Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[scott holder]

Yes but at the end of each manuever the body must be in a legal
formation.
In your above example the body must be either 5 elements or 10 elements
in
order to end 5 wide. If it is 5 elements the 1 expansion from 1X5 to a
3
wide front is illegal, because there are only 2 elements in the back
rank.
If it is 10 elements, the first expansion is also illegal as the body
winds
up 4 deep (3 wide in the front 3 ranks, and 1 element left over in the
fourth). We have never allowed a body be in an illegal formation during
its
move, even if the intent was to wind up in one at the end. I feel you
are
violating the rules with this move. i would not allow it at a tourny I
was
referee at.

>And if he had done this at Cold Wars, I would have allowed it.

Scott
Ump Ho

[joncleaves]

Don said, about a large element regular unit:

> <<We have never allowed a body be in an illegal formation during
> its move, even if the intent was to wind up in one at the end. I feel you
> are violating the rules with this move. i would not allow it at a tourny I
> was referee at.>>
>

And Scott replied

> <<>And if he had done this at Cold Wars, I would have allowed it. >>

Me too. Regulars have to be in even ranks after all movement is done, not
'between' each maneuver.

Jon





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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/22/2002 19:26:25 Central Daylight Time,
jjendon@... writes:


> > Me too. Regulars have to be in even ranks after all movement is done, not
> > 'between' each maneuver.
> >
> > Jon
>
> I have no problem with this. The rules do not explicitly say that, so
> there
> is where the confusion lies. Leave it lay or next clarification sheet?
>
> Don
>

Leave it lay. 6.111 leaves enough of a precedent.
J


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

[joncleaves]

There is no 'time' where a body making two manuevers is in the 'in between'
state. Not worth a clarification, in my opinion.


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

[Don Coon]

> Yes but at the end of each manuever the body must be in a legal
> formation.
> >And if he had done this at Cold Wars, I would have allowed it.
>
> Scott
> Ump Ho

Based on what? Am I not reading the rules correctly? Is the "regulars must
be in even ranks" rule, only applicable at the end of a tactical move? If
so, I am totally coo with it, however the rules are not clear on that point.

Don

[Don Coon]

> Me too. Regulars have to be in even ranks after all movement is done, not
> 'between' each maneuver.
>
> Jon

I have no problem with this. The rules do not explicitly say that, so there
is where the confusion lies. Leave it lay or next clarification sheet?

Don

[Patrick Byrne]

Jon, I would like to see this in the next clarification. 2.52 even has a
portion of the sentence underlined to emphasis Reg's can't have uneven
ranks. Nor do I think that 6.111 sets a good presedenct.

I don't really care if the next clarification is written a year from now,
but I would like to see it in a future clarification. Mentioned in both
2.52 and 6.111.

I like my rules to read like the law or a contract. Then if an ump or both
players agree, they can play as they wish.
-PB


----- Original Message -----
From: <JonCleaves@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] basing with DBEs


> In a message dated 4/22/2002 19:26:25 Central Daylight Time,
> jjendon@... writes:
>
>
> > > Me too. Regulars have to be in even ranks after all movement is done,
not
> > > 'between' each maneuver.
> > >
> > > Jon
> >
> > I have no problem with this. The rules do not explicitly say that, so
> > there
> > is where the confusion lies. Leave it lay or next clarification sheet?
> >
> > Don
> >
>
> Leave it lay. 6.111 leaves enough of a precedent.
> J
>
>
> [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/
>
>

[scott holder]

Don said, about a large element regular unit:

> <<We have never allowed a body be in an illegal formation during
> its move, even if the intent was to wind up in one at the end. I feel
you
> are violating the rules with this move. i would not allow it at a
tourny I
> was referee at.>>
>

And Scott replied

> <<>And if he had done this at Cold Wars, I would have allowed it. >>

Me too. Regulars have to be in even ranks after all movement is done,
not
'between' each maneuver.

>That's the key. Another example along these lines are counters. If we
said that units must not get closer during each portion of a counter, no
one would counter. It's where the unit ends up at the end of the
counter that matters.

scott

[joncleaves]

<<That seems unlikely to me: if a unit is desiring to turn-then-expand, would
this be permitted if there is no room for the initial turn, even if the unit
will fit once expanded?>>

Yes.

Jon

[Patrick Byrne]

It appears to also effect the old dropping back elements to pass a gap.
They drop back, get past the gap, then expand back to even ranks.
-PB

> From: Ewan <ewan.mcnay@...>
> Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 10:44:17 -0400
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] basing with DBEs
>
> "Holder, Scott " wrote:
>>> That's the key. Another example along these lines are counters. If we
>> said that units must not get closer during each portion of a counter, no
>> one would counter. It's where the unit ends up at the end of the
>> counter that matters.
>
> This is subtly different from Jon's recent statement that 'there is no
> intermediate state' when performing manouvres. That seems unlikely to
> me: if a unit is desiring to turn-then-expand, would this be permitted
> if there is no room for the initial turn, even if the unit will fit once
> expanded?
>
> Ah, the joys of English .
>
>
> 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/
>
>

[joncleaves]

<<It appears to also effect the old dropping back elements to pass a gap.
They drop back, get past the gap, then expand back to even ranks.>>

That is of course, NOT true.

[Ewan McNay]

"Holder, Scott " wrote:
> >That's the key. Another example along these lines are counters. If we
> said that units must not get closer during each portion of a counter, no
> one would counter. It's where the unit ends up at the end of the
> counter that matters.

This is subtly different from Jon's recent statement that 'there is no
intermediate state' when performing manouvres. That seems unlikely to
me: if a unit is desiring to turn-then-expand, would this be permitted
if there is no room for the initial turn, even if the unit will fit once
expanded?

Ah, the joys of English .

[Patrick Byrne]

Please explain. Can they not drop back to pass a gap and then expand?
-PB

> From: JonCleaves@...
> Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 10:43:47 -0400
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Re: [WarriorRules] basing with DBEs
>
> <<It appears to also effect the old dropping back elements to pass a gap.
> They drop back, get past the gap, then expand back to even ranks.>>
>
> That is of course, NOT true.
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>

[joncleaves]

<<Please explain. Can they not drop back to pass a gap and then expand?>>

They drop back for free. It takes a maneuver to 'expand back'.

[Don Coon]

> Me too. Regulars have to be in even ranks after all movement is done,
> not
> 'between' each maneuver.
>
> >That's the key. Another example along these lines are counters. If we
> said that units must not get closer during each portion of a counter, no
> one would counter. It's where the unit ends up at the end of the
> counter that matters.
>
> scott

Yes I see the logic. I have changed my rule book para 6.41 to read "Block
is the...of elements in each rank {at the end of any move - add}. Blocks
may..."

Theis is a simple clarification. I realize, it will not be added to the
clarification sheet, but it will be in light pencil in my book as a
reminder. Still wish it would go on the sheet though .

Don