Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

Jon,

I've got a game coming up tonight that is already raising a few questions.

As a practice game for the Historicon theme tournament, I'll be playing
Romano-British against Sassanid Persians. Not my favorite matchup, but when a
dedicated medievalist like me looks through his figures, Romano-British is
about the only thing I could come up with that's on the "allowed" list for
theme tournament.

Naturally I'll be using every gimmick and trick in the book to try and prevent
my LMI JLS,Sh guys from getting steamrolled by SHC/EHC and then mopped up by
elephants. This will include aggressive use of terrain (minor water feature,
marsh, steep hills, etc.). And it will include the use of ditched palisade.

Questions:

1. In 9.5 it seems to say that a unit defending behind a ditched palisade counts
as in cover (palisade), defending an obstacle (ditched palisade), and higher
(defending a ditch). Is that correct?

2. I'm having trouble finding where it specifies the width of a ditch. The width
of a gully is specified in 14.31, but I believe that a ditch is not the same
thing as a gully. So what's the width of a ditch, and where does it say this?

3. I thought I remembered a discussion on the list resulting in the
clarification that mounted troops could not cross an obtacle. I see nothing in
either 6.11 or 6.71 to indicate that, however. Can mounted cross an obstacle?

4. Under 14.31 it now says that "placement of immobile TFs must abide by the
terrain positioning rules." I assume this means my ditched palisade must be
placed at least 40p from my marsh and my woods, yes?

5. Does the same wording in 14.31 mean that two sections of ditched palisade
must be placed at least 40p from each other?


-Mark Stone

[Todd Schneider]

Mark,

I am looking at fortifications myself for an upcoming tournament, and
found most of the answers in the Warrior Clinic.Temporary
Fortifications 4.1 doc in the files section.

The file itself is called WarriorClinic#4.1.doc, and I think it
answers all of your questions.

Good luck in your game.
Todd


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> Jon,
>
> I've got a game coming up tonight that is already raising a few
questions.
>
> As a practice game for the Historicon theme tournament, I'll be
playing
> Romano-British against Sassanid Persians. Not my favorite matchup,
but when a
> dedicated medievalist like me looks through his figures, Romano-
British is
> about the only thing I could come up with that's on the "allowed"
list for
> theme tournament.
>
> Naturally I'll be using every gimmick and trick in the book to try
and prevent
> my LMI JLS,Sh guys from getting steamrolled by SHC/EHC and then
mopped up by
> elephants. This will include aggressive use of terrain (minor water
feature,
> marsh, steep hills, etc.). And it will include the use of ditched
palisade.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. In 9.5 it seems to say that a unit defending behind a ditched
palisade counts
> as in cover (palisade), defending an obstacle (ditched palisade),
and higher
> (defending a ditch). Is that correct?
>
> 2. I'm having trouble finding where it specifies the width of a
ditch. The width
> of a gully is specified in 14.31, but I believe that a ditch is not
the same
> thing as a gully. So what's the width of a ditch, and where does it
say this?
>
> 3. I thought I remembered a discussion on the list resulting in the
> clarification that mounted troops could not cross an obtacle. I see
nothing in
> either 6.11 or 6.71 to indicate that, however. Can mounted cross an
obstacle?
>
> 4. Under 14.31 it now says that "placement of immobile TFs must
abide by the
> terrain positioning rules." I assume this means my ditched palisade
must be
> placed at least 40p from my marsh and my woods, yes?
>
> 5. Does the same wording in 14.31 mean that two sections of ditched
palisade
> must be placed at least 40p from each other?
>
>
> -Mark Stone

[Mark Stone]

--- On April 26 Todd wrote: ---

> I am looking at fortifications myself for an upcoming tournament, and
> found most of the answers in the Warrior Clinic.Temporary
> Fortifications 4.1 doc in the files section.
>
> The file itself is called WarriorClinic#4.1.doc, and I think it
> answers all of your questions.
>
> Good luck in your game.

Actually, I read through the clinic and found that it answered only one of my
questions. It seems clear from the clinic that troops defending a ditched
palisade count (a) higher (b) defending an obstacle, and (c) in cover. That
supports what I understood the rules to say, so it's nice to get some
confirmation.

However, the clinic doesn't answer my questions about size of a ditch, nor about
terrain placement restrictions. In fact, the clinic raises a further question.
The clinic says "mounted troops cannot cross TF that are obstacles." However,
it doesn't reference anywhere in the rules that says this, and I have been
unable to find that section of the rules.

That issue is a big one, so I'm waiting to hear from Jon.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/26/2004 12:20:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
mark@... writes:

> 1. In 9.5 it seems to say that a unit defending behind a ditched palisade
counts
> as in cover (palisade), defending an obstacle (ditched palisade), and higher
> (defending a ditch). Is that correct?>>

Yes.


>
> 2. I'm having trouble finding where it specifies the width of a ditch. The
width
> of a gully is specified in 14.31, but I believe that a ditch is not the same
> thing as a gully. So what's the width of a ditch, and where does it say
this?>>

17.1: "Temporary (Field) Fortifications:
Section up to 6 elements wide by 10-40p ‘deep’ of:"

>
> 3. I thought I remembered a discussion on the list resulting in the
> clarification that mounted troops could not cross an obtacle. I see nothing in
> either 6.11 or 6.71 to indicate that, however. Can mounted cross an
obstacle?>>


6.711: "Vehicles and mounted troops can cross field fortifications only where
they have been destroyed."


>
> 4. Under 14.31 it now says that "placement of immobile TFs must abide by the
> terrain positioning rules." I assume this means my ditched palisade must be
> placed at least 40p from my marsh and my woods, yes?>>

Yes. And two ditches must be 1E apart. IF using 14.3 as written.

J

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/26/2004 16:43:14 Central Daylight Time,
larryessick@... writes:
Now, saying that there is no game difference in the width means that,
after winning a combat, in follow-up an element moves to the other
side of the TF -- is that right? >>

Yes, just like it would in a very rough area.
> They can cross obstacles (slowly) They can't cross TFs that are
undestroyed. All TFs are also obstacles, but not all obstacles are
TFs...
>

Which is what I said I hoped the rule was.... (???????) >>
Hmm, it seems to me that you wanted a mounted troop to be able to cross a TF,
which they can't. Maybe I misunderstood.



Is that true for stone walls or palisades w/o ditch?>>
Yes.


What about wagon laager?>>

Yes.



And, can elephants cross these even if
knights/cavalry/camelry/chariots cannot?>>

No.



Hmmm. When we played in the team tourney at Cold Wars we put stone
wall sections right up against brush. Our opponents did not object in
even one game.>>

I am aware that the both rules and clarifications get blown off by some
people. Scott and I can't be everywhere - but that does not make it ok. At
some
point a player needs to take responsibility to play the game correctly. Also -
more proof that not every Warrior player is a member of this group (or at
least one that gets and reads emails).


So, another question then. Do elements forming a section have to be
deployed together? If I field 2 sections of 6 elements, do I have to
pysically deploy all elements of the section together?>>

Yes.

Jon


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

[Larry Essick]

Mark,

Thanks for asking your questions. I have some additional
questions/comments included in what your wrote. Maybe Jon can take
them into account when answering.

Larry

> Questions:
>
> 1. In 9.5 it seems to say that a unit defending behind a ditched
palisade counts
> as in cover (palisade), defending an obstacle (ditched palisade),
and higher
> (defending a ditch). Is that correct?

(LE) I think this is correct and it makes sense.

> 2. I'm having trouble finding where it specifies the width of a
ditch. The width
> of a gully is specified in 14.31, but I believe that a ditch is not
the same
> thing as a gully. So what's the width of a ditch, and where does it
say this?

(LE) I think that it is of no real width but exists however depicted
(within reason). Ground scale is such that 40p represents something
like 100' in real life. At most this would allow the entire temporary
fortification to be only about 1/4 to 1/3 that distance. Anything
larger would seem to be more appropriate to a permanent fortification.

> 3. I thought I remembered a discussion on the list resulting in the
> clarification that mounted troops could not cross an obtacle. I see
nothing in
> either 6.11 or 6.71 to indicate that, however. Can mounted cross an
obstacle?

(LE) I hope this is incorrect and that mounted can cross obstacles. I
think that there are specific types that they cannot cross. For
example, stakes (think English longbow) should not prevent mounted
from crossing. They should become disordered on crossing, however.
Same with low walls. The combination of ditch with palisade *should*
probably prevent mounted from crossing -- although I'm not sure
elephants care much. Don't they ignore stakes (for example)?

> 4. Under 14.31 it now says that "placement of immobile TFs must
abide by the
> terrain positioning rules." I assume this means my ditched palisade
must be
> placed at least 40p from my marsh and my woods, yes?

(LE) I hope not! It makes no tactical or strategic sense to stop 100'
from terrain when building your temporary fortifications. Plashed
woods *must* go in woods. It makes sense that a ditched palisade
would anchor on defensible ground.

> 5. Does the same wording in 14.31 mean that two sections of ditched
palisade
> must be placed at least 40p from each other?

(LE) Again, I hope not. It makes sense to extend a palisade, to form
corners, or even make mini fortresses.

Larry

[joncleaves]

It is our policy that we respectfully request (again) that only I answer rules
questions. Here's a good example of why...lol


>
>
> (LE) I think that it is of no real width but exists however depicted
> (within reason).>>

The definition in 17.1 of TFs having a depth of 10-40p is deliberate. 40p is
the real distance that matters as it is the smallest measurement in game terms
that has any movement or combat effect. But having a 10p lower limit allows
folks to model their TFs with some flexibility, even though there is no game
difference between 10p and 40p.

>
> (LE) I hope this is incorrect and that mounted can cross obstacles. >>

They can cross obstacles (slowly) They can't cross TFs that are undestroyed.
All TFs are also obstacles, but not all obstacles are TFs...

<<I
> think that there are specific types that they cannot cross. For
> example, stakes (think English longbow) should not prevent mounted
> from crossing. >>

Stakes are not TFs, they are portable obstacles.

>
> > 4. Under 14.31 it now says that "placement of immobile TFs must
> abide by the
> > terrain positioning rules." I assume this means my ditched palisade
> must be
> > placed at least 40p from my marsh and my woods, yes?>>

>
> (LE) I hope not! It makes no tactical or strategic sense to stop 100'
> from terrain when building your temporary fortifications. Plashed
> woods *must* go in woods. It makes sense that a ditched palisade
> would anchor on defensible ground.>>

14.3 is there for competition terrain, NOT historical scenarios. Without the
clarification, you could build a line of very rough and TF terrain from one end
of the board to another. That is not the intent of 14.3. If you disagree, the
course of action is simple, use something other than 14.3 in your competition
games...

>
> > 5. Does the same wording in 14.31 mean that two sections of ditched
> palisade
> > must be placed at least 40p from each other?
>
> (LE) Again, I hope not. It makes sense to extend a
> palisade, to form
> corners, or even make mini fortresses.>>

He said sections, not elements. The elements of a section may be set to 'form
corners', but placing two TFs in contact violates the intent of 14.3 - to
provide the guide for competition, not set up a siege.

Jon

[Larry Essick]

> It is our policy that we respectfully request (again) that only I
answer rules questions. Here's a good example of why...lol
>

Jon, didn't mean to *answer* questions -- rather was voicing my
confusion/understanding. Probably should have used more ???? to make
that clear.

> The definition in 17.1 of TFs having a depth of 10-40p is
deliberate. 40p is the real distance that matters as it is the
smallest measurement in game terms that has any movement or combat
effect. But having a 10p lower limit allows folks to model their TFs
with some flexibility, even though there is no game difference between
10p and 40p.
>

Ah, well 1/4 of 40p is 10p.... :-)

The rule simply indicates what made sense to me.

Now, saying that there is no game difference in the width means that,
after winning a combat, in follow-up an element moves to the other
side of the TF -- is that right? It is a type of "teleport" similar
to units that interpenetrate and pop out on the other side of a
formation, yes?

> They can cross obstacles (slowly) They can't cross TFs that are
undestroyed. All TFs are also obstacles, but not all obstacles are
TFs...
>

Which is what I said I hoped the rule was.... (???????) :-)

> Stakes are not TFs, they are portable obstacles.
>

Yes, but the question asked was if mounted can cross obstacles. I
wrote that I thought they could, but that it depended on the type.

Ditched palisade makes sense to me as a type that mounted cannot
cross.

Is that true for stone walls or palisades w/o ditch?

What about wagon laager?

And, can elephants cross these even if
knights/cavalry/camelry/chariots cannot?

> 14.3 is there for competition terrain, NOT historical scenarios.
Without the clarification, you could build a line of very rough and TF
terrain from one end of the board to another. That is not the intent
of 14.3. If you disagree, the course of action is simple, use
something other than 14.3 in your competition games...
>

Hmmm. When we played in the team tourney at Cold Wars we put stone
wall sections right up against brush. Our opponents did not object in
even one game.

I can see the tactical advantage of leaving select avenues of
approach. :-)

> He said sections, not elements. The elements of a section may be
set to 'form corners', but placing two TFs in contact violates the
intent of 14.3 - to provide the guide for competition, not set up a
siege.
>

So, another question then. Do elements forming a section have to be
deployed together? If I field 2 sections of 6 elements, do I have to
pysically deploy all elements of the section together?

Thanks,

Larry

[Larry Essick]

> So, another question then. Do elements forming a section have to be
> deployed together? If I field 2 sections of 6 elements, do I have
to
> pysically deploy all elements of the section together?>>
>
> Yes.

Hmmm (again)....

IIRC we did this wrong too, placing 3 elements width in two locations.
:-(

Thanks Jon.

Larry

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I have to agree with Larry here. It seems that many of the battles that Marius
fought were precipitated by the fact that the Romans would begin to dig very
long ditches to hem their opponents in which would prompt said opponents to
attack at a time not of their choosing. It seems that it would not be tactically
sound to leave gaps in a fortifications like this. Is this just a game mechanism
that needs fixing or does it have a historical basis that I'm not getting here?

kelly


> 5. Does the same wording in 14.31 mean that two sections of ditched
palisade
> must be placed at least 40p from each other?

(LE) Again, I hope not. It makes sense to extend a palisade, to form
corners, or even make mini fortresses.

Larry



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

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

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.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

***By the way, how close is Seige Warrior to production and purchase? :)



kelly


He said sections, not elements. The elements of a section may be set to 'form
corners', but placing two TFs in contact violates the intent of 14.3 - to
provide the guide for competition, not set up a siege.

Jon




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


Yahoo! Groups Links


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

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.




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs

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

[Todd Schneider]

Well, I would bet at least two years, seeing what’s next on the production
schedule.



And, IIRC, Jon posted earlier that the rules governing TF placement were for
Competition only, and not Scenarios. Yahoo is acting wonky at the moment,
so I can’t pull that particular post up.



Todd



_____

From: kelly wilkinson [mailto:jwilkinson62@...]
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 10:17 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] TF questions






***By the way, how close is Seige Warrior to production and purchase? :)



kelly


He said sections, not elements. The elements of a section may be set to
'form corners', but placing two TFs in contact violates the intent of 14.3 -
to provide the guide for competition, not set up a siege.

Jon




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


Yahoo! Groups Links


To visit your group on the web, go to:
HYPERLINK
"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/W
arriorRules/

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.




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs

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




_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
HYPERLINK
"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/W
arriorRules/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HYPERLINK
"mailto:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe"Warrior
Rules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the HYPERLINK
"http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/"Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.670 / Virus Database: 432 - Release Date: 4/27/2004



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.670 / Virus Database: 432 - Release Date: 4/27/2004



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