Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

" How do the rules allow/prevent:"

1) keep the small number (say 2) of elements as a partial rear rank
of the parent unit. Can they go Impetuous and burst thru the parent
to attack? What is the effect on the parent of being burst thru?"

Given I have to assume that the parent and detachment are joined and you
meant something else besides burst through, no. There's no effect as this is
illegal.
The main thing that is wrong here is that a combined unit is a single unit.
Elements of a unit don't charge through each other.

<<2) insert the small number of elements as a portion of the front
rank. However, when they attack, the parent unit would be left in an
illegal formation- a two element hole in the front rank. How do you
resolve that?>>

The charge phase is NOT a phase in which you can separate a detachment.

<<3) Can a still-attached Detachment form its own front rank, with the
Parent wider but in contact:
...DD...
PPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPP>>

No. Units, combined or otherwise, have to be in legal formations.

Doug, the reason I did not answer these originally is:

1. I have asked EVERYONE, not just you, to place rules questions in mails
where there isn't anything else in the mail and the subject includes the
words rules question. You are not the only one blowing this off, so while I
continue to ask this and get everyone on the same sheet, I do scan mails for
questions.
2. But when I scanned the mail this stuff was in, it began with the sentence


"There seem to be three ways to model this behavior in Warrior."

Which caused me to stop reading as I assumed what followed was a discussion
of modeling a specific historical act in Warrior, which I am interested in,
but was pretty darned busy at the time and let Scott handle it.

So, I go back to my original request, which I make of EVERYONE, that rules
questions you want answered in an official and timely manner, should have
only rules questions in the body of the mail (as detailed as possible, as I
often have to assume what kind of body 'a unit' is, and what one means if one
uses inspecific language, etc.) and should have rules question in the subject
line.

And, asking you to restate and separate the rules questions from a mail with
other things in it may annoy you, but it isn't snide and was not meant to be.

I am hereby ignoring the other things you said in good faith and answered
anything I could find that remotely smelled like a rules question.
Your turn.

Jon







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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 10/27/2002 18:59:11 Central Standard Time,
rockd@... writes:

> Completely separating the What &Why from the How loses the context.
> Would it work for you if the email was clearly divided into sections, like
> GENERAL CONCEPTS ON xxxx
> AND
> SPECIFIC RULES QUESTIONS relating to the above
>

Sure.


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

[Doug]

>And, asking you to restate and separate the rules questions from a mail with
>other things in it may annoy you, but it isn't snide and was not meant to be.
>
>I am hereby ignoring the other things you said in good faith and answered
>anything I could find that remotely smelled like a rules question.
>Your turn.
>
>Jon

OK, if you didn't read the whole thing it wasn't intentional. But my
knowledge of the rules isn't up to the point of being able to ask a
straight "parse this appararent contradiction between rule A and rule
B" type rules question. And its no fun asking that type of question.

I'm thinking of what effect I want, and then wondering if the way of
achieving it which comes to my mind is, in fact, legal. Equally, I'm
interested in the basic pros & cons of doing it one way vs another
way. I don't know if I am able to think of all the ways of doing
something; maybe the way I though of is in fact complicated and
everyone does it another way.

Completely separating the What & Why from the How loses the context.
Would it work for you if the email was clearly divided into sections, like
GENERAL CONCEPTS ON xxxx
AND
SPECIFIC RULES QUESTIONS relating to the above
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

I live in Maryland. We top the list for heroin addiction, syphilis,
violent crime, and political corruption. So if you visit, expect to
be drugged, raped, robbed, and then taxed for the experience.[Attrib
to Bulldozer]