Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Don Coon]

Just got back from vacation. I do not see the new rules update in
the
files. Did I miss them, or are they delayed?

Don

[joncleaves]

Don, I am slaving away over them right now. It will still SEEM like July
10th to me when I post them, but they will be here when normal folks get up
in the morning.

I have played 7th for years you guys did a great job on rewrite fast
warrior looks great any time table for next army list

[joncleaves]

--- In WarriorRules@y..., "raiderd23" <raiderd@m...> wrote:
> I have played 7th for years you guys did a great job on rewrite
fast warrior looks great any time table for next army list

Thanks, Raider!

Dark Age Warrior is looking good and I see no reason why it won't be
out in time for Cold wars, 19-21 April.

[scott holder]

Dark Age Warrior is looking good and I see no reason why it won't be
out in time for Cold wars, 19-21 April.

>We are entering the home stretch with Dark Age Warrior. We are almost finished
with the last comment stage (in fact, that should be done by next weekend).
Then it's a cover and final formatting.

>Holy Warrior is 1/3 done, at least the first draft (which takes the longest and
requires the most work). I'm working on the Early Crusader list in between Dark
Age Warrior issues. The target date is November 2002 although if it can be done
earlier......Don't forget to hit the website and look at the various ways we
have displayed the army lists. That'll give you an idea of what's included in
which book.

Scott
List Ho

[Mark Mallard]

I have been following both sides of the debate on regular unit size and
expansion.

I think debate is healthy, without it there is just stagnation.

I understand that the rules are not supposed to be subject to change as such
but...

Would it not be wise to have a rules committee look the rules over
periodically, to ensure our game grows rather than stagnates and rules that
seem to be problematic can be improved.

The rule ammendments could even be voted on over the internet.

I just want to play a game where we are all playing by the same rules.

I am collecting together answers to questions posed by myself and others to
use as my own question and answer booklet, so every answer is useful.

Jon must get fed up with all the questions, but over time as issues are
resolved, questions will become less in number.

Jon, keep up the good work.

mark mallard


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

Mark, isn't the officail FAQ useful to you? Y have your own FAQ? OK, I
admit, not ALL questions fit in the FAQ. But all the IMPORTANT ones are
there. The next FAQ update will be a big one indeed, as we covered a lot of
new stuff.

As far as a 'rules com', I thought we already had one...FHE ;)


--Kurt

[joncleaves]

Actually Mark - we have a system for that called x-rules. See my other post.

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 9/3/02 5:06:04 PM GMT Daylight Time, sheol@... writes:


> Mark, isn't the officail FAQ useful to you? Y have your own FAQ? OK, I
> admit, not ALL questions fit in the FAQ. But all the IMPORTANT ones are
> there. The next FAQ update will be a big one indeed, as we covered a lot of
> new stuff.
>
> As far as a 'rules com', I thought we already had one...FHE
>
>
> --Kurt
>
>

Yes very very useful, keep it up, expand it. But not as portable as my hard
copy including as many answers as i can collect. My computer is in a
different room etc.

mark mallard


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

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 9/3/02 4:47:05 PM GMT Daylight Time, JonCleaves@...
writes:


> Actually Mark - we have a system for that called x-rules. See my other post.
>
>

Ah but, i agree with another poster, i would like to see the good x rules
incorporated into the main body of rules. The x rules that actually improve
the game. I am not after a rewrite here just a sensible approach to
improvement. A sort of darwinian approach, even chess has evolved.

mark mallard


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 9/4/2002 03:48:10 Central Daylight Time,
markmallard77@... writes:


> Ah but, i agree with another poster, i would like to see the good x rules
> incorporated into the main body of rules. The x rules that actually improve
>
> the game. I am not after a rewrite here just a sensible approach to
> improvement. A sort of darwinian approach, even chess has evolved.
>

Of course that assumes that the reform (or any other x-rule) is an
improvement. Two or three (or even more actually) players just saying so
will never be good enough. It would take playtesting with reports from
actual games played as a primary factor, not just the vocal minority, which I
will never use as a decision-making criterion. The vocal minority has a
stranglehold on other game systems that I will not allow with our.
Opinions matter to me, don't get me wrong. They make me do things, like
write x-rules (despite the dissatisfaction that seems to produce in those
canvassing for unplaytested rules changes...) and reevaluate my own opinions
of what we want the rules to do. But a simple request to change the rules,
without serious playtesting and a host of other things, will never, ever be
enough.


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

[Don Coon]

4E LHI LTS,B,Sh REG B in 2X2. Uses manuever "contract" to go to 1X4. Uses
change in formation to adopt skirmish (foes in shooting range) and decides
to change frontage into a 2X2. Does this all in 1 approach move 120p from
an enemy body directly to its front.

Legal?

Don

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 9/28/2004 12:52:58 AM GMT Daylight Time,
jjendon@... writes:

4E LHI LTS,B,Sh REG B in 2X2. Uses manuever "contract" to go to 1X4. Uses
change in formation to adopt skirmish (foes in shooting range) and decides
to change frontage into a 2X2. Does this all in 1 approach move 120p from
an enemy body directly to its front.

Legal?

Don



I think i can understand why someone might try this. To move sideways to
position bettter. But is this not covered by the rule that says you cannot
contract and expand in the same maneuver.

I await jon`s answer of course.

mark mallard


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 9/27/2004 18:52:59 Central Daylight Time,
jjendon@... writes:

4E LHI LTS,B,Sh REG B in 2X2. Uses manuever "contract" to go to 1X4. Uses
change in formation to adopt skirmish (foes in shooting range) and decides
to change frontage into a 2X2. Does this all in 1 approach move 120p from
an enemy body directly to its front.

Legal?>>
[
Yes. Of course one would wonder why on earth someone would need to make
that move that way (since the body could have just changed to skirmish and
still
had its full move left...), but I am sure you have a reason...lol

J




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

[Greg Regets]

I think he is talking about contracting from his right side with his
first formation change, then forming skirmish, expanding out on his
left side.

This is legal as I understand it (I think we had this conversation on
the board once before) but does "somewhat" seem like contracting on
one side and expanding on another. I think at the time of the old
conversation, it was pointed out that skirmishers are "changing
frontage" rather than expanding, so are not in violation of the rule.

Might be a good place for a wording tweek. :-)

g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 9/27/2004 18:52:59 Central Daylight Time,
> jjendon@c... writes:
>
> 4E LHI LTS,B,Sh REG B in 2X2. Uses manuever "contract" to go to
1X4. Uses
> change in formation to adopt skirmish (foes in shooting range) and
decides
> to change frontage into a 2X2. Does this all in 1 approach move
120p from
> an enemy body directly to its front.
>
> Legal?>>
> [
> Yes. Of course one would wonder why on earth someone would need
to make
> that move that way (since the body could have just changed to
skirmish and still
> had its full move left...), but I am sure you have a reason...lol
>
> J
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]