Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[scott holder]

I had always hoped that the 4H's would come up with a canned solution to the
violation of orders question. Granted, this is a tough question, but
violation of orders is such an advantage at times. I'm sure everyone has
similar horror stories,
I have two suggestions;

1. If a command is found to be in violation of its orders, the commands
become "without orders". A "Without Orders" section is made on the chart.
Commands that violate orders will automatically go to this order and stay
there until orders are changed.

2. All units in the command dice for interpretation of orders, acting as the
dice dictate.

>I think more than anyone, I've dealt with this (very very very imperfectly)
over the years. I've never used the same solution twice in the rare instance
that it's come up since in the Big East tournies, most players figure out some
solution themselves.

>Nonetheless, this is a glaring oversight, but any solution won't have been
playtested to any degree. Your "without orders" order sounds good but without
any specific detail, I'm not sure where we can go with this. When you say
"units dice for interpretation", what order are they dicing to interpret?

>A "without orders" section could be something as easy as "commands found to
be in violation of orders automatically revert to HOLD" or something like
that. Yes, there will be instances of when that will be advantageous but it's
easy. Or, if a random issue is more to one's liking, we could say "commands
found to be in violation of orders roll a die, 1-2=orders go to RUSH,
3-4=orders go to HOLD, 5-6=orders go to WAIT" or something along those lines.
Note I used what are essentially three "goofy" orders so that something
preferential to the player "deliberately" violating orders is not a given.

>Again, none of this has been playtested and I'm only spouting off the top of
my head. But yeah, this is something we should close.

Scott

[joncleaves]

Thanks, Chris. I literally needed that.

[joncleaves]

I will take a hard look at guidance in the rules to the violation of orders
problem sans ump. I may even come up with a nifty solution. At the end of the
day, however, players need to police themselves....

[Greg Regets]

I had always hoped that the 4H's would come up with a canned solution to the
violation of orders question. Granted, this is a tough question, but
violation of orders is such an advantage at times. I'm sure everyone has
similar horror stories, but I can recall seeing commands cross the center
line, tipping off his general disposition, running up against things they
didn't want to close with, and then deciding to keep his distance. The
referee in this instance moved him to the next set of orders down on the
list, which let him have both the advantage of keeping his distance, and
being over the center line of the table. Yet another time, a player had not
been moving aggressively, but then charged unprompted. The referee
determined that he was indeed on attack orders and "forced" him to move
units in the command to obey orders. This ended up to be quite an advantage.

I have two suggestions;

1. If a command is found to be in violation of its orders, the commands
become "without orders". A "Without Orders" section is made on the chart.
Commands that violate orders will automatically go to this order and stay
there until orders are changed.

2. All units in the command dice for interpretation of orders, acting as the
dice dictate.

[Tim Brown]

Greg,
 
Personally, I prefer the Hammer of Justice: a 10 lb sledge hammer with the motto " Comply or Die  ". One or two uses on the units committing the infraction is usually all it takes to drive home the point about following orders. Usually during the game I interrogate my opponent and keep track and announce what his orders must not be, based upon his actions, turn by turn. For example, ( everybody knows this already, but...) you can deduce that he's NOT on attack orders if half the command ( which you know which units of at deployment ) doesn't advance or meets the other requirements. Which also rules out Rush, naturally. Which leaves Probe, etc, etc. By announcing  this you 'help' keep him honest if you have any doubts.  The hammering flat of his fav unit also helps! 

-----Original Message-----From: Greg Regets [mailto:greg@parkerwood.com]Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 9:59 AMTo: 'WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com'Subject: [WarriorRules] Violation of OrdersI had always hoped that the 4H's would come up with a canned solution to theviolation of orders question. Granted, this is a tough question, butviolation of orders is such an advantage at times. I'm sure everyone hassimilar horror stories, but I can recall seeing commands cross the centerline, tipping off his general disposition, running up against things theydidn't want to close with, and then deciding to keep his distance. Thereferee in this instance moved him to the next set of orders down on thelist, which let him have both the advantage of keeping his distance, andbeing over the center line of the table. Yet another time, a player had notbeen moving aggressively, but then charged unprompted. The refereedetermined that he was indeed on attack orders and "forced" him to moveunits in the command to obey orders. This ended up to be quite an advantage.I have two suggestions;1. If a command is found to be in violation of its orders, the commandsbecome "without orders". A "Without Orders" section is made on the chart.Commands that violate orders will automatically go to this order and staythere until orders are changed.2. All units in the command dice for interpretation of orders, acting as thedice dictate.To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Greg Regets]

Obviously catching people is simple enough, but does not address the problem of what to do when you do catch them.
 
The hammer of justice ... haha ... down here in Texas, that would get you the .44 to the head justice we are so famous for!
 
G  

-----Original Message-----From: Brown,Tim [mailto:Tim.Brown@trenwick.com]Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 9:42 AMTo: 'WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com'Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] Violation of Orders
Greg,
 
Personally, I prefer the Hammer of Justice: a 10 lb sledge hammer with the motto " Comply or Die  ". One or two uses on the units committing the infraction is usually all it takes to drive home the point about following orders. Usually during the game I interrogate my opponent and keep track and announce what his orders must not be, based upon his actions, turn by turn. For example, ( everybody knows this already, but...) you can deduce that he's NOT on attack orders if half the command ( which you know which units of at deployment ) doesn't advance or meets the other requirements. Which also rules out Rush, naturally. Which leaves Probe, etc, etc. By announcing  this you 'help' keep him honest if you have any doubts.  The hammering flat of his fav unit also helps! 

-----Original Message-----From: Greg Regets [mailto:greg@parkerwood.com]Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 9:59 AMTo: 'WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com'Subject: [WarriorRules] Violation of OrdersI had always hoped that the 4H's would come up with a canned solution to theviolation of orders question. Granted, this is a tough question, butviolation of orders is such an advantage at times. I'm sure everyone hassimilar horror stories, but I can recall seeing commands cross the centerline, tipping off his general disposition, running up against things theydidn't want to close with, and then deciding to keep his distance. Thereferee in this instance moved him to the next set of orders down on thelist, which let him have both the advantage of keeping his distance, andbeing over the center line of the table. Yet another time, a player had notbeen moving aggressively, but then charged unprompted. The refereedetermined that he was indeed on attack orders and "forced" him to moveunits in the command to obey orders. This ended up to be quite an advantage.I have two suggestions;1. If a command is found to be in violation of its orders, the commandsbecome "without orders". A "Without Orders" section is made on the chart.Commands that violate orders will automatically go to this order and staythere until orders are changed.2. All units in the command dice for interpretation of orders, acting as thedice dictate.To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Chris Damour]

On Thu, 22 March 2001, "Brown,Tim" wrote:
***Big Snip***
> For example, ( everybody knows this already, but...)
> you can deduce that he's NOT on attack orders if half
> the command ( which you know which units of at
> deployment ) doesn't advance or meets the other
> requirements.
***More Big Snip***

<<blinks>> You mean you can play this game and NOT move every unit directly at
your opponent as fast as possible? Hunh, who'd a thunk it... <<grin>>
Chris "I have two speeds, Full and Flank" Damour

[Tim Brown]

Yes, Chris, you, too, can play an army that isn't comprised of, oh...Early Hebrew, Spanish, Viking, or Teutons if memory serves. Of course, that might mean you might have to... * gasp*...counter...or stand to receive a charge? Hmmm...have you EVER stood to receive a charge? *thinking back in time* I/A element...always impetuous...NOPE, I don't think so ! You could change your signature to read " Chris " Frothing at the mouth" Damour"
 
HEY Greg!
 
If needed, especially if you suspect your man is packing, the Hammer can be used on the life-size mini first...<laughing>

-----Original Message-----From: damourc@telocity.com [mailto:damourc@telocity.com]Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 11:06 AMTo: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.comSubject: RE: [WarriorRules] Violation of OrdersOn Thu, 22 March 2001, "Brown,Tim" wrote:***Big Snip***> For example, ( everybody knows this already, but...)> you can deduce that he's NOT on attack orders if half> the command ( which you know which  units of at> deployment ) doesn't advance or meets the other> requirements.***More Big Snip***<<blinks>>  You mean you can play this game and NOT move every unit directly at your opponent as fast as possible?  Hunh, who'd a thunk it...  <<grin>>Chris "I have two speeds, Full and Flank" DamourTo unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Ewan McNay]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Brown,Tim wrote:
> Yes, Chris, you, too, can play an army that isn't comprised of, oh...Early
> Hebrew, Spanish, Viking, or Teutons if memory serves. Of course, that might
> mean you might have to... * gasp*...counter...or stand to receive a charge?
> Hmmm...have you EVER stood to receive a charge? *thinking back in time* I/A
> element...always impetuous...NOPE, I don't think so ! You could change your
> signature to read " Chris " Frothing at the mouth" Damour"

Ha! Try playing doubles with him as a partner! :)

[Test for the reader. Imagine that you have agreed with your partner to
play Vikings and Pre-Feudal Scots, and you're facing Khmer and Burmese.
No problem, right? Lots of Irreg A nutters with JLS, Sh; a few bowmen;
the odd LI. So, which units would you expect to look across the table, on
bounds 2 and 3, to find leading your side's charge?



Correct answer: whichever ones Chris is in charge of. In this case, the
compulsory MI LTS, Sh, who - being C class - really aren't that happy to
have 4 Els in front of them, 3 to one side and 3 more appearing on their
shiedless flank...]

After that we switched to Spanish, where *all* the units are Irreg A or B
(ok, so the LI can be C class, but you get the picture..)

;)
--
Dr. Ewan McNay - Behavioral Neuroscience, Yale University.
Buying books would be a good thing if one could also buy the time to read
them in: but as a rule the purchase of books is mistaken for appropriation
of their contents. - Arthur Schopenhauer, philosopher (1788-1860)

[Don Coon]

> I will take a hard look at guidance in the rules to the violation of
orders problem sans ump. I may even come up with a nifty solution. At the
end of the day, however, players need to police themselves....

If you are found in violation of orders at my house, I let Ripley call you a
poo-poo head.

Don

What? Orders? How unAmerican!

--- In WarriorRules@y..., "Donald and Jennifer Coon" <jendon@f...>
wrote:
>
> > I will take a hard look at guidance in the rules to the violation
of
> orders problem sans ump. I may even come up with a nifty
solution. At the
> end of the day, however, players need to police themselves....
>
> If you are found in violation of orders at my house, I let Ripley
call you a
> poo-poo head.
>
> Don

[Tim Grimmett]

Why not have players declare orders each command is given.....don't see the
need for secrecy and it avoids a lot of confusion....I always ask anyway
after the first player roles up on a nonimpetous pursuit...

TBG

-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [SMTP:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 9:22 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Violation of Orders

I will take a hard look at guidance in the rules to the violation of
orders problem sans ump. I may even come up with a nifty solution. At the
end of the day, however, players need to police themselves....

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

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/

Attachment: (application/ms-tnef) [not stored]