Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Charles Yaw]

Not to step on any toes here, but I understood that dicing for the character
of generals was part of the game sequence. Kind of the same as knowing how
many scouting points your opponent has.

Jon, what is correct here?

> A question did come up concerning dicing for generals. Solved it by
dicing in front of Don, since I wanted to keep the fact secret that I was
flank marching a command.
>

[joncleaves]

<<Not to step on any toes here, but I understood that dicing for the character
of generals was part of the game sequence. Kind of the same as knowing how
many scouting points your opponent has.>>

Charles is correct. Dicing for generals occurs as part of 3.1 well prior to
writing deployment orders (which is when flank marches are decided). So, the
way 3.1 is now, it is not a secret.

We consider 3.1 not to be a core rule but an extension of 14.0 as there is no
requirement at all to use 3.1 in a scenario or campaign game or any game, for
that matter, that is not a standard tourney game. Those of you who have read
the revised 12.0/14.0 will have seen that the tourney pre-game sequence is now
IN 14.0 and will not be in 3.0.

We have the same sequence in the 14.0 revised as we do now in 3.1, so it will
not be a secret in the future either. But as this is not a core rule, if folks
want to offer their opinion on whether there should be a change or not, I'll
listen.

Jon

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 9/29/2004 3:39:06 AM GMT Daylight Time,
JonCleaves@... writes:


<<Not to step on any toes here, but I understood that dicing for the
character
of generals was part of the game sequence. Kind of the same as knowing how
many scouting points your opponent has.>>

Charles is correct. Dicing for generals occurs as part of 3.1 well prior to
writing deployment orders (which is when flank marches are decided). So,
the way 3.1 is now, it is not a secret.

We consider 3.1 not to be a core rule but an extension of 14.0 as there is
no requirement at all to use 3.1 in a scenario or campaign game or any game,
for that matter, that is not a standard tourney game. Those of you who have
read the revised 12.0/14.0 will have seen that the tourney pre-game sequence
is now IN 14.0 and will not be in 3.0.

We have the same sequence in the 14.0 revised as we do now in 3.1, so it
will not be a secret in the future either. But as this is not a core rule, if
folks want to offer their opinion on whether there should be a change or not,
I'll listen.

Jon




This has been brought up before but might it be a good time to reconsider
the dicing for flank marches.

We always played that you rolled each turn whether you had one or not. As it
is now you can only roll if you have one , thus informing your opponent of
the fact. If a 5 or 6 was rolled and none arrived then from then on no more
need for die rolling or watching ones back.

Any chance of a change in the rewrite?

mark mallard


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

[joncleaves]

We always played that you rolled each turn whether you had one or not. As it
is now you can only roll if you have one , thus informing your opponent of
the fact. If a 5 or 6 was rolled and none arrived then from then on no more
need for die rolling or watching ones back.>>

And that of course is totally ok. Once you have purchased your Warrior
rulebook, you are free to do whatever you want with it.

But, it has been made absolutely crystal clear to me over the past two years
that our players want a single established competition format standard in the
book for those times when diverse groups get together to play and to have a
common framework for competition.

In that case, majority will have to rule.

However, any and all comments on what is wanted in 14.0, like the one you make
above, are important to us. If nothing else, we may incorporate them into the
'alternate formats' section..

Jon

Any chance of a change in the rewrite?

Although I mentioned this some time before, I will put in my vote for
more uncertainty. In fact, I think you should be able to voluntary
disclose fewer scouting points to your opponent so people can't use
their ESP to determine that you have units in ambush (or on flank
marches for that matter). The downside of disclosing fewer scouting
points is that you are stuck with whatever the consequences are of the
number of SP's you stated.

I give a big thumb's up to uncertainty.

-- Charles



On Sep 29, 2004, at 1:10 PM, hrisikos@... wrote:
>
> >
>
> I have not yet read the "new" or proposed 14.0, but wish to weigh in
> on
> Mark's side here. I see no disadvantage to this, and I think it beter
> recreates the uncertainty of what might be on one's far flank (like
> Blucher at Waterloo).


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

[Bill Chriss]

Mark said:> We always played that you rolled each turn whether you had
one or not.


Jon said:>>
> However, any and all comments on what is wanted in 14.0, like the one you
> make above, are important to us. If nothing else, we may incorporate
> them into the 'alternate formats' section..
>
> Jon
>

I have not yet read the "new" or proposed 14.0, but wish to weigh in on
Mark's side here. I see no disadvantage to this, and I think it beter
recreates the uncertainty of what might be on one's far flank (like
Blucher at Waterloo).


Greek

[Chris Bump]

I agree in uncertianty as to a flank march but think that everyone rolling a
seperate arrival die until a 5 or 6 is rolled and then disclosing the
authenticity of the flank march is redundant. I have always favored having the
iniative die roll dictate arrivals. Both players roll iniative at the beginning
of the bound anyhow and then if a 5 or 6 turned up, the flank march could
arrive.

Having said that, your example of Waterloo falls directly into the proof of the
other camp that says you must forcast your flank march by rolling a seperate
die. Napoleon received information that the Prussians were approaching a good
3 hours before they started to emerge from the woods east of Frischermont.

Perhaps a compromise could be that they don't arrive until the bound after a 5
is dropped and arrive the bound a 6 is dropped. But as it stands now, on bound
2 when one side must announce arrivals are being rolled for, suprise is for all
intents lost. LC are immediatly posted to the uncovered flank and the General
on the receiving end of the flank march is able to recover his wits.

Have it truly be a suprise and another aspect of the fog of war is brought back
to the game. IMHO.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: hrisikos@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: [WarriorRules) Question


Mark said:> We always played that you rolled each turn whether you had
one or not.


Jon said:>>
> However, any and all comments on what is wanted in 14.0, like the one you
> make above, are important to us. If nothing else, we may incorporate
> them into the 'alternate formats' section..
>
> Jon
>

I have not yet read the "new" or proposed 14.0, but wish to weigh in on
Mark's side here. I see no disadvantage to this, and I think it beter
recreates the uncertainty of what might be on one's far flank (like
Blucher at Waterloo).


Greek


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

[Chris Bump]

Well there is an assumption that during the scouting phase of a battle the other
player's scouting troops would be guaging your scouting capability or lack
therof. So the scouting points represents your opponent's intel gathering on
your army pre-battle. The exact makeup is not disclosed so there is some
uncertainty. Are those 3 missing scouting points a 6 element body of LI in
ambush or is it 3 single elements of loose order cav that cannot be accounted.
A flank march perhaps or cav actually in ambush somewhere?

But I agree with you that some more subterfuge could be easily allowed. Perhaps
each side could be allowed to declare their scouting points with a certain
percentage decreased. For example maybe each side could be allowed to declare
their actual scouting points or up to 10% less than that number, but never more
than their actual number.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Charles Randow
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: [WarriorRules) Question


Although I mentioned this some time before, I will put in my vote for
more uncertainty. In fact, I think you should be able to voluntary
disclose fewer scouting points to your opponent so people can't use
their ESP to determine that you have units in ambush (or on flank
marches for that matter). The downside of disclosing fewer scouting
points is that you are stuck with whatever the consequences are of the
number of SP's you stated.

I give a big thumb's up to uncertainty.

-- Charles



On Sep 29, 2004, at 1:10 PM, hrisikos@... wrote:
>
> >
>
> I have not yet read the "new" or proposed 14.0, but wish to weigh in
> on
> Mark's side here. I see no disadvantage to this, and I think it beter
> recreates the uncertainty of what might be on one's far flank (like
> Blucher at Waterloo).


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


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

[John Murphy]

I like the idea of using the initiative die for off-table flank
march arrivals - good one.

Regards the scouting points, while knowing the number of points may
represent an assessment of enemy scouting ability by your own
scouts, consider there is nothing to say that an army would have to
use all the scouting ability that it possesses.

And I might note that the general inability to ambush significantly
might have a lot to do with flank marches being so obvious. It is my
2 cent opinion that a lot of 14.0 competition battlefields simply
lack sufficient elevation changes to conceal troops in a historical
manner - and I am not sure but I think the rules may be a bit tough
on this too as regards using hills and gullies or the area behind
woods for cencealment. Anyhow I could see making a certain number of
hills/whatever mandatory especially if other terrain could be
overlain on them. The whole anachronistic Waterloo thing might also
note that Napoleon really had no idea of the real dispositions of
the Anglo-Allied army right in front of him, entirely aside from the
Prussians.

The point being if the terrain is such that it supports plenty of
unkown places to hide troops then it becomes less obvious wether a
flank march is a 2E LC unit or a whole command.