Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 31/01/2006 17:23:25 GMT Standard Time, JonCleaves@...
writes:

jon,

does the following make better sense. (see bracketed words)

mark mallard

The rule is

"2.55 Commands: All bodies**(except the CinC)** must be combined into 1 to 6
commands, each controlled by a general. The CINC may be independent
of any command or may control one of **(the six)**xxxxxxxxxxxxx. All
commands not controlled directly by the CINC must contain and be controlled by
a subordinate or ally general. A command may only contain one general. An
allied general's command includes all of, and only, his
own troops. Ally generals cannot have subgenerals. The complete rules on
generals can be found in 4.1."

All non-CINC generals have to be in a command, but there is no minimum
number of units for a command.

-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Williams <fredthebaddy@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:52:04 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Seljuq List Clarifications


Can it count as a command for any purposes? I thought that a command
had to include at least one unit, not body and that the only general
who was allowed to not be part of a command was the CinC?

Adrian Williams

-- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> Paul Wilson wrote:
> > I'm sure that skilled players would be able to keep the LC AG far
> > enough away from conflict that he would not charge opposing light
> > units.
>
> That's the (well, one of the) neat thing - a 1E general is immune
to such
> worries.
>
> > An LC general would also have the advantage of speed when it
> > comes to intercepting a shaken/broken unit to rally it.
>
> Exactly. And can evade if it ever *does* get charged.
>
> Shouldn't be too hard to incorporate if you feel like it.
>
> An, yes, a 1E command would be an amusing deployment trick, but
probably
> not worthwhile. Note that if on a flank march, it does not count
as being
> a deployed command for purposes of alternating command deployment.
>







Yahoo! Groups Links






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




Yahoo! Groups Links












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

[joncleaves]

The rule is

"2.55 Commands: All bodies must be combined into 1 to 6 commands, each
controlled by a general. The CINC may be independent
of any command or may control one of his own. All commands not controlled
directly by the CINC must contain and be controlled by
a subordinate or ally general. A command may only contain one general. An allied
general's command includes all of, and only, his
own troops. Ally generals cannot have subgenerals. The complete rules on
generals can be found in 4.1."

All non-CINC generals have to be in a command, but there is no minimum number of
units for a command.

-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Williams <fredthebaddy@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:52:04 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Seljuq List Clarifications


Can it count as a command for any purposes? I thought that a command
had to include at least one unit, not body and that the only general
who was allowed to not be part of a command was the CinC?

Adrian Williams

-- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> Paul Wilson wrote:
> > I'm sure that skilled players would be able to keep the LC AG far
> > enough away from conflict that he would not charge opposing light
> > units.
>
> That's the (well, one of the) neat thing - a 1E general is immune
to such
> worries.
>
> > An LC general would also have the advantage of speed when it
> > comes to intercepting a shaken/broken unit to rally it.
>
> Exactly. And can evade if it ever *does* get charged.
>
> Shouldn't be too hard to incorporate if you feel like it.
>
> An, yes, a 1E command would be an amusing deployment trick, but
probably
> not worthwhile. Note that if on a flank march, it does not count
as being
> a deployed command for purposes of alternating command deployment.
>







Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[joncleaves]

Just to close this up, flank march commands are off table and therefore not
deployed.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:45:28 -0500
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] RE: Seljuq List Clarifications


The short-and-truthful answer is that I had never considered it otherwise.

Mark Stone wrote:
> --- On January 27 Ewan said: ---
>
>
>>And, yes, a 1E command would be an amusing deployment trick, but probably
>>not worthwhile. Note that if on a flank march, it does not count as being
>>a deployed command for purposes of alternating command deployment.
>
>
> This is something I've been wondering about: whether flank-marched commands
are
> part of alternating command deployment. You seem to think pretty obviously
not;
> where in the rules are you getting that idea from?
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>




Yahoo! Groups Links






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