Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Jon

The revisions on the FHE website state that ditches deployed in the
forward zone must be manned.

What exactly does manned mean:

- At least 1 element of the body in contact with the ditch
- Every element in the front of the body in contact with the ditch
- Something else?

If a ditch extends from the rear zone to the forward zone, so
elements in contact with the ditch in the rear zone count as manning
it?

If 2 elements of ditch are deployed in a continues line in the
forward zone, do elements have to be in contact with both six element
sections for it to count as being manned, or is having contact with
one section sufficient?

Thanks
Cole

[joncleaves]

Hmmm. I thought we got rid of that. Can you tell me exactly where you found
that text? I can't seem to..

J

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Cioran <ncioran@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 16:46:02 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Another Couple of ditches Question




Jon

The revisions on the FHE website state that ditches deployed in the
forward zone must be manned.

What exactly does manned mean:

- At least 1 element of the body in contact with the ditch
- Every element in the front of the body in contact with the ditch
- Something else?

If a ditch extends from the rear zone to the forward zone, so
elements in contact with the ditch in the rear zone count as manning
it?

If 2 elements of ditch are deployed in a continues line in the
forward zone, do elements have to be in contact with both six element
sections for it to count as being manned, or is having contact with
one section sufficient?

Thanks
Cole







Yahoo! Groups Links






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

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Hmmm. I thought we got rid of that. Can you tell me exactly where
you found that text? I can't seem to..

Gladly...

Sorry about the tragic grammar and spelling in the questions by the
way, I've been sending things out without the usual Q&A. I also
switched my sources, so here they are for the record.

Holy Warrior, page 4:

"If temporary field fortifications are specified in a list as being
able to be deployed in the forward zone, a unit must also be deployed
in the forward zone to "man" such fortifications at the start of the
game."

The website revises this under Holy Warrior to add:

"GLOBAL CHANGE: Change the Field Fortification list rule in lists 6,
7, 10, 15, 17, 19, 22, 24, 25, 34, 35 to allow only a maximum of TWO
6 element sections being deployable in a friendly forward zone. All
other temporary field fortification sections must be in a friendly
rear zone. Note that placement of immobile TFs must abide by the
terrain positioning rules of 14.31. For this purpose, open spaces are
still considered to be in place through deployment."

but does not remove the requirement to man the fortifications.

I looked through the revised 12-14 section, and didn't see anything
that changed either of the above, hence my questions, which I'll
summarize (with better spelling and grammar below:

What does manning fortifications entail?

- At least 1 element of the body in contact with the ditch
- Every element in the front of the body in contact with the ditch
- Something else entirely? (a more likely choice given your
response :)

If a ditch extends from the rear zone to the forward zone, do
elements in contact with the ditch in the rear zone count as manning
it?

If 2 elements of ditch are deployed in a continuous line in the
forward zone, does the body manning them elements have to be in
contact with both six element sections for it to count as being
manned, or is having contact with one section sufficient?

Thanks
Cole

[joncleaves]

Unless Scott has some intent I am not aware of, I believe that is a leftover
that should have been removed. Until you hear from me otherwise, please
consider the requirement to start a TF 'manned' to be gone...
Thanks for finding it for us.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Cioran <ncioran@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 16:19:53 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Another Couple of ditches Question




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Hmmm. I thought we got rid of that. Can you tell me exactly where
you found that text? I can't seem to..

Gladly...

Sorry about the tragic grammar and spelling in the questions by the
way, I've been sending things out without the usual Q&A. I also
switched my sources, so here they are for the record.

Holy Warrior, page 4:

"If temporary field fortifications are specified in a list as being
able to be deployed in the forward zone, a unit must also be deployed
in the forward zone to "man" such fortifications at the start of the
game."

The website revises this under Holy Warrior to add:

"GLOBAL CHANGE: Change the Field Fortification list rule in lists 6,
7, 10, 15, 17, 19, 22, 24, 25, 34, 35 to allow only a maximum of TWO
6 element sections being deployable in a friendly forward zone. All
other temporary field fortification sections must be in a friendly
rear zone. Note that placement of immobile TFs must abide by the
terrain positioning rules of 14.31. For this purpose, open spaces are
still considered to be in place through deployment."

but does not remove the requirement to man the fortifications.

I looked through the revised 12-14 section, and didn't see anything
that changed either of the above, hence my questions, which I'll
summarize (with better spelling and grammar below:

What does manning fortifications entail?

- At least 1 element of the body in contact with the ditch
- Every element in the front of the body in contact with the ditch
- Something else entirely? (a more likely choice given your
response :)

If a ditch extends from the rear zone to the forward zone, do
elements in contact with the ditch in the rear zone count as manning
it?

If 2 elements of ditch are deployed in a continuous line in the
forward zone, does the body manning them elements have to be in
contact with both six element sections for it to count as being
manned, or is having contact with one section sufficient?

Thanks
Cole






Yahoo! Groups Links






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

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Unless Scott has some intent I am not aware of, I believe that is a
leftover that should have been removed. Until you hear from me
otherwise, please consider the requirement to start a TF 'manned' to be
gone...
> Thanks for finding it for us.

My pleasure, I used to proof read doctoral theses in the day, so I'll
keep my eyes open :)

Cole