Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Jon,

Reviewing email from some time ago (2003) you replied regarding advancing to
meet order conditions:

"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."




Would it be more exact to say "...half of each command in your army..."?



Nit pickingly yours,



R


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

[joncleaves]

Indeed it would be more exact.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Walker <rwalker@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups. com <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:19:45 -0500
Subject: [WarriorRules] Rules - Advances and deployment



Jon,

Reviewing email from some time ago (2003) you replied regarding advancing to
meet order conditions:

"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."




Would it be more exact to say "...half of each command in your army..."?



Nit pickingly yours,



R


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




Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Mark Stone]

--- On April 21 Roger Walker said: ---
>>
>> Reviewing email from some time ago (2003) you replied regarding advancing to
>> meet order conditions:
>>
>> "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."
>> Would it be more exact to say "...half of each command in your army..."?

--- To which Jon replied: ---
>
> Indeed it would be more exact.
>

Except for the fact, Jon, that you ultimately backed off of the whole "straight
towards" requirement.

Talk about dead horses; do you really want to revive that whole discussion, Jon?
I think I can still find the relevant powerpoint slides to show the DBM-like
silliness of the "straight towards" requirement.


-Mark Stone

Don't want to stir up something settled long ago.

I'm actually looking to see if, at deployment, a command obstensably under
attack orders may march parallel to their own table edge (behind another
command) before turning to march toward the enemy.

I don't believe that is the intent and wanted some insight. Pulled the wrong
email to illustrate perhaps.

R

[joncleaves]

Whoa, Mark. I was responding to the 'half each command in your army being more
exact' (which it is).

We did indeed fix and clarify the marching issue.

Such is the problem with buried rules non-questions.... sigh.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stone <mark@...>
To: warrior <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 14:59:42 +0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Rules - Advances and Deployment



--- On April 21 Roger Walker said: ---
>>
>> Reviewing email from some time ago (2003) you replied regarding advancing to
>> meet order conditions:
>>
>> "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."
>> Would it be more exact to say "...half of each command in your army..."?

--- To which Jon replied: ---
>
> Indeed it would be more exact.
>

Except for the fact, Jon, that you ultimately backed off of the whole "straight
towards" requirement.

Talk about dead horses; do you really want to revive that whole discussion, Jon?
I think I can still find the relevant powerpoint slides to show the DBM-like
silliness of the "straight towards" requirement.


-Mark Stone



Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[joncleaves]

The clarification is:


4.52 (Pg 23) Replace first sentence with: “Unless under RUSH orders, the
minimum move to quality as an advance is a march move that uses all of the
segments to which that body is entitled (or ends within 240p of known enemy) or
an approach move of at least 40 paces.�

I would take it as a personal favor if folks would read both the relevant rules
and the clarifications before asking a rules question.... :)

-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Walker <rwalker@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:10:23 -0500
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Rules - Advances and Deployment



Don't want to stir up something settled long ago.

I'm actually looking to see if, at deployment, a command obstensably under
attack orders may march parallel to their own table edge (behind another
command) before turning to march toward the enemy.

I don't believe that is the intent and wanted some insight. Pulled the wrong
email to illustrate perhaps.

R





Yahoo! Groups Links






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

Had the clarification. That doesn't seem to preclude the ploy below as long
as at least half the command marches all their eligible march segments.


----- Original Message -----
From: <JonCleaves@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Rules - Advances and Deployment



The clarification is:


4.52 (Pg 23) Replace first sentence with: “Unless under RUSH orders, the
minimum move to quality as an advance is a march move that uses all of the
segments to which that body is entitled (or ends within 240p of known enemy)
or an approach move of at least 40 paces.�

I would take it as a personal favor if folks would read both the relevant
rules and the clarifications before asking a rules question.... :)




RHW:
A command obstensably under attack orders may march parallel to their own
table edge (behind another
command) before turning to march toward the enemy.

[joncleaves]

I'm not sure about 'ploy' - and in practice it doesn't usually make any sense
with any size command. If you're doing it with a small/one body command then it
simulates redirecting a single general and a small number of troops and that is
why it is that way.

Remember that a marcher cannot change formation or turn...this usually means you
can use this 'ploy' for one bound - two at most if you are a 2-3 marcher -
before having to commit.

Remember also that entitled (the word is not eligible...) means all - not the
ones you get up until you run into terrain or the table edge. If you are
entitiled to 4 and end before completing 4 and are not within 240p of the enemy,
you have NOT complied.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Walker <rwalker@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:32:03 -0500
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Rules - Advances and Deployment



Had the clarification. That doesn't seem to preclude the ploy below as long
as at least half the command marches all their eligible march segments.


----- Original Message -----
From: <JonCleaves@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Rules - Advances and Deployment



The clarification is:


4.52 (Pg 23) Replace first sentence with: “Unless under RUSH orders, the
minimum move to quality as an advance is a march move that uses all of the
segments to which that body is entitled (or ends within 240p of known enemy)
or an approach move of at least 40 paces.�

I would take it as a personal favor if folks would read both the relevant
rules and the clarifications before asking a rules question.... :)




RHW:
A command obstensably under attack orders may march parallel to their own
table edge (behind another
command) before turning to march toward the enemy.





Yahoo! Groups Links






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