Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/30/2004 00:30:56 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:
Sorry, Jon, I'm falling off my seat laughing here and just couldn't
resist having a bit of fun on this one. I hope you appreciate the
irony of your statement below, and I remain willing to accept
whatever scathing reply may result. It was worth it!>>

Scathing? I am just glad someone appreciates my humor...lol


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

[John Murphy]

Now, folks, this is a moment that will go down in history!

Sorry, Jon, I'm falling off my seat laughing here and just couldn't
resist having a bit of fun on this one. I hope you appreciate the
irony of your statement below, and I remain willing to accept
whatever scathing reply may result. It was worth it!

Have a nice weekend y'all.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> The idea is so counterintuitive, I suspect I am misunderstanding
the issue
> and am ready to have someone clarify it for me.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> --- On April 29 Wanax Andron said: ---
> [Begin brutish comment]
> Boyd, now you're just whining.

No to you and Jon and Larry.

Let us approach this from a logical and intuitive manner.

First, I as a general survey and pick a battlefield where I can
deploy TF in a forward zone.

Second, The logical place to locate it is open ground.

Third, in order to have to rules accomidate what seems a simple and
obvious placement, I must create a string loop with a whole in it.

Forth, in no way would such a string loop telegraph any indications
to someone with an IQ over 90 that there is a reason for a whole in
my loop in the forward zone.

Fifth, am I the only one who feels this is taking the long road to a
short distance?

Sixth, yes I am concern about this for tactical reasons, obviously
Mark. Why else would I care about a ruling that is decontructive to
a segment of the game?

Seventh, Larry. You piped into my concern with irrelevant data.
Your point was, and I appologize for being blunt, a distraction.
Clearly the TF rules as they stand are for no real purpose other than
to allow balance where none is needed. All the squack about
attackers always loosing and no one want to play such a game is
nonsense. Many many times I've defeated and been defeated at the
walls. This game is far too intricate to make bold assertions based
on feelings.

Eighth, I never said the game was broken Mark, nor did I seek to
change what cannot be undone. I expressed by opinion, which in the
greater scheme of this debate is worthless (also my opinion), and do
not appologize. It is a mystery to me how anyone can accept the
irrational way in which we develop "work-arounds" when they answer is
so obvious.

Ninth, no Jon I'm less concerned about the gaps in the wall, though
ahistorical, than I am about the need to preclude a *very* intuitive
and natural TF placement. If you say it is terrain, so be it. I
think very strongly that this is a mistake, sorry.

In other words, the logic that stops me placing TF in the open is
counterintuitive and thus creates a process where none is needed.

Finally, I am not whining, I do not have a beef with Jon or anyone
else, and it is unfair of someone to assume an emotional context to a
posting, announce it as fact and expect it to be so. If you need to
know my emotional state, then just image me with a look of comtempt.
I'm sure I will get over it.

boyd

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> --- On April 29 Wanax Andron said: ---
> 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

Yeah, right. I'm talking 3 TF in the forward zone here Mark. Wonder
what that loop will look like?

boyd

[Larry Essick]

> Seventh, Larry. You piped into my concern with irrelevant data.
> Your point was, and I appologize for being blunt, a distraction.

:-) Sorry to have distracted you, Boyd. I simply said that you are
looking in the wrong places for the solution to your problem -- a
point Mark echoed in a more elaborate message on terrain selection.

I initially felt as you do that Jon was wrong for insisting on leaving
the 40p gap between TF and terrain (or other TF). But, I recognized
that Jon is unlikely to change the rules and that there is a logic to
them.

Instead of working at finding fault, I recommended to you that you
consider your terrain selections. You seem fixated on "open space" as
the terrain choice. IMO that is the wrong perspective.

You haven't spent any time at all considering hills, rises, gulleys,
woods, brushy/rocky ground.... But, some of these allow you to
superimpose terrain -- and by implication, TF.

If you stop fixating on what you think is the only solution, you might
see ways to take the advice Mark and I provided and make it work to
your advantage.

Larry

BTW, Jon, in superimposing terrain on previously placed terrain
pieces -- do I have to match and/or stay inside the footprint of the
first piece? Or, can I cover a portion of the first piece and extend
the footprint of the second terrain item outside the boundaries of the
first?

Poor ASCII example:

H=hill, the original terrain
B=brush, the terrain to lay over the top of the hill

Can a hill

HHHHH
HHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHH
HHHHHH

become

HHHBBBBBBBBBB
HHHHBBBBBBBBBBBB
HHHHHBBBBBBBBBBB
HHHHHBBBBBBBB
HHHHBBBBBB

or must the original hill remain hidden under the brush as

BBBBB
BBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBB
BBBBBB

or perhaps as

HBBBH
HBBBBBBBH
HBBBBBBBBBH
HBBBBBBBH
HBBBBH

Thanks,

Larry

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/30/2004 9:14:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
spocksleftball@... writes:

> Ninth, no Jon I'm less concerned about the gaps in the wall, though
> ahistorical, than I am about the need to preclude a *very* intuitive
> and natural TF placement. >>

The good news, Boyd, is that 14.0 is not a rule and gives me some extra wiggle
room for improvement when we do the new rule book. But the intent - that the
basic standard game set up in 14.0 that uses terrain placement does not permit
over half the board to be closed down unless the opponent cooperates - will
remain.

If you say it is terrain, so be
> it. I
> think very strongly that this is a mistake, sorry.>>

I will point out that TFs are terrain in 7th, too, fwiw. :)

J

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/30/2004 9:21:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
spocksleftball@... writes:

> Yeah, right. I'm talking 3 TF in the forward zone here
> Mark. Wonder
> what that loop will look like?>>

Just to be clear (and I am not entering the 'loop debate'..lol) there is no list
that permits more than 2 sections of TF in the forward zone.

J

Way ahead of you Larry. I've already moved on. :)

boyd

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, <larryessick@b...> wrote:
> If you stop fixating on what you think is the only solution, you
might
> see ways to take the advice Mark and I provided and make it work to
> your advantage.
>
> Larry

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/30/2004 9:14:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
spocksleftball@y... writes:
> The good news, Boyd, is that 14.0 is not a rule and gives me some
extra wiggle room for improvement when we do the new rule book. But
the intent - that the basic standard game set up in 14.0 that uses
terrain placement does not permit over half the board to be closed
down unless the opponent cooperates - will remain.


Jon, I've moved on to greener pastures. :)

I'm just expressing my shock at the apparent difficulty imposed on
something so simple and logical as emplacing ditches.

boyd

[Doug]

>First, I as a general survey and pick a battlefield where I can
>deploy TF in a forward zone.

You have a rather high opinion of your generalship, to presume that
you will always be able to pick your battlefield location.

& without recourse to the rules, I have to ask what's stopping anyone
from building TF within terrain? Just because its wooded, or rough,
or rocky, or hilly, should not stop the Roman soldier from digging
ditches & stacking logs.

And logically, constructing the TF takes a lot of time, and would
probably have been noticed by the enemy the day before or during the
night (by the sounds & torches). So shouldn't TF be the very first
thing laid onto the table?
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well
regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to
arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state." --
Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights
of the People," -- later adopted by the Virginia ratification
convention, 1788

This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains
information that may be privileged, confidential or copyrighted under
applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-mail,
in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender
by return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. Unless
explicitly and conspicuously designated as "E-Contract Intended",
this e-mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment,
or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-mail does not constitute
a consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing
purposes or for transfers of data to third parties.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/30/2004 9:38:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
larryessick@... writes:

> BTW, Jon, in superimposing terrain on previously placed terrain
> pieces -- do I have to match and/or stay inside the footprint of the
> first piece? Or, can I cover a portion of the first piece and extend
> the footprint of the second terrain item outside the
> boundaries of the
> first?>>

Sorry this is late - didn't know there was a question at the end of this mail.
If a mail is not marked 'rules' or 'rules questions', I make no guarantee that I
will catch a buried question.

As long as both features are of a legal size and legally placed, they do not
have to have identical 'footprints'. Of course this is only if using 14.3
exactly as written.

J