Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Don Coon]

> 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.


I have taken a couple of stabs at this. To be honest, I would like to be in
the room with you and try to hammer this out. That way we could throw a few
units on the table and you could say "that I want to happen" ot "that I do
not want to happen". When Patrick posted his JPEGS a while back and you
gave your intent on them (we had been playing correctly) you also added some
comments that made us a little more clear on your intent of 6.163/6.165.
What I have penciled into my rule book is the following:

6.165 Pivoting to conform: Change "However, players should follow..." to
"However, players shall follow..." and I completely rewrote the second
bullet to "If the charging body and non charging body do not wind up
conformed due to either entering impassable terrain or contacting another
body that could not have been the target of the charge, the charge may not
take place".

I made the same changes to the lining up section (obviously sustitute :lined
up" for "conformed").

Then in the second para under the second example on page 43 I added a new
sentance after the first so we get "A Unit trying...target body. It must do
so using only its own movement, own pivoting, and own lining up. It must
fit without pivoting or lining up the charged body. If it cannot..."

This has solved 95% of the problems here. Every once in a while we seem to
get some wild ass unit arangement that causes us to take a step back. In
our last game we resorted to "the die roll".

Basically what the rewrite does is make flank charges harder in all cases
(as it should IMHO), and disallow frontal charges against foes in tight
spaces who have some flank support that is stepped back.

V formations do not stop these frontal charges (thank the maker!). I may
have it over worded. I feel strongly about the flank charge eligibility
reword being your intent. The rewords to conform and lining up seem to me
to clarify the second bullet. Digest and comment.

Don

[Don Coon]

> 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.

This you have wrong. The cav can suck the back unit out provided the back
unit does not collide with another body or impassable terrain in being
sucked out. If you do not allow this, you get into sticky V issues again.
Remember, two units that are parallel still form a V. The apex just happens
to be at infinity(creating an included angle of 0 degrees). The rules have
to provide solutions for all V formation with included angles from 0 - 180
degrees. To stop illogical 179 degree V formation s from causing hairballs,
the tight 1 degree V ( or the unique parallel sided V) has to be lumped in
too. I feel Jon cleared up the V thing quite some time ago. This thread
IMHO is about the apparent disconnect between 6.163 and 6.165. I recommend
you do not leave the back dude with any bit hanging out:).

Don

[joncleaves]

I'm digesting this one and Don's post. Thanks for the input.


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

[Patrick Byrne]

> 6.165 Pivoting to conform: Change "However, players should follow..." to
> "However, players shall follow..." and I completely rewrote the second
> bullet to "If the charging body and non charging body do not wind up
> conformed due to either entering impassable terrain or contacting another
> body that could not have been the target of the charge, the charge may not
> take place".

First, is Pivoting to Conform part of the Charge Move and Charge Path, such
that if a body is contacted while Pivoting to Conform, they are considered
charged. Jon, I think your answer would be No. To have those bodies in the
way does not count against the charger but also not count as being charged.
If you would like a pic of what I'm seeing in my head here, let me know.

Also, I don't know about that charge not taking place due to 'contacting
another body that could not have been a legal charge target.' Is this
because they were lights and ended up contacting (but not charging) this
other body, or is it also (or only) because of Charge Reach, 6.162, and thus
stopping the pivoting to conform.


My $.02,
This will sound harsh, but I would DELETE 6.165 'FIT' in its entirety. I
think that Lining up and Pivoting to conform are explained specifically
enough not to need 'FIT'.

Above 'Fit', under 'Interpenetration', delete the last sentence, "If, due
to...". It is also covered well enough under Pivoting to Conform and Lining
up and Discovering Illegal Charges.

Pg 39, change the first bullet "After..." to "It is discovered that a body
can not complete pivoting to conform or lining up (6.165)."

Pg 39, Cancelled Charges, "A body's charge is cancelled if:" add a fourth
bullet, "a charge move has already been performed against the target in the
same bound, such that the declared charge would involve interpenetration.'

Pg 43, change the sentence "A unit trying..." to "A unit declaring a flank
charge must be able to occupy the area Behind the Flank (1.261) of the
target such that the targets side edge is completely contacted by the
chargers front edge."



In case you do not approve of my removal of the FIT term, here are some
points that I think are causing consternation.
1. Pivoting to Conform and Lining Up allow for units not able to conform or
line up to be treated as such. The rule cares not about terrain or other
troops. The use of 'Fit' on pg 38 seems to contradict that.

2. Fit on page 38 seems to be a formal definition. Then in other places,
fit seems to be used casually, not as a technical term.

3. '...physically occupy the space...' in the Fit term on pg 38 is a strong
term, but is vague. Occupy should mean complete front edge to target edge
contact or something like that. Perhaps an picture below would help. The
same also goes for 'occupy' on pg 43, "A unit trying..."

4. When reading Pivoting to Conform and Lining-up one gets the impression
that Fit means to just make contact without illegal interpenetration or
charging through illegal terrain. The "AND ... 'pivoted' and 'lined up'"
then seems circular. Looking up Fit to find the definition of Lining up,
and looking up Lining up to get the definition of Fit.

Side note. If 'Fit' is a loose term meaning just to be there in contact with
the enemy, then nothing prevents two units from charging a target if making
an illegal interpenetration. The two units simply charge Pivot to Conform,
not able to do so they count as fighting.
-PB

[Ed Forbes]

On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 18:33:40 -0500 <jjendon@...> writes:
>
> IMHO is about the apparent disconnect between 6.163 and 6.165. I
> recommend
> you do not leave the back dude with any bit hanging out:).
>
> Don
>
>

I guess this comes to the definition of "bit". Does this mean I have to
slow game play to bring out a straight edge to be sure the stands of one
unit are directly behind the other unit, and does my opponent then get to
bring out a microscope to attempt to prove that, yes it does stick out
over the line by some fraction of a mm? Also, as the cutting of a stand
is far from an exact science, I dare say none could meet the test for
"bit" as stated.

If we are not to fall into argument and silliness on the game table,
something on the order of, for example: "extending beyond 5mm" ( pick a
reasonably small number) to give wiggle room for stand and movement
variance is needed. I realize that this only moves the line outward, but
does give a fudge factor. Some small overlap gives no one any advantage
and does not slow game play as would requiring one to bring out a
microscope to help ensure a follow up unit is not dragged out of
position.

Ed Forbes

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

[Greg Regets]

Just out of curiosity, how did all these lining up requirements come up in the
first place. Back when we played that "other game" you lined up if you could,
and if not, you still fought what was in contact. There was really no reason to
have funny formations as they did nothing in the first place, made shooting
problematic in the second and made recoil very difficult in the last.

All this reminds me of the pass interference rules writting by the NFLCC. They
are now 29 pages long and nobody understands them. All this when for years the
rule was, "You can't hit a guy with the ball in the air, unless you are going
for the ball." and that rule worked fine.

Want to encourage players to fight in nice straight lines? How about putting
wrap rules back in so the guy that doesn't, gets his butt handed to him.

G


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

--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> 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.



Jon,

Greg (Post 4985) makes good point about "Fit" and "Lining Up"

It seems there are a few different cases to be clarified, possibly as
6.165a,b,c,d etc. Different sub-sections could considered to be:
a) Friends occupying my final resting place; (Interpenetration issues)
b) Enemies occupying my final resting place; (Let's not go there)
c) Enemy defending (non-linear) Terrain feature; (Bogg off)
d) other pain-in-the-ass circumstances (painful, to be sure)

Jon, you make good points (post 4987, 4991) about a-historical
deployment by a defender ("bodies canted at all sorts of angles and
overlaps"). Considering Warrior is (ideally) a historical simulation,
then it is appropriate that a-historical formations are punished.

Also, an army that adopts a defensive/passive posture surrenders the
initiative to the enemy. An enemy taking advantage of this should
have some reward, though not a guarantee of victory.

Greg (post 4985) makes important points about being able to fit in
the first place vs being able to line up in the second place... ;)

Defending non-linear terrain (see post 4992) is however a critical
issue to address in this.


May I humbly suggest this following resolution mechanism:
First, deal with whether or not the blighters can fit in...

Then deal with lining up issues:

IF chargers CAN fit, but [can't line up against] non-charging enemy
body(s), THEN:

Keep all these fighting bodies in legal rectilinear formations; AND:

Treat all such bodies as THOUGH they were perfectly lined up for
determining FIRST CONTACT combat (even though their elements are not
perfectly lined up).

Bodies THEN become aligned in AFTER COMBAT RESULTS as follows:

A) If the charging unit gets the worst of combat, it makes after
combat moves from its CURRENT (rectilinear) formation. Any
(after-combat) responses by enemy bodies must conform to the charging
body's FINAL position.

B) If a non-charging body gets the worse of first contact, the
charger CHOOSES whether this hapless defender aligns itself to the
(victorious) charging unit BEFORE or AT THE END OF "after combat
results". That is, a defending body can be made to move at an
awkward angle FIRST, then conform to the charger, OR (if this is more
advantageous to the attacker) a defender can be made to conform to
the attacking body first, THEN make its after-combat moves (should
this cause more murder and mayhem).

C) If all bodies have equal results, conform defenders to charging
bodies.


COMMENTS:
This approach "smooths out" who aligns with who without penalising
either side to start with. It is the after-combat results from first
contact that potentially re-align fighting bodies.

A) allows the charging body to maintain cohesion and orientation if
its assault is unsuccessful. That is, the attacker is not unduly
penalised.

B) penalises a defender with an awkward conformation and rewards the
attacker who gets the better of first contact.

C) favours the attacker in a draw situation - this is positive from a
gaming result perspective but may be dubious historically - I'm open
to attack on this one!


The only case I haven't considered is multiple attackers on one
defender, but then I'm sure most of the attackers could line up with
the defender, so I'm confident this can be dealt with easily as well.

Terry (ducking for cover and trying to align myself to my own best
advantage)

--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> 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.


Jon,

I just read Patrick's post (5006) and I realised things may not be so
simple as I hoped. I hoped the situation could be reduced to a few
simple states (which someone else would codify):

1) If you can't fit (due to enemies or impenetrable friends/terrain
OCCUPYING the space you want to end up in), then forget it.

2) If you can fit, but can't conform because the enemy is defending a
non-linear terrain feature, THEN maybe use my solution of pretending
you are conforming at contact, then making after-combat moves that
least disadvantage the aggressor.

3) If you can't conform because the enemy is not defending a terrain
feature but is being a-historical with a non-linear posture, THEN
also use my solution of giving the aggressor the least disadvantage.

4) If you can't conform with your legal target(s) because conforming
would bring you into illegal contact with another enemy body, then I
really don't know how to handle it. The best I can offer is: If
condition 1) is not violated, then you could allow the "pretense of
first contact" with the legal target(s) only, with combat results
determining how the antagonists end up lining up.


Basically Jon, I feel that with these vexing questions, you can play
a little loose with the simulation. That is, the bodies may not be in
perfect alignment at the end of CHARGE moves, but by the end of
AFTER-COMBAT results, things are much clearer AND much tidier. In
much the same way that a regular unit need only END its move in a
legal formation - although halfway through its move, its formation
changing may look illegal to some opponents - especially my barbarian
trash Ancient Britons ;)


Sorry I can't write it all up for you all good and proper, but I feel
just a little tentative in offering these suggestions to you. For
instance, not contacting another body could be entirely different to
the way I envisaged.

And that's why you're the Rules Ho and I'm (thankfully) not.

Hoping you can make some use of all this,

Terry

[Chris Bump]

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

We have talked about the concept behind this at length in DFW. I believe that
we are all in agreement with this. IN battle, particularly hth version of such
men either push or recoil. History is fraught with examples of units "coming
out of the woods when the commander did not want them to" for example. The
defender in all likelyhood is going to push back and may find himself drifting
to open space. This is not to be confused with recoil and followup, but rather
the ebb and flow of hth in general.
Chris