Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Patrick Byrne]

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

I now see why Uncovered was introduced. 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?)

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

Steve Honeyman wrote:

> 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
>
>
> 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,

I don't like your solution in point 1. As the charger, I would MUCH
prefer to select which target to chase and which to follow. The LI is
a target of opportunity whereas the MI is the most logical target for
a charge. If the LI are uncatchable (if they roll fast in their
evade so no contact can be made by the LMI) then the LMI must be
allowed to complete the original charge. As the MI was not uncovered,
it still remains a viable target. Even if the chargers are impetuous,
they should STILL hit the MI as a charge was declared on both.

And if I was the on the other side, I would engineer it so that the
LMI will be left hanging in the wind for the MI to hit from behind.

The charge against both targets is legal at the time of declaration.
It is only after responses to charge declarations and movement that it
would be determined if the LMI can fit or not. If it comes to this
sort of thing, I for one would charge the MI and bypass the LI all
together, dropping elements back so as not to contact them.


--- In WarriorRules@y..., Patrick Byrnes <cuan@f...> wrote:
> One of the problems is that currently the LMI can not declare a
charge on the
> MI. 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).
>
> I now see why Uncovered was introduced. 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?)
>
> New question. What if following multiple evaders. IE charging at 2
LC
> units? Split the dif? Choose one to follow?
> -PB
>
> Steve Honeyman wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> > 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]

I have not yet had the opportunity to talk Scott into the 'no talking about the
past' policy. :)

But, it is working for me already....

[scott holder]

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).

>For starters, there is *nothing* written in 7.6 (our point of departure).
Therefore, when *I* say "I've umped this a bazillion times and let the charger
hit both bodies", I'm *not* departing from the *written* rule because there is
nothing there to depart from. If you do not agree with that, I'm sorry.

>*If* this "V thing" has come up repeatedly in all the years I've umpired,
it's obviously been something way below the radar horizon, meaning no players
actually thought it an issue to get me to come over and make a ruling. And if
it was and I simply don't remember ruling on it enough to convince me that it
was a *chronic* problem, I simply said "the charger hits both units, move and
line up all three units in a nice little block displacing them as little as
possible", or something to that effect. Problem solved. So please don't keep
tossing "written" in my face or suggest that I *apparently* ignore the rules
when making rulings. My vast experience is with 7.6 and as Jon repeatedly
says, he's still working the verbage on this one.

>But, that's because prior to Warrior, we took a slightly looser approach to
these things, again because *nothing* was written. Now if you're *written*
comments apply to Warrior, it's *slightly* different but I don't see it to the
degree that you apparently do. And it's different *only* because we're trying
to encapsulate "what Scott would do in 7.6" into an ironclad ruling that also
won't totally hose up the greater geometric issues surrounding our desire to
clean up things in terms of pivoting and lining up elements which, to this
day, remains the main purpose of an umpire in the 7.6/Warrior system.

>I've reviewed both the Feb and Jul versions of Warrior. I know why the
verbage is the way it is and the larger problems it's designed to solve. None
of it is aimed at the "V thing" the way it's shown in the jpeg. And, I might
add, IMNSHO, there still exists plenty of written "wiggle" room in either
draft that would allow me as an umpire, to feel pefectly within the bounds of
the *written* rules to allow the charger in the jpeg to hit both units. The
only possible "offending" phrase in the July draft would be "For those charges
that result in charging troops contacting one or more stationary targets, the
charging troops are moved into contact with the target". That needs to be
rephrased in some fashion *without* causing other problems. But aside from
that, I don't see the issue. Sorry Don, I simply don't agree with how you're
reading this. That being said, the fact that there remains some written
"wiggle" room in itself is a problem which I'm sure Jon will fix:):)

Scott
List Ho
Ump Ho