Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Don Coon]

> Note that the only exception to a regular having even ranks in a block is
> when it enters and is in a gap. 6.53, third paragraph.

> >
> > <<If reg were allowed to be in uneven formations for the purpose of
> > changing formation and defending gaps between terrain, most of my
> > complaints would go away.>>
>
> As 6.53 allows regs to enter and defend gaps and as regs changing
formation
> only care how they look after the last maneuver and not any theoretical
> intervening ones, I think we are at the complaints go away stage.

I see this clearly now. If I am a 4 element Reg unit and I want to defend a
3 element wide gap, I go to a 4X1 prior to going into the gap, drop back one
element to enter the gap, then sit there and defend the whole gap with
uneven ranks. I just have to use a little forsight (a quality a good
commander must develope) to get the intended result. Cool.

Don

[scott holder]

I see this clearly now. If I am a 4 element Reg unit and I want to
defend a
3 element wide gap, I go to a 4X1 prior to going into the gap, drop back
one
element to enter the gap, then sit there and defend the whole gap with
uneven ranks. I just have to use a little forsight (a quality a good
commander must develope) to get the intended result. Cool.

>Good. I think many of us are adapting to the "new" system and I'll
also be the first to admit that most of my "head scratching" moments
eventually turn into "ah, just needed to plan ahead one bound" moments.
And that's what makes this game so compelling, and in many cases hard,
to master, ie, that ability to think and plan at least 1 bound ahead.

Scott

[Ed Forbes]

> I see this clearly now. If I am a 4 element Reg unit and I want to
> defend a
> 3 element wide gap, I go to a 4X1 prior to going into the gap, drop
> back
> one
> element to enter the gap, then sit there and defend the whole gap
> with
> uneven ranks. I just have to use a little forsight (a quality a
> good
> commander must develope) to get the intended result.

I do not see the problem in being able to move into the gap in column and
then expanding to the limit of the gap. Moving to the gap in column and
then expanding into it would also seem to be the most historically
accurate way of moving to defend such a gap and I have seen nothing put
forward in the rules to disallow it ( based on e-mail interp).

The column moves into the gap. It expands to fill the gap. It is in
uneven ranks at the end of the bound, but is allowed as the unit is in a
gap. Fairly cut and dried as far as rules go.

Why require the weird maneuver of first breaking from column to line
before moving into the gap? I agree that a line can do it, but why do
you think there is a restriction on a column being able to do it?

Ed

________________________________________________________________
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/.

[Chris Bump]

Why require the weird maneuver of first breaking from column to line
before moving into the gap? I agree that a line can do it, but why do
you think there is a restriction on a column being able to do it?

Ed

Perhaps because the rule allows for the dropping off of elements to "pass" a
gap, but not for the expansion of elements for the filling of a gap. Just
guessing.
Chris

[Ed Forbes]

>..... There are no written rules that allow one to
> expand into uneven ranks. One can't infer that just because a special
> situation allows uneven ranks that suddenly it's legal for all
situations. Of
> course, that's my educated opinion.
>
> Tim Brown
>

Dropping back ranks is the special rule to allow formation change w / o
cost. Moving into a gap and expanding is using the rules as written to
expand. The rule on reg being in even ranks does not apply during
formation change, so does not apply until after formation change. After
formation change, the unit is in a legal formation. I would think that
a special rule would be required to stop reg from expanding in a gap, not
to allow.

Ed

________________________________________________________________
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/.

[Patrick Byrne]

I am having a problem trying to understand what you are getting at here.

As I read the rules, regs can only be in uneven ranks when dropping back to
pass a gap (6.53). The rules do not state anywhere where at the end of a
reg unit's move that it can be in uneven ranks. Are you saying this should
be allowed? OR are you merely saying that a new clarification should say
in the rules "regs can not end a move in uneven ranks that involved and
expansion?"

I currently don't see the necessity of adding any clarifications on this
issue.

Also, I read Jon's email ruling to be that regs in being in even ranks
apply's only at the end of the unit's whole move, not just the formation
change.
-PB



----- Original Message -----
> Dropping back ranks is the special rule to allow formation change w / o
> cost. Moving into a gap and expanding is using the rules as written to
> expand. The rule on reg being in even ranks does not apply during
> formation change, so does not apply until after formation change. After
> formation change, the unit is in a legal formation. I would think that
> a special rule would be required to stop reg from expanding in a gap, not
> to allow.
>
> Ed

[Don Coon]

> >
>
> Dropping back ranks is the special rule to allow formation change w / o
> cost. Moving into a gap and expanding is using the rules as written to
> expand. The rule on reg being in even ranks does not apply during
> formation change, so does not apply until after formation change. After
> formation change, the unit is in a legal formation. I would think that
> a special rule would be required to stop reg from expanding in a gap, not
> to allow.
>
> Ed

If you were trying to get a rule change here (I mean either a clarification
or an X-rule) are you saying you want Regs to be able to expand to FILL a
gap, or just expand in a gap. The difference is huge and important. If you
are saying expand to FILL a gap, then it would only apply in the somewhat
rare case where the gap was a multiple of elements wide, and you had enough
elements to do the job. If you are saying expand in ANY gap, I must pont
out that this pretty much gives you carte blanche to exapnd anywhere, as you
are almost always between 2 somethings. Imagine a board with a patch of
woods in each flank sector. You could be in the middel of the board,
declare you were in the gap, and go to uneven ranks. I think the current
rules were you contarct to get through a gap and then must reform as soon as
possible are the clearest and easiest to deal with. The only playable
alternative I see would be an X-rule "Regulars may have 1 uneven rank".

Just my .02.

Don

[Ed Forbes]

Hi Don,

Here is what Jon has said on the matter of ranks, formation changes, and
gaps to my post. I think it is pretty clear. I take it as having to
fill a gap to the max number of stands possible to fill the space. My
rules have arrived so I am now able to read 6.53 directly.

6.53 A gap is defined as the minimum space existing between two
things..."

Jon, do you have anything to add to this on what "defending a gap"
actually means? Still seems to be some confusion.

Ed
----------
> <<If reg were allowed to be in uneven formations for the purpose of
> changing formation and defending gaps between terrain, most of my
> complaints would go away.>>
----------
As 6.53 allows regs to enter and defend gaps and as regs changing
formation
only care how they look after the last maneuver and not any theoretical
intervening ones, I think we are at the complaints go away stage. Sure,
there is nothing to be done about 3 element regular foot units wanting to
be
two elements across in an open field, but we at FHE decided to not worry
about that case a long time ago in order to get what we wanted.

[ Jon 4-23-06]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 06:21:09 -0500 <jjendon@...> writes:
>
> > >
> >
> > Dropping back ranks is the special rule to allow formation change
> w / o
> > cost. Moving into a gap and expanding is using the rules as
> written to
> > expand. The rule on reg being in even ranks does not apply
> during
> > formation change, so does not apply until after formation change.
> After
> > formation change, the unit is in a legal formation. I would
> think that
> > a special rule would be required to stop reg from expanding in a
> gap, not
> > to allow.
> >
> > Ed
> ---------------
> If you were trying to get a rule change here (I mean either a
> clarification
> or an X-rule) are you saying you want Regs to be able to expand to
> FILL a
> gap, or just expand in a gap. The difference is huge and important.
> If you
> are saying expand to FILL a gap, then it would only apply in the
> somewhat
> rare case where the gap was a multiple of elements wide, and you had
> enough
> elements to do the job. If you are saying expand in ANY gap, I must
> pont
> out that this pretty much gives you carte blanche to exapnd
> anywhere, as you
> are almost always between 2 somethings. Imagine a board with a
> patch of
> woods in each flank sector. You could be in the middel of the
> board,
> declare you were in the gap, and go to uneven ranks. I think the
> current
> rules were you contarct to get through a gap and then must reform as
> soon as
> possible are the clearest and easiest to deal with. The only
> playable
> alternative I see would be an X-rule "Regulars may have 1 uneven
> rank".
>
> Just my .02.
>
> Don
>
>

________________________________________________________________
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]

<<Here is what Jon has said on the matter of ranks, formation changes, and gaps
to my post. I think it is pretty clear. I take it as having to fill a gap to
the max number of stands possible to fill the space.>>

Theris no 'defending a gap' rule in Warrior. There is no requirement for any
unit to "fill a gap to the max number of stands".

<<Jon, do you have anything to add to this on what "defending a gap" actually
means? Still seems to be some confusion.>>

I did not use the term, so I have no way to alleviate any confusion about it.
Regs can be in uneven ranks for the time they are in a gap only - meaning they
must get back into even ranks as soon after they are not in the gap any longer
as possible.

That's the rule I was discussing in the snips you quoted me.

Jon