Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

OK.....So after I read what I wrote I realized I was not very clear.
What I meant to say is that we should eliminate a special roll just
for flank marches and simply say that if you get a 5 or 6 on your
initiative roll your flank march arrives on that same turn. Since
both players have to roll for initiative each and every turn it would
not be obvious (at least from the die rolling) that there was an
impending flank march. If a 5 or 6 is rolled then the player simply
announces where the flank march is arriving or states that he does
not have a flank march. I usually refrain from the rules bantor
becuase I usually do not see all of the nuances and impacts which you
all catch. So if this some how throws off play balance or something
then PLEASE blow it out of the water.

Keegan

[joncleaves]

What if I told you that I could think of a dozen reasons why I personally
WANT to keep flank march rolls the way they are? What if I told you that one
of them is that I have no evidence it's possible to completely conceal the
movement of enemy troops 200-300 yards from a battle line in the ancient and
medieval world? What if I told you that I consider the fact of not knowing
what bound a flank march will arrive to be EXACTLY the amount of so-called
'fog-of-war' we want associated with flank marches? What if I told you that
I loved the rule just the way it is now? What if I told you that three to
seven people keep talking about changing the rule on the group and twenty beg
me to keep it as is off-line? What if I told you we had evidence that small
handfulls of soldiers could quite often be found ranging about far in advance
of and to the left and right of a main battle line to give some warning of
enemy approach throughout the ancient/medieval period?

What if I told you that we weren't planning on changing the flank march roll
in the basic rules, not because we are deaf, stupid, ignorant of history or
spiteful but because we do not agree with any of the reasons for changing it
that we have seen?

If I told you all those things and ten more would you be satisfied with an
x-rule that allowed for rolling two flank march dice each every turn by each
player? Or will someone continue to raise this issue no matter what we say?

Can't you just accept that we disagree? That we have a perfectly valid view
on the amount of information an ancient general typcially had that close to
the main field of battle? That we have considered the impact of false flank
march rolls on new players, cross-group play and the dynamics of tournament
play as well? That we hear and understand what you say, but just don't agree
with your conclusions?

Since you can play with false flank march rolls in your basement or any
tournament you run to your heart's content, why must it be in the basic
rulebook? This is the least understandable part of this whole deal. No one
at FHE is preventing anyone from playing this way if they like. Quite ironic
to me.

Can we just please let it go?
Jon

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Jon,
      I ditto what Chris said (but I know how STUBBORN you are about changes, so I won't hold my breath).           

                                                      Kelly Wilkinson

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Jon,

I think no is the answer here. Yes, you have seven people who continue to batter their heads against the wall of your will to make no further changes. Further, I can't imagine who these numerous people are that are begging for you to keep this rule as it is. Tom Keegan has come up with a simple fix that allows for fog of war and simplifies things. This is a discussion board and Tom has asked for the members to try to shoot holes in his idea. Maybe these numerous people (if they exist) who have "begged" to have this rule remain the same could explain why Tom's idea is not acceptable. Why have a discussion group if you arrogantly dismiss any further discussion because you and your cronies discussed this in the past? The people on this board most are likely going to be investing in your final product. So why not allow discussion on this discussion board? Further, if you don't have time to reply because this is taking time away from your rules, I suggest you refer to Chris Bump's suggestion that you prioritize your time. We all make time for the things we are interested in doing. What's a little discussion going to hurt? I'm sure you have an answer to this but the one I'm responding to is NOT acceptable!
               See you this weekend at the Fast Warrior Tournment,

                                                Kelly Wilkinson


       
      

                                                   

[Chris Bump]

Jon,

This rule proposed would not be a false flank march roll. ON the contrary
this would be exactly the same conditions as exist now. The only difference
would be the elimination of announcing that someone is coming UNTIL they
actually do show up 300 meters to the army's flank. I agree with your belief
on this, although I would challenge the 30K flyover that you would know as
soon as they got close. Napoleon at Waterloo had to send multiple messangers
to Jacquinot to in turn go out and investigate the dark troops approaching
from the NE and then wait for the response some 2 hours later that they were
in fact not whom he wanted to see. He had the benefit of sophisticated
telescopes and a 12 foot tower erected for him to spy from.

As you pointed out some months ago, the average Ancient or Mideival commander
was either knee deep in the action and so could do nothing than watch unfold
the battle plan created the night before, or was close enough to the action
that troops impeded his vision of his flanks. I do not know where you get
the source of information that units all had runners who rapidly ran down the
line spreading information about what was going on in their particular part
of the world and this informantion was rapidly and relatively accurately
disseminated to the right people to action upon. IN most situations our CiC
is out of visual range of the end of the table anyhow. Shouldn't there be
some time space relationship there? If what you truly say is accurate that
the die roll announces the arrival of troops within 300 meters of the end of
the table, how is it possible that those same troops who have been seep
approaching since bound two with the announced die rolls can not see the on
table troops and somehow get lost, as represented by the flank marches that
never arrive? The rules as they exist can only exist for simplicitys sake,
not your opinion on historical accuracy. I accept this and do not ask for
change. However, when someone presents an idea I feel pretty confident not
only is fresh, but is a brillant compromise and involves minimum, almost no
change I am a bit put back by the response.

As Scott so aptly pointed out the Union officers and men at Chancelorsville
didn't know WTF was going on in front of them as they sensed Jackson's
movement and did and said NOTHING. This was in an era of a single common
language, elegant command and staff setups and the written word, not to
mention an entire arm of the army dedicated to communication. None of which
existed to any degree in most of the armies we represent on the table. Most
of the troops represented on the table ( statistically speaking after going
through all the armies currently published) were irregular and so presumably
gathered from the local village for the campaign season. They did not know
the tactiacl situation, they did not even know who was on their side ally
wise. If you stand in front of me with weapon I will fight you and when the
day is over.....We apply way too much of what we know today to our miniature
warriors. Chariots in any kind of formation could not do an about face nor
could they do a facing movement in place. Cars can't even do that and
history does not support it. Historically they should only be allowed to
wheel. They are your rules and we will play them as written, but your what
if's are in large part specious. The letter was submitted for your
consideration. Obviously you have given it deep open minded thought, and
considered for the better. So we will continue to play as is.

Chris

[Don Coon]

> What if I told you that I could think of a dozen reasons why I personally
> WANT to keep flank march rolls the way they are?

I would say its your game so keep it the way it is. However I will cation
you that this is a forum that players (at least us) use to air our opinions.
You ARE going to get them. They may NOT agree with you. If you do not
change the rule, we WILL still play and we will be happy doing so. We may
discuss the rule on this forum long after you have made a concrete
statement. We may even continue to ask you to consider our opinions. If
you do not want this type of stuff on this list, you (I assume it is your
list) must set up some content rules and disallow posts of a certain type.
I am on other lists with posting rules such as this and when a member strays
into forbidden teritory he is warned, and if repeat offenses occur, removed.
I do not think that is what you want to do, so I suggest you sit back and
let us vent. Testudo, wrap, flank marches, point values etc will NEVER go
away as pet peeves of some people. These people may bring them up from time
to time. We are not ATTACKING your game. We are discussion our opinions
with the only other people on the planet that we can discuss it with. I
hate Testudo. You like it the way it is. Cool, I play the rules as
written. It will never make me like testudo as written.

> Since you can play with false flank march rolls in your basement or any
> tournament you run to your heart's content, why must it be in the basic
> rulebook? This is the least understandable part of this whole deal. No
one
> at FHE is preventing anyone from playing this way if they like. Quite
ironic
> to me.

Actually this is a poor statement. We want to play the same game as
everyone else. If flase rolls are not allowed in your rule set, we will not
play with them. NO one I see out here is attacking your game or threatening
to not play it if you do not rule in their favor. It seems you take posts
of contrary opinion a little personal. Your 20 private emails are not
available to us. These people choose not to publicly post. Thats fine, but
we only know what we see. The vocal guys from this area, I know very well.
We are all happy to play the game. We all love to play the game. We all
love to discuss the game as its rules. We all disagree with a rule now and
then. We WILL not just ignore the rule becasue we do not like it. If we
do, we will have little pockets of differnet games going on around the
country. IF we did decide to alter a rule (i.e false rolls) wouldnt this
forum be the place to discuss it? Find out what others thought of the idea?
Jon, if we are misusing this forum, we need to stop posting rule
opinions/discussions and stick to playtest comments. We need another list
though. If this list is for discussing Warrior in all its glory (and not
just playtest comments), you need to lighten up. That is the least
understandable part of this whole deal to me.

Sorry for sounding heavy handed. I may be out of line here. It is not my
list. I am only a guest here. If I have crossed over the line, I accept
your wrath.

Don

--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> What if I told you that I could think of a dozen reasons why I
personally
> WANT to keep flank march rolls the way they are? What if I told you
that one
> of them is that I have no evidence it's possible to completely
conceal the
> movement of enemy troops 200-300 yards from a battle line in the
ancient and
> medieval world? What if I told you that I consider the fact of not
knowing
> what bound a flank march will arrive to be EXACTLY the amount of
so-called
> 'fog-of-war' we want associated with flank marches? What if I told
you that
> I loved the rule just the way it is now? What if I told you that

What if he told you that what you thought wasn't the sole criterion
for a suggestion's merit?
Being new to this group, something tells me that with this tone and
attitude I'm not gonna be here very long...
I would like to actually ask a rules question, but I'm a

[Chris Bump]

All,

Let me be the second, although the comment has been made adnauseum, to pile
accolades before the feet of Jon and the other FHM. What they do is benefits
all of us and none is more excited about the promise of a finished product
than I. I must admit I have given Jon and Scott a position rather higher
than probably deserved, and by that I mean almost a patriarchal position over
this whole process. As such, the naturarl supposition has been one of
complete control and vision over this whole process. Keegan is quite correct
in pointing out their frailities and privilege to vent and complain just as
the rest of us do. I lost sight of that and am sorry. I apologize for any
heart-ache caused by my comments or those that may have resulted thereafter.
We anxiously await WARRIOR, and wish only Godspeed in your efforts.

Chris

[joncleaves]

Thanks, man. Frail I am. And Scott is frailer! :)

Jon

All,

I have great respect for what Jon is doing. His is a difficult task
and truly a labor of love. I would be happy if not a "single dot or
tiddle" were to change in the rules as they existed at around 7.6.
They are the best damned set of ancient warfare rules out there. In
my travels around the globe over the last 15 years since Jon and Jake
first introduced me to WRG 7th I have tried every set out there and
not a single set of rules even holds a candle to Warrior.

It is easy to vent on email. Especially when we can't judge the tone
of the conversation or when days intervene between parts of
discussion. I vented what I thought was a good idea. "Mea Culpa" if
it torqued anyone off. But by the same token lets not over-react to
Jon's venting. He is authorized and indeed shares the same
privledges (if not more) than we do.

See you all on the battlefield!!!

Keegan

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Would you please finish your posting?

--- In WarriorRules@y..., kwilki3078@a... wrote:
> Would you please finish your posting?

I'm done.

Keegan

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I'm refering to to Quahog guy. Not you Tom.

<SNIP>

>WANT to keep flank march rolls the way they are? What if I told you that one
>of them is that I have no evidence it's possible to completely conceal the
>movement of enemy troops 200-300 yards from a battle line in the ancient and
>medieval world?

<SNIP>

You can find terrain that will restrict visibility this much.
However, maneuvering troops and fighting a battle both require fairly
open terrain. And unless you happen to be engaged in Southeast Asia,
the chances of maneuvering undetected is very slim.

Also consider this. If the terrain is so dense that your opponent
will not be able to see the flank march, then your flank march will
not be able to see your opponent. Your flank march may then be more
likely not to appear.

Let us also not fall into the trap of having a commander orbiting at
5,000 feet above the battlefield, directing his troops by radio.

The fog-of-war is best handled by a third-party, and often that would
be a computer. In the interest of having rules that are easy to use,
make some sense, and are fair to both players, let us not make it
more complicated. If it really isn't broke, and it isn't, then why
change it?

Here is an argument, if you have to roll for a flank march, your
opponent is then constrained to in the freedom of his maneuver. He
will have to change his orders, re-arrange a portion of his troops to
face the perceived threat, or take the risk that he can defeat the
troops to his front before the flank march arrives.

In the context of the period of these rules, the current procedure
fits. It may not be perfect, but what is? It works, it has enough for
both sides to make it fair.

Scott Turner