Warrior Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules
A Four Horsemen Enterprises Rules Set
 
  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups AlbumAlbum   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Skirmish and range/arc

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Rules
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2023 4:37 am    Post subject: Skirmish and range/arc

From an email chain:
That is consistent with what I said - or tried to say.

The rub I think is that the rule has a premise built in that:

A. To be in shooting range presumes a LOS exists.

B. Each element in the body must meet the condition.

Scott M

On Sep 28, 2023, at 11:10 PM, rfkroupa@aol.com wrote:


Nope,

Page 60, Section 6.45, paragraph 4...

A body can adopt skirmish formation only if
it has known enemy in shooting range, OR
if known enemy approaching second could move into the body's shooting range.
No reference regarding arc, line of sight or able to shoot. Just in shooting range. Shooting range is measured from the front rank.


On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 09:35:05 PM EDT, mscottmcd mscottmcd <mscottmcd@aol.com> wrote:


I don’t know if this helps but I’ll give it a shot (so to speak)…

To be in skirmish every element in a unit must meet if moving second (theoretically could meet if moving first):

Be able to shoot.
Each element must, therefore, be able to see a target it can shoot at.

A unit contracting must not be si deep as to preclude its elements from shooting.

For example, a 12 element bow armed unit cannot contract to more than two deep. While it is possible for a third rank of bow to shoot, it can not do so if the second rank shoots.

So what? Big units can be precluded from going into skirmish if only facing a single small unit.

IMHO,
Scott McD

On Sep 28, 2023, at 6:28 PM, Frank Gilson <franktrevorgilson@hotmail.com> wrote:


We interpret the rule to mean Unit C cannot enter skirmish no matter what missile weapon it has…range and Arc.

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 28, 2023, at 2:59 PM, rfkroupa@aol.com wrote:


Let me try again...

What does it mean when you insert the definition of "Shooting Range" in paragraph 1 into the rule of what bodies can adopt skirmish, paragraph 4?

The question really is not about arc. It's about "Shooting Range". Let me try a picture...
In the diagram below Unit X moved 2nd. Unit X is armed with a sling. As drawn Unit X can not be in skirmish because Element A is not in "Shooting Range". As a secondary question, if Unit X were armed with a Bow it can be in skirmish even though Element A can not shoot (out of arc). IF Unit X and Unit Y ended 240 paces apart instead of 120 then Unit X could not be in skirmish because Element A (and the element next to it) are not in shooting range.


<1695936265434blob.jpg>



On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 02:47:21 PM EDT, Frank Gilson <franktrevorgilson@hotmail.com> wrote:


You can be in arc, but not in range.

I suppose you could be in range, but not in arc (something is off your flank or behind you)...However, we interpret this to being able to shoot (thus in arc and in range) for skirmish. Note that if you cannot shoot for another reason, we interpret that you cannot use skirmish (say your body is partly in the water and armed with missiles unable to shoot thusly).

I'm sure we all played it as we wished to for years. Yes, you can shift by 2 element frontage when entering skirmish to help comply.


From: rfkroupa@aol.com <rfkroupa@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 11:22 AM
To: Ewan McNay <ewanmcnay@gmail.com>; mscottmcd mscottmcd <mscottmcd@aol.com>; Scott Holder <scott@dauphinehotel.com>
Cc: Mark Stone <mark.stone@gmail.com>; Todd Kaeser <hailkaeser@yahoo.com>; Robert Turnbull <nasamwne@yahoo.com>; Frank Gilson <franktrevorgilson@hotmail.com>; markowitzda@gmail.com <markowitzda@gmail.com>; Ben Markowitz <benmarkowitz21@gmail.com>; Dan Woyke <dan.woyke@gmail.com>; matt kollmer <dragonsmogg@yahoo.com>; Jevon Garrett <jevongarrett@gmail.com>; Bill Low <blow@pch.com>; Bill Chamis <william.chamis@yahoo.com>; Dave Stier <stierdd@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Woods and Skirmish and Shooting

Page 60, Section 6.45, paragraph 1...

Note that 'in shooting range' in this rule means 'in shooting range of all the body's elements.

Page 60, Section 6.45, paragraph 4...

A body can adopt skirmish formation only if
it has known enemy in shooting range, OR
if known enemy approaching second could move into the body's shooting range.
What does it mean when you insert the definition of paragraph 1 into the rule of paragraph 4?
I think we have been playing this wrong for ~25 years. When going into skirmish you can extend/drop elements to assist with compliance (even in Todd's original example), but we have never done that. I have seen numerous times a 12 element Irregular unit two ranks deep where the far end of the unit had no targets in range yet it was in skirmish. I also find it puzzling that Arc of Fire is not mentioned in rule 6.45.


On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 12:46:03 AM EDT, mscottmcd mscottmcd <mscottmcd@aol.com> wrote:


Correct
IMHO, Scott McD

On Sep 27, 2023, at 10:10 PM, Ewan McNay <ewanmcnay@gmail.com> wrote:


I don't think that this is the case. The issue with corners is one of line of sight, not range. The element is in range, and shooting eligibility only requires that both corners of the element can draw a line to the target that doesn't have a visibility obstacle; *not* that both corners of the element be within the shooting range.

On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 9:23 PM Mark Stone <mark.stone@gmail.com> wrote:


On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 6:09 PM mscottmcd@aol.com <mscottmcd@aol.com> wrote:
Two element units...

Yeah, about that. Your 2 element JLS unit, opposing an enemy 2 element JLS unit, had better be perfectly aligned with the opposing unit, otherwise you'll have a corner that is more than 40p away and thus you can't be in skirmish.

Warrior is an abstraction, which on occasion introduces simplicity -- or at least clarity -- of game play in lieu of realism. We shouldn't be asking "is Warrior realistic when compared to history?" We should be asking "is Warrior realistic when compared to other tabletop miniatures systems?" I have no doubt that we come out well ahead of the competition in that regard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2023 4:51 am    Post subject: arc? entitled?

It's pretty clear we don't mean 8.4 Figures Entitled to Shoot when we restrict skirmishing, otherwise troops in the back ranks who can't shoot would prevent skirmishing.

8.6 Shooting Ranges doesn't mention arc.

I'll have to leave it up to Mr. Holder for exactly how this is to work.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6028
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2023 11:13 am    Post subject:

I've plowed thru this and my initial reaction was that of Frank and Scott McD. It still is until Frank points out how 8.4 can factor into this. Frank, would you provide an example to illustrate what your trying to say vis a vis this discussion and 8.4?

It will also help if we look at a diagram Rich provided with the following text:

In the diagram below Unit X moved 2nd. Unit X is armed with a sling. As drawn Unit X can not be in skirmish because Element A is not in "Shooting Range". As a secondary question, if Unit X were armed with a Bow it can be in skirmish even though Element A can not shoot (out of arc). IF Unit X and Unit Y ended 240 paces apart instead of 120 then Unit X could not be in skirmish because Element A (and the element next to it) are not in shooting range.



Both Frank and Scott McD's responses above are to that and again, I'm inclined to agree with them.

I look at this somewhat from a meta position in that Skirmish is defined as a shooting formation although everybody generally thinks of it and uses it as a defensive formation (myself included). Given that it's a shooting formation, then it needs to shoot and if it can't meet the criteria, it can't be in the formation.

One other thing that I haven't dived into, have we ever gone thru this mental exercise before? I haven't searched in here for any possible previous posts on the subject that might help inform a decision.

scott
[/img]

_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2023 5:53 am    Post subject: 8.4 Figures Entitled to Shoot

Ok, so 8.4 states that Figures Entitled to Shoot must be:
"within arc, in range, and in a rank entitled to shoot"

We should not use this to govern skirmish, given that it would prevent any deep skirmishing bodies we currently see and I believe are fine with.

6.45 Skirmish does not mention Arc, as Rich notes...thus a strict reading would permit his diagram to skirmish even if partly out of arc.

I believe that out of range AND/OR out of arc should govern skirmish, but not 'rank entitled'.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Rules All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group