Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Chris Bump]

Scott,

You might try a caveat that if the General/Generals are armed as infantry,
then that many elements must be deducted from the minimum and maximum. As
an example if he ran the CiC and 2 subs as the MI as opposed to the chariot
version the number of elements available would now be 5-69. This could be
listed in the portion where list rules are. Just a thought.

Chris

[scott holder]

If you all saw the following in an army list book, would it make sense?

All fractions are in elements. Generals elements that are part of a body of
troops similarly armed count toward any fractional ratios listed for that
particular troop type. For example, an Early Sumerian general's element of MI
P, Pa that is part of a larger body of Militia Spearmen would count toward the
"1/2/ none" option to give such troops Pa if such an option was exercised. In
other words, this ratio is plus or minus one element IF the general is part of
a body so armed.

If it makes sense, great. If not, suggestions are welcome. Here's where I'm
going with this, using the Early Dynastic Sumerians as an example, the CinC
(or sub or ally for that matter) is listed (partially) as follows:

CinC with JLS in four horse HCh with Irr B crew of unarmed
driver @ 100 pts, or on foot as MI P, Pa and 3 Reg B MI P, Pa @ 115 pts

Then the troop type that the Cinc, sub, ally could be with is as follows:

Militia Spearmen Reg D MI P @ 8 pts 6-72
Extra to give Spearmen Pa @ 4 pts 1/2/none
Extra to upgrade Spearmen to Reg C @ 4 pts 0-1/2
Extra to upgrade Reg C Spearmen to Reg B @ 4 pts 0-8

What I'm trying to do here is say that the Pa ratio of -none can't
"technically" be done if the general is also part of that unit. The same
thing applies toward minimums and maximums as well. I mean the way I have it
written above, one *could* read it to mean that the general's element counts
toward, in this example, the max number of elements that could be upgraded to
Reg B, not something I wanna do.

Any suggestions on *wording*?

[joncleaves]

Scott

We HAVE to clearly address fractions and the issue of general's elements in
units. I had trouble reading this - I'll see if I can't come with something
'simpler'

[joncleaves]

Scott T: Lots better, but we should expand the example to show the construction
of an actual body to which this applies.

Greg: Your fudge factor will be there, Mr Power Gamer. How about my cover
and logo?

[Greg Regets]

Can't we just give players a bit of fudge factor on the list. What is fair for one is fair for all. This would not only make list building a bit easier, it would allow players to buy units that were more to their liking, and help out in the purchase of figures (for example Old Glory).
Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@aol.com [mailto:JonCleaves@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 5:12 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Wording


Scott

We HAVE to clearly address fractions and the issue of general's elements in units.  I had trouble reading this - I'll see if I can't come with something 'simpler'
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
FREE COLLEGE MONEY
CLICK HERE to search
600,000 scholarships!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Pv4pGD/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/IMSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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..., "Holder, Scott <FHWA>"
<Scott.Holder@f...> wrote:
> All fractions are in elements. Generals elements that are part
of a body of
> troops similarly armed count toward any fractional ratios listed
for that
> particular troop type. For example, an Early Sumerian
general's element of MI
> P, Pa that is part of a larger body of Militia Spearmen would
count toward the
> "1/2/ none" option to give such troops Pa if such an option was
exercised. In
> other words, this ratio is plus or minus one element IF the
general is part of
> a body so armed.

>
> Any suggestions on *wording*?

Simplier is the way to go. Try this:

All fractions refer to the ratio of elements making up a body. A
General's element that is part of a body of troops similary armed,
count toward any fractional ratios listed for that particular troop
type.

For example, an Early Sumarian general's element consisting of
MI, P, Pa that is part of a larger body of Militia Spearmen would
count toward the "1/2/none option giving such troops Pa if the
option is exercised. This ratio includes the general's element IF
the general part of the body and the option is exercised.

Scott Turner

>--- In WarriorRules@y..., "Holder, Scott <FHWA>"
><Scott.Holder@f...> wrote:
>> All fractions are in elements. Generals elements that are part
>of a body of
>> troops similarly armed count toward any fractional ratios listed
>for that
>> particular troop type. For example, an Early Sumerian
>general's element of MI
>> P, Pa that is part of a larger body of Militia Spearmen would
>count toward the
>> "1/2/ none" option to give such troops Pa if such an option was
>exercised. In
>> other words, this ratio is plus or minus one element IF the
>general is part of
>> a body so armed.
>
>>
>> Any suggestions on *wording*?
>
>Simplier is the way to go. Try this:
>
>All fractions refer to the ratio of elements making up a body. A
>General's element that is part of a body of troops similary armed,
>count toward any fractional ratios listed for that particular troop
>type.
>
>For example, an Early Sumarian general's element consisting of
>MI, P, Pa that is part of a larger body of Militia Spearmen would
>count toward the "1/2/none option giving such troops Pa if the
>option is exercised. This ratio includes the general's element IF
>the general part of the body and the option is exercised.


The last sentence should read:

"This ratio includes the general's element if the general's element
is part of the body, and the option is exercised."

Scott Turner

The list SPECIFICALLY states "to upgrade C to B" and the generals are
ALREADY a B grade. So you will end up with 8 upgraded B grades plus
however many generals elements.

Ergo, 1 C-in-C plus (say) 3 subgenerals = 4 B grade plus 8 upgraded C
grade to B grade = 12 elements TOTAL of B grade spearmen. Your
listing below is quite clear on this and I don't think anyone who has
used the Clark and Hutchby lists (already in elements) will have a
problem with what you have written. I don't think you could make this
any clearer.

As for adding Pa. Since you have told the player that the generals
element already has a Pa (and costed for same), it SHOULD be counted
towards the total number of elements with Pa.

My only change to your wording would be "1/2 or none". You could add
an aster (*) with a foot note to include the generals in this count.

ps. Send me this list! So far it's looking real good!

Cheers

====================


CinC with JLS in four horse HCh with Irr B crew of unarmed
driver @ 100 pts, or on foot as MI P, Pa and 3 Reg B MI P, Pa @ 115
pts

Then the troop type that the Cinc, sub, ally could be with is as
follows:

Militia Spearmen Reg D MI P @ 8 pts 6-72
Extra to give Spearmen Pa @ 4 pts 1/2/none
Extra to upgrade Spearmen to Reg C @ 4 pts 0-1/2
Extra to upgrade Reg C Spearmen to Reg B @ 4 pts 0-8

What I'm trying to do here is say that the Pa ratio of -none can't
"technically" be done if the general is also part of that unit.
The same thing applies toward minimums and maximums as well. I mean
the way I have it written above, one *could* read it to mean that the
general's element counts toward, in this example, the max number of
elements that could be upgraded to Reg B, not something I wanna do.

Any suggestions on *wording*?

[Patrick Byrne]

Scott,
Why not use an Hutchby & Clark type set-up,
'Extra to give Spearmen Pa @ 4 pts, @ 3pts if command element... 1/2 or none'

Then you only have to delete Pa from the command element (cause they can upgrade
that).

Also, I would like it if the nomenclature was 'or' instead of '/'. 'or' implies
that it is on or the other were as '/' may mean you could have some in between.
But that is just me being picky.

And if H&C is a bad suggestion, let me know so I can make a mental note.
-PB


Holder, Scott wrote:

> If you all saw the following in an army list book, would it make sense?
>
> All fractions are in elements. Generals elements that are part of a body of
> troops similarly armed count toward any fractional ratios listed for that
> particular troop type. For example, an Early Sumerian general's element of MI
> P, Pa that is part of a larger body of Militia Spearmen would count toward the
> "1/2/ none" option to give such troops Pa if such an option was exercised. In
> other words, this ratio is plus or minus one element IF the general is part of
> a body so armed.
>
> If it makes sense, great. If not, suggestions are welcome. Here's where I'm
> going with this, using the Early Dynastic Sumerians as an example, the CinC
> (or sub or ally for that matter) is listed (partially) as follows:
>
> CinC with JLS in four horse HCh with Irr B crew of unarmed
> driver @ 100 pts, or on foot as MI P, Pa and 3 Reg B MI P, Pa @ 115 pts
>
> Then the troop type that the Cinc, sub, ally could be with is as follows:
>
> Militia Spearmen Reg D MI P @ 8 pts 6-72
> Extra to give Spearmen Pa @ 4 pts 1/2/none
> Extra to upgrade Spearmen to Reg C @ 4 pts 0-1/2
> Extra to upgrade Reg C Spearmen to Reg B @ 4 pts 0-8
>
> What I'm trying to do here is say that the Pa ratio of -none can't
> "technically" be done if the general is also part of that unit. The same
> thing applies toward minimums and maximums as well. I mean the way I have it
> written above, one *could* read it to mean that the general's element counts
> toward, in this example, the max number of elements that could be upgraded to
> Reg B, not something I wanna do.
>
> Any suggestions on *wording*?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/