Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Don Coon]

6.166 Evade move 7th sentance Reword as "The turn to face to the rear or
away from the chargers in an evade move is free, it does not count as a
manuever."

6.166 Evade Move 2nd para. "(x.xx)" should be "(6.45)"

6.167 2nd para add "as well as normal charge fatigue" after "in successive
bounds" We believe that the chargers get full benifit from a converted
charge and should have to pay for this privaledge. Normally this onlt
applies to mounted troops, but impetuous foot is also affected.

6.31 References to 11.2 should either contain a reference to 6.18, or just
simply be 6.18.

6.32 The rout path 4th sentance reword to "the broken body turns directly
away from the enemy for free and then..." As you have it written a body hit
to flank can not properly rout away from the attacker.

6.32 Bursting through 2nd sentance add "routing ahead of the original
routers" after "break and rout immediatley" If you do not do this, please
clarify what move the interpenetrated body is suppossed to make. Most times
if it routs after it has been interpenetrated it winds up interpentrating
the body it was just burst through by. Is this the intent? Its kind of a
leap froggy thing. It does work as written, its just a bit congested. Also
since you say "break and rout immediately" the implication is unclear as too
if you meant after the bursters finish their own rout, or when the bursters
first contact them. We always play that when the original routing body
contacts a second shaken or irregular body, their rout is suspended and the
contacted body then routs. We then pick up the original routers move and
complete it. Are we being overly analytical here?

6.33 2nd para "x.xx" should be "11.2"

6.33 3rd para. It sure looks like nonimpetuous pursuers can hit ANY other
enemy their pursuit move will reach. This means I can wheel up to 45 (in
either direction?) and go a full pursuit move and crash into any enemy I can
reach? This might even mean whelling AWAY from the routers? That is how
this para is written. Is that what you intended?

6.33 5th para. How exactly do I make a charge response when I am in HTH?
This whole para makes no sense. The timing of the para is out of whack. It
says impetuous must continue pursuit (not done until phase 8 of the bound)
if they have a charge declared on them (done in phase 7 of the bound). Are
you trying to say if I am impetuous and pounding on a routing body and I get
pounded on by a new enemy, I get to pursue the routers (taking me right out
of HTH)? I doubt that is what you want here. Then assume I am am
nonimpetuous and in HTH with a router. A charge is declared on me? What
might I be able to do? I highly recommend dropping this entire para as it
appears to add nothing to the game, and certainly is a major head scratcher.

6.34 2nd sentance add " the turn away from opponents is free and does not
count as a manuever" to the end of the sentance.

6.43 Add "no shooting from testudo" somewhere in here.

6.45 last para prior to the example reword to "A unit in or just adopting
skirmish formation may move straight to its rear in a counter any remaining
move distance. It retains the same facing during this move"

6.45 "counter (x.xx)" should be "counter (6.14)"

6.52 add "are broken through (6.35)" to the end of the second bullet list.

6.53 4th para last sentance. This is still muffed up a bit. As written the
following occurs: I have 3 1X2 Reg LMI bodies fighting shoulder to shoulder
facing 3 similar bodies at 120p. For reasons unknown only the middle two
bodies declare charges. We meet 60p each from our original lines and hammer
away. Damn I roll down 3 and he rolls up 3, and I break. Where do I rout?
We play that I can rout straight back (no 2 element wide gap be damned).
6.53 pretty much says my unit CAN NOT ROUT. The only option I have is to
divert INTO my own troops. Does that make sense top anyone?

We beleive the 2 element wide statement is only intended for routing bodies
trying to divert into a gap. Bodies who can rout straight back with no
deviation MUST be exempted from this statement.

6.6 "troop" should be "troops"

6.61 "(4.xx)" should be "(4.4)" 2 locations in the text.

6.821. This para does not address the of table location of the troops
relative to one another. As it stands a 3 body command that flank marches
can enter the table all from the same exact point. In order for this to
occur they would have to have been stacked on top of each other off board.
In Squad Leader when making an arrival with a force, you must arrange your
forces off board in a manner that would be legal. You then take this
formation and put it against the board edge and move the units on table. We
believe arrivals in Warrior should be done the same way. You need an
imaginary table extension the turn your force arrives, and the arriving
troops must be deployed on this imaginary extension, then moved on board per
6.821.

7.1 Exceptions 1st bullet add "with shields" between "figures" and "armed"

7.1 exceptions 5th bullet "cannot" should be "do not"

7.4 This is sticky. How much of a body has to be in the covering terrain
to be considered "in cover"? This is not addressed anywhere that we can
find.

That gets us through page 50. More to come.

Don