Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ewan McNay]

On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 JonCleaves@... wrote:
> Not may, will not. Troops in skirmish that evade are no longer in skirmish
> at the end of the evade move.

No, may not. They might have gone back into skirmish during the counter
phase.

E :)

[joncleaves]

<< I get the feeling you're defensively
answering questions by saying "it's all there in the rulebook"
without noting that areas a, b, and c need improvement. Why? >>

That is not at all what I am doing, but I am obviously not communicating
properly.
I am working on thinking up a new way to say what I was trying to convey
without giving offense. I'll let you know.

[joncleaves]

<<This is not what the rule states. It says "[The charge path] is
either straight ahead of the body's position when the charge is
declared, OR straight of its position once the body has been
wheeled ..." OR seems to imply a choice. Are you instead saying
there is no choice, that no wheel = straight ahead when charge is
declared, and wheel = straight after wheel? >>

Yes.

<< So is wheel
direction and extent another thing that is written when you decide
charge declarations? In other words, how do you avoid the "if you
wheel left, I'm going right, and if you wheel right, I'm going left"
standoff ... hence, my assumption for a way of solving the standoff.>>

You can only wheel one way - on the corner closest to the enemy. I think we
might clarify exactly what is in a written charge dec and clarify that the
wheel text in the flank charge section applies to all charges.

<< Umm, okay. So you're saying that that second element, that
is "sticking out" beyond it's compatriot that IS touching the enemy
(could reach the enemy) is sticking out because you're showing that
it could only move that far for its charge distance, and that wasn't
enough? If so, then shouldn't that element be moved BACK 20p from
its in-contact compatriot, to denote that it didn't move far enough
to contact? >>

What diagram is this again?

<< An example would be lovely here. "There's some magic combination out
there, and I'm not going to tell you what it is" doesn't work nearly
as well.>>

You mean an example in the rules themselves? Or you need more examples on
the group here? I mean, there are lots of such situations....


<< This is a partial answer. If Y *DID* need to line up, and/or pivot
to conform, would it do so?>>

Yes.

<< Another edit victim -- I edited out the question! However, it
borders on a design question, which you'll probably tell me to
forget about. >>

No, I answered all the design and tactics and nuance questions without
prejudice after the initial 'offending' email. I don't personally see design
questions on the group as a priority given how much time it eats for me, but
I have been asked to answer them and I will and I have.

<<Basically, there will be frontages that are impossible to reach for
a regular unit, which you say is deliberate.>>

I didn't say that.

<< Okay. But is it also
deliberate that there are legal frontages that are essentially
inaccessible (say 4 to 8E in an 8E unit) because of the expand
frontage manuver's limitation of 2E?>>

No. I don't agree with the premise. You'll have to be clearer on what you
consider an 'essentially inaccessible' frontage.

<< Or can you indeed "bridge" 4
and 8 by doing two expand frontage manuvers back to back, as one
poster suggested?>>

You can.

<< Rule reference non-helpful. Here's the issue: 6.44 says very
clearly "a unit must be in a block and use a manuver to enter the
orb." There is no corresponding sentence -- clear or not -- in 6.43
for Testudo. Hence, one has to assume what is correct -- or post a
question to the rulesmith.>>

6.4 says: "Units may be in one of five formations: block, column, testudo,
orb or skirmish. Changing from one formation to another is a maneuver (6.12,
but see 6.111)."
Orb is an exception.


<< Yes. 6.166.

Okay, thanks for the answer -- but rule reference again non-helpful.>>

Ok, I am really, really trying here, but I am having a tough time walking on
eggshells not to offend but at the same time having you tell me that the
exact rules case that contains the exact answer is 'unhelpful'. I will just
have to send you a note offline with an attempt at what I was trying to tell
you in that original mail and we can work it out there.

<< Restating the rule as-written does not help me. Does this mean I
can't shift sideways into an interpenetation? Well, I can't really
shift sideways, anyway, can I? >>

That is exactly what it means. You can't, for example, recoil from a flank
contact, through a unit you could other wise interpenetrate legally, that is
to your opposite flank.

<< Thank you -- a wonderful example. Would have been great if you
didn't have to tag on "yet another situation you have not yet
encountered", but hey, as I said, I'm wearing my special suit, so it
doesn't bother me ...>>

Tell you what: I won't say that and you don't tell me that quoting the rules
case that contains the answer to your question is unhelpful. Deal?
:)

I did say it for a reason. Many of your questions seemed to be the
equivalent of saying 'I don't understand why this rule is here' rather than
actual questions of understanding the rule itself and I was concerned about
how to answer without offending or embarassing. But since I did anyway, I
don't know what to do now but just give you an in game example of why a rule
is there.


<< Let me give an example to clarify my question: let's
say regular unit A needs to drop back elements to pass through
a "tapering" gap -- it has a narrow 2E wide neck, but gets wider on
both sides. As unit A has to move through, it can legally drop back
elements one at a time (temporarily ignoring the regular unit rank
restrictions) to ultimately pass through the 2E gap. Once it is
through, must it burn manuvers to expand frontage 1 element at a
time, as soon as possible, until it is a "legal" regular block
again?>>

Yes. If I understand what is meant by 'burn maneuvers'.

<< can it do anything else (like move forward or wheel or
formation change) before it has expanded frontage out of its illegal
block?>>

In combination with, but not so it could have expanded and didn't because all
it did was some other move.

<< Interesting ... you answered my question, but now I have another:
am I correct in my reading that in a single manuver, I can:
- increase or decrease unit frontage by 1-2 elements>>

Yes.

<< - go from a block (or some other formation) of arbitrary width --
say 12E in the extreme case, and go to a column>>

No. A 90 degree turn would have that 'effect' though.

<<- go from a column of 12E (again, an extreme case), and deploy as a
block of any arbitrary width -- say, oh, 12E? This seems AWFULLY
mobile ...>>

No.

--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Jeff Please relax. No offense meant. Look at the answers
carefully when
> i send them for what i was trying to say. Not trying to upset
you. I can
> see that "" does notwork for me.... Peace J

Hmm ... email sure sucks for certain kinds of communication, eh?

I doubted offense was intended -- but you gotta understand that you
have a complicated ruleset on your hands, and that feedback can only
make the rules better. I get the feeling you're defensively
answering questions by saying "it's all there in the rulebook"
without noting that areas a, b, and c need improvement. Why?

Anyway ... followups in next email.
-Jeff

Some followups. I am wearing my special Thick Skin(tm) suit so as to
avoid being offended -- but beware, this tends to make me blunt ...

--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
>
> << *6.14 & .15 Detachments Rejoining Parents:
> They must be able to 'reach'. See 2.53.

This one was a victim of an edit -- the question originally
explicitly asked if it was an exception to 2.53. Thanks for the
answer.

> <<*6.163 Charge Path:
> The charge path is set after any wheel. Don't really understand
the
> question, though. You don't 'decide' on a charge path, it is set
by the
> body's facing (after any wheel).

This is not what the rule states. It says "[The charge path] is
either straight ahead of the body's position when the charge is
declared, OR straight of its position once the body has been
wheeled ..." OR seems to imply a choice. Are you instead saying
there is no choice, that no wheel = straight ahead when charge is
declared, and wheel = straight after wheel?

> <<*6.165 Mutual charges: rule states units wheel
simultaneously ... I
> assume that should say "in initiative order", no?>>
>
> Incorrect assumption. It is simultaneously.

Assumptions are made when there are voids to fill. So is wheel
direction and extent another thing that is written when you decide
charge declarations? In other words, how do you avoid the "if you
wheel left, I'm going right, and if you wheel right, I'm going left"
standoff ... hence, my assumption for a way of solving the standoff.

> << Also, in the middle
> right diagram on p. 43, why are the leftmost elements of unit U
> pushed *forward* 20p -- I would have assumed they should be 20p
> back ... though I don't know why they would be moved either way,
> actually, since they wouldn't contact the enemy, even once the
> pivot/lineup move happens.>>
>
> It is showing that the end element did not contact the flank
within its
> charge distance.

Umm, okay. So you're saying that that second element, that
is "sticking out" beyond it's compatriot that IS touching the enemy
(could reach the enemy) is sticking out because you're showing that
it could only move that far for its charge distance, and that wasn't
enough? If so, then shouldn't that element be moved BACK 20p from
its in-contact compatriot, to denote that it didn't move far enough
to contact?

> <<*6.166 Evade Moves:
> Bullet three is not redundant. There are troops/situation
combinations that
> are not light and not in skirmish formation that evaded the
previous bound.

An example would be lovely here. "There's some magic combination out
there, and I'm not going to tell you what it is" doesn't work nearly
as well.

That said, several others have filled in the blank on this one, so
we're covered. Makes sense now that I have a real example.

> <<*6.18 Echeloning: in the diagram, what happens next? Unit A
has
> echeloned, and doesn't need to pivot ... but it DOES need to
lineup,
> and it can't without splitting. Do you a) not move anything and
> pretend they are lined up, or b) move attacked units X and Y so
that
> lineup is achieved. And a slightly different scenario, let's say
unit
> Y was at an angle to units A and X, so that unit A would need to
> pivot to be flush with Y, but be flush already with X ... would Y
be
> forced to pivot to make the charge work?>>
>
> X lines up. Doesn't look like Y needs to.

This is a partial answer. If Y *DID* need to line up, and/or pivot
to conform, would it do so?

> <<*6.41 Regular ranks:
> Don't see a question here. Some unit sizes by training class and
troop type
> are 'better' than others in some situations. This is deliberate.

Another edit victim -- I edited out the question! However, it
borders on a design question, which you'll probably tell me to
forget about.

Basically, there will be frontages that are impossible to reach for
a regular unit, which you say is deliberate. Okay. But is it also
deliberate that there are legal frontages that are essentially
inaccessible (say 4 to 8E in an 8E unit) because of the expand
frontage manuver's limitation of 2E? Or can you indeed "bridge" 4
and 8 by doing two expand frontage manuvers back to back, as one
poster suggested?

> << And what about testudo -- what formation should it be in
> initially?>>
>
> Any legal one. 6.4.

Rule reference non-helpful. Here's the issue: 6.44 says very
clearly "a unit must be in a block and use a manuver to enter the
orb." There is no corresponding sentence -- clear or not -- in 6.43
for Testudo. Hence, one has to assume what is correct -- or post a
question to the rulesmith.

> <<*6.45 Skirmish formation: rule states that a unit in skirmish
> formation must evade if charged ... does that evasion cancel
their
> skirmishing status? >>
>
> Yes. 6.166.

Okay, thanks for the answer -- but rule reference again non-helpful.

> <<*6.52 Interpenetration: what exactly did you mean by "...
troops can
> voluntarily interpenetrate another friendly body DIRECTLY TO
THEIR
> FRONT OR REAR ..." >>
>
> You can't interpenetrate to the side. You can to the front or
rear.

Restating the rule as-written does not help me. Does this mean I
can't shift sideways into an interpenetation? Well, I can't really
shift sideways, anyway, can I?

> << *6.521
> I think this is yet another situation you have not yet
encountered. Say a
> troop charges through a troop that is evading. They are both
moving, both
> disorder.

Thank you -- a wonderful example. Would have been great if you
didn't have to tag on "yet another situation you have not yet
encountered", but hey, as I said, I'm wearing my special suit, so it
doesn't bother me ...

> << *6.53 Gaps: when precisely is a regular body compelled who has
> dropped elements back to fit into a gap (and thereby now has
unequal
> ranks) required to re-achieve equal-rank-hood? Or another way of
> asking it -- what does "for the duration of the time it is in the
gap
> only" really mean?>>
>
> Once the body is no longer in the gap, it must return to a legal
formation.

Okay, this one is funny -- you gave me even LESS than is in the
written rule. Let me give an example to clarify my question: let's
say regular unit A needs to drop back elements to pass through
a "tapering" gap -- it has a narrow 2E wide neck, but gets wider on
both sides. As unit A has to move through, it can legally drop back
elements one at a time (temporarily ignoring the regular unit rank
restrictions) to ultimately pass through the 2E gap. Once it is
through, must it burn manuvers to expand frontage 1 element at a
time, as soon as possible, until it is a "legal" regular block
again? can it do anything else (like move forward or wheel or
formation change) before it has expanded frontage out of its illegal
block?

> <<*6.712 & .713 Terrain and moves: perhaps I missed this ... but
is
> there a rule somewhere that states when a unit may, "for free"
like
> passing through a gap, drop back elements to form a column for
> terrain-crossing purposes? >>
>
> No.

Interesting ... you answered my question, but now I have another:
am I correct in my reading that in a single manuver, I can:
- increase or decrease unit frontage by 1-2 elements
- go from a block (or some other formation) of arbitrary width --
say 12E in the extreme case, and go to a column
- go from a column of 12E (again, an extreme case), and deploy as a
block of any arbitrary width -- say, oh, 12E? This seems AWFULLY
mobile ...

-J

[joncleaves]

<< That said, I'm pretty much unable to play something if I can find
lots of holes -- and for me, still, there are lots of holes in
Warrior. Little-ish ones, sure -- but for me, they loom rather
large. >>

We'll have to agree to disagree on what constitutes a 'hole'.

<<So anyway ... on to the last (I hope) round of followups for this
set of questions ... and you can look forward to a long silence from
me after this. NOW I remember why I usually just lurk ... >>

Ask what you need to ask Jeff, please.


<< Bottom-right-most picture on pg. 43.>>

I don't have my pdf rules file with me and have been forced to use the last
text draft which doesn't have the right page numbers. I meant what is the
diagram called. No matter - I am headed back home tomorrow and will check my
rulebook and answer there.

<< How does a 10E unit go from 10E abreast to 5E abreast?>>

I am assuming you mean a steady, regular unit. It contracts twice.

List members and Jon -- sorry these questions are getting a bit
mired in weensy details. Writing technical specifications and
designing software products is something I spend pretty much all
day, every day doing, so it's hard for me not to be as retentive as
I am (have to be) at work.

That said, I'm pretty much unable to play something if I can find
lots of holes -- and for me, still, there are lots of holes in
Warrior. Little-ish ones, sure -- but for me, they loom rather
large.

So anyway ... on to the last (I hope) round of followups for this
set of questions ... and you can look forward to a long silence from
me after this. NOW I remember why I usually just lurk ... ;-)

-J

--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> << Umm, okay. So you're saying that that second element, that
> is "sticking out" beyond it's compatriot that IS touching the
enemy
> (could reach the enemy) is sticking out because you're showing
that
> it could only move that far for its charge distance, and that
wasn't
> enough? If so, then shouldn't that element be moved BACK 20p from
> its in-contact compatriot, to denote that it didn't move far
enough
> to contact? >>
>
> What diagram is this again?

Bottom-right-most picture on pg. 43.

> No. I don't agree with the premise. You'll have to be clearer on
what you
> consider an 'essentially inaccessible' frontage.

How does a 10E unit go from 10E abreast to 5E abreast?

> Ok, I am really, really trying here, but I am having a tough time
walking on
> eggshells not to offend but at the same time having you tell me
that the
> exact rules case that contains the exact answer is 'unhelpful'. I
will just
> have to send you a note offline with an attempt at what I was
trying to tell
> you in that original mail and we can work it out there.

Hmmm ... don't walk on eggshells. I probably misspoke earlier --
"offense" isn't really an issue for me right now, it's pretty much
pure frustration. You've made several rule references that made
sense to me, and I've left those questions off of followup
questions ... the only ones left are rules that do NOT answer the
question for ME.

> That is exactly what it means. You can't, for example, recoil
from a flank
> contact, through a unit you could other wise interpenetrate
legally, that is
> to your opposite flank.

That's a good example -- I get it. Thanks.

> << Thank you -- a wonderful example. Would have been great if you
> didn't have to tag on "yet another situation you have not yet
> encountered", but hey, as I said, I'm wearing my special suit, so
it
> doesn't bother me ...>>
>
> Tell you what: I won't say that and you don't tell me that quoting
the rules
> case that contains the answer to your question is unhelpful.
Deal?
> :)

Okay.

> << Let me give an example to clarify my question: let's
> say regular unit A needs to drop back elements to pass through
> a "tapering" gap -- it has a narrow 2E wide neck, but gets wider
on
> both sides. As unit A has to move through, it can legally drop
back
> elements one at a time (temporarily ignoring the regular unit
rank
> restrictions) to ultimately pass through the 2E gap. Once it is
> through, must it burn manuvers to expand frontage 1 element at a
> time, as soon as possible, until it is a "legal" regular block
> again?>>
>
> Yes. If I understand what is meant by 'burn maneuvers'.
>
> << can it do anything else (like move forward or wheel or
> formation change) before it has expanded frontage out of its
illegal
> block?>>
>
> In combination with, but not so it could have expanded and didn't
because all
> it did was some other move.

Cool ... are you going to add something around that to the
clarifications?

> << Interesting ... you answered my question, but now I have
another:
> am I correct in my reading that in a single manuver, I can:
> - increase or decrease unit frontage by 1-2 elements>>
>
> Yes.
>
> << - go from a block (or some other formation) of arbitrary
width --
> say 12E in the extreme case, and go to a column>>
>
> No. A 90 degree turn would have that 'effect' though.
>
> <<- go from a column of 12E (again, an extreme case), and deploy
as a
> block of any arbitrary width -- say, oh, 12E? This seems AWFULLY
> mobile ...>>
>
> No.

Ah, now I see it -- in 6.4 you say that blocks and columns are
formations, and that changing between formations is a manuver. 6.124
Change in formation says see 6.4, leading one (me) to believe you
could change directly from block to column ... only in the blurb of
explanatory text in 6.12 (CHANGE IN FORMATION) does it NOT include
column ...

Ah, and I found another reference I saw before and lost:
6.111, "dropping back elements ... [to] enter difficult terrain in
column." Is that for any troops (that can) entering difficult
terrain of any kind, and is it handled precisely like dropping back
to pass through a gap?

-Jeff

[Ewan McNay]

On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 JonCleaves@... wrote:
> << How does a 10E unit go from 10E abreast to 5E abreast?>>
>
> I am assuming you mean a steady, regular unit. It contracts twice.

Nope - this would get it to 6-wide, which is illegal.

What it actually does is turn 90 degrees (into column); turn back (ending
three wide); and then expand. This will take two turns.

However, there's no way to get to be 10 wide other than starting that way,
because it is not possible to expand twice from 5 wide (that would end at
9-wide, which is illegal). So this is almost moot. [Personally, I think
that's an error, and one *sahould* be able to have e.g. a 12-element unit
12-wide. I've even done it. But the rules are pretty tight here.]

Ewan

[Ed Forbes]

This issue of even ranks for reg troops was brought up the last time the
dust was kicked up over the formation restrictions imposed on reg troops
that were not imposed on irregular troops.

Going from memory,

1) Reg troops could have unequal ranks moving / defending within a gap
caused by both terrain and other bodies of troops. See the rules section
on moving through gaps as this allows for the exception to formation
restrictions for both reg and irreg troops.

2) Expanding into uneven ranks due to following up in hand to hand combat
would probably be allowed. I have not seen anything official from Jon,
though I easily could have missed it.

3) Jon said he would look at the problem of expanding / contracting for
large units such as the 10 E unit in question, but again have not seen
anything official as to if it would be allowed or not.

This issue of expanding / contracting large units from line to column
without having to resort to "gaming the system" is a problem for both reg
and irreg units. I personally think this is a large hole in the rules as
written. I still contend that the restrictions were put into TOG for
esthetic reasons and carried over into Warrior with little or no comment.


Ed

On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 07:19:31 -0400 (EDT) ewan.mcnay@... writes:
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 JonCleaves@... wrote:
> > << How does a 10E unit go from 10E abreast to 5E abreast?>>
> >
> > I am assuming you mean a steady, regular unit. It contracts
> twice.
>
> Nope - this would get it to 6-wide, which is illegal.
>

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

[joncleaves]

Ok, ok, my fault. It clearly said 10E, but my pea-brain 'saw' 8E. Ewan is
right.

If you want a 5Ex2E regular unit, you need to start that way. I rushed my
answer which I know I should never do. Just goes to prove, once again, that
the last perfect rules author died 2000 years ago.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/29/2002 14:04:24 Central Daylight Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:


> > Ok, ok, my fault. It clearly said 10E, but my pea-brain 'saw' 8E. Ewan
> is
> > right.
>
> Can I have this engraved on my next plaque, please?
>

You mean the one NASAMW no longer supplies? :)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Ewan McNay]

On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 JonCleaves@... wrote:
> Ok, ok, my fault. It clearly said 10E, but my pea-brain 'saw' 8E. Ewan is
> right.

Can I have this engraved on my next plaque, please?

;)

Incidentally, I have now seen a couple of references to (I assume)
computer warrior (and deleted the email in which one person invited me to
a game... sorry, whoever you were!!). If someone would care to fill me in
and/or play, let me know :)

E