Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Frank Gilson]

Jon:

I have a brush an element's width back from the center of the table, on my
side. I force march a unit of chariots in front of that brush right up to
the table center. My opponent also force marches, and so we must use the
rule:
"If, once both armies deploy, opposing forced marchers are visible to and
within 240p of each other, they are moved straight back an equal distance
(up to 120p each) until they are 240p apart."

My question is that the Brush prohibits my moving my chariots back into it,
so is my opponent forced to do all the moving away?

Frank Gilson

_________________________________________________________________
Check out the coupons and bargains on MSN Offers! http://youroffers.msn.com

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/8/2004 14:07:19 Central Daylight Time,
franktrevorgilson@... writes:
I have a brush an element's width back from the center of the table, on my
side. I force march a unit of chariots in front of that brush right up to
the table center. My opponent also force marches, and so we must use the
rule:
"If, once both armies deploy, opposing forced marchers are visible to and
within 240p of each other, they are moved straight back an equal distance
(up to 120p each) until they are 240p apart."

My question is that the Brush prohibits my moving my chariots back into it,
so is my opponent forced to do all the moving away?>>

This is not explicitly covered by the rules (yet). My intent is that the
player without the terrain issue doesn't go back more than 120p, so the chariots
move to the other (owning player's) side of the brush.

J


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

[Mark Stone]

Jon,

I have a question regarding force marchers and temporary fortifications. For
purposes of answering this question, please refer to the file "force_march.ppt"
that has been uploaded to the "rules questions" folder of the files section for
the group.

Some background: previously you have stated that if, at the moment deployment is
completed, two opposing units are not visible to each other, then they are not
forced back 240p in response to each other. You have further stated that this
holds true even if the reason they are not visible to each other is due to an
intervening unit.

So, for example, on Slide 1, suppose that Red has force marched a light cav
unit, and Blue has force marched an 8 stand LI unit opposite. Behind the 8
stand LI unit Blue has also force marched a 4 stand LI unit. Based on your
previous statements, I conclude that Red's LC unit would be stepped back, and
Blue's 8 stand LI unit would be stepped back, but that Blue's 4 stand LI unit
would not be stepped back since, at the moment when deployment is concluded, it
has no visible enemy within 240p.

None of that so far is my question. That's all just background, and our
discussion to that effect is buried somewhere in the group archive. :)

Now the question:

Suppose the grey rectangle in Slide 1 is a stone wall (or ditched palisade, or
other forward-deployed TF). The new 14.43 states that "TFs placed in the
forward zone are NOT force marched troops, but they ARE treated just like
forced marched troops for the purpose of moving back opposing troops and TFs
back until they are 240p apart. Although this may 'seem' like a ditch is
'moving backwards', what is really happening is that working parties and troops
are keeping a safe distance from each other during pre-battle preparations."

OK, that wasn't actually the question, that was actually more background. Now
the question. Really.

My assumption is that in Slide 1, the Red LC, the Blue 8 stand LI, and the stone
wall would all be stepped back, but that the 4 stand LI unit would not be
stepped back. My assumption is that in Slide 2, since the stone wall is shorter
and thus not visible to the LC unit and cannot "see" the LC unit, that the Red
LC, the Blue 8 stand LI are stepped back, but that the stone wall and the 4
stand LI unit manning it are not stepped back.

My question (here it comes -- really) is: Is this assumption correct?


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

I had not considered 'stone wall height.' You got me.

I will fix it. Obviously the whole batch needs to step back. My most likely
fix is to just remove the visibility requirement. It is simple and the little
'prebattle contact' by opposing forced marchers would have happened at various
'ranges'.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stone <mark@...>
To: warrior <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 17:10:14 +0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] force march rules question


Jon,

I have a question regarding force marchers and temporary fortifications. For
purposes of answering this question, please refer to the file "force_march.ppt"
that has been uploaded to the "rules questions" folder of the files section for
the group.

Some background: previously you have stated that if, at the moment deployment is
completed, two opposing units are not visible to each other, then they are not
forced back 240p in response to each other. You have further stated that this
holds true even if the reason they are not visible to each other is due to an
intervening unit.

So, for example, on Slide 1, suppose that Red has force marched a light cav
unit, and Blue has force marched an 8 stand LI unit opposite. Behind the 8
stand LI unit Blue has also force marched a 4 stand LI unit. Based on your
previous statements, I conclude that Red's LC unit would be stepped back, and
Blue's 8 stand LI unit would be stepped back, but that Blue's 4 stand LI unit
would not be stepped back since, at the moment when deployment is concluded, it
has no visible enemy within 240p.

None of that so far is my question. That's all just background, and our
discussion to that effect is buried somewhere in the group archive. :)

Now the question:

Suppose the grey rectangle in Slide 1 is a stone wall (or ditched palisade, or
other forward-deployed TF). The new 14.43 states that "TFs placed in the
forward zone are NOT force marched troops, but they ARE treated just like
forced marched troops for the purpose of moving back opposing troops and TFs
back until they are 240p apart. Although this may 'seem' like a ditch is
'moving backwards', what is really happening is that working parties and troops
are keeping a safe distance from each other during pre-battle preparations."

OK, that wasn't actually the question, that was actually more background. Now
the question. Really.

My assumption is that in Slide 1, the Red LC, the Blue 8 stand LI, and the stone
wall would all be stepped back, but that the 4 stand LI unit would not be
stepped back. My assumption is that in Slide 2, since the stone wall is shorter
and thus not visible to the LC unit and cannot "see" the LC unit, that the Red
LC, the Blue 8 stand LI are stepped back, but that the stone wall and the 4
stand LI unit manning it are not stepped back.

My question (here it comes -- really) is: Is this assumption correct?


-Mark Stone




Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Mark Stone]

--- On August 12 Jon Cleaves said: ---

> I had not considered 'stone wall height.' You got me.
>
> I will fix it. Obviously the whole batch needs to step back. My most likely
> fix is to just remove the visibility requirement. It is simple and the little
> 'prebattle contact' by opposing forced marchers would have happened at various
> 'ranges'.

Well, I just deleted a long, and somewhat irate reply. Here's my shorter, more
diplomatic take.

First, let me simply point out several things that rubbed me the wrong way:
- stone wall height shouldn't matter: there's nothing in the visibility rules
that says that TFs can be seen over troops; in this context it is presumably
the height of the workers, not the height of the wall, that matters;
historically, stone walls used as TFs were considerably shorter than the height
of a man.
- be careful what you call "obvious"; as I noted in my email, you have
explicitly said on previous occaisions (I can go find the exchange in the
archives if you like) that intervening troops who block visibility also mean
that opposing troops so blocked don't have to be stepped back from each other.
- I'm trying to avoid the whole mess (which maybe I can't) of stepping back
force marched TFs; if, for example, my opponent has put an open space in my
forward zone that my TF is force marched in front of, my TF might end up in a
radically different place (behind the open space) than I intended -- indeed, if
there is _no_ space to fit behind the open space (could happen) I've no idea
what to do in that case.

Now, whether it's "obvious" or not -- we needn't debate that point -- I believe
I understand your intent. In Slide 2, you want everybody stepped back: the Red
LC, both Blue LI, and the TF. Right?

If so, I strongly advise you to make the force march rule dependent on "known"
rather than "visible".

If you simply remove the visibility requirement this has really messy
consequences for troops who are force marched within 240p of each other but not
visible to each other due to terrain. If, for example, I force march a unit of
LI to the center line in a woods spanning the center, and rather than place it
in ambush simply deploy on table and inquire if I can see anything in the woods
within 40p, what's my opponent to do with a unit in ambush 60p away? He isn't
visible, but he's within 240p. It seems to me there's no satisfactory answer to
that question.

On the other hand, if you change "visible" to "known" in the force march rules,
the whole problem is greatly simplified. The guys in the woods aren't known to
each other, so that part works as it should. In Slide 2, the 4 stand LI unit
and the TF workers "know" about the enemy LC, because, per 1.261, "the enemy
body is visible to any friendly body that is within 240p of the body in
question".

So that's my recommendation, for what's worth. I guess I'm still screwed when it
comes to my force marched TF problem, but as long as I understand your intent I
can live with it.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

Mark, chill.

I have no idea yet how to handle this issue. The whole TF in forward zone thing
is a real problem that, fortunately, hasn't been pushed in a large venue yet. I
am in the middle of sections 7-12 right now and won't come back to 13-18 until
next week. Then I will work out what the fix will be.

Not sure why you'd get irate. In some game systems, getting an answer back from
the designer - minutes after you ask it - that says 'hey, you're right, that's
broken. i will fix it as soon as I can. here's my completely untested and
undecided upon gut reaction to how I might look at fixing it' is a good thing.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stone <mark@...>
To: warrior <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 19:09:52 +0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: force march rules question


--- On August 12 Jon Cleaves said: ---

> I had not considered 'stone wall height.' You got me.
>
> I will fix it. Obviously the whole batch needs to step back. My most likely
> fix is to just remove the visibility requirement. It is simple and the little
> 'prebattle contact' by opposing forced marchers would have happened at various
> 'ranges'.

Well, I just deleted a long, and somewhat irate reply. Here's my shorter, more
diplomatic take.

First, let me simply point out several things that rubbed me the wrong way:
- stone wall height shouldn't matter: there's nothing in the visibility rules
that says that TFs can be seen over troops; in this context it is presumably
the height of the workers, not the height of the wall, that matters;
historically, stone walls used as TFs were considerably shorter than the height
of a man.
- be careful what you call "obvious"; as I noted in my email, you have
explicitly said on previous occaisions (I can go find the exchange in the
archives if you like) that intervening troops who block visibility also mean
that opposing troops so blocked don't have to be stepped back from each other.
- I'm trying to avoid the whole mess (which maybe I can't) of stepping back
force marched TFs; if, for example, my opponent has put an open space in my
forward zone that my TF is force marched in front of, my TF might end up in a
radically different place (behind the open space) than I intended -- indeed, if
there is _no_ space to fit behind the open space (could happen) I've no idea
what to do in that case.

Now, whether it's "obvious" or not -- we needn't debate that point -- I believe
I understand your intent. In Slide 2, you want everybody stepped back: the Red
LC, both Blue LI, and the TF. Right?

If so, I strongly advise you to make the force march rule dependent on "known"
rather than "visible".

If you simply remove the visibility requirement this has really messy
consequences for troops who are force marched within 240p of each other but not
visible to each other due to terrain. If, for example, I force march a unit of
LI to the center line in a woods spanning the center, and rather than place it
in ambush simply deploy on table and inquire if I can see anything in the woods
within 40p, what's my opponent to do with a unit in ambush 60p away? He isn't
visible, but he's within 240p. It seems to me there's no satisfactory answer to
that question.

On the other hand, if you change "visible" to "known" in the force march rules,
the whole problem is greatly simplified. The guys in the woods aren't known to
each other, so that part works as it should. In Slide 2, the 4 stand LI unit
and the TF workers "know" about the enemy LC, because, per 1.261, "the enemy
body is visible to any friendly body that is within 240p of the body in
question".

So that's my recommendation, for what's worth. I guess I'm still screwed when it
comes to my force marched TF problem, but as long as I understand your intent I
can live with it.


-Mark Stone




Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Mark Stone]

No worries, Jon. I'm not irate, and realized I was in the wrong for letting
myself get that way before I pushed the send button. I'm just giving you a
brain dump of some of the complexities that occurred to me.

I know you'll fix this when you can, and I appreciate the time and sacrafice
going into this.

Here is one small bit of email etiquette advice which you can freely ignore.
You've rightly criticized some of us (me included) for not qualifying certain
statements with "in my opinion". In the same spirit, I'll note that when you
say "it's obvious that..." what you probably mean is something like "it's
obvious to me, Jon, that the outcome I want is..." However, this can easily
come across on the list as "it should be obvious to you, the readers, that..."
The latter comes across as presumptuous and dismissive, which I don't believe
is your intent.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

Fair enough. I answered too quickly and yes, indeed I should know better than
to expect what is obvious to me as a designer is similarly obvious to a player.
My apologies.

I have saved your mail for when I get to this and i appreciate the diagrams.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stone <mark@...>
To: warrior <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 19:43:38 +0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: force march rules question


No worries, Jon. I'm not irate, and realized I was in the wrong for letting
myself get that way before I pushed the send button. I'm just giving you a
brain dump of some of the complexities that occurred to me.

I know you'll fix this when you can, and I appreciate the time and sacrafice
going into this.

Here is one small bit of email etiquette advice which you can freely ignore.
You've rightly criticized some of us (me included) for not qualifying certain
statements with "in my opinion". In the same spirit, I'll note that when you
say "it's obvious that..." what you probably mean is something like "it's
obvious to me, Jon, that the outcome I want is..." However, this can easily
come across on the list as "it should be obvious to you, the readers, that..."
The latter comes across as presumptuous and dismissive, which I don't believe
is your intent.


-Mark Stone





Yahoo! Groups Links






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