Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Howdy,
I have to agree, I usually go with at least have of the stand or unit must be able to be shot at to be a legal target.
Robert.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/2/2001 21:22:39 Central Standard Time, jendon@...
writes:

<< We have had several shooting LOS question since this started, and your
current mind set seems to be if any part of the shooting element can see
any part of the target, it is a legal shot. >>

That is not my current mind set.

[joncleaves]

We are working on this rule, but it is not as important at the moment as 6.0.

However, I can tell you two things:
1. The situation Don describes will be illegal.
2. The rule will have some additional criteria (like a line drawn from the
center of the shooter to the target, etc. or some such) that easily explains
what is illegal.

[Don Coon]

As per the latest ruling we are shooting and prolonging shooting fronts
by one element (even if no neighboring element exists. We have found
this rule to work well.

We have had several shooting LOS question since this started, and your
current mind set seems to be if any part of the shooting element can see
any part of the target, it is a legal shot. We respectfully disagree
with this, as it appears majorly broken and causes much cheese. Take
the following example:

All bodies are 1X2 blocks. My body A is 40p from enemy body B, but not
perfectly lined up (say 10mm offset). My body C, is 80p behind my body
A and is lined up with the enemy body. Body C is armed with CB. Since
body C can see enemy body (just the 10mm overhanging body B), by the
current rules I can shoot. This FEELS WRONG! We play with the rule
that any shooting element must be able to trace LOS to the target from
BOTH front corners. This still allows for some shallow angle shooting,
but does not allow shooting if there is intervening garbage (trees,
bodies etc.). I wonder if you have given thought to your shooting LOS
rule, and have you playtested it. It really makes missiles easy to
screen with intervening troops and smacks of overhead shooting.
Comments please?

Don

[Phil Gardocki]

In a message dated 2/3/01 12:08:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, parrishbob@aol.com writes:

Could you NOT imbed links into your replys.  I have enough time avoid adverts without someone putting it in my email.

Phil

[joncleaves]

I said it was not my current mind set and I meant it. I make no claims on
what any past mind set of mine might have been! :)

[Don Coon]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> We are working on this rule, but it is not as important at the moment as 6.0.
>
> However, I can tell you two things:
> 1. The situation Don describes will be illegal.
> 2. The rule will have some additional criteria (like a line drawn from the
> center of the shooter to the target, etc. or some such) that easily explains
> what is illegal.


Bless you!

Don

[Don Coon]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2/2/2001 21:22:39 Central Standard Time, jendon@...
> writes:
>
> << We have had several shooting LOS question since this started, and your
> current mind set seems to be if any part of the shooting element can see
> any part of the target, it is a legal shot. >>
>
> That is not my current mind set.

Everyone here thinks it is. Your last report on this issue was this.

Don

[Greg Regets]

I don't get where this "total unit shooting" arguement Don is speaking of
came from. Even in 7.6 it states that arc is measured by element with one
element overlap. To my way of thinking, if an element is not in arc (that
means visible too, since if you can't see your target, you are not in arc),
or part of an overlap, you can't shoot. Granted this is moot with units of a
two element frontage, or a three element frontage where the center had arc,
as the overlap rules would then include the entire unit. Perhaps these two
issues are morphing.

Just to talk a little Texas smack at our rivals to the north, If I was
playing those ten stand archer units, I would want to clear this up too,
~wink~

Greg


-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 9:37 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: LOS and shooting overlaps


I said it was not my current mind set and I meant it. I make no claims on
what any past mind set of mine might have been! :)


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com

[Don Coon]

Greg Regets wrote:
>
> I don't get where this "total unit shooting" arguement Don is speaking of
> came from. Even in 7.6 it states that arc is measured by element with one
> element overlap. To my way of thinking, if an element is not in arc (that
> means visible too, since if you can't see your target, you are not in arc),

The whole issue here is what is visible. If a tiny piece of me can see
a tiny piece of you can I shoot? That is what all the banter is about.
Also If the Overlap can see you but I can not, can I still shoot you.
That is also what all this banter is about.

> or part of an overlap, you can't shoot. Granted this is moot with units of a
> two element frontage, or a three element frontage where the center had arc,
> as the overlap rules would then include the entire unit. Perhaps these two
> issues are morphing.

I am missing what you are saying here as even a one element frontage
unit, now shoots 3 elements wide.

> Just to talk a little Texas smack at our rivals to the north, If I was
> playing those ten stand archer units, I would want to clear this up too,
> ~wink~
>
> Greg

Yea buddy. 24 man LMI, and 20 man LI are the only way to go! (well
actually sice I am all IRR, it is kind of the only way to afford it).

Don

[Greg Regets]

The whole issue here is what is visible. If a tiny piece of me can see
a tiny piece of you can I shoot?

>>>GREG>>> Yes ... if you are in arc or count as overlap (see next answer).


That is what all the banter is about.
Also If the Overlap can see you but I can not, can I still shoot you.

>>>GREG>>> NO ... you are not overlap unless you have a shooting element
from which to count as overlap from.


I am missing what you are saying here as even a one element frontage
unit, now shoots 3 elements wide.

>>>>GREG>>>> Overlap occurs from an element in arc that can shoot. That is
why I'm saying, if you are two stands wide and one stand is in arc, the
other shoots as overlap. If you are three elements wide and your center
element is in arc, the stands on either side are overlap and can shoot, but
if you are three elements wide and only an outside stand is in arc, you are
limited to two stands frontage shooting. If you are four stands wide ... buy
smaller units!


Yea buddy. 24 man LMI, and 20 man LI are the only way to go! (well
actually sice I am all IRR, it is kind of the only way to afford it).

>>>>GREG>>>> Its the best part about playing in Texas right now ... all the
guys up north play very large units, and all the guys down south play small
ones. It makes for very interesting games that very much highlight the
tactical difference between these points of view.


>>>>GREG>>>> On another line but the same topic, I noticed someone using the
argument of CO foot taking fatigue for charging in consecutive bounds
against LI. This is actually not mathematically possible as the closest the
CO foot could be after a charge/evade is 120p, and there is no option to
approach be either body.

Greg ~who hopes he got all this right~

[joncleaves]

Greg

Prolonging is the wrong word to use when describing arcs.

Yes, you may shoot an element directly in front of where an element next to
you would be if there was such an element.

Prolonging is something else, and applies to support shooting at chargers.

[Don Coon]

Greg Regets wrote:

> >>>GREG>>> NO ... you are not overlap unless you have a shooting element
> from which to count as overlap from.

You are behind the times. Elements may shoot if prolonging the front of
an adjacent element even if there is no element there. So if you are
1X2 and 60mm right shifted from being directly in front of my 1X2
(assume we are perfectly parallel) I can still shoot you because I am
prolonging the front on the nonexistent element that IS directly in
front of you. If fact you can be right (or left) shifted 119mm and I
can still get you. This prolonging the front of nonexistent elements
has created all the new LOS questions. I.E If I am facing a woods 40p
away and am at its right edge, and you have an element laying along side
the woods, I can not see you, but my non existent buddy that I am
prolonging can.

> >>>>GREG>>>> Overlap occurs from an element in arc that can shoot.

Yes, even if the element is non existent!!!

>>>That is
> why I'm saying, if you are two stands wide and one stand is in arc, the
> other shoots as overlap. If you are three elements wide and your center
> element is in arc, the stands on either side are overlap and can shoot, but
> if you are three elements wide and only an outside stand is in arc, you are
> limited to two stands frontage shooting.

But again your logic is based on old data. All you said in the above
para is true, but you have not added "if you are three elements wide and
the nonexistent 4th element on one end is in arc could shoot (if it
existed) you can overlap and the end element could shoot.

> Yea buddy. 24 man LMI, and 20 man LI are the only way to go! (well
> actually sice I am all IRR, it is kind of the only way to afford it).
>
> >>>>GREG>>>> Its the best part about playing in Texas right now ... all the
> guys up north play very large units, and all the guys down south play small
> ones. It makes for very interesting games that very much highlight the
> tactical difference between these points of view.

Don

[Greg Regets]

You can prolong the front of an element that isn't there?

I don't have my rule book here at work, but I assume you are joking, right?

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Coon [mailto:jendon@...]
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 2:00 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: LOS and shooting overlaps


Greg Regets wrote:

> >>>GREG>>> NO ... you are not overlap unless you have a shooting element
> from which to count as overlap from.

You are behind the times. Elements may shoot if prolonging the front of
an adjacent element even if there is no element there. So if you are
1X2 and 60mm right shifted from being directly in front of my 1X2
(assume we are perfectly parallel) I can still shoot you because I am
prolonging the front on the nonexistent element that IS directly in
front of you. If fact you can be right (or left) shifted 119mm and I
can still get you. This prolonging the front of nonexistent elements
has created all the new LOS questions. I.E If I am facing a woods 40p
away and am at its right edge, and you have an element laying along side
the woods, I can not see you, but my non existent buddy that I am
prolonging can.

> >>>>GREG>>>> Overlap occurs from an element in arc that can shoot.

Yes, even if the element is non existent!!!

>>>That is
> why I'm saying, if you are two stands wide and one stand is in arc, the
> other shoots as overlap. If you are three elements wide and your center
> element is in arc, the stands on either side are overlap and can shoot,
but
> if you are three elements wide and only an outside stand is in arc, you
are
> limited to two stands frontage shooting.

But again your logic is based on old data. All you said in the above
para is true, but you have not added "if you are three elements wide and
the nonexistent 4th element on one end is in arc could shoot (if it
existed) you can overlap and the end element could shoot.

> Yea buddy. 24 man LMI, and 20 man LI are the only way to go! (well
> actually sice I am all IRR, it is kind of the only way to afford it).
>
> >>>>GREG>>>> Its the best part about playing in Texas right now ... all
the
> guys up north play very large units, and all the guys down south play
small
> ones. It makes for very interesting games that very much highlight the
> tactical difference between these points of view.

Don


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com

Is this better?? Please let me know if I've got it wrong.

2 small units of Bow. Unit 1 is 2 elements (1,2), Unit 2 is 3
elements (A,B,C). Each diagram is in ELEMENTS and please assume that
no other shooting priorities or targets exist.

Situation 1

1 2
BBBB BBBB
| | \n BBBB BBBB BBBB
A B C

All elements can shoot. Elements 1,2,A and B have a target element
directly to their front. Element C can shoot at the target unit
because it is an overlap AND is prolonging the front of element B,
even though there is NO target to it's front.


Situation 2.

1 2
BBBB BBBB
| X
BBBB BBBB BBBB
A B C

Elements 1,2,A and B can shoot. Elements 1 and B are both overlaps
for elements 2 and A respectively AND they prolong the frontage of
the adjacent element. Element C cannot shoot as there is no target
in front of it nor is there a target element in front of element B.
Element C CAN shoot at a seperate target if one exists DIRECTLY to
its front OR if another friendly UNIT is edge-to-edge with element C
AND can shoot at a target to IT'S front(Z and X). See below.


1 2 New Unit of 2 elements
BBBB BBBB XXXX XXXX
| / | |
BBBB BBBB BBBB ZZZZ ZZZZ
A B C New Unit of 2 elements

NOTE: If the new unit (Z) CANNOT shoot, Element C cannot.

Situation 3.

1 2
BBBB BBBB
X
BBBB BBBB BBBB
A B C

Nobody shoots! Elements 2 and A, although in arc of each other, are
NOT prolonging the front of an element that CAN shoot. The elements
in each UNIT can shoot at other targets that are directly in front OR
if they are prolonging the frontage of other elements of other units
that are edge-to-edge with them.


Cheers

Steve



--- In WarriorRules@y..., Greg Regets <greg@p...> wrote:
> You can prolong the front of an element that isn't there?
>
> I don't have my rule book here at work, but I assume you are
joking, right?
>
> Greg
>