Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

In a message dated 9/22/2004 20:10:00 Central Daylight Time,
mark@... writes:

The new wording you've just given us
provides a clear definition:

"Cover, linear feature (7.4, 8.93) All of the closest facing of each
element (s)
of the target body nearest to the shooting element must have the feature
between
itself and the shooting element to count as protected by cover."

However, a consequence of this wording is that if I have my shooters lined up
directly behind my TF, then everyone I shoot at counts as in cover from me.
Is
that indeed your intent?>>
No. To benefit from a TF you have to be in contact with it. This is
obvious of course, but we will add pages to protect the innocent from rules
dicks....lol
Good catch, will fix.

Jon

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

Mark Stone · Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 3:11 am Post subject: Warrior 12/14

Jon,

We've had several games recently that involved TFs, and have been wondering what
counts as being in cover from a TF. The new wording you've just given us
provides a clear definition:

"Cover, linear feature (7.4, 8.93) All of the closest facing of each element (s)
of the target body nearest to the shooting element must have the feature between
itself and the shooting element to count as protected by cover."

However, a consequence of this wording is that if I have my shooters lined up
directly behind my TF, then everyone I shoot at counts as in cover from me. Is
that indeed your intent?

-Mark Stone

Mark Stone · Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 5:53 pm Post subject: Warrior 12/14

Jon,

In 12.323 section E on portable obstacles, you say:
"Positioning or removing Portable Obstacles completely replaces an approach or
counter move and prevents preparatory shooting by the body employing them."

To avoid confusion, you should probably say: "Positioning or removing Portable
Obstacles completely replaces an approach or counter move and prevents
preparatory shooting by the body employing them in the bound in which they are
positioned."

Perhaps that should say "in the bound in which they are positioned or removed"
but I can't find the rule in current Warrior. Anyway, you need to be more
specific here.

-Mark Stone

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

<<To avoid confusion, you should probably say: "Positioning or removing Portable
Obstacles completely replaces an approach or counter move and prevents
preparatory shooting by the body employing them in the bound in which they are
positioned.">>

Thanks, Mark!

Mark Stone · Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 5:59 pm Post subject: Warrior 12/14

So, again regarding portable obstacles. You say "Which body is carrying them is
written down at the start of the game." I don't think that suffices. Shouldn't
it really which _element_ is carrying them needs to be noted? After all, some
elements in a body might have stakes, and some might not. When playing 100YWE
you only buy stakes for the front rank, but what you think is going to be the
front rank at the start of the game and what turns out to be the front rank
later aren't always the same.

-Mark Stone

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

So, again regarding portable obstacles. You say "Which body is carrying them is
written down at the start of the game." I don't think that suffices. Shouldn't
it really which _element_ is carrying them needs to be noted? >>

Yes. All good stuff. Thanks.

Jon

Mark Stone · Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:03 pm Post subject: Warrior 12/14

Jon,

You say that ditch is one kind of TF (and hence obstacle), and palisade is
another. This seems to imply that a ditched palisade is a double obstacle. This
matters because a tactical move reaching a second obstacle is halted, and
therefore to charge a body defending a ditched palisade one could not charge
across _both_ ditch and palisade, but would have to first enter the ditch.

If I'm right about that, and if ditches can be made 40p or less in width, then
troops defending a ditched palisade could never be charged since one could
never enter the first obstacle to be in a position to cross the second.

-Mark Stone

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

You say that ditch is one kind of TF (and hence obstacle), and palisade is
another. This seems to imply that a ditched palisade is a double obstacle.>.

I say they combine the features of both, which I think reasonably means they
become obstacle, higher, cover. But I will add words so someone can't make it
out to mean two obstacles in the same spot.

J

Steve Hollowell · Recruit Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 133

Does it really matter who in a unit sets up obstablces? Isn't it usual for one
part of a unit to perform set-up while another covers/guards? Maybe I am missing
something obvious though...

JonCleaves@... wrote:So, again regarding portable obstacles. You say "Which
body is carrying them is
written down at the start of the game." I don't think that suffices. Shouldn't
it really which _element_ is carrying them needs to be noted? >>

Yes. All good stuff. Thanks.

Jon

Yahoo! Groups Links

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

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

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

Does it really matter who in a unit sets up obstablces? Isn't it usual for one
part of a unit to perform set-up while another covers/guards? Maybe I am missing
something obvious though...>>

You're right, Steve, it does not. However, I do take any such comments
seriously and put them in my review file for what needs to be looked at for
fixing in the next draft.

Jon

Bill Chriss · Centurion Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1000 Location: Texas

> Does it really matter who in a unit sets up obstablces? Isn't it usual
> for one part of a unit to perform set-up while another covers/guards?
> Maybe I am missing something obvious though...
>

No, I agree with Steve here. I think we'd be overly technical to specify
such things by element for the very reason he suggests. there comes a
point where "realism" isn't realistic anymore and our rules view becomes
too microcosmic.

Greek

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

In a message dated 9/23/2004 17:49:25 Central Daylight Time,
mark@... writes:

In 14 you've essentially changed the terminology from "Unfortified Built
Over
Area" to "Village". This is the kind of elegant simplication I like to see.
Now, if you could just change every occurence to match... For example, under
12.35N, Roads, you say: "It must start and end at a table edge, another road,
or a built-over area." I take it that what you really want to say is: "It
must
start and end at a table edge, another road, or village.">.

Will do. Good catch.

jon

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

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

In a message dated 9/23/2004 17:54:53 Central Daylight Time,
mark@... writes:

The following seems pretty straight forward to me, but since it has been a
point
of discussion in the past I wanted to make sure. In 14.43 you say: "Players
define their troop types for their opponent at the outset, and when they
become
visible. This will include all weapons and armor, but not morale grades."

Since darts, incendiaries, etc. are all weapons, their presence would have
to be
declared at the outset. "All" means all, yes?

Yes. I am aware some like to 'conceal their darts behind shields', but all
means all...lol
We are still working on a comprehensive 'what to declare' list here at FHE,
so bear with us.
Jon

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

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

In a message dated 9/23/2004 18:10:10 Central Daylight Time,
mark@... writes:

Last question/comment (for now). This concerns adjusting army lists in
competition, 14.46. You say: "No element of any body removed can be from a
troop type with an element minimum in the list."

So here's a common situation: An army list contains a line such as:
Peasants Irr D LMI up to 1/2 Bow, rest IPW @ 3 pts.... 0-12.

I buy a unit of 12 stands of Peasants, 1/2 Bow, 1/2 IPW. Not very useful.
They'd
be a lot more useful if they could skirmish, and if I could come up with the
points needed for that ditched palisade to put them behind. As luck would
have
it, if I can cash in 18 points I can afford the 20 points for the ditched
palisade. It seems to me that I can cash in the IPW guys, leaving me with a 6
stand unit of Irr D LMI B, since this is not a troop type "with an element
minimum" even though I end up with a unit that does not abide by required
ratios.>>

You can't turn in part of a unit. If, however, you had made those 12
elements into 2 units, you could get rid of the IPW armed unit and keep the B
armed
one.

Jon

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

Mark Stone · Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 1:45 am Post subject: Warrior 12/14

Jon,

Small point, but:

In 14 you've essentially changed the terminology from "Unfortified Built Over
Area" to "Village". This is the kind of elegant simplication I like to see.
Now, if you could just change every occurence to match... For example, under
12.35N, Roads, you say: "It must start and end at a table edge, another road,
or a built-over area." I take it that what you really want to say is: "It must
start and end at a table edge, another road, or village."

-Mark Stone