Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/25/2004 05:39:50 Central Daylight Time,
jjendon@... writes:

Player B - says they are. Why? He agrees the foot overlaps 3/4 of Units
X's leftmost element and the cav overlaps the remaining 1/4. However, he
contends that since there is room to Units X's right, his foot are allowed
to shift to thier left rather than their right, leaving the cav able to
shift left also and all chargers are now pivoted and lined up.

I have to admit I can see both players points of view here. Can you let us
know the correct player? Can you direct us to wording that clears this up?
If the wording is muddy can we get a more clear written rule (I am not
saying its not clear now, just that I can not find the solid evidence to
support either player - or deny either player their stance.).



Player B is correct. 6.165 says "Elements are moved the minimum distance
necessary to line up." It does *not* say 'elements can only move the shortest
distance across the face of an enemy element and this may prevent others
charging...' or some other type of language.

Jon


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

[Don Coon]

Jon,

Patrick and I had one come up last night. We were pretty firmly in
disagreement. After stating each case (we did this after the game), I can
see both points of view. I will try to set the stage:

Player A: has a 6X2 unit of Irr C LTS, Sh (Unit X). 60p directly to its
left flank, parallel with it and front edges in one plane is another similar
unit (Unit Y).

Player B: Has a 4X3 Unit of Irr C HI LTS, Sh 40p from and parallel to Unit
X. Player B's unit is sitting on the table such that 3/4 of its rightmost
element is opposite Unit X's leftmost element (the remaining 1/4 is opposite
Unit X's 2nd leftmost element). Player B also has a 1X2 unit of Irr B HK L,
Sh sitting flush against his foot units right flank (lined up opposite Unit
X leftmost element with 1/4 of it overlapping the element ond the ramaining
3/4 hanging off Unit X's left flank).

Now Player B declares impetuous charges with both the foot and the mounted
(both units were Eager due to other factors).

Are they legal?

The points of view:

Player A - says they are not. Why? The foot and the cav both contact Unit
X's leftmost element (the foot obviously contact other elements of unit X as
well). The foot overlap 3/4 of this element, and the cav 1/4. During
lining up, the foot would have to line up to the right (lining up against
the element with the most contact) and the cav has nowehere to line up
making one of the two charges illegal at declaration due to fit.

Player B - says they are. Why? He agrees the foot overlaps 3/4 of Units
X's leftmost element and the cav overlaps the remaining 1/4. However, he
contends that since there is room to Units X's right, his foot are allowed
to shift to thier left rather than their right, leaving the cav able to
shift left also and all chargers are now pivoted and lined up.

I have to admit I can see both players points of view here. Can you let us
know the correct player? Can you direct us to wording that clears this up?
If the wording is muddy can we get a more clear written rule (I am not
saying its not clear now, just that I can not find the solid evidence to
support either player - or deny either player their stance.).

Don