Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Don Coon]

We finally got to get in another game. We are not so much playtesting
anymore, as just plain playing. The rules are nearly smoothed out, and
we run into few bumps (except Chris - heh heh). We had a discussion
about KNOWN enemy though. If an enemy body is known to any of your
friendly bodies is it known to all of them? The question arose when an
enemy behind a rise relative to body A was visible from the side by body
B. Body A wanted to charge over the rise into the enemy and contended
the enemy body was known due to body B. It would make the game easier
if known enemy were known to the whole army, but the rules do not seem
to support this. What is the intent here? We played as "known to one
body = known to all bodies".

Don

[Ed Kollmer]

kollmer wrote:

I am no authority on the subject, so anybody please jump in to add anything,
but the same question came up in Matt's and my game. I found the definition
of KNOWN section 1.261 page 4.It says body of troops. It didn't really say
army. We read it as the individual body not the army. At least that's the
way MATT read it and he convinced me, when his axemen jumped out of the wood
s and hit my legionaires
----- Original Message -----
From: Donald Coon <jendon@...>
To: <WarriorRules@egroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 6:21 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Known enemy


> We finally got to get in another game. We are not so much playtesting
> anymore, as just plain playing. The rules are nearly smoothed out, and
> we run into few bumps (except Chris - heh heh). We had a discussion
> about KNOWN enemy though. If an enemy body is known to any of your
> friendly bodies is it known to all of them? The question arose when an
> enemy behind a rise relative to body A was visible from the side by body
> B. Body A wanted to charge over the rise into the enemy and contended
> the enemy body was known due to body B. It would make the game easier
> if known enemy were known to the whole army, but the rules do not seem
> to support this. What is the intent here? We played as "known to one
> body = known to all bodies".
>
> Don
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Why pay for something you could get for free?
NetZero provides FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html

kollmer wrote:

I tried to reply to this already, but I don't see it listed so may it
will appear twice. Anyway, the same question came up in Matt''s and
my game. We found section 1.261 KNOWN definition page 4. It kept
referring to enemy body not bodies or army so we read it as the
individual body . Plus TROOPS definition seemed to say the same as
one body.

Anybody, please jump in I am no authority on this either.


--- In WarriorRules@egroups.com, Donald Coon <jendon@f...> wrote:
> We finally got to get in another game. We are not so much
playtesting
> anymore, as just plain playing. The rules are nearly smoothed out,
and
> we run into few bumps (except Chris - heh heh). We had a discussion
> about KNOWN enemy though. If an enemy body is known to any of your
> friendly bodies is it known to all of them? The question arose
when an
> enemy behind a rise relative to body A was visible from the side by
body
> B. Body A wanted to charge over the rise into the enemy and
contended
> the enemy body was known due to body B. It would make the game
easier
> if known enemy were known to the whole army, but the rules do not
seem
> to support this. What is the intent here? We played as "known to
one
> body = known to all bodies".
>
> Don

[joncleaves]

1.261 is literal, meaning those three cases that make a body known. The whole
army does not know about an enemy body just because one friendly body does.

[Don Coon]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> 1.261 is literal, meaning those three cases that make a body known. The whole
army does not know about an enemy body just because one friendly body does.

Your answere is clear. We paytested again yesterday and are still
wrestling with this though. Take the following examples.

It is the march phase. I have a body marching through woods (making
die rolls to deviate). My opponent has a body just beyond the woods. I
can march until I only have 40p of woods between us since until then I
can not see him. This allows a violation of the 240p proximity rule for
marches correct?

I want to approach. Between me and the nearest enemy is one of my own
bodies. Since I can not see the enemy body (per 12.42) it is not known
(per 1.261) and I can not approach. This makes it very difficult to
move forward in waves. See your diagram on page 5. Even if the
separation of body a-b and b-c is 80 p each, body a can not approach
becasue there is no known enemy within 480p. They can not counter.
Does this mean they can only retire or march? If so it is a radical
change to the way we all are playing here. Also if I am behind a
friendly body that is in HTH with an enemy how can that enemy body not
be known? I propose another line for 1.261 "Any part of a friendly body
in HTH with the enemy body is visible." I find it difficult to believe
that if Body A was behind body B who was in HTH with body C, they would
not KNOW something enemy like was in front of body B.

These restrictions I have given above make retirement and march moves
almost mandatory quite often. Since these are prompt requiring events (
I know marches can continue from last bound, but 6.15 is written such
that retirements must always be prompted (unless under RETREAT)), I will
find myself immobile much of the time. Also since formation changes are
not allowed in marches and I am restricted to 1 wheel, I will mostly
need to retire.

How is it that in 6.52 I am allowed to charge through a friendly body
(if allowed per 6.163) at an UNKNOWN enemy (I must know something is
there), but that very body I am allowed to charge, does not allow me to
make an approach move? It says in 6.163 "Bodies interpenetrating
another body while charging need not be able to see the target to do
this" I am cool with this rule. However does it not stand to reason
that the charging body KNEW the enemy was there, and was not just
charging into the UNKOWN hoping for enemy contact? These statements are
intended to reinforce my desire to add "Any part of a friendly body in
HTH with the enemy body is visible." to 1.261.

Under retirements it says a body may not get closer to any enenmy that
is within 240p. Shouldnt this be KNOWN enemy?

As you can see, we have found the LOS/KNOWN enemy restrictions to cause
some seemingly difficult situations. Is this your intent? Can you
explain what we might be doing wrong? Does 1.261 need some more cases
(I think so)?

Point two from playtest.

Para 11.2 Who May (or must) Persue.

This paragraph still seems to contradict itself. Para one "Impetuous or
mounted bodies must persue if all opponents break off or rout. Other
bodies have the option of persuing, except those standing to receive a
mounted charge can not". Ok. Crystal clear.

Second para goes on to say "Non imp reg close formation bodies, or reg
foot who stood to receive a charge and have not followed up beyond their
original position, need not persue broken opponents. Other regulars
must persue at least once, irr twice, imp troops until outdistanced, or
routers destroyed".

Lets look at some cases (in all cases assume opponents broke).

1. Non imp mounted reg close formation receiving a foot charge halted.
Para 1 says must persue, para 2 says need not.

2. Irr loose foot charging. Para 1 says I have the option of persuing,
para 2 says I must persue twice. Which do I do?

3. Reg close formation foot charging. Para 1 says I have the option of
persuing, para 2 says I must once. Which do I do?

Is para 2 just a clarification so that if I choose the optional persuit
of para 1, para 2 tells me how long I must keep doing it? Why have the
"reg foot who stood to receive a charge and have not followed up beyond
their original position, need not persue broken opponents" line at all
in para 2, if the "Other bodies have the option of persuing, except
those standing to receive a mounted charge can not" line is going to be
in para 1. Para 1 makes the pursuit optional, why did you restate the
option in para 2? The only new exception to para 1 you give in para 2
would be reg close mounted.

Could you not reword as:

Impetuous or non regular close formation mounted must pursue if all of
their opponents break off or rout. Bodies standing to receive a mounted
charge halted can not pursue. All other bodies have the option of
persuing. If pursuit is required, or choosen, regulars must persue at
least once, irregulars twice, and impetuous troops until they are
outdistanced. If the routers are destroyed all pursuit ceases.

This has no gray areas and no redundant wording. Does it meet the
intent of your oringinal? Are we misreading?

Don

[joncleaves]

Don, et al.

I am working the pursuit and known questions. Please be patient.

Jon

[Don Coon]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> Don, et al.
>
> I am working the pursuit and known questions. Please be patient.
>
> Jon

I am now patient. Thanks Jon.

Don