Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Chris Bump]

Absolutely, because this is effectively contracting and expanding in the same
bound. The only penalty to such flexability being that the unit ends the turn
in skirmish. Of course this is not always a penalty. It does allow for the
easy movement of troops from one side of a formation to another and of course
the excellent teleporting effect that cannot be gained with the 40 pace shuffle
that the regulars love so much. It is an excellent method of filling a gap or
moving troops who are othewise partially traffic jammed behind friendlies.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: JonCleaves@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 6:58 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: RULES


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]


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

[Don Coon]

This is exactly what I did, and my opponent disallowed it. As I could not
adjudicate my own game, a second opinion was called in and he disallowed it
too. I know we have had this discussion before, and i already knew the
answer, but it was the onlt vehicle I had to show the 2 who ruled against me
why I felt my ruling was correct.

Don


> 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]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

[Mark Mallard]

** just forwarding for information**


I'm afraid Warrior players seem few and far between un the UK. However, as I
said you are more than welcome to come along and try another game.

Cheers,

Nik


>From: Markmallard7@...
>To: soabattleday@...
>Subject: Re: warrior
>Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 11:24:13 EST
>
>
>In a message dated 08/03/2005 16:22:10 GMT Standard Time,
>soabattleday@... writes:
>
>Mark,
>
>Sorry for the delay in replying.
>
>Nobody has offered to run a Warrior game at the Battle Day. However,
>somebody has mentioned the possibility of a 7th edition game. Would you
>like
>me to send you information if that looks likely to happen?
>
>Of course, you're more than welcome to come along and participate in any
>of
>the other games.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Nik Gaukroger
>
>
>
>
>No i dont play 7th anymore - it would be too confusing. Warrior is a much
>improved 7th but they are not the same thing.
>
>mark mallard




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

[joncleaves]

** just forwarding for information**


I'm afraid Warrior players seem few and far between un the UK. However, as I
said you are more than welcome to come along and try another game.

Cheers,

Nik>>

The reconquista of the UK is coming!

j