Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Pat,

Sorry if I'm getting in on this late,ie maybe someone else has already said
this.
BUT, if the unit in question rolled down then it could only end up 3 inches
away no matter what, your unit goes normal, you hit him, end of story. As you
explained it and IMHO.
Hope to see you guys soon,
David


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

[Patrick Byrne]

If your FAQ can have a visual, I would like to see step by step how a charge
against an evader is handled when the charger is 1x2 unit in column and
declares an angled flank charge (not parallel or perpendicular) on an
evading unit that is in a 1x5 column in which the evading unit chooses to
evade away from the charger.

Points of Interest:
1. How does the evading unit move away from the charger?
2. Does the evade occur before or after the charge path is declared?
3. Does it matter if the charge is declared from 40p or 200p away from the
evading unit?
4. If the charger is foot and goes 120p and the evader is foot and goes 80p,
does the charger catch the evader? (assuming a starting distance of either
40p or 45p.)
-PB


> From: "Kurtus A. Brown" <sheol@...>
> Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:21:25 -0400
> To: "Warrior ML" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [WarriorRules] FAQ update coming soon!!!
>
> Just wanted to alert everyone that I am working on a new batch of Q&A for
> inclusion in ver 1.01 of the Official Warrior FAQ. I will be forwarding the
> new version to Jon before the end of the week, so if anyone has any
> questions for the FAQ send them to the list soon (if ya wants to see them in
> the FAQ anyway).
>
> --Kurt
>
>
>

[joncleaves]

Pat, et al

I have already agreed to do a clarification on such charge-evade combinations.
I will get to it. I told Chris at Historicon that the basics will be that the
evader can't use the geometry of columns to get further away than intial
distance plus total variable move allowed for - just have to put that in the
right kind of words.

I will say that I did not see this situation come up once all Con, so this is
still not the top thing on my Warrior pile...

Jon

[Patrick Byrne]

> From: JonCleaves@...
> Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:16:39 -0400
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] FAQ Question(s)
>
> Pat, et al
>
> I have already agreed to do a clarification on such charge-evade combinations.
> I will get to it. I told Chris at Historicon that the basics will be that the
> evader can't use the geometry of columns to get further away than intial
> distance plus total variable move allowed for - just have to put that in the
> right kind of words.
>
> I will say that I did not see this situation come up once all Con, so this is
> still not the top thing on my Warrior pile...
>
> Jon
>


IMHO, this situation only came up because it looked like a way out a bad
situation. I have a feeling that if the rules allow the evading unit to
consistently get away, you would see its use more often.

For those who ask what happened, here is a synopsis: My LMI unit had worked
the previous 4 bounds to get on the flank of an LMI unit which was armed
with B, in 2x2 formation and skirmishing (I also had units coming up its
front). Upon my arrival, the target contracted into column formation. As I
went second, I pressed on and ended my move 40paces away, at an angle to the
column, roughly aimed at its 3 rank. He evaded away from the charge and 'in
essence' went 160p after rolling down and should have only gone 80p. I went
120p and did not hit him. Obviously, I think this is wrong and not
intended, hence my questioning.


I believe the target unit went into column precisely because it thought it
could evade away from the flank charge. Hence, the reason why I feel it
would be implemented more often if it was known that the evader could
escape.

I would gather that most people have a preset image of what units can and
can not do, for I know that is how I operate. However, some people that
will attempt all things that the rules allow units to do (this is a trait to
be admired). The above situation was one of them. It is this quality that
makes those types extremely challenging to play against, no matter what
game. Furthermore, had I been in his shoes, I would not have contracted
into column I would have attempted a counter or just congratulated my
opponent for good maneuvering. However, in contracting in lieu of
countering, the unit was still able to provide much needed firepower at the
unit to the front and still be able to get away.


My overall thoughts here are that if foot can get to 40p from a 4 rank or
more deep unit in column, it ought to hit that column unless the target is
evading LC.


I can understand that this is not a high priority and will come out in the
next clarification. However, I do not think that it would be a bad idea to
have it graphically represented in a FAQ, as it may also help newcomers to
understand regular evades (something that might be more necessary for
Fantasy Warrior). Or maybe this is something I am seeing as complicated
that is in fact not complicated at all, and thusly doesn't meet FAQ
standards.
-PB

[Mark Mallard]

Maybe the rules could use the following statement or something a bit better
worded.

"An evade move increases existing separation distance between charger and
evader by no more than a variable move distance".

mark mallard


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

[Mark Mallard]

yes i agree, thats the way we play it.

mark mallard


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