Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Chris Bump]

Jon,

As the Rules are currently written, it appears that troops who charge and do
not make contact,(ie evaders outdistance the charge) can still support shoot,
just as the rear rank of the evaders can. Is this accurate,and if so who
among the chargers can shoot. At what range will they shoot from? If for
example my Mongol HC front rank L, B and back rank B charge and miss could
both ranks shoot even though the front rank would have been fighting and
therefore ineligible to support shoot if contact had been made?

Am I misunderstanding or is the replacement wedge rule only applicable for
first contact. ie Huscarls get 1.5 ranks at first contact but not there
after? What about pursuit? What if my (used to wedge) troops don't break
the opponents at contact will they go disordered as the old wedge rule
required? Although there was an advantage to wedge there was a downside
aswell. Will this be eliminated? Not criticisizing, just curious.

Chris

[joncleaves]

<<As the Rules are currently written, it appears that troops who charge and do
not make contact,(ie evaders outdistance the charge) can still support shoot,
just as the rear rank of the evaders can. Is this accurate,>>

That is true of WRG 7th and is true of Warrior.

I get the impression from the questions you ask below that this seems like
something new to you. All my answers are exactly the same for both WRG 7th and
Warrior as we have not changed this rule at all. I am adding 'just like in 7th'
to each answer, not to insult your intelligence, but to make sure everyone
understands that the idea of chargers being able to support shoot in and out of
contact is not new and is not a 'Warrior rules change'.

<<and if so who among the chargers can shoot.>>

Rear rank with bow, just like in 7th.

<< At what range will they shoot from?>>

Wherever they are when support shooting happens, which is after charge moves and
charge responses, just like in 7th.

<< If for example my Mongol HC front rank L, B and back rank B charge and miss
could both ranks shoot>>

Nope, page 30 in 7th and 8.8 in Warrior say only rear rank.

<<even though the front rank would have been fighting and therefore ineligible
to support shoot if contact had been made?>>

Not relevant. Rear rank with bow whether in contact or out.


As for possible wedge list rules, this is something that has not been finally
written yet, but I will answer using the rule as last Scott and I discussed it.

<<Am I misunderstanding or is the replacement wedge rule only applicable for
first contact.>>

It is applicable all the time now. But we have not written it yet.

<< What if my (used to wedge) troops don't break
the opponents at contact will they go disordered as the old wedge rule
required?>>

We have talked about this, but have not gone final and will not until Scott gets
done with one or more of the lists in question.

<< Although there was an advantage to wedge there was a downside as well. Will
this be eliminated?>>

We are not looking at it as balancing advantages v. disadvantages. If that
mechanic does what we think is most accurate compared to our understanding of
history, we will keep it.

Jon

[Phil Gardocki]

Regarding the Chargers shooting at evaders question. We had this come up
but Ed (name not changed) insisted the evaders still receive the -2 for
being skirmishers. It seems that they do not revert to a block till after
the evade is complete and are skirmishers before that point. Is this
covered?

Philip Gardocki

(610) 495-7923 (answering machine)
(610) 495 8937
When the avalanche falls, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.
-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... <JonCleaves@...>
To: WarriorRules@egroups.com <WarriorRules@egroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Digest Number 18


><<As the Rules are currently written, it appears that troops who charge and
do not make contact,(ie evaders outdistance the charge) can still support
shoot,
>just as the rear rank of the evaders can. Is this accurate,>>
>
>That is true of WRG 7th and is true of Warrior.
>
>I get the impression from the questions you ask below that this seems like
something new to you. All my answers are exactly the same for both WRG 7th
and Warrior as we have not changed this rule at all. I am adding 'just like
in 7th' to each answer, not to insult your intelligence, but to make sure
everyone understands that the idea of chargers being able to support shoot
in and out of contact is not new and is not a 'Warrior rules change'.
>
><<and if so who among the chargers can shoot.>>
>
>Rear rank with bow, just like in 7th.
>
><< At what range will they shoot from?>>
>
>Wherever they are when support shooting happens, which is after charge
moves and charge responses, just like in 7th.
>
><< If for example my Mongol HC front rank L, B and back rank B charge and
miss could both ranks shoot>>
>
>Nope, page 30 in 7th and 8.8 in Warrior say only rear rank.
>
><<even though the front rank would have been fighting and therefore
ineligible to support shoot if contact had been made?>>
>
>Not relevant. Rear rank with bow whether in contact or out.
>
>
>As for possible wedge list rules, this is something that has not been
finally written yet, but I will answer using the rule as last Scott and I
discussed it.
>
><<Am I misunderstanding or is the replacement wedge rule only applicable
for first contact.>>
>
>It is applicable all the time now. But we have not written it yet.
>
><< What if my (used to wedge) troops don't break
>the opponents at contact will they go disordered as the old wedge rule
required?>>
>
>We have talked about this, but have not gone final and will not until Scott
gets done with one or more of the lists in question.
>
><< Although there was an advantage to wedge there was a downside as well.
Will this be eliminated?>>
>
>We are not looking at it as balancing advantages v. disadvantages. If that
mechanic does what we think is most accurate compared to our understanding
of history, we will keep it.
>
>Jon
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
>1. Fill in the brief application
>2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
>3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR
>http://click.egroups.com/1/5197/2/_/_/_/962219448/
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>

Attachment: vcard [not shown]

JonCleaves@... wrote:

> Our philosophy is to add a few rules pages to spell common relationships like
this one out in the places it comes up AND in a single location where an
American reader would expect to find it.

The only thing I find alarming about the attitudes on e-lists toward the writing
style of 7th Edition is that it is somehow characteristic of an “English” prose
style.
I think ALL readers would expect a set of rules to follow the philosophy
described above.
7th was written in a language best called “Barkerese”, which is a unique
blend of the pompous sonorities characteristic of middle level bureaucratic
operatives of 1970s Britain, and a letter-writing style of their worst enemies,
who are normally covered by the popular rubric “Disgusted, Tunbridge Wells”.

Disgusted,
South Dulwich
(a/k/a Paul Szuscikiewicz)

[joncleaves]

<< Regarding the Chargers shooting at evaders question. We had this come up but
Ed (name not changed) insisted the evaders still receive the -2 for
being skirmishers.>>

Skirmishers can only remain so if they wheel or move straight back in a counter.
Thus, an evade, which is not one of those two things, reverts them to block.
(p. 18 7.6, 6.45 in Warrior) Since support shooting takes place after evades,
evading skirmishers are never in skirmish in the support shooting phase and
would therefore NOT receive the -2 for skirmishers being shot.
This does lead to an excellent point. In order to know the answer to this
question, you have to know the rule on page 18 and know the sequence of play.
Our philosophy is to add a few rules pages to spell common relationships like
this one out in the places it comes up AND in a single location where an
American reader would expect to find it.
It shall be so with this rule.

Jon

[joncleaves]

Paul
The one good thing about Barkerese was its intent to get the rules into as
few pages as possible. He did accomplish that.
We have freed ourselves from the restriction of having to absolutely minimize
word use, with the help and understanding of our players, and thus have the
luxury of expanding his clauses and repeating rules where necessary.
Jon