Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

I love to play wargames. I have all the Warrior books, 9,000 15 and 25mm
ancient figures and have been playing some form of this game since WRG 4th
edition. I even remember when players were ranked by how well they played.
(I was just a 4 in 1977.)

I like the people who participate in our hobby and I like the suppliers of
products to our passion.

But this kind of question, and the facts that it has to be asked, is exactly
why I just don't compete in tournaments anymore.

Isn't there any way to make ancients play less complicated? Do we need one
page of interpretation for each page of rules?

Sorry for the outburst, and I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this is what
drove me to Napoleonics and away from WRG. I'm trying to give Warrior a
chance, but it sounds like the same old, same old.

Bob Hess
Lanesboro, Mass.


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

[Mark Stone]

I've been reading through the rules and clarifications again in preparation for
Cold Wars. I hate to ask this question, because it has been such a can of worms
already on this group, but I want to make sure I understand the requirements
before we get to Cold Wars.

The clarification on required advances for Rush, Attack, or Probe orders says:

"In the case of using a march move to qualify as an advance, 'entirely toward'
means to use each march segment to minimize the distance between the marcher and
the selected enemy body and 'maximum march move' means each segment possible
until a known enemy body stops the march move or all segments are exhausted."

My question is, what does "minimize the distance" mean?

My problem is that I can think of only one thing it can mean, and Jon has said
repeatedly on the list that that isn't what he means. Let's make this concrete
with an illustration. Assume two opposing armies have 10 bodies each, and that
after deployment they are positioned as indicated in this diagram:
http://digitalpilgrim.com/img/march.jpg

The Red Army has one general, and is under Probe orders. I don't care about
orders for the Black Army. Note that if you were to draw a line straight ahead
from bodies Red A and Red B, that the entire Black Army is to the right (Red's
right) of these two bodies.

Here's my problem. A natural first bound's march would have Red G, H, I, and J
hanging back as a reserve, while Red C, D, E, and F would move directly towards
Black's front line in an attempt to pin those bodies, while Red A and B would
move straight ahead as far and as fast as possible in an attempt to turn Black's
flank. I might also point out that initial deployments roughly like this are
_quite_ common, the desire to march like this is also quite common, and seems
imminently realistic and sensible.

The problem is this: that sequence doesn't appear to be legal under the
requirements for Probe orders, or indeed under any other orders either. Here's
why:

Half the bodies must advance. Red G, H, I, and J won't count as advancing bodies
because they will be stopped by friendly bodies rather than 'known enemy
bodies.' Red C, D, E, and F will qualify, but that's only 4 out of 10. You need
one more body.

Thus one of A or B must qualify. And moving straight ahead doesn't qualify,
because even though moving straight ahead is moving closer to an enemy body, it
isn't moving in such a way as to "minimize" the distance. "Minimizing" would
require moving at a slight angle towards, say, Black 1.

To me, this is awful. It smacks of the "uncontrolled advance" that is one of the
main reasons I refuse to play DBM. It's going to lead to geometrical minutia I
thought we were trying to avoid. But I don't know how else to read 'minimize.'
It isn't an ambiguous word.

So as far as I can tell, there's no way to execute the very natural advance I've
described above. Attack and Rush orders will suffer the same problem, and
anything less than Probe won't get Red across the center line.

So Jon, am I missing something here? Is there some other way to read 'minimize',
or is there something else you were trying to mean?


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

Mark and Bob

I'm away at a con and only have a minute. Each of your concerns needs to be
addressed and I have saved your mails and I will respond to each of you as soon
as I can.
Until then - relax. :)

Jon

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, BobHess@A... wrote:
> I love to play wargames. I have all the Warrior books, 9,000 15
and 25mm
> ancient figures and have been playing some form of this game since
WRG 4th
> edition. I even remember when players were ranked by how well they
played.
> (I was just a 4 in 1977.)
>
> I like the people who participate in our hobby and I like the
suppliers of
> products to our passion.
>
> But this kind of question, and the facts that it has to be asked,
is exactly
> why I just don't compete in tournaments anymore.
>
Evening Bob,

I well understand your concerns as I too started out playing 4th Ed.
and did play thru to 7th Ed. and DBM. Both rules caused more
problems and did not hold the quality the 6th Ed. did and still does
today as being one fo the best ruleset from WRG. Having said that
the new Warrior Rules are a step in the right direction. Last
Tourney I had was alot of fun I ended up enjoying myself without the
ususal WRG headachs. Gaving time the teething problems will be
worked out. If you want a set of rules to play the are simple and
alot of fun, try Warhammer Anicent Battles. Movement in regard to
marches is not a problem within that set of rules. I play them too
and they are alot of fun. Warrior is more true to battle and WAB is
is not.

My thoughts,

Jack Young

[Greg Regets]

While obviously curious about Jon's answer, I do wonder why moving A & B
straight ahead, would not accomplish both functions. Each march segment would
be getting closer and you would of course be moving towards you flank shot.

I do not believe it says you have to move 'towards an enemy by the closest
possible direct course', just end closer (minimize distance) in each march
segment ... correct? If A and/or B marched straight ahead until pinned, they
would be in obeyance.

Perhaps I am just missing something. This has not been an issue in our San
Antonio group, and we do play quite often.

As an FYI, I think it might have made more sense to include "march to within
approach move" into the list of qualifiers.

Take care ...
G

[Don Coon]

Mark,

I will refrian from any comment until Jon has a chance to respond propery.
I do want to say thanks for the perfect diagram and perfect question. It is
the exact question we wanted answered when Patrick and I started this
thread. Must stop writting now, or comments will flow from fingers.

Don

> The Red Army has one general, and is under Probe orders. I don't care
about
> orders for the Black Army. Note that if you were to draw a line straight
ahead
> from bodies Red A and Red B, that the entire Black Army is to the right
(Red's
> right) of these two bodies.
>
> Here's my problem. A natural first bound's march would have Red G, H, I,
and J
> hanging back as a reserve, while Red C, D, E, and F would move directly
towards
> Black's front line in an attempt to pin those bodies, while Red A and B
would
> move straight ahead as far and as fast as possible in an attempt to turn
Black's
> flank. I might also point out that initial deployments roughly like this
are
> _quite_ common, the desire to march like this is also quite common, and
seems
> imminently realistic and sensible.
>
> The problem is this: that sequence doesn't appear to be legal under the
> requirements for Probe orders, or indeed under any other orders either.
Here's why:
>
> Half the bodies must advance. Red G, H, I, and J won't count as advancing
bodies
> because they will be stopped by friendly bodies rather than 'known enemy
> bodies.' Red C, D, E, and F will qualify, but that's only 4 out of 10. You
need
> one more body.
>
> Thus one of A or B must qualify. And moving straight ahead doesn't
qualify,
> because even though moving straight ahead is moving closer to an enemy
body, it
> isn't moving in such a way as to "minimize" the distance. "Minimizing"
would
> require moving at a slight angle towards, say, Black 1.
>
> To me, this is awful. It smacks of the "uncontrolled advance" that is one
of the
> main reasons I refuse to play DBM. It's going to lead to geometrical
minutia I
> thought we were trying to avoid. But I don't know how else to read
'minimize.'
> It isn't an ambiguous word.
>
> So as far as I can tell, there's no way to execute the very natural
advance I've
> described above. Attack and Rush orders will suffer the same problem, and
> anything less than Probe won't get Red across the center line.
>
> So Jon, am I missing something here? Is there some other way to read
'minimize',
> or is there something else you were trying to mean?
>
>
> -Mark Stone

[Greg Regets]

Actually Patrick, in my opinion you can still do the 'cross march' under more
assertive orders. It is only half the command after all. If you assume that you
have forced marched to give yourself room to maneuver, the forced march units
will probably contribute towards obeyance. You will then have limited march
restrictions with the remainder of the command. Varied orders for various
commands also contributes to the ease of this tactic.

As you probably well know, being a DFW player, that is the baseline tactic for
most San Antonio players. The difficulty I feel you are having may relates to
some of all of three causes ... large units (read, not as many), limited
generals, and deployment of one full command behind the other. Not an absolute,
but something I have noticed in our last few trips to your wonderfully run
tournaments.

Just my two cents ...
G

[Patrick Byrne]

Unlike Don, I will have some more questions to piggy back on yours.

Try this one; If C, D, E, & F don't march, but G, H, I & J do then G, H, I,
& J will run into the back of C, D, E, & F. However, this will qualify
these 4 for meeting orders because they moved their entire possible march
move. The fact that they could not interpenetrate in the march is hardly
there fault.

-PB


> From: Mark Stone <mark@...>
> Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 21:46:26 +0000
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [WarriorRules] required advances again
>
> I've been reading through the rules and clarifications again in preparation
> for
> Cold Wars. I hate to ask this question, because it has been such a can of
> worms
> already on this group, but I want to make sure I understand the requirements
> before we get to Cold Wars.
>
> The clarification on required advances for Rush, Attack, or Probe orders says:
>
> "In the case of using a march move to qualify as an advance, 'entirely toward'
> means to use each march segment to minimize the distance between the marcher
> and
> the selected enemy body and 'maximum march move' means each segment possible
> until a known enemy body stops the march move or all segments are exhausted."
>
> My question is, what does "minimize the distance" mean?
>
> My problem is that I can think of only one thing it can mean, and Jon has said
> repeatedly on the list that that isn't what he means. Let's make this concrete
> with an illustration. Assume two opposing armies have 10 bodies each, and that
> after deployment they are positioned as indicated in this diagram:
> http://digitalpilgrim.com/img/march.jpg
>
> The Red Army has one general, and is under Probe orders. I don't care about
> orders for the Black Army. Note that if you were to draw a line straight ahead
> from bodies Red A and Red B, that the entire Black Army is to the right (Red's
> right) of these two bodies.
>
> Here's my problem. A natural first bound's march would have Red G, H, I, and J
> hanging back as a reserve, while Red C, D, E, and F would move directly
> towards
> Black's front line in an attempt to pin those bodies, while Red A and B would
> move straight ahead as far and as fast as possible in an attempt to turn
> Black's
> flank. I might also point out that initial deployments roughly like this are
> _quite_ common, the desire to march like this is also quite common, and seems
> imminently realistic and sensible.
>
> The problem is this: that sequence doesn't appear to be legal under the
> requirements for Probe orders, or indeed under any other orders either. Here's
> why:
>
> Half the bodies must advance. Red G, H, I, and J won't count as advancing
> bodies
> because they will be stopped by friendly bodies rather than 'known enemy
> bodies.' Red C, D, E, and F will qualify, but that's only 4 out of 10. You
> need
> one more body.
>
> Thus one of A or B must qualify. And moving straight ahead doesn't qualify,
> because even though moving straight ahead is moving closer to an enemy body,
> it
> isn't moving in such a way as to "minimize" the distance. "Minimizing" would
> require moving at a slight angle towards, say, Black 1.
>
> To me, this is awful. It smacks of the "uncontrolled advance" that is one of
> the
> main reasons I refuse to play DBM. It's going to lead to geometrical minutia I
> thought we were trying to avoid. But I don't know how else to read 'minimize.'
> It isn't an ambiguous word.
>
> So as far as I can tell, there's no way to execute the very natural advance
> I've
> described above. Attack and Rush orders will suffer the same problem, and
> anything less than Probe won't get Red across the center line.
>
> So Jon, am I missing something here? Is there some other way to read
> 'minimize',
> or is there something else you were trying to mean?
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Patrick <cuan@w...> wrote:
> Unlike Don, I will have some more questions to piggy back on yours.
>
> Try this one; If C, D, E, & F don't march, but G, H, I & J do then
G, H, I,
> & J will run into the back of C, D, E, & F. However, this will
qualify
> these 4 for meeting orders because they moved their entire possible
march
> move. The fact that they could not interpenetrate in the march is
hardly
> there fault.
>
> -PB
Afternoon Pat,

I would agree with per my readings on page 47 of the rule book.
Those troops who are not able to complete march distance of 240 or
120 must stop and cannot declare charges that bound. The rules state
nothing on marching next bound.

My thoughts,

Jack
>
> > From: Mark Stone <mark@d...>
> > Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 21:46:26 +0000
> > To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [WarriorRules] required advances again
> >
> > I've been reading through the rules and clarifications again in
preparation
> > for
> > Cold Wars. I hate to ask this question, because it has been such
a can of
> > worms
> > already on this group, but I want to make sure I understand the
requirements
> > before we get to Cold Wars.
> >
> > The clarification on required advances for Rush, Attack, or Probe
orders says:
> >
> > "In the case of using a march move to qualify as an
advance, 'entirely toward'
> > means to use each march segment to minimize the distance between
the marcher
> > and
> > the selected enemy body and 'maximum march move' means each
segment possible
> > until a known enemy body stops the march move or all segments are
exhausted."
> >
> > My question is, what does "minimize the distance" mean?
> >
> > My problem is that I can think of only one thing it can mean, and
Jon has said
> > repeatedly on the list that that isn't what he means. Let's make
this concrete
> > with an illustration. Assume two opposing armies have 10 bodies
each, and that
> > after deployment they are positioned as indicated in this diagram:
> > http://digitalpilgrim.com/img/march.jpg
> >
> > The Red Army has one general, and is under Probe orders. I don't
care about
> > orders for the Black Army. Note that if you were to draw a line
straight ahead
> > from bodies Red A and Red B, that the entire Black Army is to the
right (Red's
> > right) of these two bodies.
> >
> > Here's my problem. A natural first bound's march would have Red
G, H, I, and J
> > hanging back as a reserve, while Red C, D, E, and F would move
directly
> > towards
> > Black's front line in an attempt to pin those bodies, while Red A
and B would
> > move straight ahead as far and as fast as possible in an attempt
to turn
> > Black's
> > flank. I might also point out that initial deployments roughly
like this are
> > _quite_ common, the desire to march like this is also quite
common, and seems
> > imminently realistic and sensible.
> >
> > The problem is this: that sequence doesn't appear to be legal
under the
> > requirements for Probe orders, or indeed under any other orders
either. Here's
> > why:
> >
> > Half the bodies must advance. Red G, H, I, and J won't count as
advancing
> > bodies
> > because they will be stopped by friendly bodies rather
than 'known enemy
> > bodies.' Red C, D, E, and F will qualify, but that's only 4 out
of 10. You
> > need
> > one more body.
> >
> > Thus one of A or B must qualify. And moving straight ahead
doesn't qualify,
> > because even though moving straight ahead is moving closer to an
enemy body,
> > it
> > isn't moving in such a way as to "minimize" the
distance. "Minimizing" would
> > require moving at a slight angle towards, say, Black 1.
> >
> > To me, this is awful. It smacks of the "uncontrolled advance"
that is one of
> > the
> > main reasons I refuse to play DBM. It's going to lead to
geometrical minutia I
> > thought we were trying to avoid. But I don't know how else to
read 'minimize.'
> > It isn't an ambiguous word.
> >
> > So as far as I can tell, there's no way to execute the very
natural advance
> > I've
> > described above. Attack and Rush orders will suffer the same
problem, and
> > anything less than Probe won't get Red across the center line.
> >
> > So Jon, am I missing something here? Is there some other way to
read
> > 'minimize',
> > or is there something else you were trying to mean?
> >
> >
> > -Mark Stone
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >

[Patrick Byrne]

G,
I believed the same thing you did until recently thinking that as long as I
am ending closer to the enemy, then what did it matter. Then I read Jon's
previous emailing and looked up the word 'minimize'. My dictionary has
'minimize' to mean, "1. reduce something to minimum: to reduce something to
the lowest possible amount or degree". In applying this, I have taken it to
mean that if you are not moving entirely towards, then you are moving
partially away, and so not meeting the definition as you are essentially
reducing something to the lowest possible degree. Another words if you
moved 5 degrees away from parallel towards another troop, this is not the
lowest possible amount of degree, 0 is.

The one thing I absolutely hate about this rule is that it doesn't consider
terrain. Why should my horses have to go through woods to minimize the
distance to that troop in stead of going around or conforming to terrain.



Although Mark's diagram considers a couple of units wanting to go around the
flank, I believe this has a larger effect on another tactic I see even more
often - that being the one of match-ups.

In playing Mongols, I often outscout my opponent. What my opponent then
tries to do after he sees my set-up is to get match-ups back in his favor.
Often times what I see is a shuffling on the field with units doing 30 and
45 degree march moves to get their LTS men lined up on my horses and their
more sensitive troops to my foot that they can beat. This may not sound
complicated, but when you see it, it is something to behold because in the
time span of a couple of march segments, it goes from looking like a ragged
zipper back to a semi-solid line, then by the end of the next approach phase
they are all lined up again. It is very clear that if they had picked a
target at the beginning of the march phase and completely marched towards
it, they wouldn't have been able to get everyone lined back up.

Deep thoughts by PB....
A lot of what I hear complained about can be solved easily with bigger
commands. I understand 3 or 5 is the best unit command size with regards to
route. But if you had a 13 or 15 unit command size, only 7 or 8 would have
to go towards their target and the others would be free to go backwards if
necessary.

As discussed before, this also makes other orders more viable. Put your
troops on wait or hold to negate this restriction, get the matchups or
position your troops accordingly, then change the orders to attack. Maybe
this is more historically accurate, hence the rule.

-PB

[Jake Kovel]

Just a thought here. If A and B move forward in any manner and end at 240
paces, they also qualify under the probe orders which say that half the units
must advance or be within 240 paces of the enemy. If, at the end of the
march they meet that requirement, it does not matter what direction they
went.
Jacob Kovel


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/17/2003 08:23:09 Central Standard Time, cuan@...
writes:

> Try this one; If C, D, E, &F don't march, but G, H, I &J do then G, H, I,
> &J will run into the back of C, D, E, &F. However, this will qualify
> these 4 for meeting orders because they moved their entire possible march
> move. The fact that they could not interpenetrate in the march is hardly
> there fault.
>

Uh, no actually. To qualify you have to use "each segment possible until a
known enemy body stops the march move or all segments are exhausted". It has
nothing to do with fault.

I really think this is all a matter of folks looking at orders compliance
backwards. Try this:

1. Figure out what you want to do.
2. Figure out how much of that 'want to do' isn't toward the enemy.
3. Make sure that the stuff from step 2 above can be done with half or less
of your army.

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/17/2003 21:12:40 Central Standard Time,
Harlan.D.Garrett@... writes:

> Just a thought here. If A and B move forward in any manner and end at 240
> paces, they also qualify under the probe orders which say that half the
> units
> must advance or be within 240 paces of the enemy. If, at the end of the
> march they meet that requirement, it does not matter what direction they
> went.
> Jacob Kovel
>

Thanks, Jake. This is correct, of course.


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

[Harlan Garrett]

That's how I play it.

Harlan
-----Original Message-----
From: Eaglewars@... [mailto:Eaglewars@...]
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 6:54 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] required advances again


Just a thought here. If A and B move forward in any manner and end at 240
paces, they also qualify under the probe orders which say that half the
units
must advance or be within 240 paces of the enemy. If, at the end of the
march they meet that requirement, it does not matter what direction they
went.
Jacob Kovel


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



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245454.2895241.4313951.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=17050590
80:HM/A=1457554/R=0/*http://ipunda.com/clk/beibunmaisuiyuiwabei>

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=245454.2895241.4313951.2848452/D=egroupmai
l/S=:HM/A=1457554/rand=720104889>

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/18/2003 06:26:05 Central Standard Time,
jjendon@... writes:

> 1. Do I have to go through disadvantaging terrain if that is the
> path that minimizes the distance?

Yes, BUT - remember that terrain that is 'disadvantaging' typically slows a
marcher that would be disadvantaged by it to 120p, so it is very likely that
clearing the terrain and going 240p 'past' it will be the minimizing move.
As you also choose which enemy body you are marching toward at the beginning
of each march segment, it would be very difficult for terrain to be a
problem.

>
> 2. What if the body I selected to minimize the distance to moves?
> Do I have to follow it. Imagine Marks example. I take red A and
> wheel to the right to go at the Right flank unit of black. If that
> unit then subsequently wheels to its left (reds right), must Red A
> wheel further to the right in later march phases to keep minimizing?

As you choose the enemy body you are minimizing toward as you start each
segment, this should not be an issue.

Please notice the following:

If you have probe orders, half your army ending at 240p means you don't even
care who marched where and therefore there is no need to keep track of any
individual march move.

If you have attack orders you need to track your first bound marchers - but
just make sure half your army is each going straight toward some enemy unit
each segment.

If you have attack orders and are trying to do something tricky, you may have
to track the march of each unit each segment of the first bound. And you
deserve this. :)

Jon


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