies at 1500 pts –Single list. It is pre-set terrain
and we are going to experiment with the use of LOTS of terrain (8-10
pieces per 8 by 6 table).
Looks like we will have about 20 starters.

In the warm up games the following issues have arisen which I would be
grateful for your thoughts/rulings on.

Q1. A 6El unit of LC is 2 El wide and 3El deep. The unit is regular.
It is positioned parallel to the side of the table and flush against
the side of the table.
In the diagram below the E represents the table edge. LC represents the
LC unit and X represents the direction the LC is facing.


X
E
E
E LC LC
E LC LC
E LC LC
E
E

During approaches, the player wishes to turn the unit to face away from
the edge of the table starting this movement with a 90 degree turn to
the right.

Point of view A was that the turn could not be made starting with a
90 degree turn, because during the turn (ie turning 90 degrees right)
the rear of the unit would be off table.

Point of view B was that the turn could be made as the unit would be
able to be completely on table at the end of its movement.

Which (if either) is correct ?

Q2. A player has an entire command in ambush in their deployment map.
During the sequence of deployment (ie players placing alternate
commands) can the player with the command in ambush say- I have placed
a command (you just cant see it) -without placing any troops- and ask
the opponent to deploy their next command ?


Some scythed Chariot questions

Q3. A unit of LI is deployed almost completely within terrain which is
impassable to a chariot. The deployment is such that it has a very
small portion of one element protruding from the terrain feature into
Open terrain.

a) does a scythed chariot have to approach this unit if it is the
nearest known enemy ?

b) does a scythed chariot have to charge this unit if in charge reach ?

c) If the chariot can (has to) charge, does the LI unit need to waver
test ?

4. A unit which is 1El wide moves to within frontal charge reach of 2
separate scythed chariots. Do both have to charge or do the rules
relating the –Fit- in 6.163 relating to “units” apply also to “bodies”

5. A scythed chariot is part of a flank marching command. The command
successfully rolls to enter and will enter in the opp. rear zone.
Does the scythed chariot have to
a) enter the rear zone as close as possible to the nearest known enemy,
or
b) enter at any point in the rear zone ?


Thanks in advance,

Greg P.



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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/14/2004 19:39:57 Central Daylight Time,
edgdp@... writes:

Q1. A 6El unit of LC is 2 El wide and 3El deep. The unit is regular.
It is positioned parallel to the side of the table and flush against
the side of the table.
In the diagram below the E represents the table edge. LC represents the
LC unit and X represents the direction the LC is facing.


X
E
E
E LC LC
E LC LC
E LC LC
E
E

During approaches, the player wishes to turn the unit to face away from
the edge of the table starting this movement with a 90 degree turn to
the right.

Point of view A was that the turn could not be made starting with a
90 degree turn, because during the turn (ie turning 90 degrees right)
the rear of the unit would be off table.

Point of view B was that the turn could be made as the unit would be
able to be completely on table at the end of its movement.

Which (if either) is correct ?
[
[

B is correct.



Q2. A player has an entire command in ambush in their deployment map.
During the sequence of deployment (ie players placing alternate
commands) can the player with the command in ambush say- I have placed
a command (you just cant see it) -without placing any troops- and ask
the opponent to deploy their next command ?>>
[
[

Yes.




Some scythed Chariot questions

Q3. A unit of LI is deployed almost completely within terrain which is
impassable to a chariot. The deployment is such that it has a very
small portion of one element protruding from the terrain feature into
Open terrain.

a) does a scythed chariot have to approach this unit if it is the
nearest known enemy ?>>
[
[

Yes. 16.24 says you can only ignore bodies entirely in impassable terrain.



b) does a scythed chariot have to charge this unit if in charge reach ?>>
[
[

Yes, but note it would not be in charge reach unless the portion out of the
terrain was.



c) If the chariot can (has to) charge, does the LI unit need to waver
test ?>>
[
[

Give that the only way it could charge was if it could reach the part out of
terrain, yes.



4. A unit which is 1El wide moves to within frontal charge reach of 2
separate scythed chariots. Do both have to charge or do the rules
relating the –Fit- in 6.163 relating to “units� apply also to
“bodies�>>
[
[
Can't answer this one without a diagram. But if you meant the two chariots
could only reach the fron of the enemy, then yes, only one could charge.
Same with any one E wide target and multiple opponents that can only reach the
front.



5. A scythed chariot is part of a flank marching command. The command
successfully rolls to enter and will enter in the opp. rear zone.
Does the scythed chariot have to
a) enter the rear zone as close as possible to the nearest known enemy,
or
b) enter at any point in the rear zone ?>>
[
[

b)


Jon


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

[joncleaves]

Hello, We played our first game of Warrior recently, and several rules came
up.>>

Quentin, it is best if questions are asked through our Warrior yahoo group
(WarriorRules) - that way everyone hears the answer and we have an archived
record of it. I encourage you to join - it is free..

<< 1. When two units charge each other and contact at an angle, but without
either being a flank charge, how do you determine which unit conforms to the
other.>>

Move them both 'halfway'.

<<2. If body A charges body B, and pivoting to conform to body B would result
in body C being behind the flank of body A, and therefore eligible to shoot body
A, though body C is not prolonging the front of body B (because body B and C are
not parallel), does this constitute an "advantage" resulting from the pivoting
mechanic, and therefore something unintended, per the clarification of 6.165? >>

Yes, that clarification is designed to prevent things exactly like the situation
you describe.

<< If so, does this mean that the usual pivot rules should not be followed? If
not, what should be done?>>

Just leave it. If nothing else can be done, leave it unpivoted and comform/line
up as part of combat results.

<<3. Are the geometric restictions on support shooting meant to be stricter on
the bound of a charge than on subsequent bounds? 8.82 requires that a "third
party" be "prolonging the front" to support shoot a charger, but 8.83 mentions
no such limitation. >>

Yes.

<<4. It also seems a bit odd that "third parties" can support shoot at a
charging body w/ anything but Jls, but only w/ Jls on subsequent bounds. 8.83,
paragraph 1 says third parties can support shoot /w Jls.>>

That's not correct, but that is a poorly worded section. The part of 8.83 about
JLS is designed to remove the 8.82 restriction on JLS. Third parties can shoot
at a subsequent combat with anything.

<< It also says that bodies in melee can support shoot only with bow. >>

That's chargers. If you were charged, you can support shoot with anything but
JLS.

<< Is it correct, then, that "third parties" can fire into melees ONLY w/ Jls,
and then only during support shooting (8.13)?>>

No.

<< Could 8.13 and 8.83 be stated more clearly>>

Yes, and I am working on it.

<<5. Are Japanese LEHI w/ LB supposed to be able to enter skirmish formation?
>>

Yes.

<< The list says they are "loose order for all purposes" >>

And that is why.

Jon

[Chris Bump]

And yet EHC who are also loose order cannot skirmish? So essentially
irregular foot who derived all sense of combat worthiness are more able and
thus likely to retreat from a charging enemy than steppes warriors on
armored horses whom we know took part in "Parthian tactics"? Seems a bit
contradictory. Further, I would be really interested to hear of a source
that discusses Samuraui participating in the act of skirmishing in a battle
setting.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 9:37 AM
To: "Quentin Cantrell"
Cc: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: rules questions


Hello, We played our first game of Warrior recently, and several rules
came up.>>

Quentin, it is best if questions are asked through our Warrior yahoo group
(WarriorRules) - that way everyone hears the answer and we have an archived
record of it. I encourage you to join - it is free..

<< 1. When two units charge each other and contact at an angle, but
without either being a flank charge, how do you determine which unit
conforms to the other.>>

Move them both 'halfway'.

<<2. If body A charges body B, and pivoting to conform to body B would
result in body C being behind the flank of body A, and therefore eligible to
shoot body A, though body C is not prolonging the front of body B (because
body B and C are not parallel), does this constitute an "advantage"
resulting from the pivoting mechanic, and therefore something unintended,
per the clarification of 6.165? >>

Yes, that clarification is designed to prevent things exactly like the
situation you describe.

<< If so, does this mean that the usual pivot rules should not be
followed? If not, what should be done?>>

Just leave it. If nothing else can be done, leave it unpivoted and
comform/line up as part of combat results.

<<3. Are the geometric restictions on support shooting meant to be
stricter on the bound of a charge than on subsequent bounds? 8.82 requires
that a "third party" be "prolonging the front" to support shoot a charger,
but 8.83 mentions no such limitation. >>

Yes.

<<4. It also seems a bit odd that "third parties" can support shoot at a
charging body w/ anything but Jls, but only w/ Jls on subsequent bounds.
8.83, paragraph 1 says third parties can support shoot /w Jls.>>

That's not correct, but that is a poorly worded section. The part of 8.83
about JLS is designed to remove the 8.82 restriction on JLS. Third parties
can shoot at a subsequent combat with anything.

<< It also says that bodies in melee can support shoot only with bow. >>

That's chargers. If you were charged, you can support shoot with anything
but JLS.

<< Is it correct, then, that "third parties" can fire into melees ONLY w/
Jls, and then only during support shooting (8.13)?>>

No.

<< Could 8.13 and 8.83 be stated more clearly>>

Yes, and I am working on it.

<<5. Are Japanese LEHI w/ LB supposed to be able to enter skirmish
formation? >>

Yes.

<< The list says they are "loose order for all purposes" >>

And that is why.

Jon

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

Get unlimited calls to

U.S./Canada




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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



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

[Greg Regets]

Didn't you watch that Tom Cruz movie ... you know, the one where he
stared longingly at that pretty Japanes girl for the better part of
an hour, but never did manage to tap it?

In that movie, when that artillery unloaded, those Samuraui were
skirmishing on outta there faster than you could say "tora, tora,
tora! ;-)

g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Bump" <cncbump@v...>
wrote:
> And yet EHC who are also loose order cannot skirmish? So
essentially
> irregular foot who derived all sense of combat worthiness are more
able and
> thus likely to retreat from a charging enemy than steppes warriors
on
> armored horses whom we know took part in "Parthian tactics"? Seems
a bit
> contradictory. Further, I would be really interested to hear of a
source
> that discusses Samuraui participating in the act of skirmishing in
a battle
> setting.
> Chris
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JonCleaves@a... [mailto:JonCleaves@a...]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 9:37 AM
> To: "Quentin Cantrell"
> Cc: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: rules questions
>
>
> Hello, We played our first game of Warrior recently, and several
rules
> came up.>>
>
> Quentin, it is best if questions are asked through our Warrior
yahoo group
> (WarriorRules) - that way everyone hears the answer and we have an
archived
> record of it. I encourage you to join - it is free..
>
> << 1. When two units charge each other and contact at an angle,
but
> without either being a flank charge, how do you determine which unit
> conforms to the other.>>
>
> Move them both 'halfway'.
>
> <<2. If body A charges body B, and pivoting to conform to body B
would
> result in body C being behind the flank of body A, and therefore
eligible to
> shoot body A, though body C is not prolonging the front of body B
(because
> body B and C are not parallel), does this constitute an "advantage"
> resulting from the pivoting mechanic, and therefore something
unintended,
> per the clarification of 6.165? >>
>
> Yes, that clarification is designed to prevent things exactly
like the
> situation you describe.
>
> << If so, does this mean that the usual pivot rules should not be
> followed? If not, what should be done?>>
>
> Just leave it. If nothing else can be done, leave it unpivoted
and
> comform/line up as part of combat results.
>
> <<3. Are the geometric restictions on support shooting meant to
be
> stricter on the bound of a charge than on subsequent bounds? 8.82
requires
> that a "third party" be "prolonging the front" to support shoot a
charger,
> but 8.83 mentions no such limitation. >>
>
> Yes.
>
> <<4. It also seems a bit odd that "third parties" can support
shoot at a
> charging body w/ anything but Jls, but only w/ Jls on subsequent
bounds.
> 8.83, paragraph 1 says third parties can support shoot /w Jls.>>
>
> That's not correct, but that is a poorly worded section. The
part of 8.83
> about JLS is designed to remove the 8.82 restriction on JLS. Third
parties
> can shoot at a subsequent combat with anything.
>
> << It also says that bodies in melee can support shoot only with
bow. >>
>
> That's chargers. If you were charged, you can support shoot with
anything
> but JLS.
>
> << Is it correct, then, that "third parties" can fire into melees
ONLY w/
> Jls, and then only during support shooting (8.13)?>>
>
> No.
>
> << Could 8.13 and 8.83 be stated more clearly>>
>
> Yes, and I am working on it.
>
> <<5. Are Japanese LEHI w/ LB supposed to be able to enter
skirmish
> formation? >>
>
> Yes.
>
> << The list says they are "loose order for all purposes" >>
>
> And that is why.
>
> Jon
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> Get unlimited calls to
>
> U.S./Canada
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
> --
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 13/04/2005 07:08:27 GMT Standard Time,
jwilkinson62@... writes:

And to be fair too Tim, it is tough to play the rules author when intent is
different than the written rules IE: Scythed Chariots. This past weekend, I
had to ask Scott to come to the table to hash this out for Dave Dietrich. He
was playing his Scythed chariots by the way the rule was written and not your
intent which is how they must be played. Scott ruled the intent and did a
great job explaining it.


*Would like to know more about this. In case im not playing them right.

Also i seem to have a problem with exhausted units.

1. If a unit is on 14 fatigues and routs making it exhausted is it removed
this turn or next, and exactly when in the turn? Could we have this added to
the turn sequence please.

2. The second area of the rules that we seem to find hard to grasp is the
gap/shoulder issue. How close to an enemy unit can you be and move past its
shoulder in an approach?

Sorry to ask such simple things, but they seem to crop up all the time here.

mark mallard


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

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 13/04/2005 20:41:51 GMT Standard Time, JonCleaves@...
writes:

You can get no nearer than 40p to an enemy body in an approach move, whether
it is the shoulder of a gap or not.

Jon




** i understood, not very well tho, that sometimes you cannot get this close
- it is these circumstances we are interested in. When you are pasing a unit
with the intention of charging it in the flank.

mark


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

[joncleaves]

<< And to be fair too Tim, it is tough to play the rules author when intent is
different than the written rules IE: Scythed Chariots. This past weekend, I
had to ask Scott to come to the table to hash this out for Dave Dietrich. He
was playing his Scythed chariots by the way the rule was written and not your
intent which is how they must be played. Scott ruled the intent and did a
great job explaining it.


*Would like to know more about this. In case im not playing them right.>>

I can't help you, Mark. I don't know what the issue was. Maybe someone who was
there can tell us.

<<Also i seem to have a problem with exhausted units.

1. If a unit is on 14 fatigues and routs making it exhausted is it removed
this turn or next, and exactly when in the turn? Could we have this added to
the turn sequence please.>>

It is removed immediately after waver tests associated with its destruction
(5.24).

<<2. The second area of the rules that we seem to find hard to grasp is the
gap/shoulder issue. How close to an enemy unit can you be and move past its
shoulder in an approach?>>

You can get no nearer than 40p to an enemy body in an approach move, whether it
is the shoulder of a gap or not.

Jon


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