Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Horseman]

Ok another rules question from me.

Orders is one thing we definitely got wrong when I used to play 7th. Luckily Warrior is so much better written I can see where we went wrong and the right way of doing things.

However I'm not 100% clear on what happens when you change a commands order with regards to communications.

If I change an allied/sub generals command orders I understand the CinC dices for minutes etc. Once the Allied/Sub General receives the orders (and dices for interpretation if needed) am I right in thinking that the Allied/Sub General then needs to only dice once to issue the new orders to all his units? Adding 1 for each unit that can see the general and adding 2 for each unit that can not see the General then adding 1 for each complete 240 paces to ONLY the furthest unit?

If this takes more than 15 minutes (say a particularly large command or very spread out etc.) then it would mean a bounds delay (or more if over 30 mins etc.) before the new orders where acted on? And I assume in this instance the command would still be subject to the limitations/obligations of its previous orders even though the General itself has new orders.

I also assume that this would hold true for the CinC except he doesn't first need to dice for communications for himself!?

If a command changes from Wait to Attack due to a signal does that commands General then need to issue that order to his troops or do they automatically change?

Hope that all makes sense and thanks in advance for any help

[Frank Gilson]

WAIT changed to ATTACK on the basis of a signal (or a charge by a unit within the command) immediately becomes ATTACK with no need for anything else...for all the units in that command.

Your numbers are mostly correct, however it is 2 prompt points per 240 to the farthest unit in the command for distance.

Yes, if the general changing the orders of his units runs over his time...it takes an additional bound (or more) as you note before the orders take affect.

[Horseman]

[Frank Gilson]

Use an army with only a few, similar functional parts...a lot easier not to worry about fundamentally different tactics on the battlefield for the first few games.

[Horseman]

I'll be providing both sides (and we be for at least a little while) as my opponent is a long time friend who has shown interest in getting in to the hobby having previously been involved in games workshop games.

I'm not overly concerned about my side of the table (I have played 7th before so am not a total new comer) but I still don't want to throw to much out there to start. I toyed with the idea of a small battle to start but since fast warrior is already there I'll be using it!

Choices I have:
Sea Peoples
Neo-Assyrian - Chariots in first game....might be better sticking to cav/inf for now
Early Hoplite Greek
Etruscan
Oscan
Syracusan
Late Hoplite Greek
Gallic - (only enough for fast warrior or as allies/mercs in other lists)
Seleucid
Samnite
Pergamene - (only enough for fast warrior or as allies/mercs in other lists)
Polybian Roman - my first ever army. And quite strait forward to use
Late Carthaginian - Elephants in first game....I'm not sure thats a great idea
Numidian - (only enough for fast warrior or as allies/mercs in other lists)
Spanish
Maccabean Jewish

I have been leaning towards Polybian Roman V Seleucids as these were MY armies back in the day, they were also classic opponents in history and the lists seem balanced and a good mini version of their larger selves. In your experience do you think that will make for a fun/fairish match up?

[Mark Stone]

Romans are quite fiddly for a first game (lots of list rules, and complicated ones at that). I'd suggest Seleucid and Maccabean Jews. Fairly evenly matched, and few list rules that will come into play.