Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

<< #1. Yes this is intended, a flank charge is allowed and 6.53 will sepercede
whatever is indicated in the examples of 6.165.>>

A flank charge is allowed if all the other conditions of flank charge are met
and the gap is >= to 2 elements wide. If it is <2, any shoulder that is an
enemy unit has to be broken/in hth. For such charges 6.53 and 6.165 are
additive: you have to meet the requirements of both.

<<#2. Yes it is intended. Gap 1 will stop Unit Y performing ANY charge against
Unit A.>>

If (see above) is true, yes.

<<#3a. The routing unit can not pass through the gap and must wait for the gap
to widen or a unit to interpenetrate.>>

Routing units must apply 6.32. They never wait for a gap to 'widen'. Where did
that come from?

<<I didn't mean for you to lose sleep (I see you posted at 1:00am this
morning)>>

Well, that is when what little is getting done on these rules gets done. Or on
an airplane.

No sweat, Pat. Just put a on the end of everything I say.

Jon

[Don Coon]

> Hogwash or not, that is a 0 pace gap. Which cannot be charged or shot
> through. But since you CAN charge (or shoot) either finger, what on earth
is
> the issue?

Jon, if you had been paying attention (and I assume you were), the issue was
all off us wrestling with just what 6.53 said. Untill very recently it was
not clear that gaps only exist when a body wants to go between 2 things to
hit a third thing. 6.53 does not say that now, but I assume it will.

>I have been following this discussion for weeks and still have no
> idea what the issue with the V is. There's no 'gap' so you don't need
6.53,
> so why talk about it?

See above.

> > If two things are near each other and have a gap between them, that
> has no direct bearing on anyone charging one or both of the two things.
> Gaps only matter if you are doing something to a third thing through the
gap.

Great. Very clear, and we can play this. However as written 6.53 (Feb 21
draft) does NOT say this.

> <<Not clear by the rules as written. As written bodies creating gaps
> can prevent movement against themselves.>>
>
> Well, I am revising the rule as we speak for clarity, but I do not address
> 'bodies creating gaps preventing movement against themselves' because they
> don't.

You can say it, you can shout it, but 6.53 currently does not support it.

> << Thats what all of our diagramming and discussion has been for.>>
>
> Yes, except that the two diagrams I have seen have been 100% NOT Warrior.

We all know this Jon.. Nobody said they were Warrior. They were posted for
us to all have something to look at for the discussion we were having.

Don

[Don Coon]

> My comment about moving against, etc was mainly directed at the V-thing
where someone was saying you couldn't charge the front of a unit set at an
angle to another unit even though the charger did not pass through the point
of minimum distance between the two. Sorry for any confusion. Some flank
chargers will pas through a gap to get at the flank of a shoulder of that
gap. Those chargers, too must meet the requirements of 6.53.

Now Jon we are to the point of contention. Your new 6.53 CLEARLY states
"this rule is intended for use when a body intends to move between two
shoulders and has no direct bearing on a body moving into or against one of
the shoulders itself." This is CRYSTAL CLEAR! Then you have the
unbelievable ability to stae above some flank chargers will pass through a
gap to get at a shoulder of that gap!!! You contradict yopurself. You can
get high and mighty all you want. We are frustrated out here my man. We so
want this game. We so want it to work. We defend it to anyone and everyone
who will listen. You sit and act like we are stupid with your "how can you
think that" comments, then put in a contadicting statement like that!!
Your 6.53 coupled with the 6.165 flank charge example are UNPLAYABLE as
written. You can wish it to be true, but it is not.

> <<The only response I have to your answer to my first question below is
that 6.165 "Contacting the Flank in a Charge #1" has verbage about being
able to charge through a gap. Please look at it as it contradits the new
6.53 rule.>>
>
> It does not, and 6.53 is not a new rule. Flank charges must abide by gap
rules just like any other charge and just as they always have. Nothing I
have posted is in any way different from the way this game has been played
and interpreted by the Society for the last several years. I am sorry for
those who have had to suffer through transitioning from another method of
playing WRG 7th, but that is one of our purposes - to have only one way.

No Jon, it does. Why dont YOU read your NEW (yes NEW as it was just posted
recently) 6.53. Do not fall on the "its how it has been played for years"
defense. This game has to appeal to new players. People who have never
heard of it before. They wont have your telepathic insight into the history
of the game. They wont have Scott Holder in their kitchen to explain why
you play it one way when it is worded another. We are not suffering from
transitioning, we are suffering from UNCLEAR rules!!!

Don

[Don Coon]

<< If your rule says, "This rule is only intended for use when a body
intends
to move between two ‘shoulders’ and has no direct bearing on a body moving
into or against one of the ‘shoulders’ itself." (which is quoted exactly)>>

Ok, you are KILLING me here. I'll look at writing that sentence
differently.
something like 'against the front of one of the shoulders' will that do?

Excuse us Jon. You are killing us. Good gods man, read the rules that are
written. 6.165 says see 6.53. 6.53 says it only applies when going between
two things to hit a third, 6.165 has only the two things. You did this, not
us! You wanted playtesters. You got em pal. We are doing our job. I can
clean up your NEW 6.53 (see below) now that I know what your intent is, to
can close all the loopholes.

You pounded on us for daring to think there was an area between two things
that you can not be in, then tell us the diagram for 6.165 is correct and
the flank charge can not occur. Hmmm, no gap passed, charge still illegal.
Players must be stupid.

Am I snippy. You bet. I have put a lot of work into this game too. Not
any where near as much as you I know, but a lot. I love this game, I am
trying to help this game. Posts like your most recent feel like you are
crapping on some of us.

Try:

6.53:

A gap is defined as the minimum space existing between two things (a bodies
edge, non open terrain features, or table edges in any combination). The
term shoulder is used to describe the things that form the gap. A body is
only considered to be attempting to pass a gap if it intends to move between
the two shoulders at the minimum points to a position beyond. This rule
does not apply to a body moving into or against one of the shoulders itself.
The only exception to this rule is for flank charges (6.165). If the flank
edge of a body forms one of the shoulders of a gap, a body attempting to
charge this flank is considered to be attempting to pass the gap.

This only replaces the first paragraph of your new 6.53 All the rest looks
solid. If you use the above it closes all the gap issues I can think of.

Don

[Don Coon]

> Nothing in 6.53, Feb or July, said anything about gaps across the fronts
of units. It said 'minimum distance', it will go on saying minimum
distance, it has always been about minimum distance. It said between, it
has always said between and will always say between. It did not say across.
Nothing about a gap stops a charge against the front of a shoulder.

cool.

> Those V formation things (and the associated completely incorrect
interpretation of 6.53 that went with them) are the mark of a player trying
to get over on rules and not play an historical game and I am admittedly
frustrated that I had to spend so much time dealing with this kind of gaming
behavior, which I hate.

No actually it is not. No one of us tried to do this. The units wound up
that way and we stopped our game for 2 hours deliberating (NOT arguing)
about what to do. Sorry you spent so much time on it. Must be the rule as
written was F**ked up huh? We were admittedly frustrated that we had to
spend so much time dealing with this kind of rule writting, which we hate.

> The desire to cross in front of one of your own units in a confined space
between that unit and an unoccupied enemy unit is also entirely ahistorical
and I am sorry 6.53 prevents it, but it will go on preventing it.

I am cool. It is clear and without grey area.

> -I should have gotten involved and stopped this whole mess very early on.
That is entirely on me. I never should have allowed the discussion to leave
the rules so badly and confuse people.

Would have helped, but you are very busy. We know this. We were having a
discussion, that is all.

> -I should have said 'front' more often. The flank of a shoulder is inside
the gap by definition and could be the target of a charge thereby kicking in
6.53.

Only by your definition, not the way the rules are written. Be careful with
your above statement. I can show the following: 2 units are 1X2. They
stand 119p apart perfectly parallel, and thier front edges are perfectly
coplanar. Facing them is a 1X2 unit 40p distant with its front edge
perfectly parallel to them. It sits dead center in the 119p spacing between
the 2 units. Now it wishes to frontally charge one of the two units. To do
so it must wheel first. When it wheels one of its front corners will dip
towards the two units. Now the actual straight portion of the charge move
commences. As the charger goes forward, the front corner will cross the GAP
prior to contact (like go beyond the gap for a minute dude). Is this a gap
issue? 6.53 says "move between the shoulders" and this unit most definately
is moving between the shoulders. 6.53 leaves little items like this open
for debate. No crappy tactics. No players you need to hate. Just a bunch
of guys trying to play a game. We have been trying to tweek 6.53 to say
something clear. we all know what you want now, and are still just making
sure the RULE says, what you say.

Don

[Harlan Garrett]

Jon:

I understand your stance of ahistorical formation and line up, but in a
game were Aztec army can face a Later Crusader or Yang Mongols, or
Carthagians and Romans can face 100 year war English, the rules are
going to have to come to grips with the with some of the nonhistorical
aspects of war gaming.

Harlan

-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 9:34 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: gap emergency


Ok, despite my best efforts, I still have to deal with this apparently.

Nothing in 6.53, Feb or July, said anything about gaps across the fronts
of units. It said 'minimum distance', it will go on saying minimum
distance, it has always been about minimum distance. It said between,
it has always said between and will always say between. It did not say
across. Nothing about a gap stops a charge against the front of a
shoulder.

Those V formation things (and the associated completely incorrect
interpretation of 6.53 that went with them) are the mark of a player
trying to get over on rules and not play an historical game and I am
admittedly frustrated that I had to spend so much time dealing with this
kind of gaming behavior, which I hate.

The desire to cross in front of one of your own units in a confined
space between that unit and an unoccupied enemy unit is also entirely
ahistorical and I am sorry 6.53 prevents it, but it will go on
preventing it.

I will admit to the following, though:

-I should have gotten involved and stopped this whole mess very early
on. That is entirely on me. I never should have allowed the discussion
to leave the rules so badly and confuse people.

-I should have said 'front' more often. The flank of a shoulder is
inside the gap by definition and could be the target of a charge thereby
kicking in 6.53.

Jon


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]

Don, I have admitted that the clarification in the latest version of 6.53 needed
to be changed to address the issue that a flank charge against a shoulder also
had to meet the requirements of 6.53. I agree that the latest version of 6.53
only appears to address frontal chargers against a shoulder (for which 6.53 is
generally unnecessary) and needs fixing.
Someone here today (wasn't it you???) wrote an excellent update to fix that
issue, and I have accepted that fix and thanked the author for it.

Is there something more you wanted?

Don, you've been a trusted agent of ours for some time, but emails like this
make me want to change that relationship. As helpful as you have been, I have
zero time (in fact negative time) to listen to someone tell me about THEIR
investment in Warrior.

At this point, I would not even let Jake, Scott or Bill do that.

[Patrick Byrne]

Jon,
Thank you for your responses. To make sure I'm reading them correctly,
could you just confirm what I'm restating below.
#1. Yes this is intended, a flank charge is allowed and 6.53 will
sepercede whatever is indicated in the examples of 6.165.

#2. Yes it is intended. Gap 1 will stop Unit Y performing ANY charge
against Unit A.

#3a. The routing unit can not pass through the gap and must wait for
the gap to widen or a unit to interpenetrate.
#3b. The routing unit routs per 6.32 interpenetrating the friendly
unit. No deviation is allowed.

#4. The rule stays as it reads. (which is cool, I just thought it was
alluded to something we didn't know about)

I must say that I am not trying to put words in your mouth; I'm just
trying to make sure that the rule interpretations we play with here in
Texas are the same rule interpretations they play at Historicon.

I didn't mean to kill you and I didn't mean for you to lose sleep (I
see you posted at 1:00am this morning)
-PB


--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> << If your rule says, "This rule is only intended for use when a body int=
ends
> to move between two ‘shoulders’ and has no direct bearing on a body m=
oving
> into or against one of the ‘shoulders’ itself." (which is quoted exac=
tly)>>
>
> Ok, you are KILLING me here. I'll look at writing that sentence differen=
tly.
> something like 'against the front of one of the shoulders' will that do=
?
>
>
> <<In #2, Unit Y is not trying to flank charge.>>
>
> The text of your diagram discusses a potential flank charge for unit Y. =
But
> let's just say it doesn't.
>
> << It is trying to frontally hit Unit A but can't because of the gap bet=
ween
> Unit X and Unit B.>>
>
> It might not be able to. That kind of maneuvering is not historical.
>
> << The point of this question is to point out that gaps caused by the
> different armies can bollux up charge moves.>>
>
> Yup. I am aware of that. Don't try this totally ahistorical move and it=

> won't 'bollux'.
>
> << It is my suggestion that gaps created between 'bodies' only be create=
d
> between 'bodies' of the same army.>>
>
> A suggestion I continue to reject. I read it, I considered it, I underst=
and
> it. We think it gives armies in Warrior a capability for complex maneuver=
ing
> unheard of in the time period covered.
>
> << 6.32 does not address what happens if the routing unit runs into
> situation 3a. According to the Gap Rule, it can not pass through even th=
ough
> it is able to fit. 6.32 makes provisions for interposing enemy or impass=
able
> terrain, but not for a gap less than 2 elements.For 3b, I will take your =

> answer above that the routing unit falls under the 'Rout path is blocked =
by
> friendly bodies' section of 6.32.>>
>
> Typically if the gap is not big enough and that problem is NOT due to ene=
my
> or terrain, it is due to friendly bodies. Not many other things it could=
be
> due to, huh?
>
> << Then why say, "with respect to enemy bodies"?>>
>
> ???? The rule says:
>
> "If either shoulder of a gap is an enemy body, approach, counter, retirem=
ent
> and march moves must abide by all restrictions with respect to enemy bodi=
es."
>
> It says "with respect to" because one or both of the shoulders IS an enem=
y
> body in this case. See first nine words of that sentence.
>
> ??????
>
> The V-thing and the problem you have with your own units creating gaps yo=
u
> might not be able to charge through are gamisms - meaning those 'formatio=
ns'
> are ahistorical gimmicks we have been ruthlessly eliminating and will
> continue to do so.
>
> <<Would it be better if I was to set up my questions and include actual =

> photographs of units to show scale? (I have this technology)>>
>
> Not before July 18th. I can afford no more time with gaps - I am already=
way
> too far behind. Now I'll be lucky to give the Hcon guys a week with the =
next
> draft.
>
> Jon

[Don Coon]

> I appreciate your help with the additional line for 6.53 that makes the
flank/front of a shoulder issue more clear. That is the kind of thing I was
looking for by posting the draft of 6.53.
>
> Let's just agree to disagree on the other stuff.

Sure. I do not want to argue/discuss what might have been. I only want the
rules to be clear. I will take what is written and do what I can with it.
If I am at Hcon for example and Scott says - "you can not do that" I will
expect iron clad rule support for his position. "Thats the way it is
played" is unacceptable to me and a lot of the people I know. That kind of
thing is what is killing this hobby. We have 3-4 Warhammer guys in this
area who are contemplating switching to historical wargamming instead. They
read the draft of Warrior, and have decided to wait and see. You (and we)
need these new players.

When we first met Chris Bump I can not tell you how many sentances he
started with "they have ruled that...". Your rule set if it is to never
have a 1.1 can never have anyone utter that phrase.

Don

[Harlan Garrett]

Amen

Harlan

-----Original Message-----
From: DONALD COON [mailto:jendon@...]
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 1:21 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: gap emergency





> I appreciate your help with the additional line for 6.53 that makes
> the
flank/front of a shoulder issue more clear. That is the kind of thing I
was looking for by posting the draft of 6.53.
>
> Let's just agree to disagree on the other stuff.

Sure. I do not want to argue/discuss what might have been. I only want
the rules to be clear. I will take what is written and do what I can
with it. If I am at Hcon for example and Scott says - "you can not do
that" I will expect iron clad rule support for his position. "Thats
the way it is played" is unacceptable to me and a lot of the people I
know. That kind of thing is what is killing this hobby. We have 3-4
Warhammer guys in this area who are contemplating switching to
historical wargamming instead. They read the draft of Warrior, and have
decided to wait and see. You (and we) need these new players.

When we first met Chris Bump I can not tell you how many sentances he
started with "they have ruled that...". Your rule set if it is to never
have a 1.1 can never have anyone utter that phrase.

Don


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/

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Jon does not need or want me to come to his defense
and that is not what I'm doing. Although this banter
amuses me to no end, I would ask that you guys please
back off of this issue. It is becoming too personal.
Jon is probably busting his a_ _ to get the Historicon
set ready and he has fixed the problem in the rules
that has been in issue. Step back, take a deep breath,
and realize that accerbic comments only serve to harm.
Some folks have big egos and think that no one else
can possibly have as big a stake in the rules as they.
So what? If the final result is a workable set of
rules that can bring ease of reading and an enjoyable
pass time, then THAT is what matters!

Kelly Wilkinson

--- JonCleaves@... wrote:
> Don, I have admitted that the clarification in the
> latest version of 6.53 needed to be changed to
> address the issue that a flank charge against a
> shoulder also had to meet the requirements of 6.53.
> I agree that the latest version of 6.53 only appears
> to address frontal chargers against a shoulder (for
> which 6.53 is generally unnecessary) and needs
> fixing.
> Someone here today (wasn't it you???) wrote an
> excellent update to fix that issue, and I have
> accepted that fix and thanked the author for it.
>
> Is there something more you wanted?
>
> Don, you've been a trusted agent of ours for some
> time, but emails like this make me want to change
> that relationship. As helpful as you have been, I
> have zero time (in fact negative time) to listen to
> someone tell me about THEIR investment in Warrior.
>
> At this point, I would not even let Jake, Scott or
> Bill do that.
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

[Don Coon]

> Don, you've been a trusted agent of ours for some time, but emails like
this make me want to change that relationship. As helpful as you have been,
I have zero time (in fact negative time) to listen to someone tell me about
THEIR investment in Warrior.

end trans.

Don