Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Patrick Byrne]

The process I see to identify the 'GAP' between to "things" (this must be
Phil's technical term) is as follows:
1. Identify the two objects.
2. Determine the minimum distance between the two.
Then if something is trying to go through THAT 'GAP', consult the rules for
what is allowed to penetrate.

Step 2 has nothing to do with where any charging or routing body crosses. It
only has to do with the shortest measurement between the closest points of
the two "things".

Question,
Say that Unit A is set at and angle to Unit B. When measuring from the left
front of Unit A to the closest point of Unit B the distance is 100paces.
When measuring from the right front of Unit A to the closest point of Unit B
the distance is 80p. The minimum distance between the two unit is 80paces,
right?

The rule is saying that you can't charge throught the 80 pace opening, termed
'GAP'. It is also saying that no 'GAP' exists at the 100 pace measurement
because that measurement is not 'the minimum space existing between the two
things'.

In conclusion, the 'GAPS' A-E shown in my jpeg are not actually gaps at all
as none of the points I reference are the closest points between the
"things".

Now I have a monkey wrench to throw out. What if Unit A has two points that
are the same difference from Unit or Object B. Do both measurements then
count as a true Gap?
-PB



jendon@... wrote:

> --- In WarriorRules@y..., Patrick Byrnes <cuan@f...> wrote:
> > Steve, I now agree with you.
> > As I reread the rules yet again, I see that you in fact can not
> measure
> > between the far side of one unit to the near side of another unit
> (dif.
> > terrain, or table edge to define a gap), or even worse, from the far
> side of
> > one unit to the far side of another. A GAP must be measure from
> nearest
> > point of a unit, terrain, or table edge to nearest point of a unit,
> terrain
> > or table edge.
> > Got it, this solves a lot of problems.
>
> Careful here P man. Your jpeg shows gap B as less than 120p,
> therefore Unit A and unit B are less than 120p at their closest
> point. This would of course by your new found interp disallow any
> charge into unit A's front as it would have to sit between unit A and
> unit B, an illegal less than 120p gap.
>
> 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/

Donald,

Now here is where it gets tricky.

In your example of the LC on the edge of the table. The shoulders
are formed by the table edge and the left SIDE of the LC BODY. So by
definition of 6.53, if the GAP left between these shoulders is 2
elements wide AT THE HEAD of the unit, then you should be able to
charge the head on the inside flank.

But this raises the question of as it appears the BODY counts as it's
own shoulder, from what point does that shoulder commence?


The jpeg file suggests that the front LEFT point of Unit A forms the
shoulder of GAP B to the front LEFT shoulder of Unit B. And this is
what you contend.

So, is this a GAP by definition of 6.53? I would contend that it is
NOT a GAP because the furthermost point of Unit A cannot be used to
project a gap across to Unit B. By extension of your own argument,
why even bother angling the units? You could claim the same benefits
just by echaloning them back from Unit D which would achieve the same
purpose. You could still claim the front left point of Unit A forms
the gap to Unit B. Even your own example of the LC can be used to
say that, due the REAR of the unit being 0 paces from the edge, no
gap exists so the HEAD of the unit cannot be charged from the inside
flank.

Using 6.53 and the jpeg diagram, the BODYS of Unit A and Unit B form
the shoulders of a GAP that exists from the right flank of Unit A to
the left flank of Unit B. If this gap is less than 2 elements wide,
then Unit B CANNOT be charged on the left flank UNLESS Unit A was
already in combat. But Unit A CAN be frontally charged.

And besides, if Unit A was charged and CONTACTED only on it's front
left corner - which is quite possible if at max charge range - is it
not MANDITORY in the rules for the attacking units' element to line
up face to face with the target? So is this "charging through a
gap"???? This goes back to "where does the shoulder commence"?

Rule 6.53 states " A gap is defined as (obviously enough) the minimum
space existing between two things (bodies, terrain features or table
edges). We use the term `shoulder' to describe the `things' that form
a gap. " Note the word BETWEEN. If your argument is correct, then
the shoulder is formed by the left side of Unit A and the right side
of Unit B. ie from one side to another. My argument is that the
shoulders are formed by Units A and B but the GAP only exists between
the front right side of the body of Unit A and the front left side of
the body of Unit B. The only "correct" gap on the jpg is Gap A, the
one between the closest edge of the difficult terrain and the left of
Unit A. And if this is the only correct gap, why is the same
measurment NOT appied to all the other bodies?


Cheers




--- In WarriorRules@y..., "DONALD COON" <jendon@f...> wrote:
>
>
> > Steve, I now agree with you.
> > As I reread the rules yet again, I see that you in fact can not
measure
> > between the far side of one unit to the near side of another unit
(dif.
> > terrain, or table edge to define a gap), or even worse, from the
far side
> of
> > one unit to the far side of another. A GAP must be measure from
nearest
> > point of a unit, terrain, or table edge to nearest point of a
unit,
> terrain
> > or table edge.
> > Got it, this solves a lot of problems.
>
> Except that this is not strictly speaking accurate and creates more
> problems. The rule says a gap is the minimum distance between two
things it
> does NOT say nearest point to nearest point. This is IMHO the
minimum
> distance at the point in question however, not the absolute
minimum. This
> is a huge difference. Imagine 2 horse shoes with open ends facing
each
> other but the shoes are not parallel, but at 45. One set of legs
is much
> closer than the other. The "gap" at one end is tighter than the
other.
> Imagine a long unit in column whose left edge is 45 to the left
table edge
> and back rank is touching the edge by its back left corner (the
apex of the
> 45) The gap to the table edge at the tail is 0p, but the gap at
the head of
> the column to the table edge is .7071(D)(N) where D = depth of
element and
> N= number of elements. A 6 element column of LC would have a gap
of 169p at
> its head. Are you trying to say that since the tail is at 0p to
the table
> that I cant not flank charge its head with a unit of lying 20p
inside the
> left table edge? I doubt this is what you want. That is the crux
of this
> whole debate. None of this is touching on my continued example of
2 units
> (A and B, A to the left of B) parellel front edges and in side edge
contact
> but A is stepped back 60p from B. Now per the way you are saying
it the gap
> between A and B is 0p. This is ONLY true for something trying to
squeeze by
> A and B. A unit trying to smash into A is passing a gap from The
front left
> corner of A to the front left corner of B. If this is not true the
same
> unit trying (and by your interp) able to hit A frontally, could
also hit B
> in its left flank. Steve? Partick? Do you both want this to be
ok? Do
> you think the rules currently say it is ok? Also in Patricks jpeg
unit B
> could be hit in the left flank by your guys interp. I just have to
hit it
> far enough towards its front to not cross a line between the
absolute
> minimum points of A and B (why I think your interp is wrong). The
fit issue
> is not true, because charge moves per the rules are handled in
three steps.
> 1. Move and make contact (only time gap crossing is an issue). 2.
pivot to
> conform (must have room to do this) 3. Line up. In step 3
(assuming the
> charger has properly executed steps 1 and 2) if the charger can not
fit, the
> charged unit is moved to help out. Says so quite clearly in the
rules.
>
> The problem here is one we found at River City Rumble and that
Steve in his
> reply seemed to fall into too. Everyone inherently knows what
charges
> should and should not be legal, but the rules as written do not
support
> them. My agenda here is not to change the game we play, just get
the rule
> squeeky clean. Jon has acknowledged that he is hearing us. I
guess we must
> wait. I only caution you that when you seize onto a potential
solution you
> sit down and draw out some diagrams. Work through what can and can
not be
> done by the rule as written or your proposed fix. See if it
works. You
> will soon see that a fix like "units charged frontally do not count
as a
> shoulder for gap calculations" is fairly simple and achieves a
clear goal.
> An interp like your (absolute minimum distance no matter where the
action is
> taking place) has a few holes yet.
>
> Don

[Don Coon]

> The process I see to identify the 'GAP' between to "things" (this must be
> Phil's technical term) is as follows:
> 1. Identify the two objects.
> 2. Determine the minimum distance between the two.
> Then if something is trying to go through THAT 'GAP', consult the rules
for
> what is allowed to penetrate.

Totally disagree. The gap has to be where the occupying body is trying to
fit. At the point he is trying to fit. Your definition still allows (the I
can not believe why you continue to not respond to) unit A parallel and in
side edge contact, but stepped back 60p from unit B(on unit B left flank) to
not protect unit B's left flank from a charge. No one (except apparently
you) at River City Rumble or in my Kitchen last Saturday wants this to be
ok.

BTW why do you say "THAT GAP" as if there is some other gap to discuss (mine
maybe?) .

> Step 2 has nothing to do with where any charging or routing body crosses.
It
> only has to do with the shortest measurement between the closest points of
> the two "things".

Again, I totally disagree. If I make a V with my index and middle finger,
the gap is 0p at the web of my fingers, however if I put my hand flat on the
table and roll a BB between my fingers, as soon as that BB crosses the nail
of my index finger it is IN the GAP between my two fingers. If that gap is
less than 120p is it behaving illegally.

> Question,
> Say that Unit A is set at and angle to Unit B. When measuring from the
left
> front of Unit A to the closest point of Unit B the distance is 100paces.
> When measuring from the right front of Unit A to the closest point of Unit
B
> the distance is 80p. The minimum distance between the two unit is
80paces,
> right?

From one plane of approach yes. From another plane of approach it is 100p.

> The rule is saying that you can't charge throught the 80 pace opening,
termed
> 'GAP'. It is also saying that no 'GAP' exists at the 100 pace measurement
> because that measurement is not 'the minimum space existing between the
two
> things'.

Again I 100% emphatically disagree. There is an 80p gap along one line, and
a 100p gap along another. Niether of these lines can be crossed as they are
both GAPS!

By your interp, units B, C, and D in your jpeg can be charged by HI in the
left flank if the MINIMUM space is 40p. If I take an HI unit and hit unit B
just inside its left flank edge I have not crossed your inflexible boundary
and therefore am not in a gap. All I have to do now is pivot to conform and
then line up. Hoopla a flank charge. If unit A is stepped back 60p or
more from unit B and still maintain the paralle front edges you have drawn,
the pivot to conform will clear your gap boundary. I hope and doubt no one
else wants this charge to be legal.

> In conclusion, the 'GAPS' A-E shown in my jpeg are not actually gaps at
all
> as none of the points I reference are the closest points between the
> "things".

I do not agree obviously. A gap is a place to fit. I see what you are
saying, I just do not agree with your interp. I think gap are measured at
the point in contention. I may be proven wrong when Jon posts. I know I am
not the only one who feels the way I do.

> Now I have a monkey wrench to throw out. What if Unit A has two points
that
> are the same difference from Unit or Object B. Do both measurements then
> count as a true Gap?

It is not a monkey wrench at all by my definition (another feather in my
arguments cap), as all gaps are location dependant any way. It is only a
monkey wrench because you choose to make it one.

Oh BTW in your jpeg, bottom picture, Unit A and unit B can not even be
charged frontally by unit X either. In order to contact unit A, X must
wheel on its Front right corner some amount. In doing so, it will project
its front left corner forward prior to moving off in the charge. As the
distance to unit A decreases, the front right corner of unit X draws closer
to your boundary. It will hit the boundary before hitting unit A thus
making the charge illegal (crossed a 100p gap - kind of crappy huh?). Boo
hoo for unit X!. Of course my fix "bodies frontally charged to not count in
gap determination" fixes this rather nicely, but you have avoided that in
every post.

Don

[joncleaves]

I am working feverishly on the 'minimum distance' thing and the problems
created by 'v' shaped gaps. Keep talking, but I should have a rule here
shortly. Good stuff!!

[Don Coon]

> In your example of the LC on the edge of the table. The shoulders
> are formed by the table edge and the left SIDE of the LC BODY. So by
> definition of 6.53, if the GAP left between these shoulders is 2
> elements wide AT THE HEAD of the unit, then you should be able to
> charge the head on the inside flank.

I agree, I have always agreed to this. This IS one of the points I have
been trying to make.

> But this raises the question of as it appears the BODY counts as it's
> own shoulder, from what point does that shoulder commence?

A great eye opening point (see below)

> The jpeg file suggests that the front LEFT point of Unit A forms the
> shoulder of GAP B to the front LEFT shoulder of Unit B. And this is
> what you contend.

I contend it per the rules not per what I want to be true (see proposed fix
below)

> So, is this a GAP by definition of 6.53? I would contend that it is
> NOT a GAP because the furthermost point of Unit A cannot be used to
> project a gap across to Unit B. By extension of your own argument,
> why even bother angling the units? You could claim the same benefits
> just by echaloning them back from Unit D which would achieve the same
> purpose.

I have been trying to get someone to comment on this for several weeks! If
A is parallel to B and in side edge contact, but echeloned back 60p on B's
left flank, can B's left flank be charged (in the absence of all other
stuff). It appears that it can. Here in DFW the general public does not
want that particular charge to be legal.

>You could still claim the front left point of Unit A forms
> the gap to Unit B. Even your own example of the LC can be used to
> say that, due the REAR of the unit being 0 paces from the edge, no
> gap exists so the HEAD of the unit cannot be charged from the inside
> flank.

This example is not something I believe to be true, I wrote it to
counterpoint Patricks contention that a gap in the MINIMUM distance between
two things regardless of the location in question. I do not agree, I think
the LC should and can be charged at ots head.

> Using 6.53 and the jpeg diagram, the BODYS of Unit A and Unit B form
> the shoulders of a GAP that exists from the right flank of Unit A to
> the left flank of Unit B. If this gap is less than 2 elements wide,
> then Unit B CANNOT be charged on the left flank UNLESS Unit A was
> already in combat. But Unit A CAN be frontally charged.

I am getting to this.

> And besides, if Unit A was charged and CONTACTED only on it's front
> left corner - which is quite possible if at max charge range - is it
> not MANDITORY in the rules for the attacking units' element to line
> up face to face with the target? So is this "charging through a
> gap"???? This goes back to "where does the shoulder commence"?

This is a great question. I do not know if pivoting to conform and lining
up are part of gappage issues.

> Rule 6.53 states " A gap is defined as (obviously enough) the minimum
> space existing between two things (bodies, terrain features or table
> edges). We use the term `shoulder' to describe the `things' that form
> a gap. " Note the word BETWEEN. If your argument is correct, then
> the shoulder is formed by the left side of Unit A and the right side
> of Unit B. ie from one side to another. My argument is that the
> shoulders are formed by Units A and B but the GAP only exists between
> the front right side of the body of Unit A and the front left side of
> the body of Unit B. The only "correct" gap on the jpg is Gap A, the
> one between the closest edge of the difficult terrain and the left of
> Unit A. And if this is the only correct gap, why is the same
> measurment NOT appied to all the other bodies?

I totally see your point. You actually are straddling what I have been
proposing as opposed to Patricks ABSOLUTE MINIMUM regardless of position.
What you do is this:

For any bodies there are two gap lines. To create the gap lines between
two bodies draw a line between the two pairs of closeset corners of the two
bodies. When terrain or a table edge is involed, draw the shortest line
between the two closest corners of the body and the terrain and table edge.
When it is just terrain and/or the table edge there are many gap lines. To
find the gap at any point along terrain and the table edge or another piece
of terrain, draw the shortest line possible between the two at any given
point.

This paragraph, added to 6,53 does several things. It clarifies gaps to
everyone. It also gets rid of the term shoulder.

It also does several other things. It allows a flank charge on two side
edge contacting, but echeloned bodies. It allows an enemy body to frontally
charge an enemy body by running right past another enemy. It also prevents
body X from frontally charging either unit A or B in the jpeg for reasons I
posted yesterday. Make sure this is an acceptable thing.

One more addition to the 6.53 gap para. "A body initiating a move of any
kind, does not count in gap determination". This way a body trying to move
forward towards enemy or terrain does not violate its own gap lines created
prior to the move.

Chew on that please.

It looks like what Steve has been advocating all along. I think it will get
what Patrick has been after too.

Don

[Greg Regets]

You REALLY need to work on the "what fits after lining up" thing too Jon. It's far too easy to make formations where elements can't fit, so there can be no charges. I suggest you eliminate the need to line up when not possible. As I recall, this was something that existed in the original WRG 7th. A good example of this would be two pike units (the type of unit that very few troop types can actually charge) with a bunch of four figure LI units between them at such a severe angle that nothing fits to charge them. An added bonus of this formation is that these units bolster your commands, making the 1/2 retirement harder. I'm sure this is not what you intended from this rule.
Greg

[scott holder]

You REALLY need to work on the "what fits after lining up" thing too Jon.
It's far too easy to make formations where elements can't fit, so there can
be no charges. I suggest you eliminate the need to line up when not
possible.

>That one won't fly by me. Period. For every issue that results from lining
up, I can show you a bazillion more that occur when you don't line up "when
not possible". It becomes too much like 5th edition all over again.

Scott
List Ho

[Greg Regets]

It would only be "when NOT possible". If you can, you would have to.

-----Original Message-----
From: Holder, Scott <FHWA> [mailto:Scott.Holder@fhwa.dot.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 12:55 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] Re: Gap Question


You REALLY need to work on the "what fits after lining up" thing too Jon.
It's far too easy to make formations where elements can't fit, so there can
be no charges. I suggest you eliminate the need to line up when not
possible.

>That one won't fly by me.  Period.  For every issue that results from lining
up, I can show you a bazillion more that occur when you don't line up "when
not possible".  It becomes too much like 5th edition all over again.

Scott
List Ho
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             

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/

[scott holder]

It would only be "when NOT possible". If you can, you would have to.

>And in 13 years of umpiring, how many times have I heard players *insist*
that it's not possible to line up stuff? I can tell ya, loads. Just read all
the "material" that comes out of our group members from "down under". *Any*,
I repeat *any* wiggle room in the rules on this issue will lead (and has led
to, again, I've seen it time and time again) to players claiming it's not
possible to fit the elements in and then we're back to the whole subjective
issues of what goes where, etc.

>Therefore, in 13 years of umpiring, with one or two exceptions made on the
spot for ease of play, I mandate lining up elements. It cleans up many many
many many more problems than it creates.

>Believe me, lining up elements will be mandated in Warrior.

Scott
List Ho

[Greg Regets]

So, what about LEGAL but jicky formations?

I'm sure your a great umpire Scott ... but then again, we do not have you at our tournaments!

G :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Holder, Scott <FHWA> [mailto:Scott.Holder@fhwa.dot.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 1:06 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] Re: Gap Question




It would only be "when NOT possible". If you can, you would have to.

>And in 13 years of umpiring, how many times have I heard players *insist*
that it's not possible to line up stuff?  I can tell ya, loads.  Just read all
the "material" that comes out of our group members from "down under".  *Any*,
I repeat *any* wiggle room in the rules on this issue will lead (and has led
to, again, I've seen it time and time again) to players claiming it's not
possible to fit the elements in and then we're back to the whole subjective
issues of what goes where, etc.

>Therefore, in 13 years of umpiring, with one or two exceptions made on the
spot for ease of play, I mandate lining up elements.  It cleans up many many
many many more problems than it creates.

>Believe me, lining up elements will be mandated in Warrior.

Scott
List Ho
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                            

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/

Donald,

I've re-read you posting but your conclusion is NOT what I am
saying. A moving body does not create nor uncreate gaps. Gaps exist
because objects have created them.
All examples below are based on the now infamous jpeg! Units 1,2,3
and 4 are the bodies opposite units a,b etc.

Examples.

1. Patricks note that if unit 1 approaches to 100 paces (less than 2
elements wide) of unit A, a gap must then exist between the two
bodies and so neither 1 or A can charge. We agree this is a load of
horse droppings BUT there does exist a gap. Firstly, we will look at
units 1 and A in isolation. Imagine the AREA contained within the
box formed by the bodies of units 1 and A. This box is defined by
the shoulder units of 1 and A but also by the open ends past the
right and left flank edges of both units. As long as units 1 or A
REMAIN in this position, no OTHER unit can enter the box from the
open sides. Units behind 1 and A can enter the box by
interpenatrating 1 or A by approches (if room exists) or by charging
through 1 to come into combat with A or through A to come into
combat with 1.

2. Using the deployments in the jpg, the gaps exist only while units
A-D do not move. Remembering that I hold that the gaps exist only
beween the right front flank of A and the left front flank of B, if
neither unit moves AND the space from point to point is less than 120
paces, unit B cannot be flank charged unless A is already in combat
OR charged at the same time by the same unit. If either unit steps
forward or moves in such a way so that the point to point becomes
more than 120 paces, unit A no longer protects the flank of B.

3. Now to put paid to the "angled defence" plan. Here's a little
exercise. Print out the jpeg and blow it up enough to put elements
in the deployment plan for A - D. Done that? Ok, put the paper onto
a counter or table so that you can get ground level eye view of the
units A - D and deploy the units. Now line up the paper as if you
were units 1 -4. So now you should see lots of shields as you are
seeing two faces of each unit, the front and left. This is what
units 1 -4 see. Now for the tricky bit, take the front corners of
the paper in your hands. One corner per hand please. Now rotate the
page approximatly 45 degrees by pulling the corner of the paper in
your LEFT hand the toward you. What do you see now? You should see
4 elements with a space between each unit as you are looking directly
at the front of each element. THIS is what units 1 - 4 see if they
wheel 45 degrees in their charge. Question, where is the gap to stop
me from doing this? If I can charge unit A in example 1, I must be
able to charge A - D in the same way. The only question in regard to
gaps comes into if I want to ALSO charge the flank of B, C or D.

4. If we step unit A forward so it lines up with unit C, B would not
be able to be frontally charged UNLESS the gap now formed by unit A
and C is greater than 2 elements wide. And unit B would protect the
inside flanks of both A and C from attack. Unit B, however, CAN
charge forward as the gap for it only needs to be 1 element wide.

Conclusion.
As I have shown, a charging unit does not create or uncreate gaps. A
gap will only exist as long as the shoulders (units, features, edge
etc) remain in such a way as to retain the gap. As long as A and B
remain where they are and all else is equal, B is impervious to a
flank charge. But ALL the units A - D are open to be frontally
charged by units 1 - 4 or by others behind 1 - 4 if interpenatration
is possible. No gap exists across the front of any unit A - D, only
in the spaces between the terrain edge and the closest front point of
A, the closest front point of A and the closest front point of B,
the closest front point of B and the closest front point of C, etc,
etc, etc.





--- In WarriorRules@y..., "DONALD COON" <jendon@f...> wrote:
>
REALLY BIG SNIP HERE
> One more addition to the 6.53 gap para. "A body initiating a move
of any
> kind, does not count in gap determination". This way a body trying
to move
> forward towards enemy or terrain does not violate its own gap lines
created
> prior to the move.
>
> Chew on that please.
>
> It looks like what Steve has been advocating all along. I think it
will get
> what Patrick has been after too.
>
> Don

Jon, Don, et al

I have posted a powerpoint slide on this. Please look at it as I
think it covers all the angles in the jpeg file.

Cheers

Steve

[Patrick Byrne]

Steve,
You have two light blue lines denoting Gaps between Unit 1 and Unit A
(like wise for the others). The distance measurement of these two
lines are different. So how can you have "minimal space existing
between two things" with two different lenght measurements?

I agree that your dark blue and red lines denoting Gaps between other
'things' captures the existing rules.
-PB


--- In WarriorRules@y..., "Steve Honeyman" <loki_in_oz@y...> wrote:
> Jon, Don, et al
>
> I have posted a powerpoint slide on this. Please look at it as I
> think it covers all the angles in the jpeg file.
>
> Cheers
>
> S

[joncleaves]

I will look.

[Don Coon]

--- In WarriorRules@y..., "Holder, Scott <FHWA>" <Scott.Holder@f...>
wrote:
> You REALLY need to work on the "what fits after lining up" thing too
Jon.
> It's far too easy to make formations where elements can't fit, so
there can
> be no charges. I suggest you eliminate the need to line up when not
> possible.
>
> >That one won't fly by me. Period. For every issue that results
from lining
> up, I can show you a bazillion more that occur when you don't line
up "when
> not possible". It becomes too much like 5th edition all over again.
>
> Scott
> List Ho

You had better read the para on lining up then Scott, because it looks
like it flew past you already. Under lining up, as the last option,
units that do not line up are treated as if they had lined up. This
results in partial line up and legal HTH contact. Check the rule as I
do not have it in front of me, but I am pretty sure thats how it is
written.

Don