Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Mark Stone · Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:19 pm Post subject: new rules book typos

Jon,

I'm in the process of reading the rue book cover to cover (always a good exercise every 6 months or so anyway). Haven't gotten very far; I'm up to 4.0. So far I've found two items that I suspect are typos:

On page 4, in the paragraph titled "Uncovered". I believe the phrase "dropping back elements to ? a gap" is supposed to be "dropping back elements to pass a gap".

On page 13, the table in section 2.512. I believe the Elephants, chariots, expendables line that says "80+mm 60+mm" should actually be on the Artillery, Transport line to be consistent with the ** footnote.

This latter one is not a big deal, as the whole issue is more fully explained on the next page under "Using troops based differently".

-Mark Stone

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

Thanks for the catches. We've found some minor glitches ourselves.

I had once wistfully believed that the grace period would be longer between the accomplishment and the initial wave of what we missed - despite ALL of us seeing these words 1000 times each. But instead steeled myself that it would be mere hours, if not minutes. The fact that I actually got a day or two is a blessing.

Keep those typos coming!

J

Mark Stone · Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 2:55 pm Post subject:

In section 4.53, "Signals", in the first sentence, "improvised visual audio signal" should be "improvised visual or audio signal". In the same paragraph, the second bullet point says "need to be seen" but should say "need to be seen or heard".

I'm also wondering if there should be some adjustment in 4.42, paragraph 2, bullet 2, to say something like "For each destination, if the general's element is NOT visible (or audible, in the case of audio signals per 4.53) to it when the command is dispatched."

-Mark Stone

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

You don't use audio signals to prompt, just to change WAIT orders. Order changes are by 'messenger'.

Jon

Mark Stone · Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:49 pm Post subject:

Mark Stone · Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:55 pm Post subject:

Jon,

On page 25, section 5.1.1 "Eager", I think you need to reword bullet point 2 slightly. As you currently have it worded, I could have a general with army standard who charges on Bound 2, remains within 240p of the enemy on subsequent bounds, never moves again, and several bounds later still counts as an advancing army standard. I know what you're trying to say, but this wording doesn't quite get it.

One of the following would probably do for the last sentence of this bullet point:

Change "last move" to "last eligible move" or

Change the whole sentence to "If the last move made by the army standard was a charge or forward combat results move, this qualifies as an advance for this rule until the beginning of the next phase in which the army standard is eligible to move."

-Mark Stone

Mark Stone · Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:58 pm Post subject:

This isn't a question, just an observation. I make this observation because this was new to me, and I suspect will be new to a great many others as well.

On page 27, under 5.143, "Recovery from Shaken", it says:
"A body that is shaken and includes a general reverts to disordered after one complete bound. This can occur even if the body is in combat."

Wow. No problem with or objection to that, but that was certainly significant new information to me.

-Mark Stone

Mark Stone · Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:07 pm Post subject:

Jon,

Some good-natured whining:

At Cold Wars 2004, Bill Chamis and I played Later Paleologan Byzantine against you and Mike Turner running Medieval Spanish. It was a close game, you guys had the upper hand going into the last bound, but some fortunate die rolls could have pulled it out for Bill and me. We got one of those fortunate die rolls when you failed a counter to put a 4 stand longbow unit (in a 1 x 4 column) into skirmish. I then charged the unit with SHK, making it take a waver for being charged in the open. You rolled a 3.

Had the unit shaken, my SHK would have routed it and you would have had several waver tests to take, with a good chance that a 5-2 loss for Bill and me would have become a 3-3 draw.

I thought you had failed the waver test because you had no unit to provide support on one side of the longbowmen. You said, correctly at the time, that nothing in the support rule required the supporting unit to be on one side, only that it be within 120p of the supporting flank. You had two units on the same side of the longbowmen, and one of them was within 120p of the far flank of the longbowmen.

So now I read with interest on page 26: "Some portion of each body/very rough area/shoreline supporting a close or loose order foot body must be ON or OUTSIDE of a line drawn along the side edge of the supported body on the flank to which it is providing support."

That, of course, was what I was hoping for back in 2004. Ah well. I'll get you next time.

Don't worry.I never remember my wins this vividly; only the losses.

-Mark Stone

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

Note that the new rule book incorporates all the clarifications from the last four years of the existence of the 'white' rulebook. You do realize that the clarification did not exist at the time and that was one of the events that led us to agree to refine the rule. No doubt the rule is better now, but it was not the way it was written during that game and we played it correctly.

Funny that Mike and I talked about that game yesterday. Funnier that I don't remember it being so close a routed LB would have made so much difference.... Smile

Jon

Mark Stone · Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:44 pm Post subject:

Mark Stone · Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:22 pm Post subject:

Under 6.161 "Eligibility to Charge", probably broken troops should be added to the list. I know it seems obvious, but if you're going to list shaken troops explicitly then you should probably do the same with broken.

-Mark Stone

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

5.232. Broken includes shaken.

J

Mark Stone · Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:44 pm Post subject:

Last paragraph on page 49: the phrase here should be "evaders' rear" not "evaders, rear".

-Mark Stone

Mark Stone · Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:49 pm Post subject:

On p. 55, C, "Rout path blocked by enemy bodies", it looks like paragrah 2 (the one that begins with "Elephants or expendables") should be split into two paragraphs. There's a sentence that says "If the troops burst through are shaken or irregular, they break and rout immediately." Presumably this applies to all instances of bursting through, but as written it would apply only to burst throughs by elephants or expendables.

-Mark Stone

Mark Stone · Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:59 pm Post subject:

The credits for the color plates got a little transposed. There's a reference to the upper and lower photos on Plate 1, but Plate 1 has only one photo (and I'm pretty sure Christian hasn't been secretly painting a Chinese army).

By the way, the color photos are just awesome. I was particularly impressed with Greg Regets' and Murray Evans' figures, just because I've never seen them before. All of us who frequent Lancaster know and admire Chris Cameron's and Mike Bard's work, and we've all enjoyed what Dave Smith has posted to the forum. But this was the first I'd seen of Greg's or Murray's work, and I'm really impressed.

-Mark Stone