Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Don, Steve, et al.

I am working it. Just haven't gotten through the pile to that one. However
the exact words come out:

-turning away in an evade/rout is not turning in a tac move
-you won't be able to extend the distance between you and the enemy by turning

Jon

[Don Coon]

Ok Steve now I have my rules, and I can see the problem. My eveades
section still has redlines in it that Jon has not adopted. Given your
questions, I feel my redlines are inadequate as well.

I propose a change to 6.166 Evade moves as follows

"An evade move...in the direction just moved. The turn to the bodies
rear or the turn away from the chargers is free and does not count as
a manuever. The evading body must maintain its original shape after
this turn unless elements have to be dropped back to fit. After this
free turn the evading body must be no further away from the charging
body than before the turn. Elements dropped back are dropped back
towards the chargers shortening the distance between the two bodies.
Both a charge against evaders...combat can not evade."

Then a nice picture of a 3X2 body being charged at a 75 degree angle
would be real nice.

After this picture the same example could be repeated with an obstacle
that the evaders would have to drop elements from.

Also 6.32 needs to be changed to reflect this too.

Reword 6.32 The rout path to "the rout path...gap (6.53) between
them. The broken body turns directly away from the enemy that broke
or charged them. This turn is free and does not count as a manuever.
The routing body must maintain its original shape after the turn
unless elements have to be dropped back to fit. After this free turn
the routing body must be no further from the enemy that broke or
charged it than before the turn. Elements dropped back are dropped
back towards the body that broke or charged it shortening the distance
between the two bodies. The broken body then follows the rout path.

This is how we have always played (even back in 7th). It would be
nice for the rules to say it though.

Don

Don,

Better and better!

Cheers

Steve


--- In WarriorRules@y..., jjendon@h... wrote:
> Ok Steve now I have my rules, and I can see the problem. My eveades
> section still has redlines in it that Jon has not adopted. Given
your
> questions, I feel my redlines are inadequate as well.
>
> I propose a change to 6.166 Evade moves as follows
>
> "An evade move...in the direction just moved. The turn to the
bodies
> rear or the turn away from the chargers is free and does not count
as
> a manuever. The evading body must maintain its original shape after
> this turn unless elements have to be dropped back to fit. After
this
> free turn the evading body must be no further away from the charging
> body than before the turn. Elements dropped back are dropped back
> towards the chargers shortening the distance between the two
bodies.
> Both a charge against evaders...combat can not evade."
>
> Then a nice picture of a 3X2 body being charged at a 75 degree angle
> would be real nice.
>
> After this picture the same example could be repeated with an
obstacle
> that the evaders would have to drop elements from.
>
> Also 6.32 needs to be changed to reflect this too.
>
> Reword 6.32 The rout path to "the rout path...gap (6.53) between
> them. The broken body turns directly away from the enemy that broke
> or charged them. This turn is free and does not count as a
manuever.
> The routing body must maintain its original shape after the turn
> unless elements have to be dropped back to fit. After this free
turn
> the routing body must be no further from the enemy that broke or
> charged it than before the turn. Elements dropped back are dropped
> back towards the body that broke or charged it shortening the
distance
> between the two bodies. The broken body then follows the rout path.
>
> This is how we have always played (even back in 7th). It would be
> nice for the rules to say it though.
>
> Don