Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Patrick Byrne]

You say that Warrior will be released by fall-in.

When does Warrior go to editing/publishing? or better yet, what is the
last date that you will want playtest comments?
-PB

[joncleaves]

I will lay out the plan for publication and what everyone can choose for their
role in it POST Historicon.

Gotta concentrate on getting my ass handed to me in the NICT first.

[joncleaves]

If you are so damned pleased, Don, how come you are giving me a crapload of
things to sort out a day after release...... :)

[joncleaves]

Well, you are half right....

Keep those cards and letters coming.

[Don Coon]

Some comments, suggestions, typos:

Page 9 "armor" is misspelled "armour" in 9 locations. I wondered if you did
it intentionally, but "armor" is spelled correctly in other places on page
9.

Page 9 Elephantry - last line: Delete "treated as" This is just extra
verbage. The sentance "...are always irregular" is definitive.

Page 11 first line: add "as noted below" to the end of the first bullet. As
written you can use JLS and 2HCT, P, and L then 3 paragraphs later you
prohibit this. Adding verbage closes the paradox.

Page 11: Somewhere in my distant memory there was a line about slings not
being usable by close formation troops. Was this ommited on purpose?

Page 12 diagram: Change "side edge" to "side face" You use "face"
nomenclature throughout the ruleset.

Page 13 4th para: add ",6.3" after "(11.0"

Page 15 2nd line: add "independant" between "a" and "staff".

Page 19 intercepting units, line 5: change "an" to "any" and change
"element" to "elements". As written it does not address generals in bodies
of greater than 2 elements.

Page 21 Example line 2: reword to "unit is irregular and the general is
visible to it. The player rolls a 3 on a D5 and add +1 (general visible),
+4 (+2 for each full" You have this example worded the old way. You
changed promting verbage to destination can see generals element rather than
general seeing the unit (a change we like VERY much) and the example needs
to be reworked to the new verbage.

Page 22 Attack bullet 2: add "Except per 6.163"

Page 22 Delay third bullet: add "Except per 6.163"

Page 23 4.6 first bullet: reword to "the general is not in sight" This is a
follow up to the comment on page 21 above. It is due to the reword of promt
time.

Page 23 last line: add "and the genral is in sight" to the end. We feel if
the destination and the general are on the same flank, the general would be
in sight. Just a thought.

Page 26 5.222 3rd bullet: reword "to include" to "or".

Page 29 5.42 1st sentance and all bullets: tense faux paus. Change "does"
to "has", "move" to "moved", "suffer" to "suffered", "respond" to
"responded", "fight" to "faught", and "start" to "started".

Page 30 5.52 10th bullet: add "or edge" after "face" If you make the page
12 correction, this becomes unneccesary. If you leave page 12 unchanged you
must add this nomenclature here or expendables contacting a mounted side
edge (it is not a face per page 12) do not cause a waver test.

Page 31 Combat caused disorder: Is foot fighting mounted taking more HTH
casualties and 1 CPF then recoiling and becoming disordered supposed to be
on this list?

We have some questions here. If a fresh unit takes 3 CPF from HTH does less
HTH casualties than its opponent and does not break, but instead has to
recoil, and does not recoil fully do to another body, is it a waver test? 3
CPF causes disorder, and not recoiling fully causes disorder. If the same
unit was foot fighting mounted would it take 2 waver tests? 3 CPF causes
disorder, foot recoing from mounted causes disorder, and not recoing fully
causes disorder.

The way the rules are worded we feel it is one waver test in each case.
What do you think?

Page 32 1st bullet: add "(2 if regular)" after "make a maneuver"

Page 37 6.15 5th sentance: change "get" to "end" I think this was a
playtest comment you had agreed to. Did you mean to leave it as "get"?

Page 43 6.166 last para: just a question. How does a pursuing body in
contact with routers countercharge? The only way we can see if if the
pursuer is wider than the routers. The overhanging elements would be able
to echelon in a countercharge? Is that it?

Page 44 3rd para from bottom, 2nd line: delete "in this case" There is no
"in this case". The turn in an evade is always free.

Page 45 Example. Chris is running Unit A but Harlan rolls the dice for
pursuit. Did Chris take a bathroom break?

Page 45 4th bullet: reword "directly to its rear OR" to "directly away from
the charge OR" This bullet is using an earlier bullet to eatablish a poin,
but you referenced it incorrectly.

Page 45 6.167. We feel some word to the effect that normal charge fatigue
is to assesed as well as the fatigue for charging in successive bounds might
be helpful.

Page 50 6.32 6th line: reword "through" to "away from" If a broken body is
party surrounded by enemy (say to front and right flank), it would be
routing away from the gap between these two bodies, not through it" Same
line: reword "180 degrees" to "away from the enemy" There are many cases
where a routing body turns at angle other than 180 to rout directly awya
from the body (or bodies) that broke it.

Page 50 bursting through 2nd line: add ", routing ahead of original routers"
after "immediately"

Page 50 bursting through 5th line: add "or in the HTH phase when encounterd
along the combat direction" This close the loop on all possible routers (in
contact, charged but not in contact, and not charged and not in contact).

Page 50 6.33 10th line: add "but still must wheel towards the pursued" after
"pursuit move" This prohibits pursurers from wheeling away from the
original charge target.

Page 51 6.34: add "and 6.33" after "11.2"

Page 57 6.6 line 1 "change "troop" to "troops"

Page 58 obstacles last line: add "7.5, and 9.42" after "9.6"

Page 58 6.711 1st line after the bullets: What about gates?

Page 61 8th bullet: change "cannot" to "do not"

Page 61 7.4: how much of the body has to be in cover to gain its protection?

Page 67 2nd example line 2: change "convert" to "converted" Line 4: add
"moves" after "combat results".

Page 70 9.5: What counts as defending? Toes on the feature? What if you
are 10p back? We play toes on the line.

Page 75 2nd bullet: What if you start the HTH phase steady and pick up 2 or
more combat causes of disorder? Do they add up and cause waver tests? What
if you start the HTH phase disordered and pick up 2 or more combat causes.
Is this 2+ waver tests? i.e. one for each combat cause resecived while
already disordered? As written, the answere to the second question seems to
be a waver test for each combat cause of disorder picked up. The first
question is sticky. Do you become disordered from 3 CPF before you recoil
or are broken through? (we think so). Does foot recoiling disordered from
mounted who have their recoil halted have 2 simultainious causes of
disorder, or does one preceed the other causing previously steady foot to
test waver (we think not). Please clarify. The way we play here is CPF
caused disorder happens before combat results moves caused disorder.

Page 78 12.3 12th line: change "roves" to "moves"

Page 79 2nd last line: reword "each front" to " any two" this allows units
to look in directions other than just to front. Delete "or shoot" . This
makes this sentance just a LOS one. Shooting was covered well in chapter 8.

Page 86 gully para 3rd line: "mist" should be "must"

Page 86: Orchards is bulleted, but not indented.

Thats what I found. I have read through the rules twice now, and we played
3 games of 15mm FW yesterday to try them out. We are VERY pleased.

Don

[Don Coon]

> If you are so damned pleased, Don, how come you are giving me a crapload
of
> things to sort out a day after release...... :)

Ahh, its not really that much. Most of it is typos and grammar. I figured
you have not had a crapload of comments from me in a couple months and you
were probably looking for something to do .

Don

[joncleaves]

> So much for constructive dialog.

Jeez, sensitive...
:)

Don,

If it is spelled "armour" then it IS correct for those of us who don't
speak "Am-er-ikan". Perhaps Jon was trying to please everyone at once,
and you know how much trouble that will get you into.

Steve, from where we still speak (and spell) the Queens english.



--- In WarriorRules@y..., <jjendon@c...> wrote:
> Some comments, suggestions, typos:
>
> Page 9 "armor" is misspelled "armour" in 9 locations. I wondered if
you did
> it intentionally, but "armor" is spelled correctly in other places
on page
> 9.
>

[Harlan Garrett]

So much for constructive dialog.

HG
-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 3:04 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Warrior Release


If you are so damned pleased, Don, how come you are giving me a crapload
of
things to sort out a day after release...... :)

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



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]