Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Noel White · Recruit Joined: 13 May 2006 Posts: 62

Can bodies entirely of LEHI adopt a skirmish formation?

They are not on the list of troop types capable in section 6.45 of the rulebook, yet I've heard of many players doing so.

I'm asking mostly for "Fast Warrior" purposes. I don't have a copy of Oriental Warrior yet to clarify (or cloud) my question. I don't know enough about Samurai to know any better.

Thanks.
Noel.

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

Yes, they may skirmish.

Noel White · Recruit Joined: 13 May 2006 Posts: 62

Thanks,

Me and my buddy had assumed not since they weren't on the list.

Noel.

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

List rules are exceptions to the main rules.

Noel White · Recruit Joined: 13 May 2006 Posts: 62

Of course.

But without a copy of Oriental Warrior, a fast warrior player would never know to assume that, even with Errata.

Noel.

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

Ok, I am trying to help. I don't see why anyone has to assume anything.

Here on this forum I have said: "Yes, they may skirmish."

In the errata for the main rulebook (in case you don't have OW and want to play FW list 264) it says:

"LEHI counts as loose order for all purposes except it counts as EHI in shooting and combat and takes no fatigue for being EHI and moving."

We say all purposes so we don't have to list every purpose separately - such as movement, skirmish, basing, etc.

What are you asking?

Noel White · Recruit Joined: 13 May 2006 Posts: 62

Sorry Jon, I think this is a pretty valid question. I'm not trying to yank your chain. I couldn't see why the LEHI could, and neither could a few of my pals out here.

Section 6.45 about Skirmish formation (Page 60 of the rulebook) the first point says:

*Composed entirely of HC, HCm, MC, MCm, LC, LCm, LCh, LHI, LMI, and/or LI.

Nothing is mentioned about "loose order" and skirmish. In fact some loose order troops are not on the list of skirmishers -- knights, EHC etc -- I don't know why one should assume that this particular loose order troop type can skirmish.

If you have said that "they may skirmish" that is fine. I didn't catch that. And any one reading the book for the first time is also likely not to, even with the Errata, which only mentions "loose order for all purposes. "

It didn't make sense to me.

Noel.

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

So what you're saying is because it says LMI and LHI in that list and not "loose order infantry" someone is using that to say LEHI can't skirmish? Hmm.

In any case, the words "loose order for all purposes" mean to include skirmish. Not sure how any but the worst sort of rules lawyer would use the fact that the skirmish list saying LMI and LHI skirmish does not mean all loose order foot do (as that is in fact all the loose order foot until LEHI comes along and says loose order for all purposes).

To help with this guy until the next errata update, show him the following:

LEHI may skirmish. This is official. Jon.

Noel White · Recruit Joined: 13 May 2006 Posts: 62

--- So what you're saying is because it says LMI and LHI in that list and not "loose order infantry" someone is using that to say LEHI can't skirmish? Hmm. ---

Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying. We were all convinced here that "skirmishing samurai" was someone making bogus connections that aren't in the rulebook.
I think you are saying "all loose foot can skirmish, why would you assume these ones can't?" and you have a point.
But someone could argue EHC could skirmish on the same grounds if EHC was a new troop type. I'm not the only one who thought this.

Thanks for the answer. If I didn't ask... no one would want to play with me anymore.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for rules lawyers, well this rule set seems to be all about that.
It is written in case format with exception clauses all over... like a legal document. Compared to other games, you have to a "rules lawyer" just to learn to make proper charge moves.

I'll compare directly with the very popular "Flames of War" rulebook. In each rule section there is an "intent of the rule" written before the mechanics of the rule. This helps players interpret the "spirit of a rule" and what it intends to simulate. Then comes the rule mechanics. Following the rule mechanics, there are often tips to help explain the implications of the rule, so that is is used to best effect, as well as how it interacts with the other rules.
Generally, WARRIOR contains none of this (exceptions see section 1.0, 2.0) and only rules. There is no known "spirit of a rule" to break, no intentions of a rule made clear, little implication with other rules and absolutely no tips on how to bring it all together. It becomes all about the exact rule wording -- because there is no other leveler.

That is my opinion on this cloudy Wednesday night.

Noel.

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

Amen, Noel. I would rather Warrior were written like FoW and Warrior Battles will be.

I tried to prevent rules lawyering by covering everything I could think of. I can see that was an error now.....