Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Ewan McNay

JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> If the SHK's 'gap' is already on the rout path, meaning there is already a
> space for it to fit through directly behind it when it routs, that 'gap' does
> not need to be two elements wide. The two element wide within 240p gap is
> only necessary when the router comes into CONTACT with friends along the rout
> path and is looking for a way to avoid the friendlies.

Excellent. Note for those of us who once played 7th, though: this is a
*change*. And a very sensible one, thankfully - the old rule was silly
Smile

.

E

Chris Bump · Legate Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1625

JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> If the SHK's 'gap' is already on the rout path, meaning there is already a
> space for it to fit through directly behind it when it routs, that 'gap' does
> not need to be two elements wide. The two element wide within 240p gap is
> only necessary when the router comes into CONTACT with friends along the rout
> path and is looking for a way to avoid the friendlies.

So just so I am clear, you are saying that as long as the routers do not veer
from rout path, they only need be able fit through any gaps encountered. In the
event that they have to veer to avoid friendlies, then the gap they are veering
to must be greater than 2 elements?
Chris

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

<<So just so I am clear, you are saying that as long as the routers do not veer
from rout path, they only need be able fit through any gaps encountered. In the
event that they have to veer to avoid friendlies, then the gap they are veering
to must be greater than 2 elements?>>

Yup.

Harlan Garrett · Centurion Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 943

Jon:

If the routing unit has a less than two element way gap within 240
paces, does this count?

Harlan
-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 11:23 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [WarriorRules] Rout Moves & Swept Away (6.32) -
NOTE for oldtimers

<<So just so I am clear, you are saying that as long as the routers do
not veer from rout path, they only need be able fit through any gaps
encountered. In the event that they have to veer to avoid friendlies,
then the gap they are veering to must be greater than 2 elements?>>

Yup.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=225940.2049433.3518213.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705
059080:HM/A=1061772/R=2/id=noscript/*http://www.fullaccessmedical.com/t/
7428/211/2458684356>

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=225940.2049433.3518213.1829184/D=egrou
pmail/S=1705059080:HM/A=1061772/rand=912215348>

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

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

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

<<If the routing unit has a less than two element way gap within 240 paces, does
this count?>>

Within 240 p of what? Gap between what? Don't understand the question yet.

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

In a message dated 5/13/2002 21:39:26 Central Daylight Time,
Harlan.D.Garrett@... writes:

> If a routing knight unit (Irr B) has a gap (less than two element wide,
> but it is greater than one element wide) and it is within 240 paces of
> its rout path not directly to the rear, does it sweep away the the two
> units that form the gap if they are irregular troops or shaken?
>

If I understand your question, the knight unit routs and while moving along
the rout path contacts two friendly units AND there is no two element wide
gap within 240 p. If the previous sentence is true, those two units are
burst through, If they are irregular or shaken they would be broken by this
and make a rout move themselves.

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

Harlan Garrett · Centurion Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 943

I have change my initial question slightly:

If a routing knight unit (Irr B) has a gap (less than two element wide,
but it is greater than one element wide) and it is within 240 paces of
its rout path not directly to the rear, does it sweep away the the two
units that form the gap if they are irregular troops or shaken?

Previous Email:
If the SHK's 'gap' is already on the rout path, meaning there is already
a
space for it to fit through directly behind it when it routs, that 'gap'
does
not need to be two elements wide. The two element wide within 240p gap
is
only necessary when the router comes into CONTACT with friends along the
rout
path and is looking for a way to avoid the friendlies.

From your description, the SHK never contacts friendlies so the 'Rout
Path
Blocked by Friendly Bodies' section of 6.32 never kicks in.

Back ground information:
A unit of knights (6xEHK, L, Sh, Irr B, in column formation (1x2))
breaks and is routing directly to its rear a passes through a less than
two element wide gap of its own line. On either side of the gap is a
unit of spearmen (24xMI, LTS, Sh, and 12xMI, CB, both Irr C).

According to 6.32 (paragraph 6) (paraphrased), a rout path must be at
least two elements wide and within 240 paces, if not, then the routing
unit burst through the friendly unit. (Paragraph 9) if irregular or
shaken troops are involuntary interpenetration then they are broken and
rout immediately.

My question:
Even though there is a large enough gap (two element wide) to fit the
knight unit (which is one element wide), does it still sweep away the
two spearmen unit?

Our Solution:
Yes, both LTS units are swept away since there is not a valid gap (two
element wide). Is this correct? Our concern was that fact that the gap
is wide enough to fit the knights and it would not actually contact
either spear unit. What are your thoughts?

Sincerely,
Harlan

-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 12:40 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Re: [WarriorRules] Rout Moves & Swept Away (6.32) -
NOTE for oldtimers

<<If the routing unit has a less than two element way gap within 240
paces, does this count?>>

Within 240 p of what? Gap between what? Don't understand the question
yet.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=225940.2049433.3518213.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705
059080:HM/A=1061772/R=2/id=noscript/*http://www.fullaccessmedical.com/t/
7428/211/2458684356>

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=225940.2049433.3518213.1829184/D=egrou
pmail/S=1705059080:HM/A=1061772/rand=313600574>

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

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

Harlan Garrett · Centurion Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 943

Jon:

This is happen if it there is not physical contact between the routing
unit of knights and two friendly bodies?

Harlan
-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 12:49 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Rout Moves & Swept Away (6.32) - NOTE for
oldtimers

In a message dated 5/13/2002 21:39:26 Central Daylight Time,
Harlan.D.Garrett@... writes:

> If a routing knight unit (Irr B) has a gap (less than two element
wide,
> but it is greater than one element wide) and it is within 240 paces of
> its rout path not directly to the rear, does it sweep away the the two
> units that form the gap if they are irregular troops or shaken?
>

If I understand your question, the knight unit routs and while moving
along
the rout path contacts two friendly units AND there is no two element
wide
gap within 240 p. If the previous sentence is true, those two units are

burst through, If they are irregular or shaken they would be broken by
this
and make a rout move themselves.

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

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.2053425.3521449.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705
059080:HM/A=1036975/R=0/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=3225>
Click Here!

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=194081.2053425.3521449.1829184/D=egrou
pmail/S=1705059080:HM/A=1036975/rand=820676716>

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

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

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

You know, I don't mind answering rules questions, but this one is getting to be
me reading the rules to you...

Here is the rule:
"....Routers, other than elephants or expendables, who would contact friendly
bodies in the rout path will interpenetrate them if they are normally allowed to
do so (6.52). If the rout path is blocked by a friendly body that cannot
normally be interpenetrated, the routers may deviate the minimum necessary to
pass around it if there is a gap at least two elements wide within 240 paces of
the point the rout path met the friendly body. If there is no such gap, the
routers will burst through the friendly body
met along the rout path to the full extent of their remaining move....

....Bursting through is handled as an involuntary interpenetration. If the
troops burst through are shaken or irregular, they break and rout immediately.
If not, they are disordered."

So, yes, they would have to contact friendlies in order to burst through them.

J

Harlan Garrett · Centurion Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 943

Jon:

I am not trying to beat a dead horse, but having played with several
difference groups and the groups handle the situation differently. I
understand what the rules say, but it is being interp differently. I am
training to fully understand your intent, so we all will read and
understand the rules the same way.

One group says:
There must be a gap of two elements wide even if the routing unit is one
element in width, if not then there is involuntary interpenetration and
shaken or irregular unit are swept away.

The other group says:
If the routing unit can penetrate the gap without physically touch
either unit, then there no involuntary interpenetration.

The way that I read the rules it states that there must be a two element
gap, but 6.32 do not mention what if the unit is one element wide and
can not physical touch either unit.

Hopefully you can see my point and understand my discussion.

Respectfully
Harlan

-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 8:54 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: RE: [WarriorRules] Rout Moves & Swept Away (6.32) - NOTE
for oldtimers

You know, I don't mind answering rules questions, but this one is
getting to be me reading the rules to you...

Here is the rule:
"....Routers, other than elephants or expendables, who would contact
friendly bodies in the rout path will interpenetrate them if they are
normally allowed to do so (6.52). If the rout path is blocked by a
friendly body that cannot
normally be interpenetrated, the routers may deviate the minimum
necessary to pass around it if there is a gap at least two elements wide
within 240 paces of the point the rout path met the friendly body. If
there is no such gap, the routers will burst through the friendly body
met along the rout path to the full extent of their remaining move....

....Bursting through is handled as an involuntary interpenetration. If
the troops burst through are shaken or irregular, they break and rout
immediately. If not, they are disordered."

So, yes, they would have to contact friendlies in order to burst through
them.

J

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=226014.2032696.3508022.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705
059080:HM/A=1000239/R=0/*http://ads.x10.com/?bHlhaG9vaG0xLmRhd=102138448
8%3eM=226014.2032696.3508022.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705059080:HM/A=10002
39/R=1>

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=226014.2032696.3508022.1829184/D=egrou
pmail/S=1705059080:HM/A=1000239/rand=727897191>

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

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

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

"but 6.32 do not mention what if the unit is one element wide and can not
physical touch either unit."

If the router does not physically touch either unit, it is not contacting them.
Therefore those friendlies are not blocking the rout path. Therefore there is
no need to go looking for a two element wide gap within 240p. Group one is
wrong, group two is right.

J

Harlan Garrett · Centurion Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 943

Thanks Jon, would you concern adding some wording in the next rules
addendum to state that.

As always, I appreciate your time and energy

Harlan

-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 9:29 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: RE: RE: [WarriorRules] Rout Moves & Swept Away (6.32) -
NOTE for oldtimers

"but 6.32 do not mention what if the unit is one element wide and can
not physical touch either unit."

If the router does not physically touch either unit, it is not
contacting them. Therefore those friendlies are not blocking the rout
path. Therefore there is no need to go looking for a two element wide
gap within 240p. Group one is wrong, group two is right.

J

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=178320.2057063.3524709.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705
059080:HM/A=979988/R=0/*http://www.fastweb.com/ib/yahoo-79f>

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=178320.2057063.3524709.1829184/D=egrou
pmail/S=1705059080:HM/A=979988/rand=136087491>

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

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

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

I'm sorry, Harlan, I do not plan on adding anything on 6.32 in the next update
to the clarifications on 6.32. I don't see how group 1 could possibly have
gotten their reading the way they did and find the rule says exactly what we
meant. I do not want the clarification sheet to grow one letter more than it
has to and will only add something if I find the rule does not say what I want
it to say - not because someone read it completely wrong with no clue as to how
they could have.
Sounds harsh, I know, but the needs of the many, etc....

Patrick Byrne · Centurion Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1433

Harlan,
I think your situation is all about deviating.

When a unit breaks and routs, and friendlies are behind it, follow this
path:
1. Is there a gap behind the router? if yes goto #2, if no goto #5
2. Does the router have to deviate to go through the gap? if yes goto #3,
if no goto #6.
3. Is the gap to be deviated through more than 120p wide? if yes goto #4 if
not goto #5.
4. Deviate the router to go through the gap.
5. No deviation in route path is made. If the friendlies routed into are
shaken or irreguler, then the friendlies route prior to the original router.
Otherwise the friendlies halt the router.
6. If the gap is greater than 60p, rout the router right through the gap,
dropping back if necessary. If the gap is less than 60p, goto #5.

Note all movement rule still apply.

Anyone, please let me know if this is wrong. It is the thought process I
use myself.
-PB

> From: "Harlan D. Garrett" <Harlan.D.Garrett@...>
> Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 09:34:02 -0500
> To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: RE: RE: [WarriorRules] Rout Moves & Swept Away (6.32) - NOTE for
> oldtimers
>
> Thanks Jon, would you concern adding some wording in the next rules
> addendum to state that.
>
> As always, I appreciate your time and energy
>
> Harlan

Greg Regets · Imperator Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2988

HG ...

Nobody got any rules wrong, nor were they hard to understand. You put a bunch of
stuff that you couldn't interpenetrate, behind a fight you were sure to lose,
leaving no gaps of any size directly behind the units that were breaking.

The rules need no clarification, they are completely clear the way they are. The
intent is simple. Guys that broke didn't look around for a place to run that was
convenient for the army. If they cared about the army, they wouldn't have broken
and run in the first place.

We don't need Jon to write a bunch of rules to keep us from doing silly things,
else we will go back to lining up plastic solders and rolling marbles at them.

By the way, this is my first time back on this board after being away for a
while. I would like to commend Jon and the other FHE on a job well done. I wish
more changes would have been considered (my opinion only), but with what was
done, you did a first rate job. Here in San Antonio, we have already attracted
three new players since Warrior was introduced.

G

----- Original Message -----
From: JonCleaves@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 9:45 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Rout Moves & Swept Away (6.32) - NOTE for oldtimers

I'm sorry, Harlan, I do not plan on adding anything on 6.32 in the next update
to the clarifications on 6.32. I don't see how group 1 could possibly have
gotten their reading the way they did and find the rule says exactly what we
meant. I do not want the clarification sheet to grow one letter more than it
has to and will only add something if I find the rule does not say what I want
it to say - not because someone read it completely wrong with no clue as to how
they could have.
Sounds harsh, I know, but the needs of the many, etc....

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

Height: 4567 ft 01234567891011 in
Weight:
Sex: F M

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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