Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ewan McNay]

OK, so I finally had a moment to pay some attention and read the rules
at least semi-carefully. A few Qs and comments from said reading.

4.21: I think that a clarification (and I would agree that it would be
such!) might need to state that hypothetical rectangles drawn for
purposes of determining command overlap must have their sides parallel
to those of the table.

5.143: the text following the bulleted list contains the phrase
'...forces [opponents] to break-off, recoil, or break...'. I would
interpret this, reading literally, as that if your opponent *chooses*
to break-off (e.g. having failed to either inflict or receive a CPF),
this clause would not apply. I think this is just a case where extra
text makes the literal reading wrong; correct?

5.41: foot standing to receive a charge, and not being made disordered
or otherwise impacted by that charge, nonetheless have a mandatory
rally if their chargers are destroyed, but not if they simply rout.
Odd.

6.112: might want to add that it is never possible for a variable move
to go below 0 paces (i.e. move backwards). I have this great image of
cav trying to charge across an obstacle and boucing off, ending up
behind their original position (from where they could then rally
back!). Yeah, this is a bit silly, but I am/was trying to have my
literal hat on.

6.161: As written, this gives a mixed body of LI/LC the ability to
charge anything, I think. [Exact text: "LI are permitted to charge
targets that LC could, or if in a mixed body with mounted troops."]
Mixed bodies are nowhere else covered, so this is their only
restriction - i.e., no restriction.

6.45: Am I right in reading this that a skirmishing body whose charge
is cancelled must evade (because in skirmish), only becoming
disordered block after having done so?

10.4: Notes that a wounded CinC may be replaced by a 2iC. No such
possibility for a dead one? [This may be fine, reflecting e.g.
confusion in command after death, just want to check.]

16.27: Notes that position of incndiary pigs, et al., is marked by the
owning player. Is/should this mark be visible to opponents? [I would
argue for not, but suspect this is not the intent.]

That's all . Pretty good, really, guys. Kudos.

[joncleaves]

> 5.143: the text following the bulleted list contains the phrase '...forces
[opponents] to break-off, recoil, or break...'. I would
> interpret this, reading literally, as that if your opponent *chooses*
> to break-off (e.g. having failed to either inflict or receive a CPF),
> this clause would not apply. I think this is just a case where extra
> text makes the literal reading wrong; correct?>>

The bullet: "when all hand-to-hand opponents recoil, break-off or break. " is
the controlling thing here.

> 6.161: As written, this gives a mixed body of LI/LC the ability to
> charge anything, I think. [Exact text: "LI are permitted to charge
> targets that LC could, or if in a mixed body with mounted troops."]
> Mixed bodies are nowhere else covered, so this is their only
> restriction - i.e., no restriction.>>

Huh? What target that LC cannot charge can 'now' be charged by a mixed body of
LC/LI (which isn't what I would call common...lol)?

> 6.45: Am I right in reading this that a skirmishing body whose charge is
cancelled must evade (because in skirmish), only becoming disordered block after
having done so?>>

Yes.

> 10.4: Notes that a wounded CinC may be replaced by a 2iC. No such
possibility for a dead one? [This may be fine, reflecting e.g.
> confusion in command after death, just want to check.]>>

4.11 says: "One subordinate (not ally) general can be nominated as second in
command (2IC), to take command if the CINC is wounded/killed (10.4), destroyed
or broken."

<<> 16.27: Notes that position of incndiary pigs, et al., is marked by the
owning player. Is/should this mark be visible to opponents? [I would argue
for not, but suspect this is not the intent.]>>

Marks on his army list. It isn't known to the opponent until used.

J