Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Guys, and Don especially:

It seems that although I can make my intent clear with an answer to a rules
question about it, the whole 'fit' part of 6.163/6.165 is still causing
problems. Could I get a volunteer or two to take a look at that section and
recommend a way to 'resay' it for the next clarification update? I am 'too
close to the problem' it seems.

[Greg Regets]

To me, "Fit" and "Lining up" needed to be treated as two seperate things, as
they in fact are. You don't want to allow things to charge that don't "Fit" but
at the same time lumping the two together makes it sound like things can't
charge if they can't line up.

Fit - This needs to be used for things like friends that are in the way, for
example if two units are facing each other 50p apart and a unit of 2-deep
cavalry off to the side wants to charge one of the units. He does not "Fit"
because he is 60p deep and the space is only 50p.

Lining Up - This should say something like, "Charging elements must make every
attempt to line up at the end of charge movement. If they are not able to line
up, use rule 6.165 for resolution."

As an aside, 6.165 where chargers that can't line up pull the enemy to line up
with them is becoming a HUGE problem in our area. It is being used to pull units
out of positions where gaps were left for other units to charge through, the fit
(lining up) requirements being used to then make the gap too small. I remember
talking about this when you were working the rules and the suggestion was given
that the chargers do all the lining up IF THEY COULD, otherwise you work it out
when the units next move. I know a few of our games have been decided by the way
the attacker can "pull" the units around the board with the fit requirements.
It's not that hard to do if you put your mind to it. It does get you called all
sorts of slimmy names though!!!

Thanks ... Greg



----- Original Message -----
From: JonCleaves@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 10:33 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] RULES Looking for some help.


Guys, and Don especially:

It seems that although I can make my intent clear with an answer to a rules
question about it, the whole 'fit' part of 6.163/6.165 is still causing
problems. Could I get a volunteer or two to take a look at that section and
recommend a way to 'resay' it for the next clarification update? I am 'too
close to the problem' it seems.

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



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



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

[joncleaves]

<<As an aside, 6.165 where chargers that can't line up pull the enemy to line up
with them is becoming a HUGE problem in our area. It is being used to pull units
out of positions where gaps were left for other units to charge through, the fit
(lining up) requirements being used to then make the gap too small.>>

This can only happen where the enemy battle line isn't a line but a lot of
bodies canted at all sorts of angles and overlaps. Warrior is designed to
permit an aggressive player to punish these sorts of ahistorical 'defenses'.
The 'puller' isn't the slimy one. The guy who is trying to hide one unit 2
microns behind the edge of another or have stuff all 'side-angled' at the
opponent like that diagram you sent me. The 'pulling' of 6.165 can't be done to
a proper line of troops. If you want to have a lot of little attack columns
running around, beware...
And 6.165 kills that V thing off as well, praise the Lord.

<< I know a few of our games have been decided by the way the attacker can
"pull" the units around the board with the fit requirements.>>

They were apparently decided by the less agressive player having a disjointed
line of battle.

[Greg Regets]

I will send you a diagram offline that will show you what I mean.

Thanks ... G
----- Original Message -----
From: JonCleaves@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] RULES Looking for some help.


<<As an aside, 6.165 where chargers that can't line up pull the enemy to line
up with them is becoming a HUGE problem in our area. It is being used to pull
units out of positions where gaps were left for other units to charge through,
the fit (lining up) requirements being used to then make the gap too small.>>

This can only happen where the enemy battle line isn't a line but a lot of
bodies canted at all sorts of angles and overlaps. Warrior is designed to
permit an aggressive player to punish these sorts of ahistorical 'defenses'.
The 'puller' isn't the slimy one. The guy who is trying to hide one unit 2
microns behind the edge of another or have stuff all 'side-angled' at the
opponent like that diagram you sent me. The 'pulling' of 6.165 can't be done to
a proper line of troops. If you want to have a lot of little attack columns
running around, beware...
And 6.165 kills that V thing off as well, praise the Lord.

<< I know a few of our games have been decided by the way the attacker can
"pull" the units around the board with the fit requirements.>>

They were apparently decided by the less agressive player having a disjointed
line of battle.



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



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



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

[Patrick Byrne]

Also, the last unit in a line of troops could be pulled off this way. Not
only might it effect a gap to charge through, but it also effects prolonging
the front and support shooting.

The way I see it, the army with the more ahistorical set-up (little units
here and there) have a better chance at pulling the enemy units around as
they are more mobile and have a better chance to line up accordingly.


Not that I'm saying this is bad.
-PB


> From: JonCleaves@...
> Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:39:54 -0400
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] RULES Looking for some help.
>
> <<As an aside, 6.165 where chargers that can't line up pull the enemy to line
> up with them is becoming a HUGE problem in our area. It is being used to pull
> units out of positions where gaps were left for other units to charge through,
> the fit (lining up) requirements being used to then make the gap too small.>>
>
> This can only happen where the enemy battle line isn't a line but a lot of
> bodies canted at all sorts of angles and overlaps. Warrior is designed to
> permit an aggressive player to punish these sorts of ahistorical 'defenses'.
> The 'puller' isn't the slimy one. The guy who is trying to hide one unit 2
> microns behind the edge of another or have stuff all 'side-angled' at the
> opponent like that diagram you sent me. The 'pulling' of 6.165 can't be done
> to a proper line of troops. If you want to have a lot of little attack
> columns running around, beware...
> And 6.165 kills that V thing off as well, praise the Lord.
>
> << I know a few of our games have been decided by the way the attacker can
> "pull" the units around the board with the fit requirements.>>
>
> They were apparently decided by the less agressive player having a disjointed
> line of battle.
>
>

[joncleaves]

Ok, let's be clear: 90% of the time, the charger is doing the lining up.

The other 10% of the time, the 'defender's' own troops are postioned in such a
way that a part of a charge target is 'covered' by a body friendly to the
target.

There are two ways to go with this: favor the defender and favor the attacker.

We chose to favor the attacker.

Why?
1. Militarily, aggressive forces tend to have the initiative and we
philosophically feel they should not be penalized for being so.
2. Ancient/medieval battles tended towards an initially formed battle line.
Once that battle line started to break up, the less agressive side tended to get
run down by the attacker. This is an historical simulation. Therefore...

We also found in playtesting this that the vast majority of times this came up
(i.e. all), the 'defending' side was trying to finess little angles and
exposures and gaps and the 'attacking' side was slamming his battleline home at
some key point on the battlefield. In the confusion of a real battle, two large
groups of troops hacking at each other would not have the ability to stay
dress-right-dress to permit a friendly unit to grease through a carefully
measured gap. That, in our opinion, is the unrealistic tactic, not the concept
of 'pulling'.

J

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Jon, What about troops defending in terrain such as
woods or behind a minor river? Or for that matter,
troops such as taborites defending in Wagons or behind
a ditch or behind a palisade. Or for that matter
Achemenid footmen who have planted their pavise as an
obstacle?

Respectfully,


Kelly Wilkinson
--- JonCleaves@... wrote:
> Ok, let's be clear: 90% of the time, the charger is
> doing the lining up.
>
> The other 10% of the time, the 'defender's' own
> troops are postioned in such a way that a part of a
> charge target is 'covered' by a body friendly to the
> target.
>
> There are two ways to go with this: favor the
> defender and favor the attacker.
>
> We chose to favor the attacker.
>
> Why?
> 1. Militarily, aggressive forces tend to have the
> initiative and we philosophically feel they should
> not be penalized for being so.
> 2. Ancient/medieval battles tended towards an
> initially formed battle line. Once that battle line
> started to break up, the less agressive side tended
> to get run down by the attacker. This is an
> historical simulation. Therefore...
>
> We also found in playtesting this that the vast
> majority of times this came up (i.e. all), the
> 'defending' side was trying to finess little angles
> and exposures and gaps and the 'attacking' side was
> slamming his battleline home at some key point on
> the battlefield. In the confusion of a real battle,
> two large groups of troops hacking at each other
> would not have the ability to stay dress-right-dress
> to permit a friendly unit to grease through a
> carefully measured gap. That, in our opinion, is
> the unrealistic tactic, not the concept of
> 'pulling'.
>
> J
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

Don't forget elephants in orb with LMI B detachments
boyd

--- kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@...> wrote:
> Jon, What about troops defending in terrain such as
> woods or behind a minor river? Or for that matter,
> troops such as taborites defending in Wagons or
> behind
> a ditch or behind a palisade. Or for that matter
> Achemenid footmen who have planted their pavise as
> an
> obstacle?
>
> Respectfully,
>
>
> Kelly Wilkinson
> --- JonCleaves@... wrote:
> > Ok, let's be clear: 90% of the time, the charger
> is
> > doing the lining up.
> >
> > The other 10% of the time, the 'defender's' own
> > troops are postioned in such a way that a part of
> a
> > charge target is 'covered' by a body friendly to
> the
> > target.
> >
> > There are two ways to go with this: favor the
> > defender and favor the attacker.
> >
> > We chose to favor the attacker.
> >
> > Why?
> > 1. Militarily, aggressive forces tend to have the
> > initiative and we philosophically feel they should
> > not be penalized for being so.
> > 2. Ancient/medieval battles tended towards an
> > initially formed battle line. Once that battle
> line
> > started to break up, the less agressive side
> tended
> > to get run down by the attacker. This is an
> > historical simulation. Therefore...
> >
> > We also found in playtesting this that the vast
> > majority of times this came up (i.e. all), the
> > 'defending' side was trying to finess little
> angles
> > and exposures and gaps and the 'attacking' side
> was
> > slamming his battleline home at some key point on
> > the battlefield. In the confusion of a real
> battle,
> > two large groups of troops hacking at each other
> > would not have the ability to stay
> dress-right-dress
> > to permit a friendly unit to grease through a
> > carefully measured gap. That, in our opinion, is
> > the unrealistic tactic, not the concept of
> > 'pulling'.
> >
> > J
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
> http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
>


=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Boyd,
I'm not trying to be silly. My question is a
serious one.

Kelly
--- Wanax Andron <vercengetorix@...> wrote:
> Don't forget elephants in orb with LMI B detachments
> boyd
>
> --- kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@...> wrote:
> > Jon, What about troops defending in terrain such
> as
> > woods or behind a minor river? Or for that matter,
> > troops such as taborites defending in Wagons or
> > behind
> > a ditch or behind a palisade. Or for that matter
> > Achemenid footmen who have planted their pavise as
> > an
> > obstacle?
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> >
> > Kelly Wilkinson
> > --- JonCleaves@... wrote:
> > > Ok, let's be clear: 90% of the time, the charger
> > is
> > > doing the lining up.
> > >
> > > The other 10% of the time, the 'defender's' own
> > > troops are postioned in such a way that a part
> of
> > a
> > > charge target is 'covered' by a body friendly to
> > the
> > > target.
> > >
> > > There are two ways to go with this: favor the
> > > defender and favor the attacker.
> > >
> > > We chose to favor the attacker.
> > >
> > > Why?
> > > 1. Militarily, aggressive forces tend to have
> the
> > > initiative and we philosophically feel they
> should
> > > not be penalized for being so.
> > > 2. Ancient/medieval battles tended towards an
> > > initially formed battle line. Once that battle
> > line
> > > started to break up, the less agressive side
> > tended
> > > to get run down by the attacker. This is an
> > > historical simulation. Therefore...
> > >
> > > We also found in playtesting this that the vast
> > > majority of times this came up (i.e. all), the
> > > 'defending' side was trying to finess little
> > angles
> > > and exposures and gaps and the 'attacking' side
> > was
> > > slamming his battleline home at some key point
> on
> > > the battlefield. In the confusion of a real
> > battle,
> > > two large groups of troops hacking at each other
> > > would not have the ability to stay
> > dress-right-dress
> > > to permit a friendly unit to grease through a
> > > carefully measured gap. That, in our opinion,
> is
> > > the unrealistic tactic, not the concept of
> > > 'pulling'.
> > >
> > > J
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
> > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
> >
>
>
> =====
> Wake up and smell the Assyrians
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
> http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

I understand that Kelly, but that does not preclude my
being joyous and myrthful having returned once again
from the war unscathed.

I...er...withdraw my orbing elephant adendum as a
point of order, recognizing that Kelly has the floor.

boyd

--- kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@...> wrote:
> Boyd,
> I'm not trying to be silly. My question is a
> serious one.


=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

[joncleaves]

Obstacles are terrain (6.71) and you can't be 'lined up' out of them.

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Nor does it speak to obstacles such as those from Achemenid footmen
place in the ground as an obstacle. I appreciate your reply Greg, it
really clears up the terain issue for me.

Kelly

[Greg Regets]

6.165 under the section labeled "Lining Up":

"Targets of charges in non-open terrain may not be forced to line up in such a
way that they no longer get the full advantage of the terrain they enjoyed in
their pre-charge position."

This of course says nothing about stakes, wagons, etc ... or of course elephants
in orb with LMI B detachements ... ;-)

Anyway, happy gaming ... G
----- Original Message -----
From: kelly wilkinson
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] RULES Looking for some help.


Boyd,
I'm not trying to be silly. My question is a
serious one.

Kelly
--- Wanax Andron <vercengetorix@...> wrote:
> Don't forget elephants in orb with LMI B detachments
> boyd
>
> --- kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@...> wrote:
> > Jon, What about troops defending in terrain such
> as
> > woods or behind a minor river? Or for that matter,
> > troops such as taborites defending in Wagons or
> > behind
> > a ditch or behind a palisade. Or for that matter
> > Achemenid footmen who have planted their pavise as
> > an
> > obstacle?
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> >
> > Kelly Wilkinson
> > --- JonCleaves@... wrote:
> > > Ok, let's be clear: 90% of the time, the charger
> > is
> > > doing the lining up.
> > >
> > > The other 10% of the time, the 'defender's' own
> > > troops are postioned in such a way that a part
> of
> > a
> > > charge target is 'covered' by a body friendly to
> > the
> > > target.
> > >
> > > There are two ways to go with this: favor the
> > > defender and favor the attacker.
> > >
> > > We chose to favor the attacker.
> > >
> > > Why?
> > > 1. Militarily, aggressive forces tend to have
> the
> > > initiative and we philosophically feel they
> should
> > > not be penalized for being so.
> > > 2. Ancient/medieval battles tended towards an
> > > initially formed battle line. Once that battle
> > line
> > > started to break up, the less agressive side
> > tended
> > > to get run down by the attacker. This is an
> > > historical simulation. Therefore...
> > >
> > > We also found in playtesting this that the vast
> > > majority of times this came up (i.e. all), the
> > > 'defending' side was trying to finess little
> > angles
> > > and exposures and gaps and the 'attacking' side
> > was
> > > slamming his battleline home at some key point
> on
> > > the battlefield. In the confusion of a real
> > battle,
> > > two large groups of troops hacking at each other
> > > would not have the ability to stay
> > dress-right-dress
> > > to permit a friendly unit to grease through a
> > > carefully measured gap. That, in our opinion,
> is
> > > the unrealistic tactic, not the concept of
> > > 'pulling'.
> > >
> > > J
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
> > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
> >
>
>
> =====
> Wake up and smell the Assyrians
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
> http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

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



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



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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Sorry Boyd,
I'm glad you are safe again and further rejoice in your
returning whole and well!

Kelly

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Thank you Jon. Does this also apply to things like caltrops which are
not obstacles?

Kelly