Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/18/2004 10:00:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
JonBecker@... writes:

> True or False...Artillery on Carts only has a shooting arc
> of 360 if the
> specific army list indicates so.>>

If it indicates that they are mounted IN the cart, the arc is 360. I'll add
this sentence in the rules to the list of those that need rewording.

[Ed Forbes]

Jon,

Could you please expand on the 360d field of fire and how it would,
and would not, work on the table as there are no examples or text on
the procedure. For instance, I assume that with 3 pieces in line,
not all can fire to a flank as this would count as overhead fire. How
far would the arc go to the flank for the center piece?; how far for
the piece on the far end?

Or do I have this all wrong and this does not count as overhead fire?

Ed Forbes

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> > True or False...Artillery on Carts only has a shooting arc
> > of 360 if the
> > specific army list indicates so.>>
>
> If it indicates that they are mounted IN the cart, the arc is 360.
I'll add this sentence in the rules to the list of those that need
rewording.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/19/2004 1:08:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
eforbes100@... writes:

> Jon,
>
> Could you please expand on the 360d field of fire and how it would,
> and would not, work on the table as there are no examples or text on
> the procedure.>>

Well, I can't describe all examples...but let me seee here..

All the 360 does is remove any need for checking arc - all other rules apply -
range, overhead shooting, and LOS/visibility.

<< For instance, I assume that with 3 pieces in line,
> not all can fire to a flank as this would count as overhead fire.>>

True - there is no shooting over a model.

<< How
> far would the arc go to the flank for the center piece?; >>

It would go as far as its range - 480p.

> how far for
> the piece on the far end? >>

Same.

Jon

[Doug]

So in effect, a line of such models can ALL fire in an arc which is a
miniscule fraction less than 180 degrees. Because the 180 degree arc
of the central model(s) would touch the front edge of the end model
and therefore be blocked. ?????

So TTT is not a valid target (except by AAA) if:
.............................................
TTT............AAAbbbCCCddd

but ttt is a valid target for the whole line:

ttt..........................................
...................AAAbbbCCCddd



>In a message dated 5/19/2004 1:08:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>eforbes100@... writes:
>
>> Jon,
>>
>> Could you please expand on the 360d field of fire and how it would,
>> and would not, work on the table as there are no examples or text on
>> the procedure.>>
>
>Well, I can't describe all examples...but let me seee here..
>
>All the 360 does is remove any need for checking arc - all other
>rules apply - range, overhead shooting, and LOS/visibility.
>
><< For instance, I assume that with 3 pieces in line,
>> not all can fire to a flank as this would count as overhead fire.>>
>
>True - there is no shooting over a model.
>
><< How
>> far would the arc go to the flank for the center piece?; >>
>
>It would go as far as its range - 480p.
>
>> how far for
>> the piece on the far end? >>
>
>Same.
>
>Jon
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/19/2004 11:55:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
rockd@... writes:

> So in effect, a line of such models can ALL fire in an arc which is a
> miniscule fraction less than 180 degrees. Because the 180 degree arc
> of the central model(s) would touch the front edge of the
> end model
> and therefore be blocked. ?????
>
> So TTT is not a valid target (except by AAA) if:
> .............................................
> TTT............AAAbbbCCCddd
>
> but ttt is a valid target for the whole line:
>
> ttt..........................................
> ...................AAAbbbCCCddd>>

Scott and I had an offline bet as to whether Ed had read 12.42, but it is also
no surprise that it was you Doug that brought up 'miniscule' first...lol

IF each of those arty elements can draw a line from both corners of the edge
that faces tttt and those lines reach tttt while not crossing an obstruction,
then yes, they can shoot it if it is in range and target priority.

J

[Doug]

>In a message dated 5/19/2004 11:55:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>rockd@... writes:
>
>> So in effect, a line of such models can ALL fire in an arc which is a
>> miniscule fraction less than 180 degrees. Because the 180 degree arc
>> of the central model(s) would touch the front edge of the
>> end model
>> and therefore be blocked. ?????
>>
>> So TTT is not a valid target (except by AAA) if:
>> .............................................
>> TTT............AAAbbbCCCddd
>>
>> but ttt is a valid target for the whole line:
>>
>> ttt..........................................
>> ...................AAAbbbCCCddd>>
>
>Scott and I had an offline bet as to whether Ed had read 12.42, but
>it is also no surprise that it was you Doug that brought up
>'miniscule' first...lol
>
>IF each of those arty elements can draw a line from both corners of
>the edge that faces tttt and those lines reach tttt while not
>crossing an obstruction, then yes, they can shoot it if it is in
>range and target priority.
>
>J


But the "front edge" of another element WOULD be an "obstacle to line
of sight," right?

Even if the line of elements were positioned to run lengthwise "on a crest?"

I just remember a convention game where my opponent brought out a
line of such artillery and tried shooting at me, and Scott said
words to the effect "oh gosh, here's that old TOG problem again, and
I'm still thinking about how to clarify it so it is understood the
way we intended it to be in Warrior..."

[Ed Forbes]

Doug sees my point. It is not directly defined on the procedure. I can make
assumptions, but it should be spelled out.

Ed Forbes
>
>IF each of those arty elements can draw a line from both corners of
>the edge that faces tttt and those lines reach tttt while not
>crossing an obstruction, then yes, they can shoot it if it is in
>range and target priority.
>
>J


But the "front edge" of another element WOULD be an "obstacle to line
of sight," right?

Even if the line of elements were positioned to run lengthwise "on a crest?"

I just remember a convention game where my opponent brought out a
line of such artillery and tried shooting at me, and Scott said
words to the effect "oh gosh, here's that old TOG problem again, and
I'm still thinking about how to clarify it so it is understood the
way we intended it to be in Warrior..."




________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/19/2004 12:24:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
rockd@... writes:

> But the "front edge" of another element WOULD be an "obstacle to line
> of sight," right?>>

If one of those lines passes through any part of another element the LOS would
be blocked, yes.

>
> Even if the line of elements were positioned to run
> lengthwise "on a crest?">>

I'd have to see the hill, but 12.42 does make it possible to see over other
troops who are lower when you are on a steep slope or crestline.

[Ed Forbes]

If edge to edge contact is defined as a point (as it should be), then the point
that defines the adjacent stand front corner would not block LOS in most cases
for an adjacent stand.

For the example of AB in line; the point defining the front right corner of A is
the same point that defines the front left of B.

Ed Forbes

rockd@... writes:

> But the "front edge" of another element WOULD be an "obstacle to line
> of sight," right?>>

If one of those lines passes through any part of another element the LOS would
be blocked, yes.



________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

[Doug]

> > Even if the line of elements were positioned to run
>> lengthwise "on a crest?">>
>
>I'd have to see the hill, but 12.42 does make it possible to see
>over other troops who are lower when you are on a steep slope or
>crestline.

The following is sleazy, but seems to be within the words as written:

"Troops block LOS except... Troops can see or be seen over others
if... on a crest."

SO if the line of elements A,b,C,d,E,f,G is aligned so the center of
each element (from front to back) is resting directly on the crest
line, then they can all see & be seen over each other; in effect they
can now shoot "overhead" 360 degrees:

.....AAAbbbCCCdddEEEfffGGG
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: <---CREST LINE
.....AAAbbbCCCdddEEEfffGGG

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/19/2004 1:00:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
eforbes100@... writes:

> If edge to edge contact is defined as a point (as it should be), then the
point that defines the adjacent stand front
> corner would not block LOS in most cases for an adjacent stand.>>

yep, that is true.

[Doug]

>In a message dated 5/19/2004 1:00:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>eforbes100@... writes:
>
>> If edge to edge contact is defined as a point (as it should be),
>>then the point that defines the adjacent stand front
>> corner would not block LOS in most cases for an adjacent stand.>>
>
>yep, that is true.

But all the _other_ points on the line defining the front edge WOULD
block the LOS... correct???

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/19/2004 1:30:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
rockd@... writes:

> But all the _other_ points on the line defining the front
> edge WOULD
> block the LOS... correct???>>>


yes, if one of the lines went through that element and it wasn't lower.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/19/2004 1:21:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
rockd@... writes:

> SO if the line of elements A,b,C,d,E,f,G is aligned so the center of
> each element (from front to back) is resting directly on the crest
> line, then they can all see & be seen over each other; in
> effect they
> can now shoot "overhead" 360 degrees:>.

No, as if they are all on the crest they are all on the same height.

You know, I just have to say I personally hate answering 'rules questions' that
are theoretical attempts to sleaze as much out of the rules as possible....This
would be time I would personally prefer to spend on another aspect of Warrior...

Jon

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
> You know, I just have to say I personally hate answering
> 'rules questions' that are theoretical attempts to sleaze as
> much out of the rules as possible....This would be time I
> would personally prefer to spend on another aspect of
> Warrior...

And as soon as you can guarantee that people will not try to seek
advantage by finding a previously unseen loophole...

...hell will freeze over and mess up the terrain rules.

:)

Ewan, who would never be sleazy. No, no, not I. Oh no.