Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

Boyd,

I'll let Jon speak to this, as it's a rules question, but I will point out that
in the current rules clarifications (available in the Files section for this
group), there is this:

"14.31 (pg 87) Placement of immobile TFs must abide by the terrain positioning
rules of 14.31. For this purpose, open spaces are still considered to be in
place through deployment."

In messages on this list last week (see the archive) I've also asked for
additional clarification, and Jon has said that:
(a) TFs must be at least an element away from any terrain feature (including an
open space) when placed;
(b) TFs must be at least an element away from each other in the event that more
than one is placed.


-Mark Stone

[Ed Forbes]

Does this mean that TF's:
1. can not have a contiguous ditch or wall 12 elements in length?

2.Or only that parallel walls must be 1 elemment apart?

3.Or both?

>(b) TFs must be at least an element away from each other in the event that more
than one is placed.







Yahoo! Groups Links






________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

Right, I remember the discussion which lead up to this concern, but
how can it be that I can't put a ditch anywhere at all? Essentially,
if I were to use defensive measures, such as Romans did consistently,
in the feild, then where would I put a ditch palisade? In the open
field? Why yes, as this is where I am most vulnerable to enemy
mounted forces.

There are so many examples of Romans using TF in "open" areas that it
isn't worth the time to disclose them all here. A simple reading of
the wars of the Triumverate are all that is needed.

rules clarification or not, this has not only lost me a beer bet, but
more seriously has effectively dislodged a great number of armies
from competitiveness. Scrap me buying a Roman army for one, since
the big tactical effort I was working included forward deployed TF
and a BUA.

Now, alas that part of Warrior that I dislike (terrain choosing
system) has fully defeated any hopes that a person can attempt to use
terrain effectively or even compensate for unfavorable terrain by
legal means.

Wanax
might as well run SHK and LB now

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> Boyd,
>
> I'll let Jon speak to this, as it's a rules question, but I will
point out that
> in the current rules clarifications (available in the Files section
for this
> group), there is this:
>
> "14.31 (pg 87) Placement of immobile TFs must abide by the terrain
positioning
> rules of 14.31. For this purpose, open spaces are still considered
to be in
> place through deployment."
>
> In messages on this list last week (see the archive) I've also
asked for
> additional clarification, and Jon has said that:
> (a) TFs must be at least an element away from any terrain feature
(including an
> open space) when placed;
> (b) TFs must be at least an element away from each other in the
event that more
> than one is placed.
>
>
> -Mark Stone

[Todd Schneider]

Under 14.3 yes. Scenarios are different though. Its
all addressed in Clinic 4.1 IIRC.

Todd


--- eforbes100@... wrote:

---------------------------------

Does this mean that TF's:
1. can not have a contiguous ditch or wall 12 elements
in length?

2.Or only that parallel walls must be 1 elemment
apart?

3.Or both?

>(b) TFs must be at least an element away from each
other in the event that more
than one is placed.







Yahoo! Groups Links






________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno
SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up
today!


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/29/2004 13:01:31 Central Daylight Time,
spocksleftball@... writes:
Romans without ditch palisade.... >>

Again, if the 'argument' is that Romans (or anyone else) are nonviable unless
they are permitted to place 12E of connected TF tied in on one or both ends
with a very rough or impassable terrain feature, FHE unequivocally disagrees.

The idea is so counterintuitive, I suspect I am misunderstanding the issue
and am ready to have someone clarify it for me.

Jon


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

[Todd Schneider]

So all the Roman Armies are no longer Tournament
effective because they can't use ditches? Crap. What
the hell am I going to play this weekend then? ANd I
didn't even BUY ditches I find that hard to
believe. Lord knows I lose just as easily with
ditches as without them.


<<<rules clarification or not, this has not only lost
me a beer bet, but more seriously has effectively
dislodged a great number of armies from
competitiveness. Scrap me buying a Roman army for
one, since the big tactical effort I was working
included forward deployed TF and a BUA.>>>

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/29/2004 15:01:48 Central Daylight Time,
larryessick@... writes:
Finally, since nothing is supposed to be placed on or in "open" space,
I would have guessed that the intent of the rules is to disallow this.
However, that is for Jon to answer.>>

The answer is no.

Let's all remember that competitive ancients gaming is one of very few genres
where terrain is 'picked' in competition. No general had that kind of
control in a simulative sense. 14.3 is there to permit a quick solution to
placing
terrain on the table where preset is not used.

Like a general who maneuvers operationally to get the kind of terrain he
wants for the tactical fight, the player using 14.3 is trying to 'maneuver' to a
battlefield that is favorable to him - it is a 'design for effect' mechanic and
players of Warrior (and old 7th players) seem to generally like that over
preset.

But the competition organizer is totally free to ignore any and all of it as
his discretion.

By picking a way for 14.3 to be, FHE has set a 'standard' for pickup games,
that is very true. And that standard is a table that is more open than not,
unless *both* players choose a very closed table.

J

J


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/29/2004 11:14:48 Central Daylight Time,
eforbes100@... writes:
Does this mean that TF's:
1. can not have a contiguous ditch or wall 12 elements in length?

2.Or only that parallel walls must be 1 elemment apart?

3.Or both?>>

No part of one section can be closer than 1E to another section.

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/29/2004 14:24:47 Central Daylight Time,
mark@... writes:
The moral of the story: if you want a forward placed TF, you can't just hope
for
it; you have to proactively pick terrain that creates a space for it.>>

Damn, Mark, I am glad you play our game. You just saved me a crapload of
writing...lol


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

[Mark Stone]

--- On April 29, Todd said: ---

>
> So all the Roman Armies are no longer Tournament
> effective because they can't use ditches? Crap. What
> the hell am I going to play this weekend then? ANd I
> didn't even BUY ditches I find that hard to
> believe. Lord knows I lose just as easily with
> ditches as without them.
>
>
> <<<rules clarification or not, this has not only lost
> me a beer bet, but more seriously has effectively
> dislodged a great number of armies from
> competitiveness. Scrap me buying a Roman army for
> one, since the big tactical effort I was working
> included forward deployed TF and a BUA.>>>
>

Guys, I think you are over-reacting here.

No one says you can't use ditches. Your ability to use in the forward zone may
be limited, but that should come as no surprise. Being able to forward place
ditches is a list rule, i.e. not the norm to begin with.

And go back and look again at the deployment map I put up for the Sassanid
battle. I got about as screwed as possible on terrain picks: Lenney got all
three of his opens, and I roled 1's on 2 of my 4 picks. What did I end up with
as a result? A battle line that was anchored solidly on both flanks, and an
effective use of ditched palisade.

Terrain didn't lose me that battle (though it certainly didn't help me much).
Nor did restrictions on ditched palisade placement cost me the battle. In a
"worst case" terrain set-up, I still had a reasonable setup. No, my own
stupidity cost me the battle. I have no complaints about how the terrain
placement rules functioned.


-Mark Stone

Mark, Your battle isn't causing me greif. I've been working factors
for the last two weeks on using raw legionares and artillery behind
forward zone ditch palisades as anchors to B class HI and IrgA HC
shock troops with LI evading through the anchors to draw charging
enemy mounted to close range. Typically Roman, yet not possible with
this interpretation.

Sorry, but my gut tells me this interp is a "tournament twister" to
accord ease of play much as the discussion previously for eleminating
minor water features from tournaments.

Romans without ditch palisade.... :(

Wanax


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> --- On April 29, Todd said: ---
>
> >
> > So all the Roman Armies are no longer Tournament
> > effective because they can't use ditches? Crap. What
> > the hell am I going to play this weekend then? ANd I
> > didn't even BUY ditches I find that hard to
> > believe. Lord knows I lose just as easily with
> > ditches as without them.
> >
> >
> > <<<rules clarification or not, this has not only lost
> > me a beer bet, but more seriously has effectively
> > dislodged a great number of armies from
> > competitiveness. Scrap me buying a Roman army for
> > one, since the big tactical effort I was working
> > included forward deployed TF and a BUA.>>>
> >
>
> Guys, I think you are over-reacting here.
>
> No one says you can't use ditches. Your ability to use in the
forward zone may
> be limited, but that should come as no surprise. Being able to
forward place
> ditches is a list rule, i.e. not the norm to begin with.
>
> And go back and look again at the deployment map I put up for the
Sassanid
> battle. I got about as screwed as possible on terrain picks: Lenney
got all
> three of his opens, and I roled 1's on 2 of my 4 picks. What did I
end up with
> as a result? A battle line that was anchored solidly on both
flanks, and an
> effective use of ditched palisade.
>
> Terrain didn't lose me that battle (though it certainly didn't help
me much).
> Nor did restrictions on ditched palisade placement cost me the
battle. In a
> "worst case" terrain set-up, I still had a reasonable setup. No, my
own
> stupidity cost me the battle. I have no complaints about how the
terrain
> placement rules functioned.
>
>
> -Mark Stone

[Larry Essick]

My initial reaction to Jon's replies was that deliberate placement so
as to leave 40p gaps was illogical.

However, on reflection, I think that it makes some good sense.

In all games, there is little point to setting up the battlefield and
deploying troops if one player is going to hide and the other player
is not willing to throw himself hopelessly forward. It is, in fact, a
common ploy to adopt a strong defensive position in the expectation
that the opponent will arrogantly believe that he can dislodge the
army. It generally results in the defeat of the attacker -- both on
the table-top and on historical battlefields.

The response to strong defenses, unless forced to battle by some other
considerations, was generally to march away and seek more advantageous
ground. This cannot be done in most game settings.

So, the rule -- which forces players to leave approach lanes -- is
reasonable because it allows for the opportunity for battle. And
that, IMO, is why people play -- for the opportunity to fight.

We tend to forget that terrain is placed by both players. Placing
terrain is the single most important decision in the game as the shape
of the battlefield dictates all other decisions and dictates the
course of the battle. Players who include TF need to think about what
they want to create and use their terrain picks to build that
battlefield.

Larry

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, <larryessick@b...> wrote:
<snip> Larry

Larry I snipped your entire response as it generally conceeds my
point of game mechanic gerymandering in order to overcome a logical
conclusion.

I will comment further that the Romans didn't always win at the
walls, and forcing ahistorical situations in order to accomidate easy
attacking smacks of pandering to a certain game set mindset. The
same mindset we all actively deny our own bias towards, namely open
tournament bias. If the tactic worked in real life, then it should
work on the table the same way. If this means wall without holes or
TF placed in logically tactical areas, then so be it.

My only remaining question on this debate, since my opinion is
worthless and history a sidelight, is can I deploy TF forward in my
own "open" terrain pick?

boyd

[Mark Stone]

--- On April 29 Wanax Andron said: ---

> My only remaining question on this debate, since my opinion is
> worthless and history a sidelight, is can I deploy TF forward in my
> own "open" terrain pick?

[Begin brutish comment]

Boyd, now you're just whining. Stop. No one thinks your opinion is worthless, no
one thinks history is a sidelight, and -- Jon will correct me if I'm wrong here
-- no you _cannot_ put a TF inside your own open pick. You don't "own" picks on
the table.

[End brutish comment]

Now, to move this debate on constructively:

Realize that at this point what you are asking is a tactics question, not a
rules question. The question is "how can I secure space in my forward zone in
which to place a ditched palisade?" The answer, which should be obvious, is
"with terrain picks". Here's what I mean.

We all think of open space as a "negative" terrain pick, in other words
something that pre-empts other picks in a certain area. But nothing about the
rules requires us to think that way. We could just as easily think of open
space as a "positive" terrain pick that _enables_ another terrain feature.

Look at the file I've uploaded called "palisade.jpg". What I've done is used an
open space pick to create a "box" within which a ditched palisade will fit. The
entryway into the box is less than an element's width, and the space inside the
box precludes any other terrain picks, including an open space, going entirely
inside the box. Thus when terrain picks are done and you've reached troop
placement, you'll have a little zone inside this box where you can put your
ditched palisade.

Let me walk you through the math, just to make sure you understand.

By 14.31, an open space is a loop 2480 paces in circumference, that can be
"arranged to enclose any shaped area desired." So think of it as a long, thin,
oval that is 1p across and 1239.5 paces long. For simplicity I'll say think of
it as a line 1240p long that you can lay down shaped, bent, curved, etc. any
way you want.

Our palisade is 6 elements frontage, so that's 360p. We need to leave an
element's space on either side to abide by terrain placement restrictions, so
that's another 120p for a total of 480p.

So our open space starts as a 480p line in front of where we want the palisade
to go. That leaves us 1240-480 = 760p to work with.

On either flank of the palisade we need 40p (the width of the palisade, though
this could actually be as little as 10p), plus an element's width in front and
behind. Thats 40+60+60 = 160. We need this on either flank, so we'v used
another 320p.

That leaves us 760-320 = 440p.

So finally we have two 220p segments coming in from the rear corners along the
back of our ditched palisade. The total length of the line here is 480p. So
480-220-200 = 40, the amount of space not covered by our open space loop.

Since 40p is less than an element (60p), no other terrain pick can intrude in
here to disrupt our "safe zone" for the ditched palisade.

The moral of the story: if you want a forward placed TF, you can't just hope for
it; you have to proactively pick terrain that creates a space for it.


-Mark Stone

[Larry Essick]

> Larry I snipped your entire response as it generally conceeds my
> point of game mechanic gerymandering in order to overcome a logical
> conclusion.

Actually Boyd, it appears you miss the entire point.

The rules being discussed only apply to tournament gaming, so
complaining about that aspect is a waste of all of our time.

More importantly, great generals survey the ground before deciding to
fight -- so control of terrain (demonstrated by selecting the right
types and placing them to your advantage) is the first and most
important lesson to learn.

Finally, since nothing is supposed to be placed on or in "open" space,
I would have guessed that the intent of the rules is to disallow this.
However, that is for Jon to answer.

Larry