Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 8/24/2004 5:16:20 PM GMT Daylight Time,
JonCleaves@... writes:

Todd, I cannot get yours to open. I will try again from home tonight, but
if you want it answered faster you may want to email it to me.

Ewan, I can open yours, and yes, according to my interim clarification of
the other day that unit would not be supported. I will agree conceptually that
we would probably like that to be a supported unit, but what we CANNOT have
is two bodies on the same side of the unit providing support to both flanks.
I know my solution to the wording is imperfect and I will be happy to get to
nailing it down much tighter when the opportunity arises. I would also be
happy to entertain alternate wording that accomplishes my intent.

jon


How about something along the lines of

" a unit/body may only provide support to a unit/body's nearest flank"


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

[Todd Schneider]

I have uploaded a Power Point file with a few examples as to whether
or not a unit is supported. There are 7 examples, but I am sure I am
forgetting at few and why.

If anyone has an example they dont see listed, I think it would help
out greatly if you used the units in the powerpoint point file to
make an illustration and upload it, it makes it easier for Jon to
figure out (as opposed to ASCII "Drawings").

Any questions or comments are appreciated.

Todd

[Ewan McNay]

OK. So I'm about to upload a further Q using this (thanks): as I
understand it, the 12E foot unit in the file pic is not supported by
the two cav units poised to support its flanks, on the new ruling. Is
this correct?

thresh1642 wrote:
> I have uploaded a Power Point file with a few examples as to whether
> or not a unit is supported. There are 7 examples, but I am sure I am
> forgetting at few and why.
>
> If anyone has an example they dont see listed, I think it would help
> out greatly if you used the units in the powerpoint point file to
> make an illustration and upload it, it makes it easier for Jon to
> figure out (as opposed to ASCII "Drawings").
>
> Any questions or comments are appreciated.
>
> Todd
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

[joncleaves]

Todd, I cannot get yours to open. I will try again from home tonight, but if
you want it answered faster you may want to email it to me.

Ewan, I can open yours, and yes, according to my interim clarification of the
other day that unit would not be supported. I will agree conceptually that we
would probably like that to be a supported unit, but what we CANNOT have is two
bodies on the same side of the unit providing support to both flanks.
I know my solution to the wording is imperfect and I will be happy to get to
nailing it down much tighter when the opportunity arises. I would also be happy
to entertain alternate wording that accomplishes my intent.

jon

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:

> Todd, I cannot get yours to open. I will try again from home
> tonight, but if you want it answered faster you may want to email
> it to me.
>
> Ewan, I can open yours, and yes, according to my interim
> clarification of the other day that unit would not be supported. I
> will agree conceptually that we would probably like that to be a
> supported unit, but what we CANNOT have is two bodies on the same
> side of the unit providing support to both flanks. I know my
> solution to the wording is imperfect and I will be happy to get to
> nailing it down much tighter when the opportunity arises. I would
> also be happy to entertain alternate wording that accomplishes my
> intent.

OK. Good to know that we're not as far apart on intent/desire as I
had thought from recent posts.

[Thinking aloud]

A unit (of close yadda yadda) is supported if each flank has a
friendly unit (of close or loose yadda, or terrain) within 120p of any
point on that flank edge. A terrain feature may support both flanks;
however, a given body may support only one flank of any friendly body.
*Moreover, the flank supported by a given body must be the closer
flank to that body (at point of closest appproach).*

That last sentence doesn't achieve total 'reality' - for instance, the
cav in the example I posted might be facing to the rear - but that's
no worse than current (either ruling-state). It does seriously
restrict how far across the rear of a unit a supporting friend could be.

Any use?

E


>
> jon
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~--> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo!
> Companion Toolbar. Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/IMSolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

[joncleaves]

Ok, Todd, I got it from you and opened it.

given that I am right about which unit we are trying to support and everyone is
steady...

No: A, C, D, E, F

Yes: B

With G the two cav units are supported but the foot are not.

Jon

[joncleaves]

[Thinking aloud]

A unit (of close yadda yadda) is supported if each flank has a
friendly unit (of close or loose yadda, or terrain) within 120p of any
point on that flank edge. A terrain feature may support both flanks;
however, a given body may support only one flank of any friendly body.
*Moreover, the flank supported by a given body must be the closer
flank to that body (at point of closest appproach).*

That last sentence doesn't achieve total 'reality' - for instance, the
cav in the example I posted might be facing to the rear - but that's
no worse than current (either ruling-state). It does seriously
restrict how far across the rear of a unit a supporting friend could be.

Any use?>>
[
[
Very useful. This is exactly the kind of help that works best. Also thanks to
Mark Mallard for a similar suggestion.

Jon

I assume that D would be an example of support if the elements in
support of the front unit (that is, the bottom elements in the figure)
belonged to two different units. This may be helpful when considering
a clarification, since it is a combination of the location of
supporting troops and the command and control status (is the unit an
independent unit? were command costs paid or is a general present) that
determines support in this case.


On Aug 24, 2004, at 12:25 PM, JonCleaves@... wrote:

> Ok, Todd, I got it from you and opened it.
>
> given that I am right about which unit we are trying to support and
> everyone is steady...
>
> No: A, C, D, E, F
>
> Yes: B
>
> With G the two cav units are supported but the foot are not.
>
> Jon

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

[joncleaves]

I assume that D would be an example of support if the elements in
support of the front unit (that is, the bottom elements in the figure)
belonged to two different units. >>

Very true.

Jon

Call me Pandora for opening this door in the first place. I
understood Jon's first response, but as the discussion ranged afield
I now understand less than I did when I didn't understand the
application of the rule in the first place. Still working to firmly
acquire a clue, I have the following:


1. Terrain: So a single piece of qualifying terrain in the position
of the rear unit in "C" but only 40p distant from each flank could
support one or both flanks?

2. >"Moreover, the flank supported by a given body must be the
closer flank to that body (at point of closest appproach).<
Suppose in Ewan's example the infantry unit was only 1 element wide
on the right. Then the cavalry on the right would be poised to
support its right flank but at nearest approach closest to its left.
BTW measuring "closest" adds complication.

3. Jon, I don't understand your responses to Cases A through G. I
think the question should have been which relationships among bodies
allow support relationships in each case. Applying the three
variations so far: (1) at least partly outside the flank line, (2)
partly on or outside the flank line, (3) within 120p (but not yadda
yadda insert anti-support abuse legislation here). Obviously a body
may not count support for both its flanks from the same friendly
body.

I believe below I am applying the alternatives correctly.

A:
1) Neither receives support.
2) Both receive support on one flank but not both.
3) Both receive support on one flank but not both.

B: However you slice it, the top body can exchange support with its
fellows to left and right.

C:
1) Rear body receives support on one flank but not both.
2) Rear body receives support on one flank but not both.
3) Both receive support on one flank but not both.

D: Same as C with roles reversed.

E:
1) Each front body receives support from the other front body on
its inside flank and can receive support from the rear body on one
flank but not both (per equidistance).
2) Same as (1).
3) Same as (1) and if this is to scale it appears as though rear
body can be supported on each flank by one of the front bodies.


F: Body on the left is supported cavalry in each case and can
support both center units. Below assumes the cavalry is NOT there.
1) Top body receives support from the bottom body on the left and
exchanges support with the right body. The top body supports the
bottom body's right flank.
2) Same as (1).
3) Assuming the anti-abuse language, the bottom body could support
the top body's left flank and the top body could support the bottom
body's right flank. The top body and the right body could exchange
suppport.

G: Assuming the cavalry are CO/LO foot to make this interesting:
1) Each rear body could support either flank of the body to its
front or, if in range, the near flank of either other body. Each
front body could support the near flank of the other front body or
the bottom body diagonally across from it.
2) Same as (1).
3) Front bodies can each receive support from the other on their
inside flank (distance permitting). Rear bodies can each receive
support from the other on their inside flank. Both left bodies can
receive support from each other on their left (outside) flank. The
left front body can receive support from the left rear body on
either flank as the distance is equal, but the left rear body can
receive suppport from the left front body only on its outer (left)
flank because the distance to each flank is not equal. A mirror
image situation applies on the right.


OK, so I've racked up a body count that would make McNamara proud,
and a sense that making comparative measurements to flank edges
takes a little more time and many more diagrams to illustrate.

Can you take it from here?

Aloha,

Mike

[joncleaves]

1. Terrain: So a single piece of qualifying terrain in the position
of the rear unit in "C" but only 40p distant from each flank could
support one or both flanks? >>
[
[
The same terrain feature can support both flanks (unlike a shorline or body) -
but I am still looking at it needing to be on or past the relevant flank line
on each flank. Where I am believe this clarification will end up (and it is a
work in progress as the questions about it are arruving faster than my ability
to nail it down conclusively which takes at least one evening on my game
table...) will likely lead to a 'no' to a terrain feature like C being able to
provide support - yes, one terrain feature could, but parts would have to extend
to reach both flank lines.

2. >"Moreover, the flank supported by a given body must be the
closer flank to that body (at point of closest appproach).<
Suppose in Ewan's example the infantry unit was only 1 element wide
on the right. Then the cavalry on the right would be poised to
support its right flank but at nearest approach closest to its left.
BTW measuring "closest" adds complication. >>
[
[
I am looking into Ewan's wording - but as I have said, no decision yet.


<<3. Jon, I don't understand your responses to Cases A through G. >>
[
[
I was forced to assume that I was being asked about the 'front' units.
Otherwise I had to assume too much...

<< I
think the question should have been which relationships among bodies
allow support relationships in each case.>>
[
[
Sure.

<< Applying the three
variations so far: (1) at least partly outside the flank line, (2)
partly on or outside the flank line, (3) within 120p (but not yadda
yadda insert anti-support abuse legislation here).>>
[
[
Right now it is (2) and will likely stay so. (1) is gone. I have some research
to do to see if the intent is to make Ewan's diagram also support - don't know
yet. If not, won't need (3).

<< Obviously a body
may not count support for both its flanks from the same friendly
body. >>
[
[
It sure was obvious to me...lol

<<I believe below I am applying the alternatives correctly.

A:
1) Neither receives support.
2) Both receive support on one flank but not both.
3) Both receive support on one flank but not both.>>

[
[
2 and 3 are correct.

<<B: However you slice it, the top body can exchange support with its
fellows to left and right.>>

I don't know what that means, but the top body is supported as far as the
diagram shows.

<<C:
1) Rear body receives support on one flank but not both.
2) Rear body receives support on one flank but not both.
3) Both receive support on one flank but not both. >>
[
[
1 or 2.

<<D: Same as C with roles reversed.>>
[
[
True.


<<E:
1) Each front body receives support from the other front body on
its inside flank and can receive support from the rear body on one
flank but not both (per equidistance).>>

[
[
True. I said no to E but I thought the question (which was not asked...) was
does the rear support either front all by itself. I think I am going to stop
answering questions that do not have both a diagram and a clear question....lol



<<F: Body on the left is supported cavalry in each case and can
support both center units. >>
[
[
True.

<<Below assumes the cavalry is NOT there.
1) Top body receives support from the bottom body on the left and
exchanges support with the right body. >>

LI does not support close/loose foot ever. Nothing is supporting the top body's
right flank. The LI is also unsupported.

In G, both cav's are supported. The foot are not.

Jon