Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Don Coon]

> First, I am sure gaps are not 'broken'.
>
> Second, I am not 100% sure I see the issue. If you are saying that we
might have taken the wording of the example in 6.165 and placed it one
paragraph up in the rule itself, I suppose that would have been better. But
if you are saying that you want to hit a shoulder in the flank when the gap
is <2 elements wide, that is not what the rule says so I don't get the
issue.
>
> Clarify, please. :)

Jon,

6.53 says (as I stated in my previous email) ""this rule is only intended
for use when a body intends to move BETWEEN two shoulders to a
position beyond. This rule does not apply to a body moving into
contact with one of the shoulders itself. In that case the rule must
abide by 6.165."

When you charge into bodies flank, it IS one of the shoulders of the gap.
6.53 says to disregard itself if you are intending to move into contact with
one of the shoulders itself. Therefore CLEARLY 6.53 does NOT apply to
hitting the flank of a body. We went round and round and round on this in
May/June/July of this year. You changed 6.53 to CLEARLY state that the
statement I quoted above had an exception (I no longer have the July draft
;(). Now the published rules have gone back to the old way.

You are right back where you were. A shoulder is a THING. Woods, a
building, a body. It has nothing to do with which face of a body you are
trying to hit. We have been over this and over it again. Please do not
Take the position that the rule is worded ok now. If you are trying to
IMPLY that the charger goes into a gap between two bodies to hit one of the
two bodies flank I say

1. 6.53 specifically allows this
2. Even if I misread 6.53, then angled charges against a bodies front would
also be dis allowed. Imagine: 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.

Please please please fix it back.

Don

[joncleaves]

In a message dated Mon, 4 Mar 2002 10:17:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, Patrick
<cuan@...> writes:

> Question,
> If my LMI foot is facing an opposing HI foot at 120p, that creates a gap.
>
> Can my HC, sitting to the side of my LMI troops, charge the enemy HI
> frontally? (Assume it normally could do so if no LMI were present)
>
>
> I apologize for not having the rules in front of me.
> -PB


Yes.

[Patrick Byrne]

Question,
If my LMI foot is facing an opposing HI foot at 120p, that creates a gap.

Can my HC, sitting to the side of my LMI troops, charge the enemy HI
frontally? (Assume it normally could do so if no LMI were present)


I apologize for not having the rules in front of me.
-PB



> From: JonCleaves@...
> Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 08:08:41 EST
> To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Gaps
>
> Don,
>
> If your example is in 25mm, 119p is more than 2 elements so the charge could
> happen as long as the body fit, and any 1x2 body I can think of would, except
> elephants or chariots, as they would be too deep.
>
> In 15mm, 1mm = 1.6p, so a 119p gap is just under 75mm which is not two
> elements wide and therefore you can't charge in there. We have always been
> aware of the difference, but we changed the support rules to match this (and
> to fix a couple other inconsistencies).
>
> Please make sure that any further examples note whether the example is in 15
> or 25mm if you are going to reference paces and elements together. Also note
> what kind of bodies they are, as it matters.
>
> So, in your example, there is not enough room to charge into the flank of
> either unit, given that I assume it is in 15mm.
>
> Yes, I do remember toying with the idea of allowing a flank to be hit if the
> space was less than 2 elements but greater than the depth of the charger. We
> found that we did not want that and made it uniform that you could not charge
> into a gap (against the flank of the shoulder or otherwise) less than 2E wide.
> One of the many raesons we rejected this idea was the notion that you could be
> supported at 120p, but you were still vulnerable to flank charges by small
> units, something that didn't make sense.
>
> The bottom line is: if you want to charge a flank, you have to be able to hit
> just the flank, fit in any space after you conform and the space has to be >2
> elements.
>
> I will be happy to continue to explain this issue, Don, but you have to stop
> using language like broken and fix - I don't want to confuse anyone else who
> is reading this thread.
>
> The sentence about shoulders and against in 6.53 is to take care if the issue
> of hitting a shoulder in the face, which is always ok.
>
> Thanks
> 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/
>
>

[Don Coon]

> Don,
>
> If your example is in 25mm, 119p is more than 2 elements so the charge
could happen as long as the body fit, and any 1x2 body I can think of would,
except elephants or chariots, as they would be too deep.

Ok sorry. Yes 25mm. I agree the charge can happen. I was showing you how
the body would have 1 of its corners dip into the gap just prior to cantact.
119p is not more than 2 elements wide. An element is 60p wide. 119 (picked
on purpose) is just UNDER 2 elements. {Oh and by the way, fit is not an
issue either as you allow bodies who can not pivot to conform or line up to
be treated as if they have pivoted and lined up for ALL purposes, but that
is a side note isnt it?}

> In 15mm, 1mm = 1.6p, so a 119p gap is just under 75mm which is not two
elements wide and therefore you can't charge in there. We have always been
aware of the difference, but we changed the support rules to match this (and
to fix a couple other inconsistencies).
>
> Please make sure that any further examples note whether the example is in
15 or 25mm if you are going to reference paces and elements together. Also
note what kind of bodies they are, as it matters.

Ok ok. In 25mm A 1X2 body of EIR legionaries REG B HI HTW, SH stands dead
center between and parallel to 2 1X2 bodies of Flemish Mercenary Spearmen
REG C HI LTS, Sh who are 119p (thats less than 2 elements BTW) with front
edges perfectly coplanar. The EIR have (if you extended their side edges
directly forward) 29.5p to either side of them of a line projecting directly
forward of the Flems side edges. Now the EIR charge 1 of the Flems. First
the EIR must wheel. Then they move forward intending to hit the Flems
flank. Since 6.53 states it does not apply to a body moving into contact
with one of the shoulders itself, it does not apply here and the Flems are
flank charged.

For the 15mm Corellary let the bodies be 127p apart (128p is 2 elements so
this is again just under)

> So, in your example, there is not enough room to charge into the flank of
either unit, given that I assume it is in 15mm.

Plenty of room per 6.53 regardless of scale.

> Yes, I do remember toying with the idea of allowing a flank to be hit if
the space was less than 2 elements but greater than the depth of the
charger. We found that we did not want that and made it uniform that you
could not charge into a gap (against the flank of the shoulder or otherwise)
less than 2E wide. One of the many raesons we rejected this idea was the
notion that you could be supported at 120p, but you were still vulnerable to
flank charges by small units, something that didn't make sense.

We (DFW) did not want that flank charge to be legal either, and you once
reworded 6.53 to prohibit it. You have undone that rewording. We NEVER
toyed with the idea of allowing that flank charge to hit if the gap was less
than 2 elements. We always maintained we did not want that. What we wanted
was a line (which you added) that said "an exception to this is when a flank
is the target of a charge."

> The bottom line is: if you want to charge a flank, you have to be able to
hit just the flank, fit in any space after you conform and the space has to
be >2 elements.

I know this is the bottom line. However THE RULE does NOT say this. Also
please do not forget that if you can not conform, you are treated as having
conformed for ALL purposes. That is per the rules. Why do you not say in
the rules that exact above statement?

> I will be happy to continue to explain this issue, Don, but you have to
stop using language like broken and fix - I don't want to confuse anyone
else who is reading this thread.

Sorry but this is broke and needs fixing. I will be happy to show you,
explain it to you, or telepath it to you. I only ask that you clear your
mind of everything, then read 6.53, and tell me how in the world you come to
the conclusion that my EIR example is not allowed. I do not want it to be
allowed, we do not play that it is allowed. The rules unfortunately ALLOW
it.

> The sentence about shoulders and against in 6.53 is to take care if the
issue of hitting a shoulder in the face, which is always ok.

Sorry again but shoulders do not have faces. You say in 6.53 that a
shoulder is a thing (bodies , non-open terrain features or table edges in
any combination). That defines shoulder to me pretty clearly. Where in the
world did you come up with shoulders have faces? You are trapped by your
own wording here.

Imagine a brand new player reading 6.53 and 6.165 example one. He is going
to toss his hands in the air and say "heck with this man". Or worse, in his
house with his group, they will allow the charge. They will get a bit
better and go to a Scott Holder Judged event. They will see a cool flank
charge (in their mind legal) wondering how they got so lucky as to encounter
an opponent who does not protect his flanks. Charge they declare. BullS**T
yelss the opponent. SCOTT yell they. Scott comes over and camly tells them
the charge is ILLEGAL. They pull out their rule books. Thats not what that
means (or some such) says Scott. They go away very POed and learn DBM.

You think because the EIR wind up between the Flems in my example they are
in the gap. I agree they are. 6.53 says dont worry about it, The EIR are
contacting one of the shoulders and that is not what 6.53 is about (It even
says this). Pure and simple.

If you think 6.53 prohibits the EIR from doing it because they are moving in
the gap prior to contact then I submit the EIR example a bit reworded. The
Flems are in the same orientation, but the EIR are angled 45 degrees to them
and shifted such that a flank charge is not possible. The EIR charges
straight forward (not attempting a flank charge as they can not get their
entire front edge beyond the Flems flank). However prior to contact with
the Flems one of the front corners of the EIR will be in the gap between the
Flems. UT-OH they are moving in the gap! No charge per your contention.
Ahhh, now a ton of charges are not legal. A can of worms is spilling. Wait
I have a fix, When the front face of a body is the target of a charge, it is
not counted as a shoulder for gap determination. Thats what we had. Either
that or the fact the the EIR slip into the gap prior to contact is not an
issue, but then the flank charge example would be ok. Conundrum.

If I seem upset its because I am. We have been over this again and again.
You finally fixed the rule and we quieted down. Now the rules are published
and we are right back to square one. 6.53 is BROKEN. You are using the
EXACT same statements you used in June.

Don

[Jake Kovel]

In a message dated 3/5/02 9:44:22 AM, jjendon@... writes:

>Ok ok. In 25mm A 1X2 body of EIR legionaries REG B HI HTW, SH stands dead
>center between and parallel to 2 1X2 bodies of Flemish Mercenary Spearmen
>REG C HI LTS, Sh who are 119p (thats less than 2 elements BTW) with front
>edges perfectly coplanar. The EIR have (if you extended their side edges
>directly forward) 29.5p to either side of them of a line projecting directly
>forward of the Flems side edges. Now the EIR charge 1 of the Flems. First
>the EIR must wheel. Then they move forward intending to hit the Flems
>flank. Since 6.53 states it does not apply to a body moving into contact
>with one of the shoulders itself, it does not apply here and the Flems
>are flank charged.

Please review Example: Contacting the Flank in a Charge #1 on page 42 of the
rule book. The situation you describe appears to be similar to that of Unit
X in the example. The example states:

Unit X MAY contact Unit A in the flank as it:
is within charge reach of A and
can contact A's side edge and
the gap (g1) is more than two elements wide.

If the gap is less than 2 elements wide, then all of the criteria are not met
and Unit A CANNOT be contacted in the flank. This is clearly spelled out and
the picture is easy to see.

Jon wrote:
>> The bottom line is: if you want to charge a flank, you have to be able
>>to hit just the flank, fit in any space after you conform and the space has
>>to be 2 elements.

This is reinforced by the example on page 42.

Don wrote:
>I know this is the bottom line. However THE RULE does NOT say this. Also
>please do not forget that if you can not conform, you are treated as having
>conformed for ALL purposes. That is per the rules. Why do you not say
>in the rules that exact above statement?

The gap rule states that a unit moving into contact with one of the shoulders
of the gap must follow rule 6.165. Rule 6.165 clearly covers the situation
described by Don. I am not sure where the confusion is coming from. Move
into a gap without making contact, use rule 6.53. Move into a gap and make
contact, use rule 6.165. What is the question?

Don wrote:
>Sorry but this is broke and needs fixing. I will be happy to show you,
>explain it to you, or telepath it to you. I only ask that you clear your
>mind of everything, then read 6.53, and tell me how in the world you come
>to the conclusion that my EIR example is not allowed. I do not want it to
>be allowed, we do not play that it is allowed. The rules unfortunately ALLOW
>it.

I read 6.53. The sentences that leaps out are in the first paragraph. They
say, "This rule does not apply to a body moving into contact with one of the
shoulders itself. In that case, the charge must abide by 6.165."

>Imagine a brand new player reading 6.53 and 6.165 example one. He is going
>to toss his hands in the air and say "heck with this man". Or worse, in
>his house with his group, they will allow the charge. They will get a bit
>better and go to a Scott Holder Judged event. They will see a cool flank
>charge (in their mind legal) wondering how they got so lucky as to encounter
>an opponent who does not protect his flanks. Charge they declare. BullS**T
>yelss the opponent. SCOTT yell they. Scott comes over and camly tells
>them the charge is ILLEGAL. They pull out their rule books. Thats not what
>that means (or some such) says Scott. They go away very POed and learn DBM.

I cannot imagine seeing this happen. Again, there appears to be no confusion
between the two rules or in the wording.

>You think because the EIR wind up between the Flems in my example they
>are in the gap. I agree they are. 6.53 says dont worry about it, The EIR
>are contacting one of the shoulders and that is not what 6.53 is about (It
>even says this). Pure and simple.

Absolutely agree here. The EIR are making contact with a shoulder of the
gap. Rule 6.53 does not apply, rule 6.165 does, as clearly stated in rule
6.53. If the gap is less than 2 elements wide then the FLANK charge is
prohibited by rule 6.165.

>If you think 6.53 prohibits the EIR from doing it because they are moving
>in the gap prior to contact then I submit the EIR example a bit reworded.
> The Flems are in the same orientation, but the EIR are angled 45 degrees to
>them and shifted such that a flank charge is not possible. The EIR charges
>straight forward (not attempting a flank charge as they can not get their
>entire front edge beyond the Flems flank). However prior to contact with
>the Flems one of the front corners of the EIR will be in the gap between
>the Flems. UT-OH they are moving in the gap! No charge per your contention.
>Ahhh, now a ton of charges are not legal. A can of worms is spilling.
> Wait I have a fix, When the front face of a body is the target of a charge,
>it is not counted as a shoulder for gap determination. Thats what we had.
Either
>that or the fact the the EIR slip into the gap prior to contact is not
>an issue, but then the flank charge example would be ok. Conundrum.

Rule 6.165 does not prohibit the EIR from making a FRONTAL charge in either
case. It only prevents a FLANK charge. Even if the very tip of the EIR
moves into the gap, after the EIR pivot and conform to the front of the
Flemish, the EIR will no longer be in the gap. I do not see the problem.

Jacob Kovel
Sales HO

[joncleaves]

Don

1. Take all further gap issues offline to me directly.

2. In the next update to the clarifications, I will add that no charge is
permitted through a gap <2 elements wide, even if the target is the flank of a
shoulder of the gap. Will that do? Remember you are now going offline in any
mail that uses the word gap.

Jon

[joncleaves]

<< I know I'm not supposed to say the word Gap around here. But I have an
idea
to throw against the wall ----> Use the egroups chat room to discuss it.

Just send out an email saying, 'at such & such time, Scott and I will be in
the chat room to discuss rule 6.53 gaps.'
-PB >>


Pat.

No way. :)

Jon

[Patrick Byrne]

I know I'm not supposed to say the word Gap around here. But I have an idea
to throw against the wall ----> Use the egroups chat room to discuss it.

Just send out an email saying, 'at such & such time, Scott and I will be in
the chat room to discuss rule 6.53 gaps.'
-PB


----- Original Message -----
From: <JonCleaves@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Gaps


> Don
>
> 1. Take all further gap issues offline to me directly.
>
> 2. In the next update to the clarifications, I will add that no charge is
permitted through a gap <2 elements wide, even if the target is the flank of
a shoulder of the gap. Will that do? Remember you are now going offline in
any mail that uses the word gap.
>
> 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]

In a message dated 4/24/2004 11:32:19 Central Daylight Time,
jjendon@... writes:
If a body is moving such that part of it will be in open ground, and part of
it would enter movement reducing terrain, can the body choose to drop back
elements for free to pass a gap in order to retain is full tactical move?>>

Yes. 6.53.


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

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 4/24/2004 12:10:03 PM Central Standard Time,
JonCleaves@... writes:
In a message dated 4/24/2004 11:32:19 Central Daylight Time,
jjendon@... writes:
If a body is moving such that part of it will be in open ground, and part of
it would enter movement reducing terrain, can the body choose to drop back
elements for free to pass a gap in order to retain is full tactical move?>>

Yes. 6.53.
As we have been playing it. But the area is quite gray. suppose that same
body of 6 elements Irr C LMI simply wants to contract and move for tacticl
reasons. One either flank of the board are a woods easily separated by 2500
paces, but none the less a gap. can he still drop back elements and move his
full
120 paces because he is dropping back to pass a gap?
Chris


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/24/2004 13:52:02 Central Daylight Time, cncbump@...
writes:
suppose that same
body of 6 elements Irr C LMI simply wants to contract and move for tacticl
reasons. One either flank of the board are a woods easily separated by 2500
paces, but none the less a gap. can he still drop back elements and move his
full
120 paces because he is dropping back to pass a gap?>>

No.


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/24/2004 13:52:02 Central Daylight Time, cncbump@...
writes:
As we have been playing it. But the area is quite gray. suppose that same
body of 6 elements Irr C LMI simply wants to contract and move for tacticl
reasons. One either flank of the board are a woods easily separated by 2500
paces, but none the less a gap. can he still drop back elements and move his
full
120 paces because he is dropping back to pass a gap?>.

I gave the short answer earlier because I was busy.

here's the rule, from 6.53:

"If in block or skirmish, and making ANY kind of move (including charges,
marches and combat results moves) through a gap smaller than the width of the
body, it may drop back elements to fit through. "

Notice the 'smaller than the width' part...lol

"When dropping back elements to pass a gap, a body
decreases its frontage by the minimum number of elements necessary to allow
it to fit with no reduction in movement and retaining a legal formation. "

Note, you can't just choose how much you drop back - it's the minimum
necessary..

"Dropping back elements for "free" to pass through gaps can only occur if the
gap is narrower than the moving body."

Dang, there it is again...lol

Thus my no answer.

Jon, your friendly rules reader.... :)


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

[Don Coon]

If a body is moving such that part of it will be in open ground, and part of
it would enter movement reducing terrain, can the body choose to drop back
elements for free to pass a gap in order to retain is full tactical move?

EX: A 6X2 Irr C LMI JLS,Sh unit is about to move between two brush features
separated by 160p. The owner of the LMI really wants to move 120p forward.
Can he elect to drop back elements to pass the gap between the brush
features and move his 120p, or do the overhanging elements have to enter the
brush and reduce the units move to 80p?

If he can, that's the way we have always played. If he can not he would
instead have to move 40p and make a formation change (contract) to prepare
to move between the brush next turn.

Don

[Don Coon]

Thanks. Thats how I was reading it, but just wanted a sanity check.

Don


> In a message dated 4/24/2004 11:32:19 Central Daylight Time,
> jjendon@... writes:
> If a body is moving such that part of it will be in open ground, and part
of
> it would enter movement reducing terrain, can the body choose to drop back
> elements for free to pass a gap in order to retain is full tactical
move?>>
>
> Yes. 6.53.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/25/2004 13:44:08 Central Daylight Time, cuan@...
writes:
One more thing on this gap question:
1. What if a situation occurs were there is a steep and rocky edge of a
hill. There is also a woods placed on the hill about 90p away from the
steep and rocky area. Gentle slopes are thus between the steep and rocky
part and the woods.
Q. Is there a 6.53 Gap between the steep and rocky part of the hill and the
woods? Thus allowing the unit to drop back (if all other conditions are
met). >>

Yes.


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