 |
Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules A Four Horsemen Enterprises Rules Set
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Greg Regets Imperator

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2988
|
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 12:14 pm Post subject: Re: RULES required advances again |
 |
|
First and foremost, I would like to say that I agree with Jon 100% when he says
that this this is really not that big a problem if a bit of thought is given to
orders.
Having said that, my classical education has completely eluded me when reading
these posts, but then again, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed. Please
forgive my ignorance on this matter, but perhaps I can ask a few short
questions.
1. To use a march not ending at 240 as an advance, must you move at a stated
enemy unit by the ABSOLUTE SHORTEST possible distance, with NO variance?
2. Do you state the unit you are marching towards at the beginning of march?
3. Is it your intent that you must actually march through terrain that would
take the body you stated you were marching towards, out of sight???? (This one
just blows me away)
4. What if your target is also moving, and not moving directly towards you? How
on Earth would you ever maintain the shortest possible distance, considering
that you will not know what it is until he moves?
5. What would you do if your opponent was not in compliance ... let him start
his march again, or alter it to comply? What if it gets him an advantage to do
so? Yes, I know there is the clause that the offended player may choose to not
give him this advantage ... but that being the case, would that not lead to non-
obeyance of this rule, knowing that if you are called on it, you will get to
either alter your march after the guy that obeyed has already finished, or just
keep your offending moves?
Again, please forgive my ignorance on this matter. I just do not get where you
are going with this. I have been playing TOG and Warrior since it came out and
really do not understand the "problem" that we are fixing with all these rules.
Then again, Jon is probably wondering why we are having so many problems with
something so simple. ~wink~
G
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Greg Regets Imperator

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2988
|
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 12:51 pm Post subject: Re: RULES required advances again |
 |
|
With all due respect Jon, how would you know that a single body is needed to be
in obeyance, when you are half way through march segment 3 and trying to make
sure you are in obeyance? Nobody is trying to figure out how to get AROUND THE
ORDERS orders, we are trying to figure out how to STAY WITHIN them, before it
is a problem.
I thought they were completely reasonable questions. Can you at least answer
numbers 1 & 2, repeated below with a simple yes or no answer? I'm sure you
already have, but they seem be lost on me.
1. To use a march not ending at 240 as an advance, must you move at a stated
enemy unit by the ABSOLUTE SHORTEST possible distance, with NO variance?
2. Do you state the unit you are marching towards at the beginning of march?
Thanks in advance for your cooperation and your patience is appreciated ...
G
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Greg Regets Imperator

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2988
|
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 2:28 pm Post subject: Re: RULES required advances again |
 |
|
That response hit a ten on the smart-ass scale. Congratulations!
So much for the recruiting efforts you spoke of earlier.
G
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Patrick Byrne Centurion

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1433
|
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 5:16 pm Post subject: Re: RULES required advances again |
 |
|
I am VERY confused.
If A or B move in any manner and end at 240 there is the possibility that
they don't move entirely towards the enemy. If these bodies were light cav,
they could head away from the enemy in segment 5, start circling around in
segment 4 and then work segment 3, 2, or 1 to get to 240p.
How does this meet what you previously said was to happen which was "the
maximum march move currently possible entirely towards some enemy body".
Via previous emails, you confirmed that if I am heading partially away, then
I am not heading entirely towards, and therefore not meeting the "advance"
qualifier to meet the orders.
If what is suggested below is indeed the allowable move, then please confirm
again so I know I am not dreaming. OR is this some NEW special circumstance
because I am reading the verbiage "must either advance or already be within
240 paces" incorrectly under the probe command rules.
Truly confused about how to play,
-PB
> From: JonCleaves@...
> Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:38:34 EST
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] required advances again
>
> In a message dated 2/17/2003 21:12:40 Central Standard Time,
> Harlan.D.Garrett@... writes:
>
>> Just a thought here. If A and B move forward in any manner and end at 240
>> paces, they also qualify under the probe orders which say that half the
>> units
>> must advance or be within 240 paces of the enemy. If, at the end of the
>> march they meet that requirement, it does not matter what direction they
>> went.
>> Jacob Kovel
>>
>
> Thanks, Jake. This is correct, of course.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
joncleaves Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447
|
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 5:33 pm Post subject: Re: RULES required advances again |
 |
|
> OR is this some NEW special circumstance
> because I am reading the verbiage "must either advance or
> already be within
> 240 paces" incorrectly under the probe command rules.>>
That is a good issue, Pat. It could be stated better that you have to be in
compliance with orders at the *end* of the March phase - therefore if you have
half of a command within 240p under probe they are 'already' there. The wording
is designed to allow you to check on your compliance in the middle of each
movement phase so that you know how many bodies you still have to advance, but
the actual test of compliance comes at the end of Marches, which is the last
time in the bound you can get it right as you can't use staff moves to advance.
I will state explicitly in the next clarification update that the check on
orders comes at the end of marches.
J
_________________ Roll Up and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Patrick Byrne Centurion

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1433
|
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 6:02 pm Post subject: Re: RULES required advances again |
 |
|
Thank you very much, that is very helpful.
And just to make sure I am still on the same track: If two units both under
Attack orders and not known to each other march towards each other through
woods (or to a mutual crestline of a hill), they become known to eachother
at 40p and stop marching (assuming these units off on their own). This
would also meet the requirement for Attack orders, correct?
-PB
> From: JonCleaves@...
> Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 09:33:28 -0500
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Cc: Harrythe5@...
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] RULES required advances again
>
>
>> OR is this some NEW special circumstance
>> because I am reading the verbiage "must either advance or
>> already be within
>> 240 paces" incorrectly under the probe command rules.>>
>
> That is a good issue, Pat. It could be stated better that you have to be in
> compliance with orders at the *end* of the March phase - therefore if you have
> half of a command within 240p under probe they are 'already' there. The
> wording is designed to allow you to check on your compliance in the middle of
> each movement phase so that you know how many bodies you still have to
> advance, but the actual test of compliance comes at the end of Marches, which
> is the last time in the bound you can get it right as you can't use staff
> moves to advance.
>
> I will state explicitly in the next clarification update that the check on
> orders comes at the end of marches.
>
> J
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
joncleaves Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447
|
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 6:15 pm Post subject: Re: RULES required advances again |
 |
|
In a message dated 2/18/2003 10:02:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, cuan@...
writes:
> : If two units both under
> Attack orders and not known to each other march towards each other through
> woods (or to a mutual crestline of a hill), they become known to eachother
> at 40p and stop marching (assuming these units off on their
> own). This
> would also meet the requirement for Attack orders, correct?>>
A body within 80p of the enemy always meets attack order requirements.
_________________ Roll Up and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
joncleaves Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447
|
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 6:36 pm Post subject: Re: RULES required advances again |
 |
|
In a message dated 2/18/2003 4:14:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, gar@...
writes:
> Then again, Jon is probably wondering why we are having so
> many problems with
> something so simple. ~wink~>>
Indeed he is.
I am not going to answer each of those questions, Greg, because to do so would
be very misleading. All those questions are about a single body being forced to
do something because you are otherwise out of compliance with your orders. A
question of orders compliance that uses an example only makes sense with the
entire command in context, not a single body, as nothing says you have to use
that and only that body to be in compliance. That is a situation of your own
devising.
Is it possible to have a body 'forced' into terrain because you have created a
situation where only that body can get you in orders compliance and only by
going into terrain you the player don't want the body in? Yep. You can also
turn a body 180 degrees to the enemy so he can shoot you shieldless and charge
you while you can't fight back. Neither make sense, but they are possible.
More importantly, the rules DO NOT force you to create either situation.
Instead, let's try this:
If you get yourself in a situation where the only way you can be in compliance
with an attack order is to be forced to march the only body that can do it
through bad terrain, then yes, there might be a situation out there where your
troops are doing something you don't want them to.
And we want it to be that way, as the only way to avoid that is to handle your
army the way ancient medieval commanders did - by using most of their armies as
big hammers and choosing a small percentage that they could effectively
manipulate for 'special missions'.
Jon
_________________ Roll Up and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
joncleaves Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447
|
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 7:15 pm Post subject: Re: RULES required advances again |
 |
|
In a message dated 2/18/2003 4:51:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, gar@...
writes:
> 1. To use a march not ending at 240 as an advance, must you move at a stated
> enemy unit by the ABSOLUTE SHORTEST possible distance, with NO variance?>>
Absolute shortest doesn't quite get you to the answer. I chose 'minimize'
because if marching 120p through terrain on a straight line didn't get you as
close as going 240p around the terrain (and therefore off the shortest distance
as the crow flies) then you could go around the terrain (in fact, you'd have
to).
> 2. Do you state the unit you are marching towards at the
> beginning of march?>>
Beginning of each segment. If you did it at the beginning of the whole phase,
then you might be required to march at open air as, especially on bound one, the
enemy might be moving.
_________________ Roll Up and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Recruit

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 187
|
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 7:23 pm Post subject: Re: RULES required advances again |
 |
|
Any issue of visibility here? If neither side force marches to the center, arn't
units in their rear zones actually 'out of sight' of enemy in opposing rear
zones? Should units march toward enemy they can't see? Why so many question
marks???
R
----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] RULES required advances again
Thank you very much, that is very helpful.
And just to make sure I am still on the same track: If two units both under
Attack orders and not known to each other march towards each other through
woods (or to a mutual crestline of a hill), they become known to eachother
at 40p and stop marching (assuming these units off on their own). This
would also meet the requirement for Attack orders, correct?
-PB
> From: JonCleaves@...
> Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 09:33:28 -0500
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Cc: Harrythe5@...
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] RULES required advances again
>
>
>> OR is this some NEW special circumstance
>> because I am reading the verbiage "must either advance or
>> already be within
>> 240 paces" incorrectly under the probe command rules.>>
>
> That is a good issue, Pat. It could be stated better that you have to be in
> compliance with orders at the *end* of the March phase - therefore if you
have
> half of a command within 240p under probe they are 'already' there. The
> wording is designed to allow you to check on your compliance in the middle
of
> each movement phase so that you know how many bodies you still have to
> advance, but the actual test of compliance comes at the end of Marches,
which
> is the last time in the bound you can get it right as you can't use staff
> moves to advance.
>
> I will state explicitly in the next clarification update that the check on
> orders comes at the end of marches.
>
> J
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
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]
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
joncleaves Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447
|
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 7:42 pm Post subject: Re: RULES required advances again |
 |
|
> Any issue of visibility here? >>
I am not aware of a question regarding visibility. If you have one, please ask.
<<If neither side force marches to the center, arn't units in their rear zones
actually 'out of sight' of enemy in opposing rear zones? >>
As visibility on level ground in clear day weather is 720p, they would not be
visible in this example.
<<Should units march toward enemy they can't see?>>
*Should they*? I would recommend it...lol
<< Why so many question marks???>>
I don't know. Why?????
_________________ Roll Up and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
joncleaves Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447
|
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 7:42 pm Post subject: Re: RULES required advances again |
 |
|
> Any issue of visibility here? >>
I am not aware of a question regarding visibility. If you have one, please ask.
<<If neither side force marches to the center, arn't units in their rear zones
actually 'out of sight' of enemy in opposing rear zones? >>
As visibility on level ground in clear day weather is 720p, they would not be
visible in this example.
<<Should units march toward enemy they can't see?>>
*Should they*? I would recommend it...lol
<< Why so many question marks???>>
I don't know. Why?????
_________________ Roll Up and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
scott holder Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006 Posts: 6077 Location: Bonnots Mill, MO
|
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 8:33 pm Post subject: RE: RULES required advances again |
 |
|
Could you provide the context of this? Was this Jon? Me? Mine certainly
wasn't intended that way and I didn't read much into Jon's replies over the last
12 hours that would imply pegging the smart-ass meter, fwiw.
scott
That response hit a ten on the smart-ass scale. Congratulations!
So much for the recruiting efforts you spoke of earlier.
_________________ These Rules Suck, Let's Paint! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
joncleaves Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447
|
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 8:39 pm Post subject: Re: RULES required advances again |
 |
|
In a message dated 2/18/2003 6:28:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, gar@...
writes:
> That response hit a ten on the smart-ass scale.
> Congratulations!>>
Ok, Greg, you've lost me. I just read through the last ten mails I sent on
WarriorRules and don't see anything I can imagine someone taking offense too.
Is this important enough for you to tell me what you are talking about?
I am not claiming I am not a smart ass - everyone knows I am. On the other hand,
despite the fact that *personally* I do not recognize that grown men have
feelings that can be hurt, I DO try to be sensitive in my responses. Usually, I
only get smart when either -
1. I know the person well.
2. Someone has either been smart with me first or is asking questions designed
to poke at Warrior rather than gain understanding.
But, if you'd point out what you are talking about, I'd be happy to look into an
apology.
> So much for the recruiting efforts you spoke of earlier.>>
Hmmm. Isn't the above a glass houses issue?
_________________ Roll Up and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Mark Mallard Centurion

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 868 Location: Whitehaven, England
|
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 10:49 pm Post subject: Re: RULES required advances again |
 |
|
i dont think there is any need for such petty comments - we are all in this
to make rhis game the best there is.
mark mallard
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
_________________ Chess, WoW. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|