Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/19/2003 06:38:49 Central Daylight Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:
So, we are left with a situation where the rules allow X (the chariot
above clearly *has* moved as far as possible, that just happened to be 0
paces) but the rules author dislikes this. [Yes, 'clearly' in that
sentence is imnsho, but seems to be commonly shared] Frankly, I'd rather
play to the rules than to a dislike.
Believe what you like, Ewan, as you are wont to do - but the above is not an
accurate statement. The rules, as they stand today, are, as I have admitted a
jillion times, an imperfect expression of my intent. I have admitted, and
will again ad nauseum for those who seem to need it, that I did not get the
wording right in every case. I intend to fix this now with clarifications and
later with a second printing that also increases the player's rules value with
more and better examples, more competition types, more play aids, etc.

What I want the rules to say is the right answer, whether I got them right
the first time or no. There has never been a perfect rulebook, and I certainly
do not claim Warrior to be. What i do claim is that this company is the most
responsive to rules issues of any out there and that we only make the player
need two products to have a complete set of rules: the rule book and a FREE,
constantly improved clarifications in a SINGLE document.

The idea that I might be stuck with imperfect wording just because that was
the state of my rules writing skill in the fall of 2001 and that I cannot
clarify my own intent with the Warrior rules is both absurd and not entirely
unexpected in this case.

Again, my guidance to rules readers is the following:
without a clarification and without me present: go with the umpire.
without an umpire: go with a literal reading
without an agreement on a literal reading: go with a die roll

once possible, consult me in this forum and I will clarify, and I will do it
as fast as it gets done in this business.

Personally, I find it quite clear between rush orders and the spirit of the
sentence about moving so as not to put a friendly body in the way that the
intent is not to permit scythed chariot owners to prevent their forward movement
through completely unrealistic friendly 'blocking maneuvers'. I am sorry that
this is not clear to you, but it hardly surprises me...lol

It does not matter whether it is clear to me, however. If a group of players
find it unclear I can and will simply clarify the obviously less than optimal
wording in the original rulebook.

As I have always intended this effect, and personally find the rules to
reflect it, its isn't a change from the way Warrior was written. As the way it
is
written is taken verbatim from the 93 interp book, it isn't a change from TOG
either.


The suggested new insert is *utterly* silly. If an opposing flank march
comes on behind the lines, one would get to a situation where nothing in
the army could move other than the chariot, for fear of violating this -
and that's just one quick example.
Agreed. That line is a knee-jerk unplaytested clarification to get folks by
until I can get the right wording into the new clarification update. damn day
job - if it wasn't for that....


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

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 8/19/03 12:38:49 PM GMT Daylight Time, ewan.mcnay@...
writes:

> >>Is such a move (outlined above) legal ?
> >>
> >No, it is illegal. If the guy who did it says, "well since the Pike moved
> first".....hit him.
> >
> >I always prefer to use a rules argument before going to the much more
> >enjoyable physical violence
> >
> >Can you give me a pointer to the section of the rules which prevents
> >this move ?
>
> > From: "Greg Regets" <gar@...>
> >Subject: Re: More rules questions
> >
> >Why would expanding pikes in front of expendables be illegal? What if
> >the expendables never moved?
> >
> >I can appreciate not liking such a tactic (or expendables for that
> >matter), but here in Texas, where most players have handguns, it is
> >rather wise to avoid hitting random strangers. An actual rule might
> >prove more helpful. ~wink~
>
> >Well, the chariots have rush orders, they must move as fast as possible
> >towards the enemy. If the pikes are moved like that, the expendables did
> not move
> >as fast as possible...
> >
> >Besides, now that you have an answer from me, the take it literally until
> you
> >can get an answer now no longer applies, so i am NOT geting into a long
> >thread over the whys and wherefores. The ruling is out and there is no way
> I am
> >changing it no matter how long this thread grows...
> >
> >I have promised a clarification to keep everyone happy - Until then, add
> >"and other friendly bodies cannot be moved such that there is a friendly
> body
> >between it and the nearest enemy body."
>
> Well.
>
> Thanks, gents, for posting in a more restrained way than I would that
> claiming one's interpretation is correct, and being willing to back it up
> with violence, in the complete absence of any actual supporting rule,
> might not be sensible.
>
> The next step is little better, of course: the 'I talked to Phil (Jon) and
> he said..' has been shown to be hugely detrimental.
>
> So, we are left with a situation where the rules allow X (the chariot
> above clearly *has* moved as far as possible, that just happened to be 0
> paces) but the rules author dislikes this. [Yes, 'clearly' in that
> sentence is imnsho, but seems to be commonly shared] Frankly, I'd rather
> play to the rules than to a dislike.
>
> The suggested new insert is *utterly* silly. If an opposing flank march
> comes on behind the lines, one would get to a situation where nothing in
> the army could move other than the chariot, for fear of violating this -
> and that's just one quick example.
>
> Ewan
>

i sort of agree with jon.

how could the chariots be behind the pikes anyhow? without breaking some
rule.

the whole point is the expendable chariots go off first - they are meant to
disrupt the enemy line for the following troops - certainly not arriving at the
melee after close order infantry maybe at about the same time as lights or
some cavalry.

i have them in my seleucid army (which is my main army) but i agree with jon
in principle

mark mallard


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

[Ewan McNay]

> > Is such a move (outlined above) legal ?
> >
> No, it is illegal. If the guy who did it says, "well since the Pike moved
first".....hit him.
>
> I always prefer to use a rules argument before going to the much more
> enjoyable physical violence
>
> Can you give me a pointer to the section of the rules which prevents
> this move ?

> From: "Greg Regets" <gar@...>
> Subject: Re: More rules questions
>
> Why would expanding pikes in front of expendables be illegal? What if
> the expendables never moved?
>
> I can appreciate not liking such a tactic (or expendables for that
> matter), but here in Texas, where most players have handguns, it is
> rather wise to avoid hitting random strangers. An actual rule might
> prove more helpful. ~wink~

> Well, the chariots have rush orders, they must move as fast as possible
> towards the enemy. If the pikes are moved like that, the expendables did not
move
> as fast as possible...
>
> Besides, now that you have an answer from me, the take it literally until you
> can get an answer now no longer applies, so i am NOT geting into a long
> thread over the whys and wherefores. The ruling is out and there is no way I
am
> changing it no matter how long this thread grows...
>
> I have promised a clarification to keep everyone happy - Until then, add
> "and other friendly bodies cannot be moved such that there is a friendly body
> between it and the nearest enemy body."

Well.

Thanks, gents, for posting in a more restrained way than I would that
claiming one's interpretation is correct, and being willing to back it up
with violence, in the complete absence of any actual supporting rule,
might not be sensible.

The next step is little better, of course: the 'I talked to Phil (Jon) and
he said..' has been shown to be hugely detrimental.

So, we are left with a situation where the rules allow X (the chariot
above clearly *has* moved as far as possible, that just happened to be 0
paces) but the rules author dislikes this. [Yes, 'clearly' in that
sentence is imnsho, but seems to be commonly shared] Frankly, I'd rather
play to the rules than to a dislike.

The suggested new insert is *utterly* silly. If an opposing flank march
comes on behind the lines, one would get to a situation where nothing in
the army could move other than the chariot, for fear of violating this -
and that's just one quick example.

Ewan