Warrior Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules
A Four Horsemen Enterprises Rules Set
 
  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups AlbumAlbum   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

X rule
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Egroup Archives
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Sun Mar 10, 2002 1:26 pm    Post subject: Re: X rule


Don

Your x-rules have been saved to be added to the next batch.

Jon


_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Don Coon
Imperator
Imperator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2742

PostPosted: Sun Mar 10, 2002 4:38 pm    Post subject: X rule


I do not know how to post an X-rule, so I am putting it here. Please comment on
it, and if it needs fleshing out, I will make adjustments and repropose it as a
cleaned up X-rule. Here is my intent:

1. Knights do not test waver for non knights (this may be an unneccesary rule
as it will often be mitigated by 2).

2. No unit tests waver for seeing a friendly in rout within 120p that is of a
lower morale grade than itself. I.e. A do not test for seeing B, C, D, or E in
rout. Generals in the line of command are an exception to the above rule.
Generals in the line of command cause waver tests at 120p regardless of the
relationship of their morale vs. that of the body in question. Example: Irr A
troops test waver for seeing thier REG B subgeneral rout inside 120p (in
addition to the second waver test for seeing a genral in the line of cammand
rout). The would also test for seeing the REG B CINC rout.

3. Generals in the line of command of a body in retreat DO NOT have to make
retirement and march moves. They may stay on board using legal moves as they see
fit in an attempt to recover the command. They are not allowed to declare
charges, although they may countercharge. Once the command has become
unrecoverable do to more than half on the units being off table or destroyed, he
must make retirement and march moves to get off table as per RETREAT orders.

We have not yet played by these rules. Here are my thoughts.

1. It just feels like Knights should ignore the pee-ons they are forced to
fight with (say this with an elitist tongue in cheek to get the right feel).
Samurai may need to be included too. This is the easiest of the 3 rules, I see
to get rid off, as rule 2 covers many Knight/pee-on relationships.

2. Not having playtested this, I have no idea what this does to play balance.
I like that it gives A class troops another little boost over B (I never feel
like A get enough of a bonus over B). I got this idea watching the Patriot. As
the levy troops (D class?) broke in every battle, the army regulars (C class?)
grimly fought on. It just appeals to me to have higher caliber troops insulated
from the expected poorer performance of their less able (in thier eyes)
comrades.

3. This is my favorite. I personally hate it when a command goes into RETREAT,
and the general is the first off board. Many players have their generals in the
rear, away from enemy troops to survey, issue orders, and rally bodies. This
very position makes them the first off in a retreat. While I see the "I am
going to save my skin" mentality of making them retreat with the command, I
prefer to think of my generals as a cut above the other soldiers. I think they
see the demoralization of the command as a situation needing their attention,
and should act to recover the command. Once it becomes hopeless (over half the
units destroyed or off board), he gives up hope.

These are my thoughts. I welcome comments, or if you like the rules, a playtest
report. We will play a few games like this and see what happens.

Don


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

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Eric Turner
Legionary
Legionary


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 288

PostPosted: Sun Mar 10, 2002 6:46 pm    Post subject: Re: X rule


jjendon@... wrote:

> I do not know how to post an X-rule, so I am putting it here. Please
> comment on it, and if it needs fleshing out, I will make adjustments
> and repropose it as a cleaned up X-rule. Here is my intent:
>
> 1. Knights do not test waver for non knights (this may be an
> unneccesary rule as it will often be mitigated by 2).
>

Knights are some of the most powerful units on the board. This would
make it worst. The only way I would like to see this rule, is if the
knights most take a "Most Charge" test. Basically a knight must charge
(test for ALL) enemy unit AAAND Shaken and broken friendly units within
charge range. Irregular Kn have a -1. This would make knights act as
uncontrollable as they were. And Yes, French Knights ran down their own
Bowman.


> 2. No unit tests waver for seeing a friendly in rout within 120p that
> is of a lower morale grade than itself. I.e. A do not test for
> seeing B, C, D, or E in rout. Generals in the line of command are an
> exception to the above rule. Generals in the line of command cause
> waver tests at 120p regardless of the relationship of their morale vs.
> that of the body in question. Example: Irr A troops test waver for
> seeing thier REG B subgeneral rout inside 120p (in addition to the
> second waver test for seeing a genral in the line of cammand rout).
> The would also test for seeing the REG B CINC rout.

OR give them a plus of the difference in morale

>
>
> 3. Generals in the line of command of a body in retreat DO NOT have
> to make retirement and march moves. They may stay on board using legal
> moves as they see fit in an attempt to recover the command. They are
> not allowed to declare charges, although they may countercharge. Once
> the command has become unrecoverable do to more than half on the units
> being off table or destroyed, he must make retirement and march moves
> to get off table as per RETREAT orders.

It may only move toward units in its command to recover them AND only a
single element general. This were stop the one unit sub-general command
from staying on the table.

>
>
> We have not yet played by these rules. Here are my thoughts.
>
> 1. It just feels like Knights should ignore the pee-ons they are
> forced to fight with (say this with an elitist tongue in cheek to get
> the right feel). Samurai may need to be included too. This is the
> easiest of the 3 rules, I see to get rid off, as rule 2 covers many
> Knight/pee-on relationships.
>
> 2. Not having playtested this, I have no idea what this does to play
> balance. I like that it gives A class troops another little boost
> over B (I never feel like A get enough of a bonus over B). I got this
> idea watching the Patriot. As the levy troops (D class?) broke in
> every battle, the army regulars (C class?) grimly fought on. It just
> appeals to me to have higher caliber troops insulated from the
> expected poorer performance of their less able (in thier eyes)
> comrades.
>
> 3. This is my favorite. I personally hate it when a command goes
> into RETREAT, and the general is the first off board. Many players
> have their generals in the rear, away from enemy troops to survey,
> issue orders, and rally bodies. This very position makes them the
> first off in a retreat. While I see the "I am going to save my skin"
> mentality of making them retreat with the command, I prefer to think
> of my generals as a cut above the other soldiers. I think they see
> the demoralization of the command as a situation needing their
> attention, and should act to recover the command. Once it becomes
> hopeless (over half the units destroyed or off board), he gives up
> hope.
>
> These are my thoughts. I welcome comments, or if you like the rules,
> a playtest report. We will play a few games like this and see what
> happens.
>
> Don
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT


>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Chris Bump
Legate
Legate


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1625

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2002 11:01 am    Post subject: Re: X rule


In a message dated Sun, 10 Mar 2002 8:26:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,
<jjendon@...> writes:

> I do not know how to post an X-rule, so I am putting it here. Please comment
on it, and if it needs fleshing out, I will make adjustments and repropose it as
a cleaned up X-rule. Here is my intent:
>
> 1. Knights do not test waver for non knights (this may be an unneccesary rule
as it will often be mitigated by 2).
>
> 2. No unit tests waver for seeing a friendly in rout within 120p that is of a
lower morale grade than itself. I.e. A do not test for seeing B, C, D, or E in
rout. Generals in the line of command are an exception to the above rule.
Generals in the line of command cause waver tests at 120p regardless of the
relationship of their morale vs. that of the body in question. Example: Irr A
troops test waver for seeing thier REG B subgeneral rout inside 120p (in
addition to the second waver test for seeing a genral in the line of cammand
rout). The would also test for seeing the REG B CINC rout.
>
> 3. Generals in the line of command of a body in retreat DO NOT have to make
retirement and march moves. They may stay on board using legal moves as they see
fit in an attempt to recover the command. They are not allowed to declare
charges, although they may countercharge. Once the command has become
unrecoverable do to more than half on the units being off table or destroyed, he
must make retirement and march moves to get off table as per RETREAT orders.
>
> We have not yet played by these rules. Here are my thoughts.
>
> 1. It just feels like Knights should ignore the pee-ons they are forced to
fight with (say this with an elitist tongue in cheek to get the right feel).
Samurai may need to be included too. This is the easiest of the 3 rules, I see
to get rid off, as rule 2 covers many Knight/pee-on relationships.
>
> 2. Not having playtested this, I have no idea what this does to play balance.
I like that it gives A class troops another little boost over B (I never feel
like A get enough of a bonus over B). I got this idea watching the Patriot. As
the levy troops (D class?) broke in every battle, the army regulars (C class?)
grimly fought on. It just appeals to me to have higher caliber troops insulated
from the expected poorer performance of their less able (in thier eyes)
comrades.
>
> 3. This is my favorite. I personally hate it when a command goes into
RETREAT, and the general is the first off board. Many players have their
generals in the rear, away from enemy troops to survey, issue orders, and rally
bodies. This very position makes them the first off in a retreat. While I see
the "I am going to save my skin" mentality of making them retreat with the
command, I prefer to think of my generals as a cut above the other soldiers. I
think they see the demoralization of the command as a situation needing their
attention, and should act to recover the command. Once it becomes hopeless
(over half the units destroyed or off board), he gives up hope.
>
> These are my thoughts. I welcome comments, or if you like the rules, a
playtest report. We will play a few games like this and see what happens.
>
> Don
>
I like rules 1 & 3. I do not care for rule 2. High class troops would be
insulated from any waiver test by being surrounded by lower class troops, making
even c's impervious. Patriot scene could just as easily be explained that the
regulars saw the routing militia and passed their waiver test. Actually, I
believe that scence was based on the battle of cowpens where the militia was
told to get 3 shots off and then just run, because the commander, Greene I
think, expected them to run anyhow. My AWI is so rarely used that it is quite
rusty. Scott probably has a better handle on the specifics, but more to the
point, I think it was a planned tactic as opposed to a rout and indifferent
response or passed check. I do like the knight/Samauri rule, but believe that
the contrary position (status quo) about waivers regardless of morale class
could be supported with historical instances ad-infinitum.

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

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 5857
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2002 4:12 pm    Post subject: Re: X rule


I like rules 1 & 3. I do not care for rule 2. High class troops would
be insulated from any waiver test by being surrounded by lower class
troops, making even c's impervious.

>Agreed. Warrior is, at it's heart, a morale game. The idea is to get
your opponent to roll dice for waver checks. Period. Anything that
diffuses the impact of morale up and down the spectrum turns the game
into much more of a melee dependent game. FWIW.

Patriot scene could just as easily be explained that the regulars saw
the routing militia and passed their waiver test. Actually, I believe
that scence was based on the battle of cowpens where the militia was
told to get 3 shots off and then just run, because the commander, Greene
I think, expected them to run anyhow.

>It was 2 shots and the general was Dan Morgan, the only American
commander to actually beat the British in the field in a standup battle
during the AWI. Heh heh, I think I'll move this over to the PAL
e-group!

My AWI is so rarely used that it is quite rusty. Scott probably has a
better handle on the specifics, but more to the point, I think it was a
planned tactic as opposed to a rout and indifferent response or passed
check.

>Correct. At the risk of comparing apples and oranges, it's important
to look at morale issues across the board during any military campaign
because they often tend to support what I feel. For example, the 1st MD
charged the British Guards at Guilford Courthouse and were on the verge
of routing them when Cornwallis turned the grapeshot on friend and foe
alike. Next battle at Hobkirk's Hill, 1st MD high tails it and runs
just when Greene is on the verge of routing the British forces. This
from what most military historians consider one of the best units of the
WAR, not just the Americans. It highlights the historical record
showing that great units can have moments of mortality. And since these
units were maybe 300 men, they fall neatly into the generic "small unit"
category and *that's* where you tend to see more "flux" in terms of
morale impacts at certain precise spots on the battlefield.

I do like the knight/Samauri rule, but believe that the contrary
position (status quo) about waivers regardless of morale class could be
supported with historical instances ad-infinitum.

>The problem is that the historical record of battle after battle in the
same (or similar) context is almost entirely lacking. Therefore, the
data points we have are open to endless reinterpretation of their
meaning.

>Again, it comes down the the underlying "gaming mechanism" of any rules
set. In Warrior's case, it's morale.

Scott
Philosophy Ho


_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
Patrick Byrne
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1433

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2002 6:07 pm    Post subject: Re: X rule


May I suggest an x-rule as an alternate to #2? (since no one seams to like
it).

2b. Eager units get a +1 to waiver checks.

There's a negative for being uneasy. Might there be a bonus for being
eager. If the unit next to you shakes, shouldn't a unit who is eager have a
better chance of passing a moral test over a unit who is just willing.
If you are eager, one cause of unease takes you down to willing. Two causes
make you uneasy.


This would also benefit those troops who are fighting with their general.
The unit next to you shakes, but you still see the flag moving on and
therefore plod forward.

This makes more sense to me for Reg A & B troops who are house or gaurd
troops. A's are never uneasy, but they'd get a bonus for being eager.
Bottom line, it would now pay more to keep you troops eager.
-PB


> From: cncbump@...
> Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 08:01:45 EST
> To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] X rule
>
> In a message dated Sun, 10 Mar 2002 8:26:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> <jjendon@...> writes:
>
>> I do not know how to post an X-rule, so I am putting it here. Please comment
>> on it, and if it needs fleshing out, I will make adjustments and repropose it
>> as a cleaned up X-rule. Here is my intent:
>>
>> 1. Knights do not test waver for non knights (this may be an unneccesary
>> rule as it will often be mitigated by 2).
>>
>> 2. No unit tests waver for seeing a friendly in rout within 120p that is of
>> a lower morale grade than itself. I.e. A do not test for seeing B, C, D, or
>> E in rout. Generals in the line of command are an exception to the above
>> rule. Generals in the line of command cause waver tests at 120p regardless
>> of the relationship of their morale vs. that of the body in question.
>> Example: Irr A troops test waver for seeing thier REG B subgeneral rout
>> inside 120p (in addition to the second waver test for seeing a genral in the
>> line of cammand rout). The would also test for seeing the REG B CINC rout.
>>
>> 3. Generals in the line of command of a body in retreat DO NOT have to make
>> retirement and march moves. They may stay on board using legal moves as they
>> see fit in an attempt to recover the command. They are not allowed to
>> declare charges, although they may countercharge. Once the command has
>> become unrecoverable do to more than half on the units being off table or
>> destroyed, he must make retirement and march moves to get off table as per
>> RETREAT orders.
>>
>> We have not yet played by these rules. Here are my thoughts.
>>
>> 1. It just feels like Knights should ignore the pee-ons they are forced to
>> fight with (say this with an elitist tongue in cheek to get the right feel).
>> Samurai may need to be included too. This is the easiest of the 3 rules, I
>> see to get rid off, as rule 2 covers many Knight/pee-on relationships.
>>
>> 2. Not having playtested this, I have no idea what this does to play
>> balance. I like that it gives A class troops another little boost over B (I
>> never feel like A get enough of a bonus over B). I got this idea watching
>> the Patriot. As the levy troops (D class?) broke in every battle, the army
>> regulars (C class?) grimly fought on. It just appeals to me to have higher
>> caliber troops insulated from the expected poorer performance of their less
>> able (in thier eyes) comrades.
>>
>> 3. This is my favorite. I personally hate it when a command goes into
>> RETREAT, and the general is the first off board. Many players have their
>> generals in the rear, away from enemy troops to survey, issue orders, and
>> rally bodies. This very position makes them the first off in a retreat.
>> While I see the "I am going to save my skin" mentality of making them retreat
>> with the command, I prefer to think of my generals as a cut above the other
>> soldiers. I think they see the demoralization of the command as a situation
>> needing their attention, and should act to recover the command. Once it
>> becomes hopeless (over half the units destroyed or off board), he gives up
>> hope.
>>
>> These are my thoughts. I welcome comments, or if you like the rules, a
>> playtest report. We will play a few games like this and see what happens.
>>
>> Don
>>
> I like rules 1 & 3. I do not care for rule 2. High class troops would be
> insulated from any waiver test by being surrounded by lower class troops,
> making even c's impervious. Patriot scene could just as easily be explained
> that the regulars saw the routing militia and passed their waiver test.
> Actually, I believe that scence was based on the battle of cowpens where the
> militia was told to get 3 shots off and then just run, because the commander,
> Greene I think, expected them to run anyhow. My AWI is so rarely used that it
> is quite rusty. Scott probably has a better handle on the specifics, but more
> to the point, I think it was a planned tactic as opposed to a rout and
> indifferent response or passed check. I do like the knight/Samauri rule, but
> believe that the contrary position (status quo) about waivers regardless of
> morale class could be supported with historical instances ad-infinitum.
>
> Chris
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>> 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/
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Chris Bump
Legate
Legate


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1625

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2002 8:03 pm    Post subject: Re: X rule


In a message dated Mon, 11 Mar 2002 2:16:38 PM Eastern Standard Time,
<jjendon@...> writes:

>
>
>
> > May I suggest an x-rule as an alternate to #2? (since no one seams to like
> > it).
> >
> > 2b. Eager units get a +1 to waiver checks.
> >
> > There's a negative for being uneasy. Might there be a bonus for being
> > eager.
> >
> > This would also benefit those troops who are fighting with their general.
> > The unit next to you shakes, but you still see the flag moving on and
> > therefore plod forward.
>
> I like this too. This either coupled with, or in liue of the other dudes
> suggestion that the waver test is at a + the difference in morale grade (If
> the testing body is of higher Morale only). I will repost the X-rule in a
> couple days after more people have had time to comment. I have been 100%
> convinced that my proposed rule 2 is not the way to go. Jon, please hold
> off on putting it in the X-rules file until I reword it. Thanks.
>
> Don

Again A's never check as they are always eager, short of being shaken, which of
course can never happen because they are always eager. Give them a +1 like we
apply -1 for uneasy troops and you have never waivering troops. Irr B's become
almost as impervious. Don't like it.
Chris
>
>
> 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/

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Don Coon
Imperator
Imperator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2742

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2002 10:02 pm    Post subject: Re: X rule


> > 2. No unit tests waver for seeing a friendly in rout within 120p that
> > is of a lower morale grade than itself. I.e. A do not test for
> > seeing B, C, D, or E in rout. Generals in the line of command are an
> > exception to the above rule. Generals in the line of command cause
> > waver tests at 120p regardless of the relationship of their morale vs.
> > that of the body in question. Example: Irr A troops test waver for
> > seeing thier REG B subgeneral rout inside 120p (in addition to the
> > second waver test for seeing a genral in the line of cammand rout).
> > The would also test for seeing the REG B CINC rout.
>
> OR give them a plus of the difference in morale

That is a VERY interesting way to do this. I like it.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Don Coon
Imperator
Imperator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2742

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2002 10:19 pm    Post subject: Re: X rule


> I like rules 1 & 3. I do not care for rule 2. High class troops would be
insulated from any waiver test by being surrounded by lower class troops,
making even c's impervious.

In order to make C's impervious per rule 2, you would have to surround them
with D's. This would be a self limiting tactic as the D's would get
stripped off fast I think.

Don

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Don Coon
Imperator
Imperator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2742

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2002 10:21 pm    Post subject: Re: X rule


> >Agreed. Warrior is, at it's heart, a morale game. The idea is to get
> your opponent to roll dice for waver checks. Period. Anything that
> diffuses the impact of morale up and down the spectrum turns the game
> into much more of a melee dependent game. FWIW.

I agree. My X rule intent is to turn it into a melee game (only as an
option of course, hence the X-rule). The X rule works real well when you
and your opponent have had a long hard week of work and both agree you just
want to see lead killing lead!

Don

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Don Coon
Imperator
Imperator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2742

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2002 10:24 pm    Post subject: Re: X rule


> May I suggest an x-rule as an alternate to #2? (since no one seams to like
> it).
>
> 2b. Eager units get a +1 to waiver checks.
>
> There's a negative for being uneasy. Might there be a bonus for being
> eager.
>
> This would also benefit those troops who are fighting with their general.
> The unit next to you shakes, but you still see the flag moving on and
> therefore plod forward.

I like this too. This either coupled with, or in liue of the other dudes
suggestion that the waver test is at a + the difference in morale grade (If
the testing body is of higher Morale only). I will repost the X-rule in a
couple days after more people have had time to comment. I have been 100%
convinced that my proposed rule 2 is not the way to go. Jon, please hold
off on putting it in the X-rules file until I reword it. Thanks.

Don

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Patrick Byrne
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1433

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2002 1:24 am    Post subject: Re: X rule


A's are 'never uneasy' not 'always eager'. PS You can't be tired and eager.
(5.32). JON, Does 5.32 'tired cannot be eager' CANCEL 5.11 'Bodies
containing front rank of Irr B'?

It also doesn't mean that the knights wouldn't retreat if 1/2 the command
becomes demoralized. And like all cav, they would be close to the first
ones off.

You'll never have 'never waivering troops' only High class troops that won't
waiver when they're pumped up to fight.
-PB


> From: cncbump@...
> Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:03:50 EST
> To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] X rule
>
> Again A's never check as they are always eager, short of being shaken, which
> of course can never happen because they are always eager. Give them a +1 like
> we apply -1 for uneasy troops and you have never waivering troops. Irr B's
> become almost as impervious. Don't like it.
> Chris

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2002 1:43 am    Post subject: Re: X rule


Tired cancels eager, no matter how you got eager.


_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Chris Bump
Legate
Legate


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1625

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2002 11:18 am    Post subject: Re: X rule


In a message dated Tue, 12 Mar 2002 6:10:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,
<jjendon@...> writes:

>
> > Again A's never check as they are always eager, short of being shaken,
> which of course can never happen because they are always eager. Give them a
> +1 like we apply -1 for uneasy troops and you have never waivering troops.

> Irr B's become almost as impervious. Don't like it.
> > Chris
>
> First off, I do not think A's are always eager. They can just never be
> uneasy. Irr B are eager, but 2 causes of unease cancel this. I still see
> your point though, as Irr B are eager MOST of the time. Irr B would
> actually be more impervious to waver than A troops. Hmmm.
>
> Don
>
Check, my confusion with always being eager and never being uneasy. It has
obviously been too long since I've played. This concept may work better with a
10 or 100 sided die because then factors could be added for being eager and
still not make the troops supermen, just a little less likely to shake because
they are eager.

Chris

>
>
> 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/

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2002 12:20 pm    Post subject: Re: X rule


Just a note guys - please do not put questions about the main rules in a mail
with x rule in the title. I don't read all of those.


_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Egroup Archives All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group