Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Patrick Byrne]

Jon,
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). OR is it - since the steep and rocky part of the hill is not its
own terrain feature and the woods is actually on the hill (thus no actual
gap) there is not a 6.53 Gap to drop back through.




----- Original Message -----
From: <JonCleaves@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Gaps


> 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]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

[Mark Stone]

Jon,

Recent games have brought up a couple of questions about flank charges and
passable gaps. For these questions, please refer to the file "gaps.ppt" in the
"Rules Questions" folder for the group.

Regarding Slide 1:
Blue has a unit of lance-armed HC; Red has two units of close order foot (say,
MI LTS,Sh). Assume Blue is within 160p of the flank, and can reach it with
either no wheel or wheeling only on the corner closest the Red's left-most
unit. The X axis distance between the two units is 70p, and the Y axis distance
from the front of the right-most unit to the front of the left-most unit is 50p.

Question: Can Blue charge Red's left-most unit in the flank?

Related Question: If the answer is "no", is it because the area in question is
not a passable gap, or is it because Blue doesn't have room to fit when lined
up?

Notes: If you measure the line from Red's right-most unit's front left corner to
the front right corner of the left-most unit this line is more than 80p (it is
in fact 86p). However, a gap is defined in 6.53 as "the minimum space existing
between two things". The minimum space would be front left to back right
corner, which is less than 80p, although that's not a space that must be
crossed to make contact.

It may be that what you what you want to say is that _any_ line between two
bodies (not just the shortest line) that is less than two elements' width
creates a line that an enemy body cannot cross.

Even if it is a passable gap, 6.165 "Making Charge Moves" (page 43) says that "A
unit trying a flank charge must be able to physically move through and occupy
(fit inside) the space on the flank of the target body. If it cannot do so then
the charge cannot be made." This doesn't explicitly say that "fit inside" means
when lined up as opposed to at first contact, but I assume it should mean that.
If so, you may want to clarify the wording here.

I've noticed that lots of people, myself included, tend to think of a gap
between two bodies as existing only when the front of one is in front of a line
extending the back of the other. By that line of reasoning there would be no gap
question here, only a question of fit. In fact, though, the rules don't say
that. They say "minimum space between two things" which makes how the two
things are aligned to each other irrelevant. This leads me to my second
question.

On Slide 2, the positions of Red's foot units have been slightly changed. Now
there is clearly room for Blue to fit without contacting Red's right-most unit,
as the corner to corner distance here is 70p and Blue only needs 60p to fit his
frontage in this space. However, 70p is less than 80p, which would seem to fit
the definition of a not-passable gap.

Question: In Slide 2, can Blue charge Red's left-most unit in the flank?


-Mark

[joncleaves]

Regarding Slide 1:
Blue has a unit of lance-armed HC; Red has two units of close order foot (say,
MI LTS,Sh). Assume Blue is within 160p of the flank, and can reach it with
either no wheel or wheeling only on the corner closest the Red's left-most
unit. The X axis distance between the two units is 70p, and the Y axis distance
from the front of the right-most unit to the front of the left-most unit is 50p.

Question: Can Blue charge Red's left-most unit in the flank?>>

No.

<<Related Question: If the answer is "no", is it because the area in question is
not a passable gap, or is it because Blue doesn't have room to fit when lined
up?>>

There's no gap to charge through, so it is not that. If blue is lined up with
the lead red unit it will touch the other red unit and there fore cannot fit
against it, which is the standard for this type of charge. The front of blue is
40mm and the lead edge of red 2 is 32 or so mm away, so blue would need another
8mm of space to be able to fit against red 1's flank.

<< However, a gap is defined in 6.53 as "the minimum space existing
between two things". The minimum space would be front left to back right
corner, which is less than 80p, although that's not a space that must be
crossed to make contact.>>

True, which is why the gap rule has nothing to do with this situation.


<<It may be that what you what you want to say is that _any_ line between two
bodies (not just the shortest line) that is less than two elements' width
creates a line that an enemy body cannot cross.>>

Oh no. That is something I would never do and is quite contrary to the letter
and intent of the rule. It shall stay quite as it is.

<<I've noticed that lots of people, myself included, tend to think of a gap
between two bodies as existing only when the front of one is in front of a line
extending the back of the other. By that line of reasoning there would be no gap
question here, only a question of fit.>>

There is no gap question here, but that is not why.

<< In fact, though, the rules don't say
that. They say "minimum space between two things" which makes how the two
things are aligned to each other irrelevant.>>

Yep, exactly right.

<< This leads me to my second
question.

On Slide 2, the positions of Red's foot units have been slightly changed. Now
there is clearly room for Blue to fit without contacting Red's right-most unit,
as the corner to corner distance here is 70p and Blue only needs 60p to fit his
frontage in this space. However, 70p is less than 80p, which would seem to fit
the definition of a not-passable gap.

Question: In Slide 2, can Blue charge Red's left-most unit in the flank?>>

Yes. Again, there is no gap to be crossed as the minimum distance line is well
away from where blue has to charge.

Jon

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 10/7/2004 16:51:11 Central Daylight Time,
mark@... writes:

Cool.

Sorry to be such a pain about this, but flank charges are one of those very
sticky areas where it's important that players get it right, and it just
became
clear to me through a couple of recent battles that the current wording
wasn't
making things as clear as they should be.

While the situation we've been discussing today is a bit esoteric, it has
implications for lots of very common situations, so getting this one right --
and clear -- will help us all out.

Again, thanks.



Not a problem, Mark. The revised 6.0 will have a clearly separated flank
charge section, which will be broken down into two major subsections - the case
where the charger starts behind the flank and the case where it does not.
You've helped contribute to making that a better section of the rules.
Jon


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

[Mark Stone]

I said:

>> It may be that what you what you want to say is that _any_ line between two
>> bodies (not just the shortest line) that is less than two elements' width
>> creates a line that an enemy body cannot cross.

And Jon replied:

> Oh no. That is something I would never do and is quite contrary to the letter
> and intent of the rule. It shall stay quite as it is.

Well Jon, I sat for a day looking at your reply, and the only conclusion I can
reach is that you don't really mean this. I guess I have two questions. The
first one is this:

Suppose the gap definition read exactly as follows: "A gap is any straight line
that can be drawn between the edge of two bodies, terrain features, or
obstacles. A body may cross such a line only if it is at least one element
wide. If either end point of such a line is an unbroken enemy body not in H-t-H
combat from a previous bound, then such a body may cross such a line only if it
is at least two elements wide."

My question then, is: What possible situation that you'd want to preclude does
this definition allow? For the life of me, I can't see how this is "contrary"
to the intent of the rule? Where's the problem?

You instead want to maintain that a gap is only the shortest line between two
things, and that any other line between the two is not part of the gap. Thus if
a body isn't crossing that shortest line, it isn't passing a gap. That leads to
a situation I can't believe you really want to allow (my second question).

For purposes of this question, please refer to the file "gaps2.ppt" in the
"Rules Questions" folder of the group. I've picked a particularly extreme
example, but the general situation is one that could easily occur.

Slide 1 shows unit positions at the end of approaches; Slide 2 after charge
movement has been executed to the point of contact; Slide 3 after lining up.
Assume that Red A is close order foot (doesn't really matter what kind), and
assume Red B is close order foot in a mandatory halt situation (either opted to
halt from shooting this bound or last, or is rallying disordered). Blue 1 is
some kind of close order foot (again, doesn't really matter what).

Distances are as follows: Blue 1 is 40p from Red B at their closest point. The
back right corner of Red A and the left right corner of Red B are 25p apart.
The front right corner of Red A and the front left corner of Red B are 39p
apart. Note that Red A projects slightly forward of Red B. Finally, Blue 1 can
wheel slightly at the start of charge movement (pivoting on the corner closest
to Red A), until the wheel makes Blue 1's frontage parallel to Red A's flank.
Movement straight ahead would then miss Red B, but contact Red A on the flank.

By your definition, the gap between Red A and Red B is the shortest line between
them, hence the line between their inside back corners. Since Blue 1 never needs
to cross the line to contact Red A on the flank there is no question of passing
gaps here. Since Blue 1 has room to fit on Red A's flank this becomes a legal
flank charge.

Is that really the outcome that you want? You really want someone to be able to
charge through a 39p space between the front of two units and pull off a flank
charge?


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

Ok, Mark, take a deep breath, brother...lol

Mark said:

>> It may be that what you what you want to say is that _any_ line between two
>> bodies (not just the shortest line) that is less than two elements' width
>> creates a line that an enemy body cannot cross.

And Jon replied:

> Oh no. That is something I would never do and is quite contrary to the letter
> and intent of the rule. It shall stay quite as it is.

Mark:
<<Well Jon, I sat for a day looking at your reply, and the only conclusion I can
reach is that you don't really mean this.>>

Oh, I do. And if we were together over a game table I could fix this for you in
2 seconds and we'd all have a laugh. Something about email isn't translating
right, but we'll work through it.

<< I guess I have two questions. The
first one is this:
Suppose the gap definition read exactly as follows: "A gap is any straight line
that can be drawn between the edge of two bodies, terrain features, or
obstacles. A body may cross such a line only if it is at least one element
wide. If either end point of such a line is an unbroken enemy body not in H-t-H
combat from a previous bound, then such a body may cross such a line only if it
is at least two elements wide.">>

I can't have that. That isn't Warrior and would lead to all kinds of problems.
The rule reads the way it does to PREVENT what you just wrote from being true.
And you are a good and a conscientious enough player that I know there must be a
miscommunication at work here.

<<You instead want to maintain that a gap is only the shortest line between two
things, and that any other line between the two is not part of the gap. >>

Correct.

<<Thus if
a body isn't crossing that shortest line, it isn't passing a gap.>>

Correct.

<<For purposes of this question, please refer to the file "gaps2.ppt" in the
"Rules Questions" folder of the group. I've picked a particularly extreme
example, but the general situation is one that could easily occur.>>

To simplify things, the charge shown in gaps2.ppt is illegal. Since it is
illegal and we both want it to be illegal, again, I am sure we are
miscommunicating over the particulars.

The most imporatnt thing is that we continue to be talking gaps when gaps have
not applied to any question you've asked me.

Please see 6.53, the part that reads:

"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 charge must abide by 6.165."

The charge in gaps2 is against one of the 'shoulders' and not through any gap to
a body beyond. A THIRD body beyond. Such a situation has nothing to do with
6.53. Never has.

The charge in gaps2 is illegal due to 6.165, not 6.53.

Also, if you need more clarification, I would suggest using a diagram without a
flank charge, and that way we could be sure to be discussing any gap or non-gap
issue and not discussing a charge that is illegal for another reason entirely.

Jon

[Mark Stone]

--- On October 7 Jon Cleaves said: ---

>
> Please see 6.53, the part that reads:
>
> "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 charge must abide by 6.165."
>

Well Jon, if you're going to quote rules to me you should at least get your own
updates right. What the above rule _actually_ says is:

"This rule does not apply to a body moving into contact with one of the
shoulders itself, unless one of those shoulders is the flank of a body."

Since, in this case, one of the shoulders _is_ the flank of a body, you can see
how I might have thought that gap rules had some bearing on the situation.

>
> The charge in gaps2 is illegal due to 6.165, not 6.53.
>

You know, you keep saying that, but you haven't explained why. That's really my
question. And thanks, but I'll keep the discussion to flank charges since my
only interest in gaps right now is as they pertain to protecting flanks. So,
let's look at what 6.165 says; I'm jumping right to the subsection on page 42
that says "Flank Charges".

"A flank charge is one that, when the charge move is complete, contacts the
flank edge of an enemy body."

Well, gaps2.ppt slide 2 certainly qualifies as such.

"For the unit to be able to pivot against and line up..."

OK, this sentence doesn't apply since no pivoting against is required. Blue 1
simply hits flush with the flank of Red A.

"A body attempting a flank charge must be able to reach the intended flank with
at least one complete element without exceeding its tactical move."

No problem there. Blue 1 is within reach of Red A.

"Any wheel must be made at the beginning of the charge move and must pivot on
the corner of the charging unit's front rank element that is nearest to the
charge target."

No problem there either. A slight wheel on the inside closest corner brings Blue
1 parallel to the flank of Red A, as I said originally. All legit by this rule.
Moving on to page 43.

"A unit trying a flank charge must be able to physically move through and occupy
(fit inside) the space on the flank of the target body. If it cannot do so then
a flank charge cannot be made."

Again, no problem. Blue 1 can contact Red A without contacting Red B, and Blue 1
can indeed occupy (fit inside) the space on the flank of Red A; see slide 3.

What else is there to 6.165 that I'm missing?


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

You're right Mark. We did do a clarification on this due to the stuff Don kept
bringing up to try and help them down there. I should have been more careful.

However, the basic issue that the charge is illegal remains.

<<"For the unit to be able to pivot against and line up..."

OK, this sentence doesn't apply since no pivoting against is required. Blue 1
simply hits flush with the flank of Red A.>>

No need to pivot, true, but it can't line up and be legal. It cannot fit.

If it could fit, it would still be illegal and this may be where the miscomm is.
If there is room for blue to line up but it extends down into the gap between
the two red units then, due to the clarification, 6.53 would apply. I cannot
tell from the diagram which is true.


Jon

[Mark Stone]

--- On October 7 Jon Cleaves said: ---

> If it could fit, it would still be illegal and this may be where the miscomm
is.
> If there is room for blue to line up but it extends down into the gap between
> the two red units then, due to the clarification, 6.53 would apply. I cannot
> tell from the diagram which is true.

Of course it can fit. What part of slide 3 don't you understand? A stand of
close order foot is 20p deep. The space between Red A and Red B is, per my
original email, 25p. So of course it can fit, exactly as depicted in Slide 3.

Now, returning to gaps and 6.53. Passing gaps is something that happens during
movement: "This rule is only intended for use when a body intends to move
between two 'shoulders'...." But lining up is _not_ a form of movement. The
rules make that abundantly clear. Indeed on page 42, under "Lining Up" it says:
"This is called 'lining up', is not a form of movement and is unrelated to a
body's charge reach."

I can see that 6.53 applies to the charge to contact, and even the pivoting to
conform (although that doesn't apply in this case). But the way things are
currently worded, it's crystal clear that restrictions on passing gaps do not
apply to the act of lining up.

Would you like to change your answer again, Jon? We agree that it isn't
desirable that this turn out to be a legal charge. We've now agreed, contrary
to your original counter, that it is not precluded by 6.165. How is it
precluded by 6.53 as currently worded?


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

<<Now, returning to gaps and 6.53. Passing gaps is something that happens during
movement: "This rule is only intended for use when a body intends to move
between two 'shoulders'...." But lining up is _not_ a form of movement. The
rules make that abundantly clear. Indeed on page 42, under "Lining Up" it says:
"This is called 'lining up', is not a form of movement and is unrelated to a
body's charge reach.">>

Hmmm. Good point. I'll have to fix 6.53 on that point. The 'move between two
shoulders' part is 'looser' than the 'movement' of lining up. So the first
phrase needs to be more exactly said.

<<I can see that 6.53 applies to the charge to contact, and even the pivoting to
conform (although that doesn't apply in this case). But the way things are
currently worded, it's crystal clear that restrictions on passing gaps do not
apply to the act of lining up.>>

And it needs to be fixed and will be as part of my fixing the language of flank
charges.

Jon

[Mark Stone]

--- On October 7, Jon Cleaves said: ---

>
> Hmmm. Good point. I'll have to fix 6.53 on that point. The 'move between two
> shoulders' part is 'looser' than the 'movement' of lining up. So the first
> phrase needs to be more exactly said.
>
>> I can see that 6.53 applies to the charge to contact, and even the pivoting
to
>> conform (although that doesn't apply in this case). But the way things are
>> currently worded, it's crystal clear that restrictions on passing gaps do not
>> apply to the act of lining up.
>
> And it needs to be fixed and will be as part of my fixing the language of
flank
> charges.

Cool.

Sorry to be such a pain about this, but flank charges are one of those very
sticky areas where it's important that players get it right, and it just became
clear to me through a couple of recent battles that the current wording wasn't
making things as clear as they should be.

While the situation we've been discussing today is a bit esoteric, it has
implications for lots of very common situations, so getting this one right --
and clear -- will help us all out.

Again, thanks.


-Mark Stone

My gap question...

In the section regarding pivoting and lining up to conform, there are
provisions for charges to take place when P & L cannot be accomplished at
contact. When do these provisions come into play? I meant to look up the
reference and wording last night, but forgot. 6.165 I think.

I can't see impetuous 'A' troops stopping their charge beause they missing
lining up corners by 1 pace.

R

[joncleaves]

In the section regarding pivoting and lining up to conform, there are
provisions for charges to take place when P & L cannot be accomplished at
contact. When do these provisions come into play? >>

In all cases EXCEPT a flank charge that begins NOT behind the flank. That will
be called a 'case 2' flank charge in the revision and it has a higher standard
before it is legal than any other type of charge.

J