Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

--- On July 1 Frank Gilson said: ---

> How can you solve this? Hmmm, make bridges two elements wide! I'm
> ok with that for tournament purposes, even though those are some
> reallllly wide bridges.

I'd actually be inclined to go with the opposite approach, and put in a rule
like this:
"A friendly unit approaching a defended enemy obstacle with a one element gap in
that obstacle may approach within 40p of an enemy body in contact with that
obstacle (as an exception to [insert rule reference here]), provided that the
friendly unit's approach move ends with it entering or passing through the gap
in the obstacle."

Having pondered this for a couple of days, I can't really see any negative
consequences to the above rule. If my opponent is silly enough to leave an
undefended gap, then I should have some leeway to exploit that, IMO. And I
think there's actually some realism behind this, too. Historically, defenders
did _desperately_ try to man obstacle gaps. And it makes some sense that troops
defending the actual obstacle would exert less of a "zone of control" on areas
not covered by the obstacle.

My $.02 worth, anyway.


-Mark Stone