Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Patrick Byrne]

>> No need to do this, as you could not wheel away
>> from such an enemy body and be moving entirely
>> toward it as the rule now stands, so there is no
>> need to add a redundant limit.



> I have heard at least one person who thinks "entirely
> towards" means that the "distance is shrinking" rather than the intended
> "distance is being minimized"
>
> Don
>


Now we are getting somewhere, this I believe is the issue. Because I am in
the camp that it meant "distance is shrinking".

My recommendation is to address this in the official Warrior FAQ. Say
something like this means only wheeling towards the enemy body is allowed.
No wheeling away.

Questions though. If not able to wheel away from such an enemy body, what
can done to go around troops that are in the way? or does the unit just
stop?

What about impassable terrain? like chariots with enemy body currently
behind brush?

Is it correct to say that you must go directly through terrain if possible?
like horses through woods?
-PB

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 11/12/2002 8:42:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, cuan@...
writes:

> My recommendation is to address this in the official Warrior FAQ. Say
> something like this means only wheeling towards the enemy body is allowed.
> No wheeling away.>>

FAQ is fine, but Kurt has to have a question that is answered to put in the FAQ.
How about you ask your original question again as concisely as possible and I'll
answer and if it is a FAQable question, I'll approve it in Kurt's next update.
>
> Questions though. If not able to wheel away from such an enemy body, what
> can done to go around troops that are in the way? or does the unit just
> stop?>>

It stops. Since, if I understand this example, you have gone the max entirely
toward that body that you could. Wheeling to avoid the friendly body would not
be entirely toward the enemy body - if I am picturing your example correctly.
>
> What about impassable terrain? like chariots with enemy body currently
> behind brush?>>

A chariot would have to stop at brush of course, which would beg the question
why are you using that chariot to make good your attack orders?
>
> Is it correct to say that you must go directly through
> terrain if possible? like horses through woods?>>

Well, if you pick a body of your own and a body of the enemy's such that to go
entirely toward that body you had to go through terrain, then yes. I'm not sure
why on earth you'd want to do this, especially if the terrain disordered your
body, but hey, you are the one asking...

I must say, Pat, that this sure all sounds to me like someone is trying to get
the benefits of an attack order while 'getting out of' its contstraints. You do
realize that Warrior is designed to make that difficult to do - on purpose. If
you choose, for example, to make complying with your attack order reliant on the
march of one HC body with nothing but woods between him and the only enemy you
want to get closer to - the problem is NOT with the rules....

We also all MUST be clear that this entire discussion revolves around using a
march to qualify as an advance (4.52). Marches are not usually so constrained.
J

[scott holder]

I must say, Pat, that this sure all sounds to me like someone is trying to get
the benefits of an attack order while 'getting out of' its contstraints. You
do realize that Warrior is designed to make that difficult to do - on purpose
. If you choose, for example, to make complying with your attack order relian
t on the march of one HC body with nothing but woods between him and the only
enemy you want to get closer to - the problem is NOT with the rules....

>Yes, everybody should pay really close attention to this. I had to totally r
evamp things with skirmishing Irr A HC (Wallachian HC L, B, Sh dudes) since th
ey always had to charge under attack. This gets rid of the moronic amount of
flexibility these troops types had in TOG which, hee hee, I'd always take adva
ntage of. I really *like* this new effect since it makes a player give very r
estrictive orders (WAIT or HOLD) in order to somewhat reign in the Irr A guys.
And unlike total shock troops, the Irr A HC L, B, Sh don't always wanna go i
n at first opportunity:):)

Scott

[Patrick Byrne]

> I must say, Pat, that this sure all sounds to me like someone is trying to get
> the benefits of an attack order while 'getting out of' its contstraints. You
> do realize that Warrior is designed to make that difficult to do - on purpose.
> If you choose, for example, to make complying with your attack order reliant
> on the march of one HC body with nothing but woods between him and the only
> enemy you want to get closer to - the problem is NOT with the rules....
>

One final question. If the enemy body you selected is not directly in front
of you, you must wheel towards it, correct? I would say this is correct.
After all, if you are not moving directly at that enemy body, then you are
only moving partially towards it, not entirely towards it.



These extra questions are designed for me to make sure I understand
everything you are saying. As we both know, the written text of our
language can carry different meanings. I felt there was an opportunity,
small as it may have been, for you to say, "yes they can wheel around troops
so as to maximize their movement," so I asked the questions.

More to the point, I feel, after these emails, that I can judge this issue
correctly now at tournaments. Which makes things better all the way around.

Thank you for your time.
-PB

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 11/12/2002 2:36:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, cuan@...
writes:

> One final question. If the enemy body you selected is not directly in front
> of you, you must wheel towards it, correct? >>

Correct.

[Jake Kovel]

I just want to make sure we are all on the same sheet of music here. The
debate in question is only when trying to count a particular marching unit as
moving towards the enemy for the purpose of meeting orders requirements,
right? If not trying to meet the orders requirements, then any direction is
available to the marching unit, right?
Jacob Kovel
Confused Ho


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 11/13/2002 08:35:46 Central Standard Time,
Eaglewars@... writes:

> If not trying to meet the orders requirements, then any direction is
> available to the marching unit, right?
>

CORRECT. :)


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