Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Murray Evans]

A simple question but I am not sure I know the answer

Is it possible to deploy at the beginning of a game in skirmish formation. This may be relevant if setting Irregulars up on the centreline as a result of a forced march.

Muz

[joncleaves]

Yes, you may.

[Siward]

John,


I have always been curious about this being allowed. It implies that you are taking an action based on what may be possible during setup.
Does this also apply to flank marches? Specifically, if a flank march has been rolled for and you know roughly where it is coming on can you approach towards and form skirmish since possibly a unit could be within your shooting reach? You would have to base this on a LC move since you still don't know exactly what is coming on.
In a recent competition I successfully argued that this was the case ( actually against Murray who raised this post ). It made a big difference to the outcome of the game. On re-reading the rules though I cannot find specific justification for it. I find this is the same for deploying in skirmish also.


Cheers......Geoff

[Frank Gilson]

NOTE: I am not Jon...so I'm not addressing any clarifications or rules questions.

That said, reference the following regarding force marching in some formation:

Page 20, 4.21, last paragraph
and
Page 118, 14.43, last paragraph of left hand column

Both of these rule sections state that when you write deployment orders, you specify formation, as well as other things, including for force marchers.

[joncleaves]

Also realize that if you deploy in skirmish formation, you may not be able to stay in skirmish formation once things sort themselves out after deployment.

J

[joncleaves]

Geoff

6.45 says:

"A body can adopt skirmish formation only if
• it has known enemy in shooting range, OR
• if known enemy approaching second could move into the
body’s shooting range"

6.821 says:

"Bodies that are arriving are placed at the edge of the
playing area during the Events Phase in which they arrive"

and:

"Arriving bodies use the normal rules for
visibility and known, measured from their position on the
edge of the playing area."

So, if a flank marcher arrives, it may indeed be in a position to permit an enemy body to adopt skirmish.

Jon

[Siward]

[joncleaves]

[[Just a thought but does this imply that the flank marcher must do his move from the exact position they are placed at the start of the event phase or can they come on in a different spot along the table edge once their opponent has moved? ]]

It does more than imply that...lol

Is there some rule reference that indicates to you a flank arriver can change position after the events phase without making a legal move?

[Siward]

John,

Thanks again. What I want to get to the bottom of is the wording and it's intent. Here is the bit that interests me specifically;

6.821 says:

"Bodies that are arriving are placed at the edge of the
playing area during the Events Phase in which they arrive"

Does this mean that when a flank march is successfully diced for and some of it's units are going to approach that the units are placed at the table edge before any approaches are done?
The reason I ask this is that we in Australia have been playing it that the unit is not placed on table until it actually approaches. This gives a flank march a big advantage if it is approaching second as the opponent who approaches first cannot see any of the flank marchers and has no idea where in the designated area they may arrive. The use of the phrase "during the Events Phase in which they arrive" is seen to imply this. If the intent is that the units must be placed at the edge before all approaches are done then possibly the phrase should be changed to "at the start of the Events Phase in which they arrive".



Cheers......Geoff

[Mark Stone]

[Frank Gilson]

Note also:
page 67, 6.82 Entering the Table, Arrivals, paragraph two, last sentence (top right portion of the page)

"Arriving bodies use the normal rules for visibility and known, measured from their position on the edge of the playing area."

Jon, does this mean that enemy units can thus approach move normally during that phase in regard to the flank marching bodies which have arrived and been placed?

Or is the wording of this intended to apply only to the 'arriving bodies' and their use of visibility/known?

Frank Gilson

[joncleaves]

The former.

[chrisbump]

I have long since given up trying to convince anyone that this is a learnable set of rules. When experts like Mark and Frank are confused after having played Warrior since its inception and WRG for decades prior to that, I no longer wonder at the aversion of others to trying Warrior and for many others to playong again after trying it once. I have been observing with some ammusement the rampant craving for the new FOG rules all the while thinking that Warrior would likely fill the void all the new FOG players are looking for. When I ask some of the ex Warrior players who are drooling at the prospect of FOG why, the common refrain is far less complexity, not necessarily easier, just less complex. I think that with the intricasies that have been slowly introduced to Warrior, like dismounted chariots being part of a unit in terrain that is illegal for chariots to enter and justifying it by claiming the models are part of the elements not in the terrain (not that this is necessarily unrealistic or a-historical) or chariots being able to cross uncrossable terrain by dismounting them among many others, our common game has become the equivilent in ancients gaming of what Empire III was in Napoleonics.

If that is the case, then ultimatley there will be a cadre who play the game for as long as they can see the figures, but little in the way of growth.

My 2 cents worth any way.

Chris

[joncleaves]

I think at 2 cents you are charging too much.

As we have said, Warrior is and always will be the PhD of miniatures games - not for the light of heart, but for the person who wants the details to matter.
FoG may indeed be the best thing since zip-loc bags. I have seen it played and read the rules - its a more complicated set than many people want out in the mass market. It is more complex than DBM. It will have great production values thanks to Osprey. If it has a solid level of support, it will own its niche. If it, as I believe, still fails to satisfy those who want a simple ancients game, DGS will produce Warrior Battles under license. It will be a game *simpler* than DBM, playable in 1.5 to 2 hours, playable within minutes of reading and with all the richness of the Warrior list research to draw from. Only time will tell. I predict an initial surge in FoG interest and then continuing disaffection from those who wanted something more playable. I could be wrong.

Wrong or not, FoG and Warrior are apples and oranges. Checkers and chess. Or more accurately, go-cart and F-16. Go-carts are fun and easy to drive, but once one has gone through the challenge of learning the F16, there is no comparison. We won't lose any actual Warrior players to FoG. There will be some people who were occasionally casually interested in Warrior who will find FoG suits their needs better - more power to them.

I do not expect significant growth in Warrior and never have. It has the fans it has and will pick up a few over time. But it is not and never was intended to be a mass-market game.

DBM(M) is the game FoG is about to hurt....

[Mark Stone]

What is FoG? -Mark