Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/22/2004 15:22:38 Central Daylight Time,
rockd@... writes:

Are you here defining how to geometrically determine "on the flank
of" and "to the rear of" throughout the rules? If so, you could
make it clear by saying:

some portion of the supporting body must be on its flank (ie OUTSIDE
of a line drawn through the side edge of the supported body). To
provide support to an elephant or LI body, some portion of the
supporting body must be to its rear (ie BETWEEN two lines drawn
through the supported body's side edges."





Very good Doug - yes, I am going to do a global definition of 'directly
ahead' and 'directly behind' and put them in 1.26 in the new book.

J


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

[Doug]

>To fix this without going into a long discussion of your (excellent)
>diagrams and points, we will clarify that:
>
>5.131 (Pg 24) Add at end of text and before the example: "To provide
>support to the flank of a close or loose order foot body, some portion of the
>supporting body must be on the OUTSIDE of a line drawn through the
>side edge of
>the supported body. To provide support to an elephant or LI body,
>some portion
>of the supporting body must be BETWEEN two lines drawn through the supported
>body's side edges."
>
>Jon

Are you here defining how to geometrically determine "on the flank
of" and "to the rear of" throughout the rules? If so, you could
make it clear by saying:

some portion of the supporting body must be on its flank (ie OUTSIDE
of a line drawn through the side edge of the supported body). To
provide support to an elephant or LI body, some portion of the
supporting body must be to its rear (ie BETWEEN two lines drawn
through the supported body's side edges."

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/22/2004 19:44:50 Central Daylight Time,
mailtomikek@... writes:

"outside" or "on the far side" or similar wording has less potential
for confusion than "between," which has several definitions and
therefore may create practical uncertainty as to whether units with
their edge only exactly on the line are included or excluded. A
clever diagram will make it all clear.



Yes, I will work it. Thanks.

J


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/22/2004 20:37:40 Central Daylight Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

Well, loophole or not: I understood how this used to read literally, and
dislike the suggested change here: now, if I have a unit of (say) SHK
behind my unit of close order foot, and facing to the flank, poised to
fight there if needed, I have to ensure that the SHKK is 'poking out'
rather than being sensibly behind the MI. Odd.



[
[
What the rule is trying to simulate is the 'belief' by the supported unit
that the supporting unit is in or can easily move to a position to cover its
flank. I did not want to write a convoluted rule to have the player have to
show some theoretical movement by the supported unit - so we just made it 120p
from the flank. But the intent is clearly not to do it with two units on the
same side of the body and nothing in a position to support the other flank.
My clarification is to get the players back to the intent as quickly as
possible while I sit back and consider if we got the wording exactly right for
every conceivable case. So far, I am comfortable with it. I am not trying to
'protect' that unit of SHK from 'poking out' - in fact just the opposite. i
am trying to show that they only way it would have an effect on the supported
unit's confidence would be to be in a position to respond to danger. If the
SHK is 'hiding' entirely behind the supported unit - who is supporting whom?
lol

But I would go with 'ON or OUTSIDE of the flank line' so that the above
would still work.

J


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

"outside" or "on the far side" or similar wording has less potential
for confusion than "between," which has several definitions and
therefore may create practical uncertainty as to whether units with
their edge only exactly on the line are included or excluded. A
clever diagram will make it all clear.

Mike

[Ewan McNay]

> >5.131 (Pg 24) Add at end of text and before the example: "To provide
> >support to the flank of a close or loose order foot body, some portion of the
> >supporting body must be on the OUTSIDE of a line drawn through the
> >side edge of

Well, loophole or not: I understood how this used to read literally, and
dislike the suggested change here: now, if I have a unit of (say) SHK
behind my unit of close order foot, and facing to the flank, poised to
fight there if needed, I have to ensure that the SHKK is 'poking out'
rather than being sensibly behind the MI. Odd.


> >the supported body. To provide support to an elephant or LI body,
> >some portion
> >of the supporting body must be BETWEEN two lines drawn through the supported
> >body's side edges."
> >
> >Jon
>
> Are you here defining how to geometrically determine "on the flank
> of" and "to the rear of" throughout the rules? If so, you could
> make it clear by saying:
>
> some portion of the supporting body must be on its flank (ie OUTSIDE
> of a line drawn through the side edge of the supported body). To
> provide support to an elephant or LI body, some portion of the
> supporting body must be to its rear (ie BETWEEN two lines drawn
> through the supported body's side edges."
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 8/23/2004 2:37:42 AM GMT Daylight Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

( This came up about a year ago but Jon's answer was different - i got
support for both flanks from units that were on the other flank but in range).
So
i guess i agree with ewan.
mark mallard

> >5.131 (Pg 24) Add at end of text and before the example: "To provide
> >support to the flank of a close or loose order foot body, some portion of
the
> >supporting body must be on the OUTSIDE of a line drawn through the
> >side edge of

Well, loophole or not: I understood how this used to read literally, and
dislike the suggested change here: now, if I have a unit of (say) SHK
behind my unit of close order foot, and facing to the flank, poised to
fight there if needed, I have to ensure that the SHKK is 'poking out'
rather than being sensibly behind the MI. Odd.


> >the supported body. To provide support to an elephant or LI body,
> >some portion
> >of the supporting body must be BETWEEN two lines drawn through the
supported
> >body's side edges."
> >
> >Jon
>
> Are you here defining how to geometrically determine "on the flank
> of" and "to the rear of" throughout the rules? If so, you could
> make it clear by saying:
>
> some portion of the supporting body must be on its flank (ie OUTSIDE
> of a line drawn through the side edge of the supported body). To
> provide support to an elephant or LI body, some portion of the
> supporting body must be to its rear (ie BETWEEN two lines drawn
> through the supported body's side edges."






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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/24/2004 04:22:29 Central Daylight Time,
markmallard7@... writes:

( This came up about a year ago but Jon's answer was different - i got
support for both flanks from units that were on the other flank but in
range). So
i guess i agree with ewan.
mark mallard>>



Mark, could you please give me the message number on that? I certainly
don't remember doing so and can't find it.

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/24/2004 07:40:51 Central Daylight Time,
greg.regets@... writes:

Just to weigh in ... I don't agree or much like this change either,



My intent has not changed. My apologies for not having the wording perfect
are already on record....lol

J


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

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 8/24/2004 1:41:14 PM GMT Daylight Time,
JonCleaves@... writes:


In a message dated 8/24/2004 04:22:29 Central Daylight Time,
markmallard7@... writes:

( This came up about a year ago but Jon's answer was different - i got
support for both flanks from units that were on the other flank but in
range). So
i guess i agree with ewan.
mark mallard>>



Mark, could you please give me the message number on that? I certainly
don't remember doing so and can't find it.

Jon




I would like to Jon, but am between two houses and have two piles of
unsorted replies from you amongst bags of clothes other papers, computer stuff
and
the like. I print out every word you write...well almost.

I do remember it well though. It may have been asked by another UK player,
mike oakes as I think it was a query on a game we had. It was probably three
one element wide pike blocks.

Mark Mallard


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

[Greg Regets]

Just to weigh in ... I don't agree or much like this change either,
in that it potentually effects frontal combat of a unit that may in
fact have no actual threat to either flank, due to something being
directly behind them, poised to intervene.

Way back in TOG, I had always thought that unease for lacking flank
support, should perhaps only apply in instances where a flank could
possibly be contacted.

Then again, this whole issue is just a tactical consideration, rather
than a big issue.

g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 8/24/2004 04:22:29 Central Daylight Time,
> markmallard7@a... writes:
>
> ( This came up about a year ago but Jon's answer was different -
i got
> support for both flanks from units that were on the other flank
but in
> range). So
> i guess i agree with ewan.
> mark mallard>>
>
>
>
> Mark, could you please give me the message number on that? I
certainly
> don't remember doing so and can't find it.
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

I would like to Jon, but am between two houses and have two piles of
unsorted replies from you amongst bags of clothes other papers, computer stuff
and
the like. I print out every word you write...well almost.>>

Mark, you're too good...lol

No worries. The issue is that I never ever intended for two units on the same
side of a unit to provide support to both its flanks. I have never played that
way, never ruled that way (and I don't believe I ever said it that way here, but
if I did I was wrong...) and certainly it in no way jibes with what we are
trying to simulate historically. I will fix the wording and consider the issue
closed - from my standpoint at least - you guys can always debate it here...

J