Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Diagram came out fine in my mail.

Nothing about 6.53 is at issue here as the gap (minimum distance) is at the
bottom of the V of A and B and Z does not enter it to charge either. If there
is room to fit after pivoting and lining up, Z could charge either A or B
frontally without ever needing any part of 6.53.

If this caused you guys a huge debate in some game, I am sorry. I do not see
why and neither do the vast majority of the members of this list.

[joncleaves]

Yeah, I am looking at language about when you don't have to line up becuase you
can't. Let me know what you think when you read the draft.

Not a train wreck though, as it has been played the way it is written for years
without any wrecking trains.

[Harlan Garrett]

Jon:
 
Please do us a favor, walk us through (citing rules) how you would resolve this charge:
 
<<<Each letter represents one figure>>>
 
unit Z wants to charge either unit A or B.
 
Example 1a.
 

             ZZZ
             ZZZ
 
 
   AA                 BB
     AA            BB
       AA       BB
         AA  BB
 
Unit A - 2 elements of 4 figures
Unit B - 2 elements of 4 figures
Unit Z - 2 elements of 3 figures
 
 Example 1b
 
                     ZZZ
                    ZZZ
 
 
   AA                                  BB
     AA                             BB
       AA                         BB
         AA                     BB
           AA                BB
             AA           BB
               AA      BB
                 AA BB
 
Unit A - 4 elements of 4 figures
Unit B - 4 elements of 4 figures
Unit Z - 2 elements of 3 figures
 
 
In case the text does not come out perfectly, unit Z is dead center between unit A and B in both examples and units A and B are in a perfect "V" or "Reverse Wedge".
 
Harlan D. Garrett

HarlanG@AirMail.Net (Home)
 

How do you see this requiring 6.53? There is no third body there ZZZ is trying to charge. This is a case of can ZZZ hit the flank of either unit or failing that can it fit into the space created by the V in a frontal charge.

----- Original Message -----
From: Harlan D. Garrett
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 10:43 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] V Gap

Jon:
 
Please do us a favor, walk us through (citing rules) how you would resolve this charge:
 
<<<Each letter represents one figure>>>
 
unit Z wants to charge either unit A or B.
 
Example 1a.
 

             ZZZ
             ZZZ
 
 
   AA                 BB
     AA            BB
       AA       BB
         AA  BB
 
Unit A - 2 elements of 4 figures
Unit B - 2 elements of 4 figures
Unit Z - 2 elements of 3 figures
 
 Example 1b
 
                     ZZZ
                    ZZZ
 
 
   AA                                  BB
     AA                             BB
       AA                         BB
         AA                     BB
           AA                BB
             AA           BB
               AA      BB
                 AA BB
 
Unit A - 4 elements of 4 figures
Unit B - 4 elements of 4 figures
Unit Z - 2 elements of 3 figures
 
 
In case the text does not come out perfectly, unit Z is dead center between unit A and B in both examples and units A and B are in a perfect "V" or "Reverse Wedge".
 
Harlan D. Garrett

HarlanG@AirMail.Net (Home)
 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Greg Regets]

I no longer have a problem with the gap issue, however I do feel that the need to fully line up in order to validate a charge is a train wreck waiting to happen. I would still suggest that Jon and his group consider allowing a charge to not line up ONLY if it can't. This would remove all the cans of worms about people that just don't want to line up. If they possibly could, they would HAVE TO!.
G

-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@aol.com [mailto:JonCleaves@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 11:28 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] V Gap


Diagram came out fine in my mail.

Nothing about 6.53 is at issue here as the gap (minimum distance) is at the bottom of the V of A and B and Z does not enter it to charge either.  If there is room to fit after pivoting and lining up, Z could charge either A or B frontally without ever needing any part of 6.53. 
If this caused you guys a huge debate in some game, I am sorry.  I do not see why and neither do the vast majority of the members of this list.


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

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Greg Regets]

Once Again Jon ... that is because you have Scott as an umpire and he does not allow it! Please Jon, stop using your group to devalue thoughts from the fringes. We do not have the luxury of a Scott Holder to attend to these issues in our area. This is why we came to the conclusion we did about the gap in the first place.
Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@aol.com [mailto:JonCleaves@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 12:19 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] V Gap


Yeah, I am looking at language about when you don't have to line up becuase you can't.  Let me know what you think when you read the draft.
Not a train wreck though, as it has been played the way it is written for years without any wrecking trains.

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

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Don Coon]

I agree.  The cleaned up 6.53 is clear on how to resolve this.
 
Don


How do you see this requiring 6.53? There is no third body there ZZZ is trying to charge. This is a case of can ZZZ hit the flank of either unit or failing that can it fit into the space created by the V in a frontal charge.

----- Original Message -----
From: Harlan D. Garrett
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 10:43 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] V Gap

Jon:
 
Please do us a favor, walk us through (citing rules) how you would resolve this charge:
 
<<<Each letter represents one figure>>>
 
unit Z wants to charge either unit A or B.
 
Example 1a.
 

             ZZZ
             ZZZ
 
 
   AA                 BB
     AA            BB
       AA       BB
         AA  BB
 
Unit A - 2 elements of 4 figures
Unit B - 2 elements of 4 figures
Unit Z - 2 elements of 3 figures
 

[Don Coon]

> Yeah, I am looking at language about when you don't have to line up
becuase you can't. Let me know what you think when you read the draft.
>
> Not a train wreck though, as it has been played the way it is written for
years without any wrecking trains.

This is the fundamental thing that places us at odds. You say it is played
as written. I say it is not as it is written poorly. You all know how to
play so well, you forget to read the written word. New players only have
the written word to go by. You play correctly, Scott rules correctly, and
no one seems to care if the language of the rule supports your play and
rulings. That is frustrating to us.

Don

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/6/2001 17:56:06 Central Daylight Time,
greg@... writes:

<< Once Again Jon ... that is because you have Scott as an umpire and he does
not allow it! Please Jon, stop using your group to devalue thoughts from the
fringes. We do not have the luxury of a Scott Holder to attend to these
issues in our area. This is why we came to the conclusion we did about the
gap in the first place. >>

I am not anything like what you say above.

I didn't devalue any thoughts, but you must realize you area vocal minority
totally dictating the pace of rules completion to the rest of the Warrior
community. That is the impact of me having to deal with a picture of gaps
across the fronts fo shoulders - something never done that I have heard of
and which has ALWAYS been against the rules.

[Patrick Byrne]

Jon,
As playtesters, we think(verb) the rules from various points. It is imparitive
for us to read the rules from points even originating 'outside the box'. We
spend our time doing this so that we may assist you in coming up with a singular
set of rules that is as close to CRYSTAL CLEAR as possible (This is your goal
isn't it?).

Look at this situation another way: YOU are trying to define the yellow lines
on
the Highway of Warrior. WE try to do what we can to get outside those lines.
We
then let you know if we succeed or if we fail or even if we crash (crashing due
to rules conflicts).

So when I read your reply,"...something never done that I have heard of..." I
feel proud that we've broken new ground, but when you say... "and which has
ALWAYS been against the rules," I get upset that you are wasting your efforts
siting and comparing the old rules we've forgotten to your Warrior 'draft copy'.

In short, if you are playing at a tournament and someone is trying to do
something that is against your interpretations but is supported by the rules,
please don't forget what this vocal minority was trying to accomplish.

I look forward to your publication.
-PB


JonCleaves@... wrote:

> In a message dated 7/6/2001 17:56:06 Central Daylight Time,
> greg@... writes:
>
> << Once Again Jon ... that is because you have Scott as an umpire and he does
> not allow it! Please Jon, stop using your group to devalue thoughts from the
> fringes. We do not have the luxury of a Scott Holder to attend to these
> issues in our area. This is why we came to the conclusion we did about the
> gap in the first place. >>
>
> I am not anything like what you say above.
>
> I didn't devalue any thoughts, but you must realize you area vocal minority
> totally dictating the pace of rules completion to the rest of the Warrior
> community. That is the impact of me having to deal with a picture of gaps
> across the fronts fo shoulders - something never done that I have heard of
> and which has ALWAYS been against the rules.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Patrick Byrne]

I'm splicing two emails here that go along one continuity line so bear with
me...
see my additive comments below...

<<#3a. The routing unit can not pass through the gap and must wait for the gap
to widen or a unit to interpenetrate.>>
>Routing units must apply 6.32. They never wait for a gap to 'widen'. Where
did that come from?<

Rules 6.53 and 6.32 with regards to routing do not jive. I would post what I
think the rules should say but I'm tired of being ignored or reading posts that
inciutate I'm not reading the rules right.
We know you think nothing is wrong with the rules as written. So go ahead and
publish the rules.
I am sorry to say the we will have many questions and will have to play with an
interp of the rules for routing through gaps.

Don Wrote:

> >> Not a train wreck though, as it has been played the way it is written for
> years without any wrecking trains.<<
>
> This is the fundamental thing that places us at odds. You say it is played
> as written. I say it is not as it is written poorly. You all know how to
> play so well, you forget to read the written word. New players only have
> the written word to go by. You play correctly, Scott rules correctly, and
> no one seems to care if the language of the rule supports your play and
> rulings. That is frustrating to us.
>
> Don

To add what Don is saying...
Whats more frustrating is that for two people to play the game they will have
to agreed on what they *think* you are intending with certain aspect of the
rules.
But the most frustrating thing about all of this is that I know that when we go
to Historicon and play, Scott Holder will rule that our understanding of the
rules is incorrect.


I look forward to your publication like teens looking forward to the next Harry
Potter book, or better yet, as young women look forward to an N'Sync concert.
-PB

[joncleaves]

You are not being ignored. I have been in the game business for 28 years and
have never heard of a game designer spending time with a single issue the way
we do. Ignored is silence.
Ignored is not incorporating Don's or Pat's or Greg's etc. comments into a
clarified 6.53.
Ignored is rules written the way the designer wants and not the way the
players want. But of course all players will not agree and so the designer
must choose. Typically, without direct historical evidence or mechanical
need, I choose the majority view.

It is frustrating as hell to be putting the rules at full stop to work on
gaps alone for TWO WEEKS straight mere days out from HCon and then be accused
of ignoring people.

It would be easier if we just stuck to recommended fixes and trusted our
decision making process. Now that would be something.

As an example of my frustration, nothing Scott has ever done at Historicon
makes the distance at the top of the V minimum. No amount of claims of hard
work at playtesting can make that minimum. In fact, absolutely nothing about
that V invokes 6.53 in any way, and it never has and a vast majority of
players, LIKE IT OR NOT and including myself, has no idea how anyone can make
the line between the two endpoints of the V the minimum distance between
those two bodies. Yet I spent hours answering emails and trying to
understand how on earth that could be the minimum distance between anything.

And if any of you guys think the final version of Warrior will cover every
conceivable situation that could arise in hundreds of games in three scales
with 300 armies and infinite terrain combinations, you are mistaken. At some
point, best will be the enemy of good enough. I, like you, am trying to keep
that point from arriving too soon, but I do have to perform some amount of
task triage.

What I originally considered doing was reply with this email:

"V issue: not min distance - not gap."

and then ignoring other posts on the V issue.

You have your choice: what I have been doing, or that.

But if you choose what I have been doing, please don't accuse me of devaluing
or ignoring the issue. And don't expect the rules done soon.

Jon

[joncleaves]

May the Lord bless and keep you Roger. :)

If you are not going to supply your version of what you propose the
rule should be, at least explain where the two are at odds. I've just
reread the two and cannot see the problem. Especially regarding a
routing body waiting for a two element space to open up.

In a world where our president can quibble on the definition of 'is',
what hope does Jon have of satisfying 100% of the readers.

[Don Coon]

> If you are not going to supply your version of what you propose the
> rule should be, at least explain where the two are at odds. I've just
> reread the two and cannot see the problem. Especially regarding a
> routing body waiting for a two element space to open up.

Here is the apparent conondrum. Body A is parallel to its rear table edge
and (1X2 HC) must rout to its rear. Parallel to its rear are two friendly
1X2 HI bodies 80p distant. These two bodies are 119p apart. Body A is dead
center in this 119p separation. Now Body A looks back and prepares to rout.
It sees the 119p opening, but can not go through it because 6.53 says a gap
to be routed through must be 2 elements wide. So what is body A to do? It
must rout straight away from enemy, but the gap prevents it, it must rout
toward its table edge but the gap prevents it, it must interpentrate
friends, but there are none to do that to. Do you think unit A wheels into
its 2 friends? What does it do? We play that it routs straight back
through the 119p gap, but that is obviously a violation of the written rule.

I think the problem is that the 2 element gap statement is only supposed to
apply to gap a routing body is trying to deviate to get to.

The wording maybe should be something like: a routing body may not deviate
to pass a gap smaller than 2 elements. A routing body may rout through a
gap of at least 1 element if it does not have to deviate to do so.

Don