Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

So, I understand the importance of accurate figure depiction, and the importance
of clearly describing figures where depiction is less than perfectly clear.
There is an area, however, that goes beyond issues of depiction, where I'd like
to get some guidance and where I'd like to see guidance documented in the next
printing of the rules.

Let me set this up:
Suppose I'm playing Medieval French, and I've very carefully matched every
figure to the troop type it represents. I can simply say "my army is as
depicted" without the need to offer further explanation. It'll be clear from
depiction who is SHK vs. HC, who is LTS vs. 2HCT, who is armed with CB, who has
shields and who does not, who is HI or LHI vs. MI or LMI. This is an army where
depiction and troop types match up nicely (though even here there's an
ambiguity; I'll get to that later).

Contrast this with the following cases:

(1) Medieval Spanish. There are not three separate weapons that Almughuvars
could be depicted with (LTS, JLS, HTW). There is only _one_ weapon, and its
effects are open to interpretation which can be simulated by various
combinations of three weapons. Can I say "my army is as depicted" or do I have
to clarify for my opponent what weapon combination my depiction of Almughuvars
represents?

(2) Late Romans. If I buy darts, are these considered as being depicted by
whatever pointy sticks the Romans are carrying, or must they be depicted
separately. Do they _need_ to be depicted, or are they considered somehow
concealed? There's a long tradition among players of assuming the latter, but
I'm not aware of anything in the rules that permits a player to conceal the
fact that his troops are armed with darts.

(3) 100 Year's War English. Similar to above. Must stakes carried by longbowmen
be depicted, and if not depicted must they be declared, or are they somehow
"concealed" until deployment?

(4) Medieval French. To return to the original example: if I buy an army
standard as a sacred standard, must it be declared as such?

In all of these the problem is that I don't know what the limits are of how much
you can know just from observing a figure, nor what exactly the rules require to
be observable/known.


-Mark Stone

[Chris Bump]

This has always been a peeve of mine. How is it that darts, a weapon that is
clearly concealed must be announced to an opponent, but pigs to be set fire to,
can somehow be better concealed and thus kept from one's opponent until
released? I have never received guidance on caltrops. Are they to be announced
like stakes or are they as easily concealed as a pack of squirming pigs?
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Stone
To: warrior
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 3:25 PM
Subject: [WarriorRules] depiction and proxying


So, I understand the importance of accurate figure depiction, and the
importance
of clearly describing figures where depiction is less than perfectly clear.
There is an area, however, that goes beyond issues of depiction, where I'd
like
to get some guidance and where I'd like to see guidance documented in the next
printing of the rules.

Let me set this up:
Suppose I'm playing Medieval French, and I've very carefully matched every
figure to the troop type it represents. I can simply say "my army is as
depicted" without the need to offer further explanation. It'll be clear from
depiction who is SHK vs. HC, who is LTS vs. 2HCT, who is armed with CB, who
has
shields and who does not, who is HI or LHI vs. MI or LMI. This is an army
where
depiction and troop types match up nicely (though even here there's an
ambiguity; I'll get to that later).

Contrast this with the following cases:

(1) Medieval Spanish. There are not three separate weapons that Almughuvars
could be depicted with (LTS, JLS, HTW). There is only _one_ weapon, and its
effects are open to interpretation which can be simulated by various
combinations of three weapons. Can I say "my army is as depicted" or do I have
to clarify for my opponent what weapon combination my depiction of Almughuvars
represents?

(2) Late Romans. If I buy darts, are these considered as being depicted by
whatever pointy sticks the Romans are carrying, or must they be depicted
separately. Do they _need_ to be depicted, or are they considered somehow
concealed? There's a long tradition among players of assuming the latter, but
I'm not aware of anything in the rules that permits a player to conceal the
fact that his troops are armed with darts.

(3) 100 Year's War English. Similar to above. Must stakes carried by
longbowmen
be depicted, and if not depicted must they be declared, or are they somehow
"concealed" until deployment?

(4) Medieval French. To return to the original example: if I buy an army
standard as a sacred standard, must it be declared as such?

In all of these the problem is that I don't know what the limits are of how
much
you can know just from observing a figure, nor what exactly the rules require
to
be observable/known.


-Mark Stone

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

[joncleaves]

So, I understand the importance of accurate figure depiction, and the importance
of clearly describing figures where depiction is less than perfectly clear.
There is an area, however, that goes beyond issues of depiction, where I'd like
to get some guidance and where I'd like to see guidance documented in the next
printing of the rules.>>

I am working on just such guidance and it will be in the next printing. Scott
and I are both philisophically aligned towards everything being declared, but
the bottom libe is we are hashing out better guidance and we intend to not have
this be something that players have to guess on or haggle over.

Jon

[scott holder]

I am working on just such guidance and it will be in the next printing. Scott
and I are both philisophically aligned towards everything being declared, but
the bottom libe is we are hashing out better guidance and we intend to not have
this be something that players have to guess on or haggle over.

>In the meantime, I'd suggest everybody state everything up front, caltrops,
stakes, darts, fire arrows, condoms, *everything*. At least in any tourney I
run, everything must be stated. Starting now will get y'all used to it when it
comes out in print. Obviously what you do at the local level is entirely your
business.

scott

[Bill Chriss]

> I am working on just such guidance and it will be in the next
> printing. Scott and I are both philisophically aligned towards
> everything being declared, but the bottom libe is we are hashing out
> better guidance and we intend to not have this be something that
> players have to guess on or haggle over.
>
> >In the meantime, I'd suggest everybody state everything up front,
> caltrops, stakes, darts, fire arrows, condoms, *everything*. At least
> in any tourney I run, everything must be stated. Starting now will get
> y'all used to it when it comes out in print. Obviously what you do at
> the local level is entirely your business.
>
> scott
>


For whatever it's worth, I disagree with this as to pigs, in that the
rules (Chapter 16-don't have the exact cite as I don't have my rules with
me) seem to explicitly state otherwise, and moreover, announcing them in
advance undermines the purpose for their use. Actually, I would make the
same argument for rocks. Avalanches won't ever work if they must be
declared to the opposing player before he ever gets within 40 paces of the
foot of the hill. Shall we also announce ambushes to avoid the opponent
being surprised? How about morale? Did we ever get a definitive ruling on
that being declared? I've had opponents split about 60-40 on that one. It
looks like at some point I may have to switch to playing armies with SHK
and Reg D missile armed MI or invent some Greek army with these troop
types :)


Greek

[joncleaves]

For whatever it's worth, I disagree with this as to pigs, in that the
rules (Chapter 16-don't have the exact cite as I don't have my rules with
me) seem to explicitly state otherwise, and moreover, announcing them in
advance undermines the purpose for their use. Actually, I would make the
same argument for rocks. Avalanches won't ever work if they must be
declared to the opposing player before he ever gets within 40 paces of the
foot of the hill. Shall we also announce ambushes to avoid the opponent
being surprised? How about morale? Did we ever get a definitive ruling on
that being declared? I've had opponents split about 60-40 on that one. It
looks like at some point I may have to switch to playing armies with SHK
and Reg D missile armed MI or invent some Greek army with these troop
types >>

1. I said philosophically Scott and I were in agreement. I said nothing about
having made any final decision about anything. There probably are things that
should remain secert and what I want to do is to conduct a complete and thorough
review of everything that 'could' be declared to determine what 'should'.

2. Scott's email that everything will be declared should have come to me first
and not the group. I don't think he thought through all the possibilities and
their effect on the game - I am sure upon reflection he will see that there
might be some exceptions.

What I am not going to do is make some blanket statement when I haven't even
looked at the whole problem yet.

I don't mind giving folks insights into what is going on at FHE with respect to
current thinking and projects on my desk - but I can't respond to every worry
that I might not have gotten something right when I haven't even looked at it in
detail.

The new rulebook is proving to be a monster task, and I have every intent of
getting it right this time. This will take a lot of time and require me to mess
with draft ideas. Please don't react to every theoretical discussion like it is
final. And ignore Scott rules pronouncements until you have checked with
me...lol

Jon

[scott holder]

2. Scott's email that everything will be declared should have come to me first
and not the group. I don't think he thought through all the possibilities and
their effect on the game - I am sure upon reflection he will see that there
might be some exceptions.

>There are, yes.

And ignore Scott rules pronouncements until you have checked with me...lol

>It wasn't so much of a rules pronouncement as it was some tourney guidelines.
I'm sure there are gonna be a couple of exceptions to this. I just wanted
people to understand that I've never been a big fan of "I'm not gonna tell you
if I have darts" type of thing. Philisophically, equipment is one thing,
strategems are another and things like rolling rocks and such might fall into
the latter category and that *could* drive whether or not what exceptions will
be granted.

scott

[Ed Forbes]

Scott,

Would this include pits, rocks, and other like items? The surprise value is
what makes these effective, as it should be.

Ed

-- "Holder, Scott" <Scott.Holder@...> wrote:

>In the meantime, I'd suggest everybody state everything up front, caltrops,
stakes, darts, fire arrows, condoms, *everything*. At least in any tourney I
run, everything must be stated. Starting now will get y'all used to it when it
comes out in print. Obviously what you do at the local level is entirely your
business.

scott



________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

[scott holder]

See other emails. Can't give you an all-inclusive answer at this point for fear
of Rules Ho retribution.

-----Original Message-----
From: eforbes100@... [mailto:eforbes100@...]
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 11:45 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] depiction and proxying



Scott,

Would this include pits, rocks, and other like items? The surprise value is
what makes these effective, as it should be.

Ed

-- "Holder, Scott" <Scott.Holder@...> wrote:

>In the meantime, I'd suggest everybody state everything up front, caltrops,
stakes, darts, fire arrows, condoms, *everything*. At least in any tourney I
run, everything must be stated. Starting now will get y'all used to it when it
comes out in print. Obviously what you do at the local level is entirely your
business.

scott



________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!




Yahoo! Groups Links

[Ed Forbes]

Ignore, it was answered if I had continued down the list.

Ed

-- "eforbes100@..." <eforbes100@...> wrote:




Scott,

Would this include pits, rocks, and other like items? The surprise value is
what makes these effective, as it should be.

Ed

-- "Holder, Scott" <Scott.Holder@...> wrote:

>In the meantime, I'd suggest everybody state everything up front, caltrops,
stakes, darts, fire arrows, condoms, *everything*. At least in any tourney I
run, everything must be stated. Starting now will get y'all used to it when it
comes out in print. Obviously what you do at the local level is entirely your
business.

scott



________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!




Yahoo! Groups Links






________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/4/2004 18:06:40 Central Daylight Time,
JonBecker@... writes:

FYI! The rules appear to state that incendiary pigs do not need to be
declared - 16.27 first paragraph. At least that is how it was played by my
opponent (and I tended to agree based on way rules written) when I
questioned it during the mini-open at historicon this year.



Yes, yes, yes. No decision has been made yet, although the idea of visible
equipment being declared and strategems not is my likely STARTING point. The
new printing will have a comprehensive rule on this. Just not today....lol

J


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

[John Murphy]

Including training and morale classes?

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Holder, Scott"
<Scott.Holder@f...> wrote:
> >In the meantime, I'd suggest everybody state everything up front,

[Mike Bard]

The convetion we have up here in the Great White North is the following:

You must describe what can be seen about the troops.

This includes their visible weapons (pretty well everything except dart
which would be two small to be seen), armour, troop density, and visible
standards (if any). Whether troops are regular or irregular is NOT
described, nor is their morale class (though people might recognize it if
there was, for example, a lambda on the shield...).

From this I would go with pigs and similar things being visible (they're
kind of hard), but not boulders on a hill (since they're there and part of
the landscape). You could go either way with stakes as they are smaller
than JLS, but larger than darts.

Just some thoughts for consideration by our noble and under-appreciated game
designers.

Michael Bard
That Greek Hoplite Guy

[Don Coon]

> 2. Scott's email that everything will be declared should have come to me
first and not the group. I don't think he thought through all the
possibilities and their effect on the game - I am sure upon reflection he
will see that there might be some exceptions.
>
> >There are, yes.

I was a bit surprised as to Scotts hasty statement that condoms be declared.
If my opponents knew prior to engagement that my unit had a condom, would
the cause of unease (condomless opponent within 1p and eager) be removed
prematurely? Also the effects of putting condoms on my troops as a
protective measure vs attack types should also be a surprise to my opponent
rather than know long before a close up visual examination could be made.

:)

Don

[Doug]

"visible" and "as depicted" are somewhat dependant on the eyesight of
the observer.