Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 1/1/2006 08:20:14 Central Standard Time,
greg.regets@... writes:

I could be wrong on this Mark, but I think this is illegal. I have a
recollection of Jon ruling on this some time ago, that since
fortifications are listed in 14.31, the terrain placement rules apply
to them and you may not place them in an open space, either yours or
the opponents.

Again, I could be wrong ... it was quite some time ago.>>



Mark is saying, I believe, to use a long thin open space in a 'C' shape to
deny the other guy a terrain feature but with enough room inside the 'C' (NOT
within the boundary of the open itself)to be able to place his own TF legally.

Jon


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

[Greg Regets]

> If I intend to place TFs, then I typically use open space picks of my
own to
> secure a place for them.

I could be wrong on this Mark, but I think this is illegal. I have a
recollection of Jon ruling on this some time ago, that since
fortifications are listed in 14.31, the terrain placement rules apply
to them and you may not place them in an open space, either yours or
the opponents.

Again, I could be wrong ... it was quite some time ago.

[Mark Stone]

--- On January 1 Jon Cleaves said: ---

> Mark is saying, I believe, to use a long thin open space in a 'C' shape to
> deny the other guy a terrain feature but with enough room inside the 'C' (NOT
> within the boundary of the open itself)to be able to place his own TF legally.

What Jon said.

I'll post an explanatory diagram at some point when I get a chance.


-Mark

Mark Stone wrote:
<Snip>
> Just my $.02 worth. I'd be interested what you and others think.

The current system seems to model the decision making available to a
general on the battlefield, and the mechanic for making it work is not
time consuming.

It seems to me that the main effect of the change you propose would be
to remove army lists from contention in tournament because of the
reduction in their flexibility.

And I don't see a benefit in that.

Have fun!
Cole

[Ewan McNay]

The minimum size limits on terrain features.

Or, put another way, the rules.

Doug wrote:

> But what's to stop the opponent from putting a little tiny feature inside it?
>
>
>> > Mark is saying, I believe, to use a long thin open space in a 'C' shape to
>>
>>> deny the other guy a terrain feature but with enough room inside
>>>the 'C' (NOT
>>> within the boundary of the open itself)to be able to place his own
>>>TF legally.
>>
>>What Jon said.
>>
>>I'll post an explanatory diagram at some point when I get a chance.
>>
>>-Mark
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Doug]

But what's to stop the opponent from putting a little tiny feature inside it?

> > Mark is saying, I believe, to use a long thin open space in a 'C' shape to
>> deny the other guy a terrain feature but with enough room inside
>>the 'C' (NOT
>> within the boundary of the open itself)to be able to place his own
>>TF legally.
>
>What Jon said.
>
>I'll post an explanatory diagram at some point when I get a chance.
>
>-Mark

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 1/2/2006 13:07:34 Central Standard Time,
rockd@... writes:

But what's to stop the opponent from putting a little tiny feature inside
it?



Features have a minimum size.

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 1/2/2006 13:15:04 Central Standard Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

Or, put another way, the rules.



Thanks, Ewan. I almost wrote a sentence just like that one about 10 times
before I answered...lol

J


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

[Doug]

>ewan.mcnay@... writes:
>
>Or, put another way, the rules.
>
>Thanks, Ewan. I almost wrote a sentence just like that one about 10 times
>before I answered...lol
> Jon

I guess you meant to send that to Ewan privately...

Section 14.31

A low ridge is "up to 120 paces wide" so it can be the exact same
size & shape as a TF. So it will fit into the C shape.

TFs are not on the list of items than can be superimposed, so the TF
can't go on top of the low ridge because the last bullet says
"combinations not listed...are prohibited."

TFs are terrain features; they are the final item listed in the
section, orphaned on pg 87.
--
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then,
that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress
shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every
other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an
American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of
either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it
will ever remain, in the hands of the People."- Tench Coxe, 1788.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm

This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains
information that may be privileged, confidential or copyrighted under
applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-mail,
in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender
by return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. Unless
explicitly and conspicuously designated as "E-Contract Intended",
this e-mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment,
or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-mail does not constitute
a consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing
purposes or for transfers of data to third parties.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 1/3/2006 01:53:31 Central Standard Time,
rockd@... writes:

I guess you meant to send that to Ewan privately...>>
I did not mean to, actually.

It is true a low ridge (and a knoll) are theoretically small enough to fit
inside Marks 'C'. However, the other player would have to take a ridge or a
knoll (something I have never seen,,,) in order to try and get inside the
other player's 'C' to try and block a TF, which at 120p, can be avoided by the
TF
player if he knows what he is doing (the 'blocking player' would actually
have to use 2 such per 'C' to do it completely - this at a one third discard
chance).

On top of all that, 14.3 is being revised to permit TFs on raised features -
a discussion which I *think* took place here, but am not sure.

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 1/3/2006 07:31:04 Central Standard Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

And to be clear, this choice would have had to be made *In advance* as all
terrain features must be chosen before the first is rolled for. This
would be on the list of things which would make me suspicious enough to
ask to see an unknown opponent's ist .>>
[
True enough. I would say, however, that the only way the 120p feature thing
would make any sense at all would be against an opponent who was *known* to
routinely try the 'C' gambit. But since the 120p fetaure player is giving up
so much of the rest of the table just to try and deny one or 2 'C's, the TF
player simply places them somewhere else.

Making this an entirely theoretical exercise since, in a real game, trying
to place 120p features inside the other guy's 'C's does exactly nothing.

Mark's 'C' was designed for the purpose of preventing the blockage of TFs by
an opponent placing 4 large area features. If he tried to use four small
120p features to get inside the C's, the TF player would actually have more
freedom to place his TFs than if the opponent did not try and get inside the
Cs.

J




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

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:

> In a message dated 1/3/2006 01:53:31 Central Standard Time,
> rockd@... writes:
>
> I guess you meant to send that to Ewan privately...>>
> I did not mean to, actually.
>
> It is true a low ridge (and a knoll) are theoretically small enough to fit
> inside Marks 'C'. However, the other player would have to take a ridge or a
> knoll (something I have never seen,,,)

And to be clear, this choice would have had to be made *In advance* as all
terrain features must be chosen before the first is rolled for. This
would be on the list of things which would make me suspicious enough to
ask to see an unknown opponent's ist .

[Mark Stone]

--- On January 2 Doug said: ---

> A low ridge is "up to 120 paces wide" so it can be the exact same
> size & shape as a TF. So it will fit into the C shape.
>
> TFs are not on the list of items than can be superimposed, so the TF
> can't go on top of the low ridge

All true, Doug. Every terrain strategy is a calculated risk. Now, everyone raise
your hand if you've ever taken a low ridge as a terrain pick in a tournament
game.... Yeah. Thought so.


-Mark

[Tim Grimmett]

To add to this theoretical discussion, which becomes relevant to certain
armies I'm looking into.

Wouldn't it be possible to place another open space inside the "C" on such a
manner to prevent a TF?

Or can the TF be placed in the required one element gap between open spaces?

Japanese Warplanners want to know. (After they have contemplated Ewan's
analysis of the 1st Crusader list and realize their warplan only calls for 11
units)



JonCleaves@... wrote:
In a message dated 1/3/2006 07:31:04 Central Standard Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

And to be clear, this choice would have had to be made *In advance* as all
terrain features must be chosen before the first is rolled for. This
would be on the list of things which would make me suspicious enough to
ask to see an unknown opponent's ist .>>
[
True enough. I would say, however, that the only way the 120p feature thing
would make any sense at all would be against an opponent who was *known* to
routinely try the 'C' gambit. But since the 120p fetaure player is giving up
so much of the rest of the table just to try and deny one or 2 'C's, the TF
player simply places them somewhere else.

Making this an entirely theoretical exercise since, in a real game, trying
to place 120p features inside the other guy's 'C's does exactly nothing.

Mark's 'C' was designed for the purpose of preventing the blockage of TFs by
an opponent placing 4 large area features. If he tried to use four small
120p features to get inside the C's, the TF player would actually have more
freedom to place his TFs than if the opponent did not try and get inside the
Cs.

J




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



SPONSORED LINKS
Miniature wargaming Wargaming Four horsemen Warrior

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------







---------------------------------
Yahoo! Photos
Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays,
whatever.

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

[Mark Stone]

--- On January 3 Tim Grimmet said: ---

> To add to this theoretical discussion, which becomes relevant to certain
> armies I'm looking into.
>
> Wouldn't it be possible to place another open space inside the "C" on such a
> manner to prevent a TF?

Yes, that is definitely a mathematical possibility. And in a friendly game, I'd
allow my opponent to do that without a second thought. In the NICT, I'd be
tempted to make him show me how he's going to fit is entire loop of string
inside the "C" and an element away from the edges of the "C".

More to the point, though, are Jon's earlier remarks: the more terrain picks my
opponent uses countering my terrain picks, the more wide open space there is on
the rest of the battlefield.
>
> Or can the TF be placed in the required one element gap between open spaces?
>

No. The TF must abide by the one element gap restriction, just like any other
terrain pick. So it too must be one element away from everything.

Now I will say this: there is a very easy clarification in the rules if Jon
feels that the "C" tactic with open space is beyond the pale. And given that
Jon's personal view is that TFs shouldn't be part of tournament battles at all,
he may well want to tighten the use of open space a bit.

Here's the fix: require that the loop that forms an open space be a polygon.

> Japanese Warplanners want to know. (After they have contemplated Ewan's
> analysis of the 1st Crusader list and realize their warplan only calls for 11
> units)

Yeah, much as I'm intrigued by the LEHI troop type (Alex and I are acquainted
with it through the Lizard Man army in Fantasy Warrior), I'm not sure I would
use it were I to play Japanese. You're already talking about an army that has
trouble holding very much frontage. Up the cost of units by upgrading to LEHI
and you're going to hold even less frontage.


-Mark Stone