Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Ok, this one is totally on me and I will be happy to suffer your gleeful
derision and I-told-you-so's...lol

I made a clarfication last week (here, not officially in the document online)
that troops following up got the bonus against anyone and not just the troops
they recoiled.
That is incorrect.
I was reviewing potential clarifications today and this stood out in my notes as
clearly not right. I remember now what I was thinking at that moment of
peculiar brain death, but it doesn't change that what I said was wrong.
I am sorry for any inconvenience this has caused anyone. It was part of a long
discussion with John Murphy about replacing in combat and not a ruling in-game
at an event, but it is possible that someone lost a bonus they should have
gotten somewhere in the mean time due to my incorrect answer. If so, I owe you
a beer.
I'll have a diet coke with you - it will help wash down this crow pie... :)

Jon, the quite human.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/7/2004 4:44:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jjendon@... writes:

> Actually it might cause one to get a bonus they were not otherwise entitled
> to .>>

I was thinking of the replacer who did all the work...lol

>
>
> Don (roller of up 3 against troop types he abhors - bring
> on those moogs
> Jon!)>>

It's my fault for not splitting fire like I should have - if I had, your luck
would not have mattered...lol

[Don Coon]

but it is possible that someone lost a bonus they should have gotten
somewhere in the mean time due to my incorrect answer. If so, I owe you a
beer.
> I'll have a diet coke with you - it will help wash down this crow pie...
:)

Actually it might cause one to get a bonus they were not otherwise entitled
to .

Don (eater of many pies myself)

oh and lets not forget

Don (roller of up 3 against troop types he abhors - bring on those moogs
Jon!)

[Greg Regets]

You are not the only person that has goofed up that ruling.

g :-)


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 5/7/2004 4:44:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jjendon@c... writes:
>
> > Actually it might cause one to get a bonus they were not
otherwise entitled
> > to .>>
>
> I was thinking of the replacer who did all the work...lol
>
> >
> >
> > Don (roller of up 3 against troop types he abhors - bring
> > on those moogs
> > Jon!)>>
>
> It's my fault for not splitting fire like I should have - if I had,
your luck would not have mattered...lol

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> I made a clarfication last week (here, not officially in the
document online) that troops following up got the bonus against
anyone and not just the troops they recoiled.
> That is incorrect.
> I am sorry for any inconvenience this has caused anyone. It was
part of a long discussion with John Murphy about replacing in combat

Thanks, Jon. Partly my fault for dragging that out to the unpteenth
detail.

To me it makes more sense this way anyway.

I picture it more as a +1 given to the enemy of the recoiling guy
being followed (because he has lost forward momentum and is moving
backwards crumbling but not quite collapsed) than a +1 for forward
momentum kind of thing (which would be same as a full charge) if that
distinction makes any sense. Comes from reading too many books about
hoplites. So I am happy to see this is the case.

Everyone can get something wrong sometime, lord knows I do. You at
least have the guts to admit it and correct it.

-jm