Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Ok. The FHE website has the following clarificaion for the Seljuqs...

Page 22, Line 3: Change"0-1/2" to"any"

Since the text of the line "upgrade 1/2 of each Turkoman Tribesman unit to
Irr A" is not changed I assume that the clarification means that any Turkoman
unit can be 1/2 Irr A. (for example if you had 3x4E Turkoman Units each of the
units could include 2 Irr A elements and 2E Irr C. Thus the grand total for the
3 units would be 6E Irr A and 6E Irr C).
An alternative interpretation is that all Turkoman Tribesman elements can
now be Irr A. In the example above this would result in the possibility of
having 3x4E units with all 12E being IrrA.

Assuming the first hypothesis is correct this would seem to cause a
potential problem with the required Irr A LC Turkoman Ally general. If only half
of any Turkoman unit can be Irr A then any "bodyguard" attached to the Ally
General would have to be Irr C LC. Am I interpreting this correctly? Thanks
again.


Paul Wilson


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

[scott holder]

Your first hypothesis is the correct one. And yes, a Turkoman AG with a
bodygurad element would be a mixed A/C unit.

scott

>>> Bill Low <lowclan@...> 01/25/06 12:08 AM >>>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:28:05 -0500
From: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@...>
Subject: Seljuq List Clarifications

Ok. The FHE website has the following clarificaion for the Seljuqs...

Page 22, Line 3: Change"0-1/2" to"any"

Since the text of the line "upgrade 1/2 of each Turkoman Tribesman unit
to Irr A" is not changed I assume that the clarification means that any
Turkoman unit can be 1/2 Irr A. (for example if you had 3x4E Turkoman Units
each of the units could include 2 Irr A elements and 2E Irr C. Thus the
grand total for the 3 units would be 6E Irr A and 6E Irr C).
An alternative interpretation is that all Turkoman Tribesman elements
can now be Irr A. In the example above this would result in the possibility
of having 3x4E units with all 12E being IrrA.

Assuming the first hypothesis is correct this would seem to cause a
potential problem with the required Irr A LC Turkoman Ally general. If only
half of any Turkoman unit can be Irr A then any "bodyguard" attached to the
Ally General would have to be Irr C LC. Am I interpreting this correctly?
Thanks again.


Paul Wilson
-----------------------------------------------------
From Harold William Low

Thanks for the clarification. As I looked over the list I thought I had
interpreted the rules correctly. However, the concept of having a required LC
Ally General with an effective morale of "C" and the penchant to charge of Irreg
A seemed too....problematic to be correct. Of course I guess you could just
leave the bodyguard off and have a one element Irr A LC AG unit ;)


Paul


Subject: [WarriorRules] RE: Seljuq List Clarifications

Your first hypothesis is the correct one. And yes, a Turkoman AG with a
bodygurad element would be a mixed A/C unit.

scott

>>> Bill Low <lowclan@...> 01/25/06 12:08 AM >>>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:28:05 -0500
From: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@...>
Subject: Seljuq List Clarifications

Ok. The FHE website has the following clarificaion for the Seljuqs...

Page 22, Line 3: Change"0-1/2" to"any"

Since the text of the line "upgrade 1/2 of each Turkoman Tribesman unit
to Irr A" is not changed I assume that the clarification means that any
Turkoman unit can be 1/2 Irr A. (for example if you had 3x4E Turkoman Units
each of the units could include 2 Irr A elements and 2E Irr C. Thus the
grand total for the 3 units would be 6E Irr A and 6E Irr C).
An alternative interpretation is that all Turkoman Tribesman elements
can now be Irr A. In the example above this would result in the possibility
of having 3x4E units with all 12E being IrrA.

Assuming the first hypothesis is correct this would seem to cause a
potential problem with the required Irr A LC Turkoman Ally general. If only
half of any Turkoman unit can be Irr A then any "bodyguard" attached to the
Ally General would have to be Irr C LC. Am I interpreting this correctly?
Thanks again.


Paul Wilson
-----------------------------------------------------
From Harold William Low


________________________________

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


* Visit your group "WarriorRules <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules>
" on the web.

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* 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]

[Ewan McNay]

You suggest that it's a joke, but a 1E LC general is about the best way
you have of ensuring that he nevers gets caught up in fighting :-)

Paul Wilson wrote:

> Thanks for the clarification. As I looked over the list I thought I had
interpreted the rules correctly. However, the concept of having a required LC
Ally General with an effective morale of "C" and the penchant to charge of Irreg
A seemed too....problematic to be correct. Of course I guess you could just
leave the bodyguard off and have a one element Irr A LC AG unit
>
>
> Paul
>
>
> Subject: [WarriorRules] RE: Seljuq List Clarifications
>
> Your first hypothesis is the correct one. And yes, a Turkoman AG with a
bodygurad element would be a mixed A/C unit.
>
> scott
>
>
>>>>Bill Low <lowclan@...> 01/25/06 12:08 AM >>>
>
> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:28:05 -0500
> From: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@...>
> Subject: Seljuq List Clarifications
>
> Ok. The FHE website has the following clarificaion for the Seljuqs...
>
> Page 22, Line 3: Change"0-1/2" to"any"
>
> Since the text of the line "upgrade 1/2 of each Turkoman Tribesman unit
> to Irr A" is not changed I assume that the clarification means that any
> Turkoman unit can be 1/2 Irr A. (for example if you had 3x4E Turkoman Units
> each of the units could include 2 Irr A elements and 2E Irr C. Thus the
> grand total for the 3 units would be 6E Irr A and 6E Irr C).
> An alternative interpretation is that all Turkoman Tribesman elements
> can now be Irr A. In the example above this would result in the possibility
> of having 3x4E units with all 12E being IrrA.
>
> Assuming the first hypothesis is correct this would seem to cause a
> potential problem with the required Irr A LC Turkoman Ally general. If only
> half of any Turkoman unit can be Irr A then any "bodyguard" attached to the
> Ally General would have to be Irr C LC. Am I interpreting this correctly?
> Thanks again.
>
>
> Paul Wilson
> -----------------------------------------------------
> From Harold William Low
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> * Visit your group "WarriorRules
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules> " on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * 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]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

True. I was actually pondering the possibility that that the AGs command
could contain just one unit...him. Then he really would be an army of one!
(OK...two). Of course I hate wasting points too much to do that. On the other
hand it would have to annoy your opponent when you place your first command and
all they see on the table is a little LC element. Or maybe you could send the
whole "command" on a flank march.
I'm sure that skilled players would be able to keep the LC AG far enough
away from conflict that he would not charge opposing light units. An LC general
would also have the advantage of speed when it comes to intercepting a
shaken/broken unit to rally it. However, at this point in my learning curve I
have enough trouble getting my "plane jane" units to do what I want. I don't
need an odd ball general giving me headaches ;)

Paul


>>>>You suggest that it's a joke, but a 1E LC general is about the best way
>>>>you have of ensuring that he nevers gets caught up in fighting :-)

Paul Wilson wrote:

> Thanks for the clarification. As I looked over the list I thought I had
interpreted the rules correctly. However, the concept of having a required LC
Ally General with an effective morale of "C" and the penchant to charge of Irreg
A seemed too....problematic to be correct. Of course I guess you could just
leave the bodyguard off and have a one element Irr A LC AG unit
>
>
> Paul
>
>
> Subject: [WarriorRules] RE: Seljuq List Clarifications
>
> Your first hypothesis is the correct one. And yes, a Turkoman AG with a
bodygurad element would be a mixed A/C unit.
>
> scott
>
>
>>>>Bill Low <lowclan@...> 01/25/06 12:08 AM >>>
>
> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:28:05 -0500
> From: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@...>
> Subject: Seljuq List Clarifications
>
> Ok. The FHE website has the following clarificaion for the Seljuqs...
>
> Page 22, Line 3: Change"0-1/2" to"any"
>
> Since the text of the line "upgrade 1/2 of each Turkoman Tribesman unit
> to Irr A" is not changed I assume that the clarification means that any
> Turkoman unit can be 1/2 Irr A. (for example if you had 3x4E Turkoman Units
> each of the units could include 2 Irr A elements and 2E Irr C. Thus the
> grand total for the 3 units would be 6E Irr A and 6E Irr C).
> An alternative interpretation is that all Turkoman Tribesman elements
> can now be Irr A. In the example above this would result in the possibility
> of having 3x4E units with all 12E being IrrA.
>
> Assuming the first hypothesis is correct this would seem to cause a
> potential problem with the required Irr A LC Turkoman Ally general. If only
> half of any Turkoman unit can be Irr A then any "bodyguard" attached to the
> Ally General would have to be Irr C LC. Am I interpreting this correctly?
> Thanks again.
>
>
> Paul Wilson
> -----------------------------------------------------
> From Harold William Low
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> * Visit your group "WarriorRules
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules> " on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * 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]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



________________________________

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


* Visit your group "WarriorRules <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules>
" on the web.

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* 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]

[Ewan McNay]

Paul Wilson wrote:
> I'm sure that skilled players would be able to keep the LC AG far
> enough away from conflict that he would not charge opposing light
> units.

That's the (well, one of the) neat thing - a 1E general is immune to such
worries.

> An LC general would also have the advantage of speed when it
> comes to intercepting a shaken/broken unit to rally it.

Exactly. And can evade if it ever *does* get charged.

Shouldn't be too hard to incorporate if you feel like it.

An, yes, a 1E command would be an amusing deployment trick, but probably
not worthwhile. Note that if on a flank march, it does not count as being
a deployed command for purposes of alternating command deployment.

>
> > An LC general would also have the advantage of speed when it
> > comes to intercepting a shaken/broken unit to rally it.
>
> Exactly.  And can evade if it ever *does* get charged.
>
Don't forget,  a single element general doesn't  have to take a waver when
intercepting a broken unit.
Steve Rawls



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

[Mark Stone]

--- On January 27 Ewan said: ---

> And, yes, a 1E command would be an amusing deployment trick, but probably
> not worthwhile. Note that if on a flank march, it does not count as being
> a deployed command for purposes of alternating command deployment.

This is something I've been wondering about: whether flank-marched commands are
part of alternating command deployment. You seem to think pretty obviously not;
where in the rules are you getting that idea from?


-Mark Stone

[Ewan McNay]

The short-and-truthful answer is that I had never considered it otherwise.

Mark Stone wrote:
> --- On January 27 Ewan said: ---
>
>
>>And, yes, a 1E command would be an amusing deployment trick, but probably
>>not worthwhile. Note that if on a flank march, it does not count as being
>>a deployed command for purposes of alternating command deployment.
>
>
> This is something I've been wondering about: whether flank-marched commands
are
> part of alternating command deployment. You seem to think pretty obviously
not;
> where in the rules are you getting that idea from?
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 1/28/2006 10:54:29 Central Standard Time,
pwilson@... writes:

>>>Don't forget, a single element general doesn't have to take a waver
when intercepting a >>>broken unit.
>>>Steve Rawls

I had not realized this! Could you point out where I can find this
information in the rules. I looked yesterday and I must have gone right past
the
relevant sections. Thanks.

Paul >>
[
6.161 Eligibility to charge. The following bodies may not charge:
• Artillery and transport troops.
• Shaken or exhausted troops.
• Unsteady troops who are rallying (5.44).
• Staff elements not part of or joined to a unit.
• Bodies that just made a retirement move.

And the rule where separate staff elements do not take wavers for friends
routing:

5.52:

Staff Elements and Routers. Staff Elements not an integral part of a unit
and not joined to a unit never take a waver test from seeing friendly troops
make a rout move.

Jon


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

>>>Don't forget, a single element general doesn't have to take a waver when
intercepting a >>>broken unit.
>>>Steve Rawls

I had not realized this! Could you point out where I can find this information
in the rules. I looked yesterday and I must have gone right past the relevant
sections. Thanks.

Paul

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




SPONSORED LINKS
Miniature wargaming
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Miniature+wargaming&w1=Miniature+wargaming&\nw2=Wargaming&w3=Four+horsemen&w4=Warrior&c=4&s=72&.sig=1nB8eqbfEaooS4kYDfZrcw>
Wargaming
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Wargaming&w1=Miniature+wargaming&w2=Wargami\nng&w3=Four+horsemen&w4=Warrior&c=4&s=72&.sig=U_I45U1fZqcv7A6ogpeg_Q> Four
horsemen
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Four+horsemen&w1=Miniature+wargaming&w2=War\ngaming&w3=Four+horsemen&w4=Warrior&c=4&s=72&.sig=PJeAuBGRU5B2rbSh_D4_8A>
Warrior
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Warrior&w1=Miniature+wargaming&w2=Wargaming\n&w3=Four+horsemen&w4=Warrior&c=4&s=72&.sig=6R3z7yzhTjB-enrCQk4dQQ>

________________________________

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


* Visit your group "WarriorRules <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules>
" on the web.

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* 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]

Paul Wilson wrote:
> I'm sure that skilled players would be able to keep the LC AG far
> enough away from conflict that he would not charge opposing light
> units.

>>>That's the (well, one of the) neat thing - a 1E general is immune to such
>>>worries.

From this I assume that a 1E staff element is not forced to charge as any other
Irreg A unit would be. Is this correct? Once again I have managed to miss an
important portion of the rules So it looks like the biggest danger for this
general would be being caught by opposing missle fire. Of course since the only
units it can have in it's command are Turkoman units the AG would be leading a
command of LC. But certainly does not look as bad as I thought at first glance.
Thanks for the rules clarification.

Paul Wilson


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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

With the exception of getting nailed by a converted charge. Just stay far enough
to the rear of the battle line so this sort of thing does not happen.

Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@...> wrote: You suggest that it's a joke, but a 1E
LC general is about the best way
you have of ensuring that he nevers gets caught up in fighting :-)

Paul Wilson wrote:

> Thanks for the clarification. As I looked over the list I thought I had
interpreted the rules correctly. However, the concept of having a required LC
Ally General with an effective morale of "C" and the penchant to charge of Irreg
A seemed too....problematic to be correct. Of course I guess you could just
leave the bodyguard off and have a one element Irr A LC AG unit
>
>
> Paul
>
>
> Subject: [WarriorRules] RE: Seljuq List Clarifications
>
> Your first hypothesis is the correct one. And yes, a Turkoman AG with a
bodygurad element would be a mixed A/C unit.
>
> scott
>
>
>>>>Bill Low <lowclan@...> 01/25/06 12:08 AM >>>
>
> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:28:05 -0500
> From: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@...>
> Subject: Seljuq List Clarifications
>
> Ok. The FHE website has the following clarificaion for the Seljuqs...
>
> Page 22, Line 3: Change"0-1/2" to"any"
>
> Since the text of the line "upgrade 1/2 of each Turkoman Tribesman unit
> to Irr A" is not changed I assume that the clarification means that any
> Turkoman unit can be 1/2 Irr A. (for example if you had 3x4E Turkoman Units
> each of the units could include 2 Irr A elements and 2E Irr C. Thus the
> grand total for the 3 units would be 6E Irr A and 6E Irr C).
> An alternative interpretation is that all Turkoman Tribesman elements
> can now be Irr A. In the example above this would result in the possibility
> of having 3x4E units with all 12E being IrrA.
>
> Assuming the first hypothesis is correct this would seem to cause a
> potential problem with the required Irr A LC Turkoman Ally general. If only
> half of any Turkoman unit can be Irr A then any "bodyguard" attached to the
> Ally General would have to be Irr C LC. Am I interpreting this correctly?
> Thanks again.
>
>
> Paul Wilson
> -----------------------------------------------------
> From Harold William Low
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> * Visit your group "WarriorRules
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules> " on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * 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]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

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

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


---------------------------------






---------------------------------
Bring words and photos together (easily) with
PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.

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

Thanks as always. In the few games I have played thus far I have never seen an
"unguarded" general. These rules have some interesting implications for the
game.

Paul
[
6.161 Eligibility to charge. The following bodies may not charge:
. Artillery and transport troops.
. Shaken or exhausted troops.
. Unsteady troops who are rallying (5.44).
. Staff elements not part of or joined to a unit.
. Bodies that just made a retirement move.

And the rule where separate staff elements do not take wavers for friends
routing:

5.52:

Staff Elements and Routers. Staff Elements not an integral part of a unit
and not joined to a unit never take a waver test from seeing friendly troops
make a rout move.

Jon


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




SPONSORED LINKS
Miniature wargaming
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Miniature+wargaming&w1=Miniature+wargaming&\nw2=Wargaming&w3=Four+horsemen&w4=Warrior&c=4&s=72&.sig=1nB8eqbfEaooS4kYDfZrcw>
Wargaming
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Wargaming&w1=Miniature+wargaming&w2=Wargami\nng&w3=Four+horsemen&w4=Warrior&c=4&s=72&.sig=U_I45U1fZqcv7A6ogpeg_Q> Four
horsemen
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Four+horsemen&w1=Miniature+wargaming&w2=War\ngaming&w3=Four+horsemen&w4=Warrior&c=4&s=72&.sig=PJeAuBGRU5B2rbSh_D4_8A>
Warrior
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Warrior&w1=Miniature+wargaming&w2=Wargaming\n&w3=Four+horsemen&w4=Warrior&c=4&s=72&.sig=6R3z7yzhTjB-enrCQk4dQQ>

________________________________

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


* Visit your group "WarriorRules <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules>
" on the web.

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* 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]

Can it count as a command for any purposes? I thought that a command
had to include at least one unit, not body and that the only general
who was allowed to not be part of a command was the CinC?

Adrian Williams

-- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> Paul Wilson wrote:
> > I'm sure that skilled players would be able to keep the LC AG far
> > enough away from conflict that he would not charge opposing light
> > units.
>
> That's the (well, one of the) neat thing - a 1E general is immune
to such
> worries.
>
> > An LC general would also have the advantage of speed when it
> > comes to intercepting a shaken/broken unit to rally it.
>
> Exactly. And can evade if it ever *does* get charged.
>
> Shouldn't be too hard to incorporate if you feel like it.
>
> An, yes, a 1E command would be an amusing deployment trick, but
probably
> not worthwhile. Note that if on a flank march, it does not count
as being
> a deployed command for purposes of alternating command deployment.
>