Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

If a unit of Saxons, front rank HTW, back rank JLS, hit a unit of British MI,
LTS, Sh, do the back rank Saxons take the -2 for facing LTS?

John Meunier


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

[Mark Mallard]

My understanding of this is one based on the following.

The front rank do not get the -2 because the HTW disrupt the LTS to some
degree. If the LTS are thus disrupted they cannot logically cause a -2 on a
rank behind the disruptees.

mark mallard


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 10/29/2002 10:33:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, scribblerjohn
writes:

> If a unit of Saxons, front rank HTW, back rank JLS, hit a
> unit of British MI,
> LTS, Sh, do the back rank Saxons take the -2 for facing LTS?>>

No.

[Chris Bump]

Jon,
Could you tell me where in the rules this would be clearly understood from the
writing? From all I have understood all combat is calculated on an element
to/by element basis. I am not questioning the rational for this decision, My
Spanish love it as only 1/2 of each unit can have HTW. So I am not complaining,
just asking for how one could assuredly come to that decision without your
input.
Chris

In a message dated 10/29/2002 10:33:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, JonCleaves
writes:>
>
> In a message dated 10/29/2002 10:33:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, scribblerjohn
writes:
>
> > If a unit of Saxons, front rank HTW, back rank JLS, hit a
> > unit of British MI,
> > LTS, Sh, do the back rank Saxons take the -2 for facing LTS?>>
>
> No.
>
>
>
>
> 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@y..., markmallard77@a... wrote:
> My understanding of this is one based on the following.
>
> The front rank do not get the -2 because the HTW disrupt the LTS to
some
> degree. If the LTS are thus disrupted they cannot logically cause
a -2 on a
> rank behind the disruptees.
>
> mark mallard
>

Mark,

Your logic makes sense to me. But it wasn't clear (to me at least)
from the rules how to apply the modifier in this limited case. Left
to my own devices -- without access to the Rules Ho -- I would have
come to the same conclusion he did. But, that said, I am missing or
forgetting the section of the rules that make this explicit.

I think it is a case in which having access to Jon and knowing there
is a tournament scene out there in which such questions have to have
a unified answer creates lots of technical questions that would never
be argued very long if all we did was play in our local groups.

John Meunier

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 10/29/2002 12:54:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, scribblerjohn
writes:

> I think it is a case in which having access to Jon and knowing there
> is a tournament scene out there in which such questions have to have
> a unified answer creates lots of technical questions that would never
> be argued very long if all we did was play in our local
> groups.>>

The problem stems from the hand to hand tac factor section just being a series
of summary lines and not a full rules case. In hindsight that was an error. We
have a plan to fix it, just have to be patient.

Jon

[Chris Bump]

Makes perfect sense. My question was as to where this could be discerned from
the rules.

The logical follow on question would be what if the back rank of the body
opposing the LTS had HTW, but the front rank did not? Would the entire body
then take a -2? Would only the front rank? Would the entire body not take a -2
because there was some HTW present, ie back rank albeit at half the figures
fighting? If this is so then when using the NASAMW list why not only upgrade
one figure per element with HTW, that way the other figures can keep the Jls in
subsequent bounds. If the mere presence of HTW is enough to offset P/LTS
....you can see the endless questions that might follow.
Chris

In a message dated 10/29/2002 12:47:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, markmallard77
writes:

> My understanding of this is one based on the following.
>
> The front rank do not get the -2 because the HTW disrupt the LTS to some
> degree. If the LTS are thus disrupted they cannot logically
> cause a -2 on a
> rank behind the disruptees.
>
> mark mallard

[joncleaves]

<<If the mere presence of HTW is enough to offset P/LTS
> ....you can see the endless questions that might follow.>>

Mere presence won't do it. Look, I asked for patience on getting the right
wording on 'facing' for hth tac factors and I meant it. I just got off the
phone to Scott and I will make this a higher priority than it was, but you just
simply have to give me time.

For now: If you are an element in a rank behind a rank of steady HTW in first
contact, the -2 doesn't apply to you. This situation will be included in the
definition of 'facing'.

J

[Harlan Garrett]

Gee, Jon, do not be so sensitive. ;-)

Have a nice day!
Harlan
-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 1:10 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] RULES Q:::LTS -2



<<If the mere presence of HTW is enough to offset P/LTS
> ....you can see the endless questions that might follow.>>

Mere presence won't do it. Look, I asked for patience on getting the
right wording on 'facing' for hth tac factors and I meant it. I just
got off the phone to Scott and I will make this a higher priority than
it was, but you just simply have to give me time.

For now: If you are an element in a rank behind a rank of steady HTW in
first contact, the -2 doesn't apply to you. This situation will be
included in the definition of 'facing'.

J


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT



<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=212804.2460941.3878106.2273195/D=egroupweb/S=1705
059080:HM/A=810327/R=0/*http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info?.refer=blrecs
>
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=212804.2460941.3878106.2273195/D=egroupweb/S=1705
059080:HM/A=810327/R=1/*http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info?.refer=blrecs
>

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=212804.2460941.3878106.2273195/D=egrou
pmail/S=:HM/A=810327/rand=203272859>

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]

[Chris Bump]

Jon,

Chill. Your post came after the one that I responded to, which you in turn
responded to. Yours was the last post to say that you were working on it and
needed patience. Consequently, displaying patience, I did not respond to your
post. HUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM, cross your legs, close your eyes and relax
dude. 8^)
Chris

[scott holder]

The logical follow on question would be what if the back rank of the body oppo
sing the LTS had HTW, but the front rank did not? Would the entire body then
take a -2? Would only the front rank? Would the entire body not take a -2 be
cause there was some HTW present, ie back rank albeit at half the figures figh
ting? If this is so then when using the NASAMW list why not only upgrade one
figure per element with HTW, that way the other figures can keep the Jls in su
bsequent bounds. If the mere presence of HTW is enough to offset P/LTS ....yo
u can see the endless questions that might follow.


>Jon will provide a fuller answer to this later but.....upgrading partial elem
ents is not *legal*. All figures get upgraded in an element or none. FHE lis
ts for Warrior are "priced" in this manner. However, there was a reason NASAM
W adopted "element by element" many years ago, namely to do with forgotten mec
hanical issues such as the one Chris describes here. The answer to this parti
cular one is easy (can't upgrade partial elements) but if there are others, pl
ease air them so that we're not missing something here.

>And please be patient. When two Ho's actually get on the phone during the da
y to discuss something, that suggests we think it be important:):)

scott
-2 Ho