Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Mallard]

Only a few of us here in the UK but we move the unit before removing it.

mark mallard

In a message dated 07/11/2005 21:16:00 GMT Standard Time, JonCleaves@...
writes:

Well, heck, tell ya what. You guys tell me which way you want it to be and
I will write it that way.

Seriously.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Walker <rwalker@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 14:49:53 -0600
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Jon: A couple of rules questions


Mobile plays it as move first then disperse.


----- Original Message -----
From: <hrisikos@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Jon: A couple of rules questions


>> > The moment they move 1p, so effectively the former.
>>
>> Really? I'll note that this is a complete departure from the way we've
>> played it
>> in California (and, actually, the way of seen people play it in
>> Lancaster).
>>
>> I've always assumed that if the 2 CPF from doing a rout move was what it
>> took to
>> take you to exhaustion, then you need to actually do a full rout move
>> (and be
>> removed at the end of rout moves).
>>
>
>
> I agree with Mark here. If that's the way it is, noproblem, but a
> clarification or rewording would be helpful.
>
> And just to give a delayed response to Greg's exchange with others
> earlier, let me say that no one can talk smack as entertainingly as Greg
> can. I think it's all that flag football. Good to see him back on the
> listserve. I've learned lots of new expressions from him over the years;
> now if i could only play well enough to be able to use them
>
>






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

Really? I'll note that this is a complete departure from the way we've played it

in California (and, actually, the way of seen people play it in Lancaster).



I've always assumed that if the 2 CPF from doing a rout move was what it took to

take you to exhaustion, then you need to actually do a full rout move (and be

removed at the end of rout moves).
E: I understand this too... first move a rout move, then retire the body.



Emilio

[joncleaves]

<<If the charger would otherwise catch LI elements which are not
interpenetrating (say the charger is not aligned with the unit in
column being interpenetrated) - what happens here? Does the entire
unit get the extra evade if this means LI is not caught?>>
[
I have no idea what this means. There's no 'extra evade' in Warrior. I'm
sorry.

Jon


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

[Doug]

>So if Jon is taking votes, mine is that the routing unit move full
>distance before being scraped off...
>>
>So let it be written...
>Jon


I don't see how it could be any other way in order to have a consistant method.

I've always thought the method was to apply a factor at the end of
the activity which causes it (ie retrospectively), not prior to the
start of the activity which would cause it (prospectively).

For example, if a unit with 4 Fatigue wants to Charge, it does so and
at the END of the Charge move the fatigues are applied. Therefore it
is Tired for the next activity in the sequence of play (combat).
Otherwise a unit whose charge is Cancelled must still suffer the
fatigue.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 11/8/2005 16:46:44 Central Standard Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

Are you saying that bodies can exceed their variable tac move distance
by interpenetrating, EVEN IF this causes a charging unit which would
otherwise catch them to be unable to do so?



Yes, I am.

Jon


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

[John Murphy]

The "extra evade" being the extra distance the LI unit moved by
getting to interpenetrate (in the other guy's original question). You
said the evading LI could exceed their tac move distance by
interpenetrating - which is more or less how I have been playing it,
although I have been doing this AFTER completing the charge and evade
move and only if no contact is made.

Are you saying that bodies can exceed their variable tac move distance
by interpenetrating, EVEN IF this causes a charging unit which would
otherwise catch them to be unable to do so?

Go back to the original question the first guy asked (cut from the
response below so I have no idea which message it was) and you will
see what I mean.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> <<If the charger would otherwise catch LI elements which are not
> interpenetrating (say the charger is not aligned with the unit in
> column being interpenetrated) - what happens here? Does the entire
> unit get the extra evade if this means LI is not caught?>>
> [
> I have no idea what this means. There's no 'extra evade' in
Warrior. I'm sorry.
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>