Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 10/28/2002 10:57:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, scribblerjohn
writes:

> So, Jon, one last time for me anyway.
>
> I have a unit of Viking Warriors that includes a 2-base detachment as
> part of a 4-base wide front rank.
>
> On approach, I can move the detachment forward up to its move limit.
> I can also, in approach, bring the parent unit into a legal block
> formation -- closing the hole in the front rank.
>
> Then in charge phase, assuming a legal target, my detachment can
> charge into whatever I want to kill. (Indeed, as IrrA it must charge.)>>

I don't see anything wrong rules-wise with what you said.
>
> I'm not sure if this makes sense as a tactic. I just want
> to be
> certain I understand how the rules would work.>>

Yeah, this is definitely one of those 'hypotheticals' that makes no sense to me
why someone would want to do it that way. But I see no reason why you couldn't.

J

So, Jon, one last time for me anyway.

I have a unit of Viking Warriors that includes a 2-base detachment as
part of a 4-base wide front rank.

On approach, I can move the detachment forward up to its move limit.
I can also, in approach, bring the parent unit into a legal block
formation -- closing the hole in the front rank.

Then in charge phase, assuming a legal target, my detachment can
charge into whatever I want to kill. (Indeed, as IrrA it must charge.)

I'm not sure if this makes sense as a tactic. I just want to be
certain I understand how the rules would work.

Thanks.

John Meunier

JonCleaves@... wrote:

>In a message dated 10/28/2002 10:57:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, scribblerjohn
writes:
>
>> So, Jon, one last time for me anyway.
>>
>> I have a unit of Viking Warriors that includes a 2-base detachment as
>> part of a 4-base wide front rank.
>>
>> On approach, I can  move the detachment forward up to its move limit.
>> I can also, in approach, bring the parent unit into a legal block
>> formation -- closing the hole in the front rank.
>>
>> Then in charge phase, assuming a legal target, my detachment can
>> charge into whatever I want to kill. (Indeed, as IrrA it must charge.)>>
>
>I don't see anything wrong rules-wise with what you said.
>>
>> I'm not sure if this makes sense as a tactic. I just want
>> to be
>> certain I understand how the rules would work.>>
>
>Yeah, this is definitely one of those 'hypotheticals' that makes no sense to me
why someone would want to do it that way.  But I see no reason why you couldn't.
>
>J
>

It is also weird in a philosphical sense in that the detachment is not allowed
to leave if, after they are gone, the parent cannot sort itself out into a legal
formation. Why should the berserkers care? They're berserk, after all.
The problem arises from trying to apply a Warhammer Goblin paradigm which
mutated into a Warhammer Ancients simulation of berserkers and then trying to
apply the same tactics to a Warrior situation. It is hard enough to apply WFB
usage to WAB. Play Warrior as Warrior. Detachments should be.....detached!

John the OFM


>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 10/28/2002 11:21:39 AM Eastern Standard Time,
johncarroll453@... writes:

> The problem arises from trying to apply a Warhammer Goblin paradigm which
mutated into a Warhammer Ancients simulation of berserkers and then trying to
apply the same tactics to a Warrior situation. It is hard enough to apply WFB
usage to
> WAB.>>

You know, the funny thing is, since one of the requirements of Fantasy Warrior
is that every figure made has to be in a FanWar army list somewhere, we do have
a 'goblin fanatic' rule. They work much like incendiary expendables, being in
the unit until 'released'. That is in no way my interpretation of the proper
way to replicate Beserks, however.

<< Play Warrior as Warrior. >>

Amen, brother.