Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

For whatever reason, I have just seen the two excellent jpg photos in
the files section and would like to comment on them from a rules
author perspective, since Chris (those are yours, yes?) took the
trouble to take and post them.

p8060002.jpg (Charge at non-uncovered.) If A evades, X can go on to
hit B. Period. The trick I have to work on is charge paths that
result from wheeling chargers, but for straight ahead, this is easy.
And it is true that this diagram has nothing to do with 'uncovered';
it is about charge path.

p8060003.jpg (Charge at 'V' formation). However I have to write the
rule, X will be able to charge and fight both. Period. Now I just
have to write the rule that way. But regardless, play your games so
that is a legal charge. In the short term, skip only as much of
pivoting and lining up as you must to make it ok for X to charge A
and B. Note that this diagram has NOTHING whatever to do with gaps.

Only four members to go to 200. Beat the bushes.
Jon

[joncleaves]

I swear to you, Don, the V charge thing is only common with you and whoever you
are playing with. Hundreds of games at dozens of conventions and Scott and I
have never seen it be a problem.

But in any case would you resend your rewrites to me directly at
joncleaves@...? I do remember saving them for later review when I get back
to those rules cases, but want to be sure.

Uncovered is for pursuit, not charges/evades. That is how it will turn out in
the end.

[joncleaves]

<<Solves this little dilema rather nicely.>>

And just for completeness, there is NO dilemma in the 0002 diagram.

[joncleaves]

Don
When I say there is no dilemma, I'm talking about the diagram WITHOUT the V. I
am not aware of a 'problem' in the rules that required that diagram to be
posted. What was the issue exactly?

[joncleaves]

<<How can you and Scott and hundreds of opponents fail to READ the rules?!?>>

Really, Don.

<<Are you saying that the formation in the JPEG has never occured in hundreds of
games?>>

Don't remember it. Both enemy flanks are exposed to charges, by the way, and I
am guessing that is why not.

<< Or are you saying that when it occurs you charge one and or both opponents
and the charged bodies do some pivoting to help the bodies get
parallel to each other (contrary to the WRITTEN rule).>>

I admit freely I have not captured yet in Warrior how this would have been
handled in WRG 7.6. I am working on it. I know what Scott would have done if
it had come up: let the charger hit both - and that is what we will get to in
Warrior.

If someone had ever put his troops in this formation on my gaming table AT HOME
and told me I could charge neither due to literal pivoting requirements, I would
ask him to leave and not come back.

Sorry, Don, but there it is. I am killing myself to write a rule to help
certain people out who might face such a player, not because I think this sort
of thing is ok.

Jon

[joncleaves]

Not a new target. Was in the charge path the whole time.

[joncleaves]

Ok, I am done with the past on this issue.

Charges count as declared on all eligible targets in the chargers path. The
only thing I am going to add to that is how to handle 'wheeled' charge paths.
Uncovered will be primarily for pursuit, but I think there will be some legal
uncovered targets IN ADDITION TO those in the path. DON'T KNOW YET!!!!!!

6.163 and 6.165 are WAY too long now, and I am looking to SHORTEN them, not
lengthen them. The 15 July draft is a hopeless mess in these two rules at this
point, and I know it, and fixing it will take a full weekend day with units on
the table and no other rules getting worked on. I am trying to make that this
saturday, but no promises.

When I answer these mails, I am trying to give you some intent to play on, not
imply that I have a full textual fix in place.

I am NOT going to make those two rules LONGER, except to add the charge at
evaders section.

Jon

[joncleaves]

<<Sorry for the emotional tone of the last 4-5 posts, but we have been harping
on these points for months. We are very much hoping for clear rule
resolution.>>

And you will get it.

[joncleaves]

<<I sure would rather see you spend your time making rules rather than hashing
7.6 history.>>

You got that right. I have been due to folks using 'its the way we have played
it' arguments. But as of tonight, I am instituting a 'no more talking about the
past policy.'

[joncleaves]

And to start talking about the future....

However 6.163 and 6.165 come out, the V thing will not make your troops
unchargeable. Guaranteed. Something else will give instead.

[Don Coon]

> For whatever reason, I have just seen the two excellent jpg photos in
> the files section and would like to comment on them from a rules
> author perspective, since Chris (those are yours, yes?) took the
> trouble to take and post them.

Actually Patrick did. These are two VERY common occurances on the
battlefield.

> p8060002.jpg (Charge at non-uncovered.) If A evades, X can go on to
> hit B. Period. The trick I have to work on is charge paths that
> result from wheeling chargers, but for straight ahead, this is easy.
> And it is true that this diagram has nothing to do with 'uncovered';
> it is about charge path.

I have rewritten the charging at evaders section. I posted it Saturday
night. It covers charge path definition and what to do when charging at
evaders. It says who can hit who and what to do if you can not hit them.
Solves this little dilema rather nicely. I got two comments on this post,
one from Steve and the other private. We have played this way for over a
year with a house rule interp that morphed into my rule rewrite.

> p8060003.jpg (Charge at 'V' formation). However I have to write the
> rule, X will be able to charge and fight both. Period. Now I just
> have to write the rule that way. But regardless, play your games so
> that is a legal charge. In the short term, skip only as much of
> pivoting and lining up as you must to make it ok for X to charge A
> and B. Note that this diagram has NOTHING whatever to do with gaps.

Again, I have rewritten the charge/lining up/pivoting rule to fix this. We
have played that this is legal for quite a while with my rewrite.

Check the history files for it, or I can repost it. I got ZERO comments on
this particular post. Odd for such a seemingly big issue.

Don

[joncleaves]

Actually, as much as i like the drink, I'd prefer the 21 year old variety...

You can charge a V. When I get back to 6.163/5, I will make sure the rules so
reflect.

[joncleaves]

I am not talking about the past or recognizing it as a valid tactic or
'acknowledging anything. I am telling you that it will be chargeable. Let's
focus on that, please.

[joncleaves]

Again, in both jpgs, both A and B are in X's charge path and BOTH can be
declared on in the original charge. If the LI evades, X can still charge
straight ahead and hit the other unit. The rules WILL BE WRITTEN to so reflect,
regardless of anyone's interpretation of the 15 July draft.

It appears that if the LI stand and receive the charge that X canNOT step
forward and hit B as the element on the right of X would have to echelon too
far. The echelon rule IS AND WILL BE WRITTEN so that an echeloning element must
remain in side edge contact with the elements it was in side edge contact with
before it echeloned. Looks to me like the rightmost element of X would have to
go more than an LMI element forward to hit the MI.

I am no longer talking about 7.6 or how someone might have played it in the
past. I will only talk about the way it WILL BE. If you think the rules draft
contradicts my intent, say so as Don has. No need to couch it in terms of the
way someone has played in the past.

[joncleaves]

<< One of the problems is that currently the LMI can not declare a charge on the
MI.>>

Yes, it can, but the 7/15 draft does not make it clear. This is the problem.
Somehow, the line 'counts as declared on all in the path' got left out/garbled.
The 7/15 draft IS WRONG in this case as it does not have that line clearly in
it. Once again, I will fix it when I can.

<< This is because the 7/15/01 rules states, "In all cases, a charge must be
legal with repsect to the situation at the moment of declaration for the
> declaration itself to be legal." (6.163 5th sentence).>>

Actually that sentence does not negate the idea of a charge being declared on
all targets in the path. The sentence above will stay and the rule will be
clarified.

<< I now see why Uncovered was introduced.>>

Uncovered will have nothing to do with legal targets in the path of the original
charge.

<< Since I believe uncovered is un-necessary, I would recommend striking
uncovered and the above said
> sentence and say that:
> 1. A charge can contact any body/unit in the charge path, unless the closest
> target evades, when the unit must abide by 6.166. (that would then cover all
> countercharges & evades).
> 2. Change 6.166 evade moves to say that a unit that follows evaders must
> follow the evader at all costs (ie wheeling, droping back elements) except
> charging through gaps (6.53). Thus striking the choice thing. (this is what
> you intend with chargers following evaders right?)
> >>

No actually. There is no need to follow an evader if another target is in the
original path. Your rule above is NOT in line with my intent for CHARGES, but
something similar will be true for PURSUITS.

<< New question. What if following multiple evaders. IE charging at 2 LC
units? Split the dif? Choose one to follow?>>

Intent will be to allow the charger to choose one.