Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Don Coon]

> <<Solves this little dilema rather nicely.>>
>
> And just for completeness, there is NO dilemma in the 0002 diagram.

There is per the WRITTEN rules. I do not think that when we posted this
JPEG, we had any indication that bodies being charged would be allowed to
pivot to conform to chargers. If these charged bodies do not pivot, the
charger does not fit at declaration and charge is illegal. Your July 15
draft pivoting to conform section does not allow this pivot. Thats what all
the hub bub has been about all along. Then you posted that charged bodies
would pivot to conform if charger could not (which DOES solve the JPEG
problem), but this opened up the "yanking a body out of terrain" problem as
well as making every charge under the sun legal. You even asked me for a
charge rule to stop V cheese, and prevent yanking. I think, "for
completeness" I will stand by my dilemma statement. ,.

Don

[Don Coon]

> 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.

GRRR! Thats because you guys are not playing by the WRITTEN rules. You are
playing by way you KNOW to be correct.

How can you and Scott and hundreds of opponents fail to READ the rules?!?
Are you saying that the formation in the JPEG has never occured in hundreds
of games? 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).

Don

[Don Coon]

> <<Solves this little dilema rather nicely.>>
>
> And just for completeness, there is NO dilemma in the 0002 diagram.

My post of a minute ago addressed the pivoting issue, but not the evading
one. The 0002 diagram is the evading one but I also disagree on your
contention that there is no dilemma. The evading section CLEARLY states
that to get a declaration on a new target it has to have been diverted
around (i.e - uncovered). The JPEG certainly shows unit B not being
uncovered, hence the "dilemma". Just for completeness after all .

Don

[Don Coon]

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

Cool, but you will have the same problem. I can show you cases where a
pursuer doing all he can to stay in contact with a routing body will make
contact with a new enemy that was not diverted around or interpenetrated.
(just look at JPEG 0002 and imagine body B is closer to body A than it is,
but not so close that body A would have to divert or interpenetrate).

Your current 6.33 suffers from this flaw right now. Para 3 says "If the
pursued body interpenetrates or diverts around other tropps of its own side"
What do you want us to do if the router does not divert or interpenetrate,
but I still hit a new enemy?

We have always played per the 6.167 definition (which partially contradicts
6.33) that a pursuit move that REACHES a new enemy bodies position is a
converted charge. Notice how 6.167 does not mention diverting or
interpenetrating. It only mentions reaches. Thats the way we play.

Uncovered in 1.261 in unneeded. Charge path and pursuit path need
definition. Any legal enemy in a charge path or pursuit path, must become
an elibible charge target (normal for charge moves, converted for pursuits).

I have sent you my definition of charge path. It can be easily modified to
define "pursuit path" and gives a similar solution.

Don

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.

Don

[Don Coon]

> 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?

Body A does not divert around or interpenetrate body B. Therefore body B is
not uncovered. We are I think fully in agreement that body B is going to
get hit. We only were saying that the rules did not support this (the July
15 draft did not anyway).

Don

[Don Coon]

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

Yes really Jon.

> <<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.

Not by the body in the JPEG. It could only be flank charged by others.
Besides the JPEG opted not to show the entire board, which could easily have
units supporting unit A and B flanks.

> 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.

This answere really feels bad. I sure am glad I do not play at your house.
There I would be using the actual written rules to a game I am trying to
learn, and I would be ejected. I guess in games you play you try to play
what the rules writter meant rather than what he wrote. That leads to
interps. You would get much better treatment at my house BTW.

> 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.

I am very disappointed in this answere. The rules support the guy who says
you can not charge him. He is not being a butthead, he is trying to play
the dang game as written. We see V formation EVERY and I mean EVERY game.
I bet if I was standing over your shoulder I would see them in games you
play too. Unless the bodies are perfectly parallel, the are a V. Its not
an issue of whether this sort of thing is ok. No one here is trying to hide
in a V formation. We ALL (here) are trying to get the WRITTEN rules to
support it. We have not had V issues in a long time (ever since we all
agreed on the solution and choose to IGNORE the written rule).

Don

[Don Coon]

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

So? Where does it say that any body in the charge path the whole time is
not a new target? Its not in my copy of the rules.

Don

[Patrick Byrne]

Jon,To address your second point, what has been occuring is a morph in the
armies structures. With the 'not being able to fit thing' hindering larger
bodies, we have a shifted more towards smaller units, and hence regular army
types. Then we
have shifted back some because of the big unit/mobil terrain theory. I looks
like allowing them the charge will keep swinging the command structures to
bigger units.

Now to develope the counter, which Don has already done. (But this is just in
our little sphere)

Too bad we're not all rich and can fly around the country playing eachother.
-PB


> 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

[Patrick Byrne]

Jon,To address your second point, what has been occuring is a morph in the
armies structures. With the 'not being able to fit thing' hindering larger
bodies, we have a shifted more towards smaller units, and hence regular army
types. Then we
have shifted back some because of the big unit/mobil terrain theory. I looks
like allowing them the charge will keep swinging the command structures to
bigger units.

Now to develope the counter, which Don has already done. (But this is just in
our little sphere)

Too bad we're not all rich and can fly around the country playing eachother.

To address your first statement (below). I personnally don't care what happened
in 7.6 because I'll never see it (with all hope). I sure would rather see you
spend your time making rules rather than hashing 7.6 history.
-PB


> 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

[Patrick Byrne]

Another, point on Don's statement below,This V thing morph's itself into many
different positions. I know it may be trite is say that there are an infinite
possiblities in the V thing, but the fact is that whether units are straight
head to head, to someone's flank, or even in the middle of a routing enemy, we
really have seen cases of V's every single game.

And I'll go wild and say 75% of the V things do matter. But the other 25%
always give us pause and spend time coming up with a solution.

Furthermore, a wise man (cause I actually can't say it was Greg Regets that told
me this) once said that good players will set up their units in a fashion to
guise what they are actually planning to do. With this, I have units coming in
at angles in support for other units, hence an increase in V formations.
-PB


> No one here is trying to hide
> in a V formation. We ALL (here) are trying to get the WRITTEN rules to
> support it. We have not had V issues in a long time (ever since we all
> agreed on the solution and choose to IGNORE the written rule).
>
> 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/

[Patrick Byrne]

Will the below answer also be true if
Unit A is lined up parallel charging Unit X. Unit B position does change.
Now, can impetuous charging Unit X eschelon forward and hit Unit B, forcing
Unit B to pivot and conform?
-PB



> 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

[Patrick Byrne]

I must say Jon that the only way we have to play the game by what the 4HM mean,
is to read the rules.

I am not a historian and I am trying to play a game that simulates historical
army fighting properties and tactics. This may be my weakness, but I try not to
second guess the rules, it's authors, or the resources used to build said rules.

When a rule strikes me funny, I spend little time wandering why the rule is that
way and spend most of the time trying to adapt? I don't question it or say
that we should play a different way, because I believe that the written rule
takes things into consideration that I have no knowledge of.

Case in point. The V Thing. When Chris, Don, & I debated this issue the
conversation went basically like this.
I think it sucks my impetuous mob can't charge you because your units face
inwards. What is so powerful about the defensive formation?
The Romans defeated many opponents like this with a formation similar to this,
the formation then was adopted by many armies throughout the ages.
Yea, but my impetuous mob is bigger than your two little 8 figure formations.
Well it seems clear that that is the case, but this game must do its best to
simulate certain things, even if it other things don't work.
Well what exactly is the intention of the rules? Let's email Jon.
So I came home, took even more pictures. 1 1/2 months later, your addressing
it, saying that my mob is able to charge.
(if I got some of this wrong, I apologize)

This is the type of thought process we are up against. And I for one don't want
to be second guessing when a tournament is on the line. I want to use the set
of rules like a security blanket. Something to fall back on.

Anyhow, the intention of the email is to display to how human we actually are.
I know, we all get a little tense with eachother. I'll buy you a Margarita when
the rules are posted (and no I'm not talking about the 21 year old variety)
-PB




DONALD COON wrote:

> > 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.
>
> GRRR! Thats because you guys are not playing by the WRITTEN rules. You are
> playing by way you KNOW to be correct.
>
> How can you and Scott and hundreds of opponents fail to READ the rules?!?
> Are you saying that the formation in the JPEG has never occured in hundreds
> of games? 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).
>
> 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/

Hey Don,

How 'bout it be treated like the angled charge thing? Only those
elements that can touch pivot to fight, the rest stand there like a
shag on a rock waiting to see who recoils. That way you don't have to
worry about "fit" but I'm sure someone will say "but what about the
gap?? :)

And yes, I'm dying to see how angled charges are going to be resolved.

Yours in mischief.......




--- In WarriorRules@y..., "DONALD COON" <jjendon@h...> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> GRRR! Thats because you guys are not playing by the WRITTEN rules.
You are
> playing by way you KNOW to be correct.
>
> How can you and Scott and hundreds of opponents fail to READ the
rules?!?
> Are you saying that the formation in the JPEG has never occured in
hundreds
> of games? 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).
>
> Don

I have to agree with Don here. If the scale on the photo is correct,
it is possible for the charging LMI to hit the MI as they appear to be
120 paces away. Unless the LMI declare a charge on both the LI and
the MI, the LMI would need to follow the LI. The LMI swings 45
degrees, follows the LI and gets the snot shot out of them by the MI.
The LMI can declare a charge on the MI alone but why would you?

If I were in this position, I would declare a charge against both
targets (both in charge reach) and, rather than follow the LI,
complete the charge against the MI. But what happens if the LI
decide not to evade? Counting from the bottom of the picture, can the
LMI's first two elements pivot to contact the LI and still step
forward the 40 paces to contact the MI?

Cheers

--- In WarriorRules@y..., "DONALD COON" <jjendon@h...> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <<Solves this little dilema rather nicely.>>
> >
> > And just for completeness, there is NO dilemma in the 0002
diagram.
>
> My post of a minute ago addressed the pivoting issue, but not the
evading
> one. The 0002 diagram is the evading one but I also disagree on
your
> contention that there is no dilemma. The evading section CLEARLY
states
> that to get a declaration on a new target it has to have been
diverted
> around (i.e - uncovered). The JPEG certainly shows unit B not being
> uncovered, hence the "dilemma". Just for completeness after all .
>
> Don

[Patrick Byrne]

Sweet, I'm glad you saw the defensive thing I portrayed as a V. What's that
saying,
'Acknowledgement is the first step towards recovery'
-PB


JonCleaves@... wrote:

> 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.
>
>
> 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/