Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Greg Preston]

Dear Roger,

Some thoughts on Umpiring follow- I hope some of it may be of use.

>
> Umpires,
>
> It looks as if I will have my first turn as an event umpire at the up
> coming
> Bayou Wars. Does anyone who does this regularly have a 'tip list' or
> 'things
> to watch for' that might make this experience smoother?



These thoughts are based on a lot of Umpiring of Warrior down here in
Australia- (in the US your mileage may vary :)


This is kind of what I do.

Pre- comp day
Make sure I have all the latest Clarifications-
Make sure that I have page Numbers written into my rule book and links
to any clarifications
Read over any rulings from the E-list and print out any which I think
might be contentious, or that relate to more recently released list
rules.
Make sure you have up-to-date lists and list rules.


On the day

Unlike many Umpiring systems the umpire is not intrinsically involved
in the process of the WARRIOR game. Once the draw is done- games
continue UNTIL there is a matter of dispute- They don’t look at every
move or play-so to use a sporting analogy it is much more like the
situation where two groups of friends are having a pick-up game of
whatever- than a game which has an Umpire. WARRIOR games are
generally self-policing.

The Umpire is generally only involved when the two players cannot
resolve the issue themselves. As an overall concept then- almost every
involvement of an Umpire means that there is a –dispute or confusion.

(Granted there is the odd occasion where you will notice that something
being done in a game is not right- These are easy calls- explain what
needs to happen- AND WHY- and move on.)

The key role of the umpire is therefore ensuring that the rules as the
umpire understands them are applied in a fair and even manner.

There are usually two types of calls an Umpire is asked to make.
1. Difference of opinion based on Visual perception. (Game issues)
These types of questions are usually things like can unit A see unit B.
Is unit A behind the flank of Unit B.
They are based on a common understanding of the rules, the dispute
arises from the specifics of the game situation. Often visibility due
to terrain features or measurement of distances and wheel distances.

2. Difference of opinion on what is legal or –should- happen. (Rules
issues).
usually the umpire is ask to decide if a particular thing a player
wishes to do is legal.
For example is that a legal gap to pass through. The players are in
agreement about the size of the gap (eg approx 95 paces) the question
concerns the ability of the unit in question to pass through a gap of
95 paces.

Also the players can be unsure about both a Games issue and a rules
issue at the same time. Separate them out and work through the issues
one at a time.

Game issues are generally easiest to resolve. If the situation is clear
through my (the umpire’s) perception of the state of play- using
measures what ever- rule accordingly- if not use a random system of
dispute resolution (ie dice for it) 1,2,3 they are close enough to
charge- 4,5,6 they are not.

More problematic can be the Rules issues. Remember it is dispute-
therefore one player has not been convinced by the arguments of the
other. Note also that this lies at the bottom of questions where 1
player says that they were just unsure if their opponent was allowed to
do X.

Thus the role of the umpire here is to work out what is right. While
THE primary consideration in this deliberation is the words in the rule
book- it is not the only consideration.

The words which appear in the rule book, (as with any form of
communication) are an attempt to express a concept. I think the key
here is to understand the concept rather than the words. Yes, I
recognise that this can be a dangerous path. However, in most cases the
concept is expressed in words which leave no doubt as to the meaning.
Ie the expressed and implied meaning are internally consistent and
there is no issue.

The most likely situations where this is not the case stem from
a) contradictory statements (or seemingly contradictory statements)
EXAMPLE expand and contract-
6.12 A body cannot both expand and contract in the same move.
6.45 A unit adopting skirmish formation may do so with up to two
elements more or less frontage than the prior formation

or

b) cases where I feel the meaning expressed and implied are not the
same.
EXAMPLE
Loose order swiss pike. There is currently no rule which allows Loose
order Swiss pikemen to use those extra ranks of Pike.

The rule in 9.22 (PIKES) says “ A second rank or regular CLOSE
formation infantry....”
While the list rule says the LMI can be armed with Pikes- it doesn’t
give them the ability to use them from a second rank etc- I think we
can all work out the intent here.


Are we ever going to have a rule book which is SO clear that disputes
are impossible- NO. Therefore there will always be a role for the
umpire.

Procedure for dealing with Questions.

ID if the question is a rules question or a perception question. (I
often ask the players what they agree on in the situation)

I always ask myself- what would I expect to happen in this case? What
is the basis of this expectation in the rules ?


I always ask the players in the dispute to explain why they think
things should be a particular way.- what rule etc are they basing it
on.

My advice in this regard is to use some common sense .
Check the rules and clarifications, Weigh up the pros and cons and make
a ruling. Being right is only part of the job- if you Umpire long
enough you are sure to get the odd ruling wrong-
The thing you should never get wrong is being fair


Post Comp
I always keep a list of Rules Questions asked during a comp ( and
review them afterwards)- This can provide a good indication as to if
clarifications/ questions are needed to nail something down.

If it subsequently emerges that I have made a poor ruling- I let the
players involved know what went wrong and what the correct
interpretation is- so they will know in the future.



Some basic ideas:
Ensure that you get all the info needed to make a decision- combat
direction- phase of play- previous actions which may be relevant.
(often a tricky situation has been arrived at through “other” illegal
action- an example of this would be the 2nd bound interpenetration
questions in the list recently)

Even if you know the answer to the question almost immediately- give
both players a chance to express their point of view.

If you are unsure- don’t be afraid to get other opinions from
experienced players- But remember that these opinions are just that
-opinion- YOU still need to make the ruling based on YOUR understanding
of the rules.

Do have a prize for best and fairest (which is at the umpire’s
discretion !!!)

All in all, you are entitled to enjoy the comp as well. You need to
remind yourself that it is a game. In my experience, though, it is
often not a good idea to remind players of this in the heat of battle
:)

Greg Preston
“The worst day wargaming is still a good day”


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/20/2005 19:11:05 Central Daylight Time,
edgdp@... writes:

6.12 A body cannot both expand and contract in the same move.
6.45 A unit adopting skirmish formation may do so with up to two
elements more or less frontage than the prior formation>>


That was a great post. A lot of good stuff. But one note - the above is
NOT what 6.12 says....

Jon








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

Thanks, this will help

It's getting more and more daunting the closer it gets.

R


----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Preston" <edgdp@...>