Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Greg Regets]

Hiya Jon ....

"Prolonging" is in the first line of the definition of shooting arc.

You need to perhaps work on the wording a bit ... because the rule as it is
written says no such thing! Perhaps you could say, element, quazi-element or
magical-mystical element ... :-)

Happy writing .... Greg

********************************

8.5 SHOOTING ARCS
Figures can shoot at an enemy element directly in front of part of their own
element's base, or that of an adjacent element prolonging its front.
Shooting arcs are determined for each element eligible to shoot. In order
for the element to shoot it must have a target in arc and have at least a
one element wide gap (12.4) to shoot through.
Skirmisher elements turned to the rear to show formation shoot as if facing
forward. The last rank of mounted evaders can shoot directly to rear with
bow if cavalry, second riders on camels, or chariot crew.
Units may shoot all around if they are:
· on a mobile or fixed tower
· a single bolt?shooter on a cart
Crews on elephants and chariots do not shoot all around (unlike bolt
shooters on carts).

******************************

-Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 5:20 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: LOS and shooting overlaps


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.


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

[Don Coon]

Greg Regets 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

No I am not joking. We have playtested this rule at least 10 times. It
is really cool. The only problem is the LOS questions that sometimes
arise. We are currently using a house rule until Jon finalizes his
opinions on the matter.

If you think about it, the rule makes semse too. If I can prolong the
front of an element to my left for instance, I can obviously shoot "over
there". So why does the element have to be there at all. i.e. why do
end elements have a smaller arc of fire than interior ones.

Don

[Don Coon]

> 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

This is what you guys have wrong. 2 and A CAN shoot at each other. 2
is prolonging the front of the nonexistent element 3, and A is
prolonging the front of the nonexistent element PRE-A. We have been
playing this way for several months (ever since Jon posted this rule).
We have posted several LOS questions as well as continual playtest
results (at least back when the rule was new). Where was everyone when
Jon brought this forward?

Don

Don,

Thanks. I stand (or at least, sit) corrected. I GOTTA start
playtesting this stuff.

Cheers

Steve


--- In WarriorRules@y..., Donald Coon <jendon@f...> wrote:
> > 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
>
> This is what you guys have wrong. 2 and A CAN shoot at each
other. 2
> is prolonging the front of the nonexistent element 3, and A is
> prolonging the front of the nonexistent element PRE-A. We have been
> playing this way for several months (ever since Jon posted this
rule).
> We have posted several LOS questions as well as continual playtest
> results (at least back when the rule was new). Where was everyone
when
> Jon brought this forward?
>
> Don

Hooray!

My enemies and I have always played that the arc of fire extends to
one element either side of the shooting element (since the alternative
for elements at the end of the unit was so counter-intuitive as to be
dismissed out of hand as "not what Phil meant" (ho ho!). However, LOS
(and target priority) was always determined from EACH shooting element
to EACH target element, as per the written rules.

It becomes a matter of how to word it.

> Greg Regets wrote:
>
> > >>>GREG>>> NO ... you are not overlap unless you have a shooting
element
> > from which to count as overlap from.
>
(someone wrote but I accidently deleted)

> 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!!!


---SNIP---