Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Detachment moves, I've never played one, but could the detachment start the
deployment behind its parent and thus march to "catch up" or maybe even deploy
where it can march around the parent for 1 segment? I.E. start on left and move
to right? Mark


WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com wrote:

There are 3 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. Re: Re: Elephant and detachment Questions
From: "Philip H. Gardocki"

2. Re: Re: Terrain in Warrior Events
From: "Philip H. Gardocki"

3. Re: pigs, roast
From: "Philip H. Gardocki"



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 05:27:47 -0500
From: "Philip H. Gardocki"

Subject: Re: Re: Elephant and detachment Questions

My way of dealing with this is to start the LI detachmen in a column behind
and off to the side of the parent.
I have been able to keep the LI marching all 4 phases even when the parent
is close order foot.
In the end they are both stopped by enemy troops and are lined up 240 away,
so the results are ok.

However, this is one rule I think could be changed, that a detachment can
opt to march its first bound when the parent first marches.


-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, March 25, 2005 12:25 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Elephant and detachment Questions


>
>
>In a message dated 3/24/2005 23:16:01 Central Standard Time,
>johnball1947@... writes:
>
>To continue this a little further. The LI detachment and the ELP
>parent unit are deployrd separately. When they begin to march the LI
>will march on 4s, the ELP will march on 3s. On march segment 4 the
>LI marchs so that it is more than 120pacesfrom its parent unit! Is
>this legal given that the owner has every intention of catching up
>to the LI with the ELP,s in future march Segments?>>
>
>No. You can't voluntarily make such a move, no matter how legal it would
be
>if the LI weren't a detachment and no matter what 'might' happen in the
>future.
>
>jon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 05:34:58 -0500
From: "Philip H. Gardocki"

Subject: Re: Re: Terrain in Warrior Events

Rob,
Firing away....
But seriously. No one doubts that pretty terrain enhances the view of
the game. And given my druthers, I love forest scapes and real hils and
actually own a few and occasionally play with them.
But for me, it is a playability issue. I cant play woods troops in the
forest scapes without moving them, and my figures are falling off the slopes
of the hills. As such, I use my pretty terrain only when I am sure I won't
be playing on them. Or I place the forest scape in my opponents deployment
area, where he would comfortably want to place his tablet or elbows:}

I do carry ruberized terrain, the water, edges, and roads look good, and
do are not a transport issue.

Phil



-----Original Message-----
From: Serennissimo
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, March 24, 2005 8:16 PM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Terrain in Warrior Events


>
>
>Jon and all:
>
>Hiya!!
>
>I have lurked here for awhile but feel like piping up on this
>issue. First off I primarily play WAB and am working on a 25mm
>Hauteville Norman army for Warrior. Perry Miniatures!!! Second,
>nothing is more embarrasing than seeing beautiful figures fighting
>on a tabletop that looks like a second grader's "felto-riffic" arts
>and crafts project.
>
>So, the point about WAB visual appeal is well taken. As for
>terrain, most WAB tournaments are of the pre-set terrain variety.
>The organizer places what s/he thinks is visually passable and a
>fair set-up on each mat. Players are asked to bring what they have
>and eventually asked to bring their terrain that is used most often
>(i.e. prettiest..).
>
>Bottom line, nice terrain and no squabbling over where to place it.
>(Saves time too!!) No reason this should not work well in Warrior
>and no reason why the tournament organizer can't override 14.x re
>terrain set-up. The problem of terrian based upon mathematical
>geometic patterns loosly resemling certain element sizes would also
>be eliminated.
>
>As for getting appealing terrain on the board, perhaps points for
>visual appeal (e.g. contributing good looking terrain to the
>tourney) could be added to a player's tournament score? If making
>the game look better is a FHE/Warrior goal then a couple of extra
>points for supplying good terrain should be emphasized. WAB events
>(along with GW events, but we won't go there..) often give extra
>points for appearance, I think it is a good thing.
>
>So, sorry to be WAB heavy on my post, but I think some of the things
>the/us Wabbits do are useful here. Second, I did not read all
>responses, so sorry if I double up on another post. Finally, players
>need to take pride in their hobby. Providing an incentive re extrta
>points at tourney for appearance/presentation is one way to
>effectuate that.
>
>Fire away...
>
>Rob
>
>--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Charles Randow
>wrote:
>> Jon,
>>
>> Is flocked felt OK? Or is the problem with a base that is
>flexible? I
>> just made up one of these by using a spray adhesive (used in
>automotive
>> trim applications) and applying the flocking to it. It no longer
>looks
>> like felt, so that should be a good thing.
>>
>> Actually, about 2 weeks ago I began to feel some guilt about my
>terrain
>> and am now in the process of painting of a dozen new trees to go
>on
>> mini-stands in groups of 2 or 3. I also will be making some new
>hills
>> that look more like hills and less like topographical maps.
>>
>> -- Charles
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 05:39:28 -0500
From: "Philip H. Gardocki"

Subject: Re: pigs, roast

I am glad my missive was
A) Humorous
B) Had a short answer
C) Did not have a the words turn 90 degrees in it.

But I really want to have flaming elephants.

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, March 24, 2005 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] pigs, roast


>
>
>
><>The unit may have shook during a previous round, or in a loose order
>response to mounted charge, but I do not think it matters.
>do the pigs/camels hit shaken and disordered?>>
>
>No.
>
>Never pass up the opportunity to thank Scott for rule 16! lol
>
>J
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________



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




------------------------------------------------------------------------






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