Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Just a few questions i am passing on for a friend that can't acsess the
list.
Chris,

"Och laddy if n you listen closley to the end of this thing you
canna hear the sea! "
King James II, the siege of Roxburgh castle 1460.

1) From my reading of the rules (16 May version) it seems that a body can
make
both an approach move and then a counter. Is this meant to be the case?
Given
that the following other combinations are expressly forbidden : Marches with
any
Tactical Move (6.0), Staff Moves with any other move (6.17), Retirements
with
either Approaches or Counters (6.14) I am making the assumption that
Approaching
then Countering is allowed.

Don't get me wrong, as a foot general usually forced to approach before the
mounted hordes I like the idea, but I want to be sure I am allowed to do so
before I try it.

2) What beneficial use is there for Personal Standards? The cost of these
little Flags of Death has remained the same since 6th Edition where it
allowed
you to see a "General in LIne of Command withine 150 paces" over intervening
units and so get the bonus + or - 1 to the Reaction Test. Nowadays you pay
5 or
10 points for a flag that seems only useful for letting more units know when
the
General carrying it falls over. Personally I think a P Standard should
carry
negative points.

Here in Australia the Seventh Edition Players Association (SEPA) made some
modifications to points cost for troops. One of which was to make P
standards
free unless they were also part of an A or S standard, then the original
cost of
the standard was added.

David Lawrence
david.lawrence@...

[joncleaves]

<< 1) From my reading of the rules (16 May version) it seems that a body can
make both an approach move and then a counter. Is this meant to be the
case?>>

Nope. I will ensure the text says you can't do both.

<< 2) What beneficial use is there for Personal Standards?>>

Helps the general prompt troops and make others impetuous by making him more
visible.

Jon

[Rob Turnball]

Gentlemen
I have seen a fair amount of discussion going on about veracity of rules, and
I am sure an argument for any rule change can be made with some backup. The
bottom line is we're getting to find out about a period of history we love,
while playing a competative game that rules apply equally for both sides.
Sure I dont always agree with the rules, but I still enjoy them.
Just because something is counter intuitive to me does not mean that it is
not valid.
Lets keep discussing, but no flaming!
Robert Turnbull

Greetings

Bill Littlefield and I played a Fast Warrior Punic game last night,
and we had some questions.

Situation I: An 18 man LMI Celtiberian unit recoiled a 16 man cohort
of HI Principes in successive bounds. No problem here… waiver
test, second disorder, etc. In the third bound, the HC Roman General
frontally charged the Celtiberians. The combat results seemed to
indicate that the Principes recoil from the Celts, but the Celts also
recoil from the HC Charge. I do not recall the actual number of
casualties, but the result was read right off the table.

How does this type of situation work? Would 12 Celt figures
advance/follow-up, while 6 figures recoil?
Also we played that the Celts retained their impetuous bonus when
following-up, is this correct?

Situation II: 2 Punic elephants with 2 JLS crew each, charged 16
Hastati. When we added up the factors for the elephants, it seemed
low. We thought the elephants would crunch `em. Could someone
check our calculation?

Elephants were 10 at plus 3
Drivers were 4 at plus 3


I'm sure Bill will also post some questions. The game took 5
hours (!), that included a lot of book time. The rules had a great
"fit and feel" for this historical match-up. Next is EIR and
Dacians if I can coax Bill away from being Hannibal! We had a blast.

Are there any Warrior Players in the Fort Bragg, NC area?

Regards,
Fred

PS: Hey Bill, throw away those pun(ic)y spears, check out this
falx! Oooooo......

--- In WarriorRules@y..., "scudzo2001" <scud@j...> wrote:
> Greetings
>
> Bill Littlefield and I played a Fast Warrior Punic game last night,
> and we had some questions.
<snip>

> I'm sure Bill will also post some questions. The game took 5
> hours (!), that included a lot of book time. The rules had a great
> "fit and feel" for this historical match-up.

Can't argue there - I had a blast because the "chess aspect" of alot
of the other rulesets out there didn't seem to exist. For example, my
LI that ran away from chargers didn't always move the same distance.
I felt like the decisions I was making were more in line with what
a "real" general back then would have to make - weigh your odds and
make a decision.

>Next is EIR and Dacians if I can coax Bill away from being
Hannibal! We had a blast.

You know me Fred - I still think Hannibal could've kicked Scipio's
butt given proper support from the homefront As long as I get to
play the Romans you've got a game!
>
> Are there any Warrior Players in the Fort Bragg, NC area?

We also play Might of Arms, Fire and Fury, and on occasion, dare I
say some 25mm skirmishes using a set of house rules Every once and
a while we even throw out those rules by that other company...

<snip>

> PS: Hey Bill, throw away those pun(ic)y spears, check out this
> falx! Oooooo......

But for the roll of the dice you are Imperator.... Is there any X-
Rule that would prevent Fred from ever rolling up? :)

Great game FHE!

Bill Littlefield
jblittlefield@...

[joncleaves]

<<Situation I: An 18 man LMI Celtiberian unit recoiled a 16 man cohort of HI
Principes in successive bounds. No problem here… waiver test, second disorder,
etc. In the third bound, the HC Roman General frontally charged the
Celtiberians. The combat results seemed to indicate that the Principes recoil
from the Celts, but the Celts also recoil from the HC Charge. I do not recall
the actual number of casualties, but the result was read right off the table.

How does this type of situation work? Would 12 Celt figures
advance/follow-up, while 6 figures recoil?>>

Sounds to me like the Celts recoiled from the cav while the Princeps recoiled
from the celts, leaving the cav in contact with a disordered Celt unit. Of
course, that is without knowing the casualties done to each.

<<Also we played that the Celts retained their impetuous bonus when
following-up, is this correct?>>

The tactical factor for impetuous is for charging, NOT following up.

<<Situation II: 2 Punic elephants with 2 JLS crew each, charged 16 Hastati.
When we added up the factors for the elephants, it seemed low. We thought the
elephants would crunch `em. Could someone check our calculation?

Elephants were 10 at plus 3
Drivers were 4 at plus 3>>

That looks right. The El will kill the foot second bound.

[Patrick Byrne]

I believe the second part of the answer is that the whole 18man LMI
Celtiberian recoil from the HC. The body does not split; both following-up
and recoiling as you've questioned.

This can be gotten in Chap 11 - Combat Results, which says 'Troops
recoil..'. Then under the definition of Troops in chapter 1, the word Troop
has the same meaning as 'Body', and the word 'Body' is the unit as a whole
("grouping of miniture figures or models").
-PB


> From: JonCleaves@...
> Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 10:58:34 -0400
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Questions
>
> <<Situation I: An 18 man LMI Celtiberian unit recoiled a 16 man cohort of HI
> Principes in successive bounds. No problem here… waiver test, second
> disorder, etc. In the third bound, the HC Roman General frontally charged the
> Celtiberians. The combat results seemed to indicate that the Principes recoil
> from the Celts, but the Celts also recoil from the HC Charge. I do not recall
> the actual number of casualties, but the result was read right off the table.
>
> How does this type of situation work? Would 12 Celt figures
> advance/follow-up, while 6 figures recoil?>>
>
> Sounds to me like the Celts recoiled from the cav while the Princeps recoiled
> from the celts, leaving the cav in contact with a disordered Celt unit. Of
> course, that is without knowing the casualties done to each.
>