Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 11/4/2002 19:13:37 Central Standard Time, cuan@...
writes:

> Jon,
> Orders (4.51) say: Attack - "at least half of the commands bodies must
> either advance or...", Probe - "at least half of the commands bodies must
> either advance or...". 4.52 then defines advance as "...the minimum move
> to quality as an advance is the maximum march move currently possible
> entirely towards some enemy body (or the enemy camp) or..."
>
> 1. Can the march be used to move along you back edge. The would most
> likely be parallel or away from the nearest enemy, yet be "towards some
> enemy body" who just happens to be at the other end of the table some 4000p
> away.

No.

>
> 2. Should "known" enemy body be a factor in this movement?

No.

>
> 3. Please confirm that units stuck behind another count towards the "half"
> allotment. However if units are able to pass through a gap, via deviating
> or dropping back elements, then they must.
> -PB
>

I cannot confirm as I don't know what you are asking. Please explain.


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

[Patrick Byrne]

Jon,
Orders (4.51) say: Attack - "at least half of the commands bodies must either
advance or...", Probe - "at least half of the commands bodies must either
advance or...". 4.52 then defines advance as "...the minimum move to quality as
an advance is the maximum march move currently possible entirely towards some
enemy body (or the enemy camp) or..."

1. Can the march be used to move along you back edge. The would most likely be
parallel or away from the nearest enemy, yet be "towards some enemy body" who
just happens to be at the other end of the table some 4000p away.

2. Should "known" enemy body be a factor in this movement?

3. Please confirm that units stuck behind another count towards the "half"
allotment. However if units are able to pass through a gap, via deviating or
dropping back elements, then they must.
-PB


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

[joncleaves]

Working on the clarification update, it has come to my attention that some
players are using the wording of the march portion of 4.52 to march laterally to
the enemy and just slightly reduce the distance between the marcher and an enemy
body. This behavior is the very worst sort of gaming, for one thing.
For another, 'maximum' and 'entirely' in that sentence mean exactly that - you
pick an enemy body and you move entirely toward it, not a little toward it and a
lot toward something else. And you move all of the march move you can toward
that body - which is what maximum means.
You don't have to march that way just to do a march, but you do have to march
that way for that march to qualify as an advance under 4.52.

I will 'clarify' this in the next update. As soon as I find better words that
the ones there, which I do not find confusing.

You guys, especially those with these scoundrels in your play groups, can feel
free to recommend wording for the clarifications.

And if you are someone who has done or would do what I described above and you
are offended by me calling what you did the worst sort of gaming or calling you
a scoundrel - good. It was entirely intentional.

Jon

[Harlan Garrett]

Thank you for the clarification. I cannot wait for the interp to be
published.

Harlan
-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:25 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] RULES: Orders and Marching


Working on the clarification update, it has come to my attention that
some players are using the wording of the march portion of 4.52 to march
laterally to the enemy and just slightly reduce the distance between the
marcher and an enemy body. This behavior is the very worst sort of
gaming, for one thing.
For another, 'maximum' and 'entirely' in that sentence mean exactly that
- you pick an enemy body and you move entirely toward it, not a little
toward it and a lot toward something else. And you move all of the
march move you can toward that body - which is what maximum means.
You don't have to march that way just to do a march, but you do have to
march that way for that march to qualify as an advance under 4.52.

I will 'clarify' this in the next update. As soon as I find better
words that the ones there, which I do not find confusing.

You guys, especially those with these scoundrels in your play groups,
can feel free to recommend wording for the clarifications.

And if you are someone who has done or would do what I described above
and you are offended by me calling what you did the worst sort of gaming
or calling you a scoundrel - good. It was entirely intentional.

Jon

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]

Don
I am saving your wording for when I get to this part of the clarifications.
J


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

[Don Coon]

This tactic was used against me in a recent game. Is "toward it" intended
to mean shortest path? Does the enemy body selected have to be the closest
one? If you mean yes to the first question and no to the second (I am of
course guessing) the wording would have to be something like 4.52"...to
qualify (spelled quality in 4.52 BTW) as an advance is the maximum march
entirely towards some enemy body. The enemy body may be any enemy body
currently on the board(including the camp), but the march must take the
shortest possible path towards that enemy. This move must include dropping
elements to pass a gap if necessary. An approach move of at least 40p
directly towards some enemy body also qualifies as an advance." Until I
know what you are thinking here, I can not refine the wording. The problem
with my above submission is that any initial setup that has units not
directly across from each other will force wheels right off the bat. Maybe
that is not a bad thing, maybe it is what you intend? I do want the
clarification as the lateral march seemed very improper, but I had to allow
it per the current rules wording.

Don

From: <JonCleaves@...>


> Working on the clarification update, it has come to my attention that some
players are using the wording of the march portion of 4.52 to march
laterally to the enemy and just slightly reduce the distance between the
marcher and an enemy body. This behavior is the very worst sort of gaming,
for one thing.
> For another, 'maximum' and 'entirely' in that sentence mean exactly that -
you pick an enemy body and you move entirely toward it, not a little toward
it and a lot toward something else. And you move all of the march move you
can toward that body - which is what maximum means.
> You don't have to march that way just to do a march, but you do have to
march that way for that march to qualify as an advance under 4.52.
>
> I will 'clarify' this in the next update. As soon as I find better words
that the ones there, which I do not find confusing.
>
> You guys, especially those with these scoundrels in your play groups, can
feel free to recommend wording for the clarifications.
>
> And if you are someone who has done or would do what I described above and
you are offended by me calling what you did the worst sort of gaming or
calling you a scoundrel - good. It was entirely intentional.
>
> Jon

[Greg Regets]

I really don't think anyone was doing these things to be slippery. When
something is unclear, people will do what they will do.

How about:

"To qualify as an advance using march movement, a body must select a known enemy
body and move each march segment, ending closer to that enemy body than the
march segment began."

(The restrictions on wheels should do the rest)

G

----- Original Message -----
From: JonCleaves@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] RULES: Orders and Marching


Working on the clarification update, it has come to my attention that some
players are using the wording of the march portion of 4.52 to march laterally to
the enemy and just slightly reduce the distance between the marcher and an enemy
body. This behavior is the very worst sort of gaming, for one thing.
For another, 'maximum' and 'entirely' in that sentence mean exactly that - you
pick an enemy body and you move entirely toward it, not a little toward it and a
lot toward something else. And you move all of the march move you can toward
that body - which is what maximum means.
You don't have to march that way just to do a march, but you do have to march
that way for that march to qualify as an advance under 4.52.

I will 'clarify' this in the next update. As soon as I find better words that
the ones there, which I do not find confusing.

You guys, especially those with these scoundrels in your play groups, can feel
free to recommend wording for the clarifications.

And if you are someone who has done or would do what I described above and you
are offended by me calling what you did the worst sort of gaming or calling you
a scoundrel - good. It was entirely intentional.

Jon

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]

[Patrick Byrne]

>
> >
> > 3. Please confirm that units stuck behind another count towards the
"half"
> > allotment. However if units are able to pass through a gap, via
deviating
> > or dropping back elements, then they must.
> > -PB
> >
>
> I cannot confirm as I don't know what you are asking. Please explain.
>
>

A unit that marches in segment 4 is placed behind a unit that marches in
segment 2. The unit is unable to march in segment 4 and therefore
subsquently 3, 2, and 1 (6.2). As I understand 4.52, that unit not marching
in segment 4 performed the maximum move currently possible, and therefore
met the qualifications of 4.52.
-PB

[Patrick Byrne]

> And if you are someone who has done or would do what I described above and
you are offended by me calling what you did the worst sort of gaming or
calling you a scoundrel - good. It was entirely intentional.
>
> Jon


Strong words for not being in attendance, for....
....I did it, I am the one. I was the one who put SubGeneral Ogedei, a
single cav unit, in my own backfield faced perpendicular to the oncoming
enemy. I was the one who gave him his own single command. I am the one who
gave him orders not to attack to the front, but yet to swing around behind
my army and support the opposite flank.

Yes it was SubGeneral Ogedei who moved towards "some enemy unit" that
happened to be on the left side of the field of battle, but that is because
he followed my orders. Had he not followed orders, he'd have been beheaded.
All my Subgenerals know this. Ogedei will grow to be a great Khan one day,
how dare you call him a scoundrel.

And in the future, when I see the baggage camp in the corner of the field of
battle where I want him to be, I may just give him the same orders.

You want to call someone a scoundrel, aim that cannon at me. It was I who
applied this seemingly clear rule and unknowingly entered the field of
scoundrelness. It was I who had to stand up for myself when my opponent
tried to dash my tactic away. And then again, why can't I tell Subgeneral
Ogedei to support the left side without being called a scoundrel. To you I
say, hide behind your castle walls, we'll starve you to death and if you
give way, we'll make you a hostage screen and work you like expendables.
-CNC Cuan Longtooth, great leader of the Yuan Mongols.


I repeat, I walked this fine line without knowing it. I could not see the
forest through your trees. I WAS TEETERING ON AN EDGE I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW
EXISTED until my opponent mentioned the supposed cliff next to me.
FURTHERMORE, it was only through the WRITTEN RULE did I avoid catastrophe.

I look forward to the written clarification of this unavoidably
scoundrel-like act. Please help me not be a scoundrel. Re-write the rule
accordingly so that we both can see what is the worst sort of gaming.

PS - If following the rules to the letter is the worst sort of gaming,
exactly what are we to play.

PPS - Would 'advancing' but not exactly 'advancing' be scoundrel like.
Example: lateral approaches with the old turn 90, move 40p, turn 90 trick?
Or for LC who with the 200p move can do incredible things like moving
laterally getting only 1p closer to the nearest enemy? Are these equally
the worst sort of gaming, or is there some sliding scale? You must know
these both qualify you for 4.52.

---
But seriously Jon, everyone - and I mean everyone - who knows me wouldn't
even think the words scoundrel about my character. So yes, I find your
words offensive. Glad you really meant it. Please just don't call me a
scoundrel because you think your vague rules identify me as one.
-PB

[joncleaves]

I don't find 'entirely' and 'maximum' to permit lateral moves. They are
'all' words, not 'partly' or 'a little' words. I could add 'completely' or
'directly' to a 'clarification', but webster tell me I have already said
that....

I will agree to look at the 'lateral approach' issue.

Now, tell me. While you were making this move with mr ogedei you did not
feel the slightest like you were violating the letter or intent of the rules?
Your conscience was completely clean and you did not think there was any way
you were guilty of wrong doing. Pat - I just don't believe it... I think
you knew in your heart of hearts that what you were doing was 'wrong', but
thought that you had found some new connotation of 'entirely' and 'maximum'
that got you out of the error of giving a one body reserve command attack
instead of wait. I am just as offended by the idea of using our rules as a
cover for this as you apparently are by my harmless 'scoundrel' comment.

I say this: how about instead of us arguing, you give me wording to that rule
(and the approach version of an advance as well) that better describes the
situation so I may use it for the clarification I now have to write?

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 11/5/2002 20:54:02 Central Standard Time, cuan@...
writes:

> A unit that marches in segment 4 is placed behind a unit that marches in
> segment 2. The unit is unable to march in segment 4 and therefore
> subsquently 3, 2, and 1 (6.2). As I understand 4.52, that unit not
> marching
> in segment 4 performed the maximum move currently possible, and therefore
> met the qualifications of 4.52.
> -PB
>

It made no march move (an impossible march move isn't a maximum march move)
and made no march move entirely toward an enemy body. So it does not meet
4.52.

But! I will add text 'covering' this as well to the clarification....<sigh>


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 11/5/2002 19:19:48 Central Standard Time, gar@...
writes:

> I really don't think anyone was doing these things to be slippery. When
> something is unclear, people will do what they will do.
>

We obviously have different philosophies about this behavior and I am willing
to agree to disagree on that point.

> How about:
>
> "To qualify as an advance using march movement, a body must select a known
> enemy body and move each march segment, ending closer to that enemy body
> than the march segment began."
>
> (The restrictions on wheels should do the rest)
>
> G
>

Thanks! I am adding that to the material I will be using.


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

[Patrick Byrne]

Getting back from vacation in lovely Fort Monroe, feeling refreshed...


Dear Jon,
My rewording the rule will do nothing if we can not agree on the problem.

I see two issues that could be the problem; its either (1) who can be 'some
enemy' or (2) how you move towards 'some enemy'.

In case 1, 'some enemy' can be any unit on the board or the baggage camp.
This allows for cross board movement and yes some lateral movement. You can
see this especially if each side only forced marched 1 LC on their left
flanks. Sitting on one end, I can march my LC towards the enemy LC on the
other end, and thus move laterally to all the other enemy units but yet
towards that other LC. (Vader voice, 'You can not deny this to be true.')

In case 2, has to do with 'entire' and 'maximum' what is left out is the
path that must be taken. So yes 'directly' might work here but creates more
questions. Do you mean direct path or shortest movement? Direct path
meaning that terrain be damned you march right through it. Shortest path
meaning terrain can be veered around.

However, as the example in case 1 shows, I can move laterally with respect
to 1550 pts of enemy army yet move entirely and maximally towards the other
50pt LC unit.

Now
If you want to restrict case 1, I would suggest that you put a limit on the
'some enemy' that can be declared to say 'some enemy within 1600p'.

If you want to restrict case 2, I would suggest that you limit the amount of
wheeling that can be done. Say that you must maximum march entirely towards
enemy body, only wheeling towards the enemy body (kinda like charges).



> I am just as offended by the idea of using our rules as a
> cover for this as you apparently are by my harmless 'scoundrel' comment.

If there is one thing I know from all the emails you've written to date, it
is when you say something harsh but mean it to be harmless, you always put
those "" after it AND you most certainly don't say "And if you are
someone who has done or would do what I described above and you are offended
by me calling what you did the worst sort of gaming or calling you a
scoundrel - good. It was entirely intentional.".

And no, I did not think down in my deepest soul that I was doing anything
scoundrel like. I am not a historical person and therefore do not play
historically.

You will run into similar situations much more often when you release
Fantasy Warrior, were you'll have many people interpreting the vagueness of
the rules to suite their reasoning. This does not mean they are scoundrels,
it just means that they can not read the rules through your eyes.

Take Care,
-PB

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 11/11/2002 14:18:20 Central Standard Time, cuan@...
writes:

> In case 1, 'some enemy' can be any unit on the board or the baggage camp.
> This allows for cross board movement and yes some lateral movement. You
> can
> see this especially if each side only forced marched 1 LC on their left
> flanks. Sitting on one end, I can march my LC towards the enemy LC on the
> other end, and thus move laterally to all the other enemy units but yet
> towards that other LC. (Vader voice, 'You can not deny this to be true.')

Nor would I. Yes, you can do what you describe. So, I guess this cannot be
'the problem'.

>
> In case 2, has to do with 'entire' and 'maximum' what is left out is the
> path that must be taken. So yes 'directly' might work here but creates
> more
> questions. Do you mean direct path or shortest movement? Direct path
> meaning that terrain be damned you march right through it. Shortest path
> meaning terrain can be veered around.

If you are an HC body, and have 4 march segments, and are, say for example,
1000p from the body you choose, then you will end up within 240p of it if you
go your maximum march entirely toward this body. In fact, very rare will be
the case where you use a march to qualify for an advance and you DON'T end up
within 240p of the chosen body and if you don't it is only because you don't
march very fast.

What you can't do is move so that you get 1p closer than you were to the
enemy body that you choose and make your march move in such a way that you
are not using it in its entirety to go toward that body, which is what I
*think* you said you did. That move, if I understand you correctly, is
illegal as you did not go entirely toward an enemy body - all you did was get
a little closer to it.

'Get closer' is not the language of the march as advance rule. Only your max
march move entirely (not a little bit - entirely) toward an enemy body
qualifies. Now, that body can be anywhere in the other guy's force. It can
even be from an arriving flank march. But you have to go entirely toward it
with all the segments and all the distance of those segments allowed.



>
> However, as the example in case 1 shows, I can move laterally with respect
> to 1550 pts of enemy army yet move entirely and maximally towards the other
> 50pt LC unit.
>

Yes, you can.

> Now
> If you want to restrict case 1, I would suggest that you put a limit on the
> 'some enemy' that can be declared to say 'some enemy within 1600p'.
>

Don't want to do that.

> If you want to restrict case 2, I would suggest that you limit the amount of
> wheeling that can be done. Say that you must maximum march entirely
> towards
> enemy body, only wheeling towards the enemy body (kinda like charges).

No need to do this, as you could not wheel away from such an enemy body and
be moving entirely toward it as the rule now stands, so there is no need to
add a redundant limit.

J


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

[Don Coon]

> If you are an HC body, and have 4 march segments, and are, say for
example,
> 1000p from the body you choose, then you will end up within 240p of it if
you
> go your maximum march entirely toward this body.

> What you can't do is move so that you get 1p closer than you were to the
> enemy body that you choose and make your march move in such a way that you
> are not using it in its entirety to go toward that body, which is what I
> *think* you said you did. That move, if I understand you correctly, is
> illegal as you did not go entirely toward an enemy body - all you did was
get
> a little closer to it.
>
> 'Get closer' is not the language of the march as advance rule. Only your
max
> march move entirely (not a little bit - entirely) toward an enemy body
> qualifies. Now, that body can be anywhere in the other guy's force. It
can
> even be from an arriving flank march. But you have to go entirely toward
it
> with all the segments and all the distance of those segments allowed.

This is how I see the rule. My reword of 4.52 merely reiterated this in
possibley more clear language (I used "shortest" instead of "entirely").
The effect of 4.52 in the march phase for a body attempting to qualify as
advancing is:

Pick an enemy body (any). March as many segments as possible towards that
body while minimizing the distance to that body. I think its pretty
straightforward. If you do a clarification, it seems like a reword is not
really required. Maybe just an extra sentance to clarify that "some" is
"any" and "maximum march entirely toward" must "minimize" the distance to
that chosen body. I have heard at least one person who thinks "entirely
towards" means that the "distance is shrinking" rather than the intended
"distance is being minimized"

For people who do not like this prohibition on their bodies, remember you do
not have to have your entire command behave this way. Only 1/2. Also if
1/2 is too many to be doing this, use HOLD or WAIT orders.

Just my .02

Don