Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Don Coon]

--- In WarriorRules@y..., Greg Regets <greg@p...> wrote:
> So, what about LEGAL but jicky formations?
>
> I'm sure your a great umpire Scott ... but then again, we do not
have you at
> our tournaments!

Also not once have you ever came into my kitchen to settle a rules
question. You may be the tourny law when you are are present but 1.
All players will not play in tournies, and 2. Lots of tournies will
not have you. The rules must stand alone with NO judge.

Don

[Don Coon]

> I've re-read you posting but your conclusion is NOT what I am
> saying. A moving body does not create nor uncreate gaps.

I never said they did. How can I post this any more clearly? I said
that PRIOR to moving the body has a gap between it and its target.
This is BEFORE the move. My original text is still stuck below as you
have included it. Mt statement that "this is what Steve has been
advocating" all along was inclusive of some of the stuff you snipped.
I was trying to make all the frontal charges legal, and not have
units stopped by there own gap creation (not creation due to movement,
gaps existing before the unit initiates a move). Please REREAD my
post!

Gaps
exist
> because objects have created them.

Here here!

> 1. Patricks note that if unit 1 approaches to 100 paces (less than
2
> elements wide) of unit A, a gap must then exist between the two
> bodies and so neither 1 or A can charge. We agree this is a load of
> horse droppings BUT there does exist a gap. Firstly, we will look
at
> units 1 and A in isolation. Imagine the AREA contained within the
> box formed by the bodies of units 1 and A. This box is defined by
> the shoulder units of 1 and A

What shoulder are you talking about? The West Point definition of
shoulder or the Warrior one?

>but also by the open ends past the
> right and left flank edges of both units. As long as units 1 or A
> REMAIN in this position, no OTHER unit can enter the box from the
> open sides.

No one has ever to my recollection said anything about a moving unit
greating a gap. Where did you get this?

You have not addressed weather unit 1 could charge unit A (by the
current rules it CANNOT!)

> 2. Using the deployments in the jpg, the gaps exist only while
units
> A-D do not move. Remembering that I hold that the gaps exist only
> beween the right front flank of A and the left front flank of B, if
> neither unit moves AND the space from point to point is less than
120
> paces, unit B cannot be flank charged unless A is already in combat
> OR charged at the same time by the same unit.

Should you not say right front CORNER of A, and left front CORNER of
B? This is so much more clear. Where exactly is the right front
flank of a anyway (I guess any where forward of the midpoint of the
flank?)

YES! IF the rule is stated clearly like in my original text (which you
snipped)

> 3. Now to put paid to the "angled defence" plan.
> page approximatly 45 degrees by pulling the corner of the paper in
> your LEFT hand the toward you. What do you see now? You should see
> 4 elements with a space between each unit as you are looking
directly
> at the front of each element. THIS is what units 1 - 4 see if they
> wheel 45 degrees in their charge. Question, where is the gap to
stop
> me from doing this?

Who said anything about this? My original text was talking about unit
X and unit A in the bottom half of the JPEG. I do not even know what
you are trying to point out here.

>If I can charge unit A in example 1, I must be
> able to charge A - D in the same way. The only question in regard
to
> gaps comes into if I want to ALSO charge the flank of B, C or D.

Who said otherwise?

> Conclusion.
> As I have shown, a charging unit does not create or uncreate gaps.

Great conclusion. No one to my knowledge doubted this in the first
place. My post was addressing Patricks cool conundrum of a unit
trying to charge into a gap it created by standing there PRIOR to
charge declarations) BTW the same problem exist for a unit facing
woods or other terrain 120p distant.

>A
> gap will only exist as long as the shoulders (units, features, edge
> etc) remain in such a way as to retain the gap.

OK now you have said something new. I do not know where you got the
statement because its not in the rules. My statement "a unit
initiating a move of any kind does not count for gap determintation"
does say this. Why are you hammering away on something we are in
agreement on? Notice my statement does NOT say a MOVING unit it says
a unit INITIATING a move (thats before the move BTW). Do I need to
propose the rule as "A unit preparing to move does not count for gap
determination for its self prior to its own move. Once a unit begins
moving it is never considered in gap determination"

As long as A and B
> remain where they are and all else is equal, B is impervious to a
> flank charge.

I agree but to eliminate all the other potential gaps interpreted by
others, I think my rule proposal or one similar to it should be
strongly considered. Steve I am trying to get the rules to say what
you are doing! Patrick for one thinks that two bodies only have 1 gap
line (the shortest possible line between the two bodies) while you and
I believe ther are two (the 2 lines drawn between the closset corner
pairs which create the little box you talk about).

> REALLY BIG SNIP HERE
> > One more addition to the 6.53 gap para. "A body initiating a move
> of any
> > kind, does not count in gap determination". This way a body
trying
> to move
> > forward towards enemy or terrain does not violate its own gap
lines
> created
> > prior to the move.

Hey Steve notice I said gap lines created PRIOR to the move.

Grrr.

[Don Coon]

--- In WarriorRules@y..., "Steve Honeyman" <loki_in_oz@y...> wrote:
> Jon, Don, et al
>
> I have posted a powerpoint slide on this. Please look at it as I
> think it covers all the angles in the jpeg file.
>
> Cheers
>
> Steve

I can not read the file from this computer. I will look at it July 8,
when I get home.

Don

[Don Coon]

--- In WarriorRules@y..., cuan@f... wrote:
> Steve,
> You have two light blue lines denoting Gaps between Unit 1 and Unit
A
> (like wise for the others). The distance measurement of these two
> lines are different. So how can you have "minimal space existing
> between two things" with two different lenght measurements?
>
> I agree that your dark blue and red lines denoting Gaps between
other
> 'things' captures the existing rules.
> -PB

I can not see the file, but I have a feeling for what is there. The
reason there are two lines is that two bodies always create 2 gap
lines! PLEASE READ my posts. I have explained this ad nausium. A
gap is a local thing. Two things can have and must have 2 (yes thats
right 2) gap lines. Did you do my BB in the fingers exercise? This
has to be true. It is true, and it will always be true. I can not
come up with a better way to explain it to you. You obviously do not
see it. I have shown why your interp can not work over and over
again. You have never yet addressed any of the points I made. Steve
and I are discussing from the same side of the fence at least. I am
proposing over and over a clear rule fix to this problem. All you
keep doing is quoting the CURRENT rule wording. Are you trying to fix
the rule with us, or do you like it the way it is? If you like it the
way it is, and it stays the way it is, cheese has only just begun. I
have shown over and over why the one gap line interp can not work.

My rule proposal is there to CLARIFY what I assume Steves pictures
show. 2 gap lines. Also to show that a body contemplating a move is
not hamstrung by gap lines it itself created prior to the actual move.

Wow who thought I would ever get more animated about something than
the testudo? Email sucks for some things. I bet if we were all in a
room with a few units and stayed civil, we would come to a mutual
agreement and understanding in about 10 minutes. Then we could write
a leak proof rule to sy exactly what we had agreed on.

Don

What I am trying to say is that units 1 and A have a SPACE between
their fronts and a gap only exists at the open sides of the area. So,
units 1 and A can charge / countercharge as there is no gap for them
to worry about. Units MOVING into the area bounded by units 1 and A
(except if interpenatrating from the rear of these units) are entering
into a gap. Basically, if your unit is one edge of this gap, then it
is NOT a gap for that unit or the unit on the other side of the gap.
For everyone else, it is a gap.

This whole thing comes about from reading the rules too literally.
Your proposed change to the rule will not change this unless it is
clear that a THIRD party is the one who is effected by the gap. By
your own definition, if your unit A is moving, then the gap between
units 1 and A no longer exists for any third party. This is incorrect
as unit X would still need to pass between units 1 and A.

Example. If in the diagram, unit A and C were stepped forward of unit
B and where LESS than 2 elements wide, unit B could NOT be chargeds
unless BOTH A and C were in contact with the enemy. By your
definition, if A and C were charging, B could be charged as the moving
units A, C and X no longer count gaps.

Pedantic I know..... and seeing as how I never went to West Point, my
version of shoulders is the Warrior version.




--- In WarriorRules@y..., jendon@f... wrote:
> > I've re-read you posting but your conclusion is NOT what I am
> > saying. A moving body does not create nor uncreate gaps.
>
> I never said they did. How can I post this any more clearly? I
said
> that PRIOR to moving the body has a gap between it and its target.
> This is BEFORE the move. My original text is still stuck below as
you
> have included it. Mt statement that "this is what Steve has been
> advocating" all along was inclusive of some of the stuff you
snipped.
> I was trying to make all the frontal charges legal, and not have
> units stopped by there own gap creation (not creation due to
movement,
> gaps existing before the unit initiates a move). Please REREAD my
> post!
>
> Gaps
> exist
> > because objects have created them.
>
> Here here!
>
> > 1. Patricks note that if unit 1 approaches to 100 paces (less
than
> 2
> > elements wide) of unit A, a gap must then exist between the two
> > bodies and so neither 1 or A can charge. We agree this is a load
of
> > horse droppings BUT there does exist a gap. Firstly, we will look
> at
> > units 1 and A in isolation. Imagine the AREA contained within the
> > box formed by the bodies of units 1 and A. This box is defined by
> > the shoulder units of 1 and A
>
> What shoulder are you talking about? The West Point definition of
> shoulder or the Warrior one?
>
> >but also by the open ends past the
> > right and left flank edges of both units. As long as units 1 or A
> > REMAIN in this position, no OTHER unit can enter the box from the
> > open sides.
>
> No one has ever to my recollection said anything about a moving unit
> greating a gap. Where did you get this?
>
> You have not addressed weather unit 1 could charge unit A (by the
> current rules it CANNOT!)
>
> > 2. Using the deployments in the jpg, the gaps exist only while
> units
> > A-D do not move. Remembering that I hold that the gaps exist only
> > beween the right front flank of A and the left front flank of B,
if
> > neither unit moves AND the space from point to point is less than
> 120
> > paces, unit B cannot be flank charged unless A is already in
combat
> > OR charged at the same time by the same unit.
>
> Should you not say right front CORNER of A, and left front CORNER of
> B? This is so much more clear. Where exactly is the right front
> flank of a anyway (I guess any where forward of the midpoint of the
> flank?)
>
> YES! IF the rule is stated clearly like in my original text (which
you
> snipped)
>
> > 3. Now to put paid to the "angled defence" plan.
> > page approximatly 45 degrees by pulling the corner of the paper in
> > your LEFT hand the toward you. What do you see now? You should
see
> > 4 elements with a space between each unit as you are looking
> directly
> > at the front of each element. THIS is what units 1 - 4 see if
they
> > wheel 45 degrees in their charge. Question, where is the gap to
> stop
> > me from doing this?
>
> Who said anything about this? My original text was talking about
unit
> X and unit A in the bottom half of the JPEG. I do not even know
what
> you are trying to point out here.
>
> >If I can charge unit A in example 1, I must be
> > able to charge A - D in the same way. The only question in regard
> to
> > gaps comes into if I want to ALSO charge the flank of B, C or D.
>
> Who said otherwise?
>
> > Conclusion.
> > As I have shown, a charging unit does not create or uncreate gaps.

>
> Great conclusion. No one to my knowledge doubted this in the first
> place. My post was addressing Patricks cool conundrum of a unit
> trying to charge into a gap it created by standing there PRIOR to
> charge declarations) BTW the same problem exist for a unit facing
> woods or other terrain 120p distant.
>
> >A
> > gap will only exist as long as the shoulders (units, features,
edge
> > etc) remain in such a way as to retain the gap.
>
> OK now you have said something new. I do not know where you got the
> statement because its not in the rules. My statement "a unit
> initiating a move of any kind does not count for gap determintation"
> does say this. Why are you hammering away on something we are in
> agreement on? Notice my statement does NOT say a MOVING unit it
says
> a unit INITIATING a move (thats before the move BTW). Do I need to
> propose the rule as "A unit preparing to move does not count for gap
> determination for its self prior to its own move. Once a unit
begins
> moving it is never considered in gap determination"
>
> As long as A and B
> > remain where they are and all else is equal, B is impervious to a
> > flank charge.
>
> I agree but to eliminate all the other potential gaps interpreted by
> others, I think my rule proposal or one similar to it should be
> strongly considered. Steve I am trying to get the rules to say what
> you are doing! Patrick for one thinks that two bodies only have 1
gap
> line (the shortest possible line between the two bodies) while you
and
> I believe ther are two (the 2 lines drawn between the closset corner
> pairs which create the little box you talk about).
>
> > REALLY BIG SNIP HERE
> > > One more addition to the 6.53 gap para. "A body initiating a
move
> > of any
> > > kind, does not count in gap determination". This way a body
> trying
> > to move
> > > forward towards enemy or terrain does not violate its own gap
> lines
> > created
> > > prior to the move.
>
> Hey Steve notice I said gap lines created PRIOR to the move.
>
> Grrr.

Ahhhh, a small table, friendly conversation, a litre or two of Jack
Daniels....... I'm sure we could fix this up in asn evening. But as
for NOYTT SHOOTING FROM TESTUDO........ Is there NOTHING sacred???
Just a dodge to protect the 100 years war English.
:P

Cheers



--- In WarriorRules@y..., jendon@f... wrote:
> --- In WarriorRules@y..., cuan@f... wrote:
> > Steve,
> > You have two light blue lines denoting Gaps between Unit 1 and
Unit
> A
> > (like wise for the others). The distance measurement of these two
> > lines are different. So how can you have "minimal space existing
> > between two things" with two different lenght measurements?
> >
> > I agree that your dark blue and red lines denoting Gaps between
> other
> > 'things' captures the existing rules.
> > -PB
>
> I can not see the file, but I have a feeling for what is there. The
> reason there are two lines is that two bodies always create 2 gap
> lines! PLEASE READ my posts. I have explained this ad nausium. A
> gap is a local thing. Two things can have and must have 2 (yes
thats
> right 2) gap lines. Did you do my BB in the fingers exercise? This
> has to be true. It is true, and it will always be true. I can not
> come up with a better way to explain it to you. You obviously do
not
> see it. I have shown why your interp can not work over and over
> again. You have never yet addressed any of the points I made.
Steve
> and I are discussing from the same side of the fence at least. I am
> proposing over and over a clear rule fix to this problem. All you
> keep doing is quoting the CURRENT rule wording. Are you trying to
fix
> the rule with us, or do you like it the way it is? If you like it
the
> way it is, and it stays the way it is, cheese has only just begun.
I
> have shown over and over why the one gap line interp can not work.
>
> My rule proposal is there to CLARIFY what I assume Steves pictures
> show. 2 gap lines. Also to show that a body contemplating a move
is
> not hamstrung by gap lines it itself created prior to the actual
move.
>
> Wow who thought I would ever get more animated about something than
> the testudo? Email sucks for some things. I bet if we were all in
a
> room with a few units and stayed civil, we would come to a mutual
> agreement and understanding in about 10 minutes. Then we could
write
> a leak proof rule to sy exactly what we had agreed on.
>
> Don

[Patrick Byrne]

I did propose a new rule. As a matter of fact, I rewrote all of 6.53. It is
under a warrior email called Gap Rule dated 6/27/01. By the way, the last
three words of the email that were cut off are "proposed possible solution".

I haven't addressed why I think your interp of the rule is wrong, because
they are just that, interps. No need argueing over an interp for a rule that
definately needs change.

Read my Gap Rule, please. I have been anxious for comments because I think
it address' all the problems Steve, Greg, you and I have brought up. I put a
lot of thought into it.
-PB




jendon@... wrote:

> --- In WarriorRules@y..., cuan@f... wrote:
> > Steve,
> > You have two light blue lines denoting Gaps between Unit 1 and Unit
> A
> > (like wise for the others). The distance measurement of these two
> > lines are different. So how can you have "minimal space existing
> > between two things" with two different lenght measurements?
> >
> > I agree that your dark blue and red lines denoting Gaps between
> other
> > 'things' captures the existing rules.
> > -PB
>
> I can not see the file, but I have a feeling for what is there. The
> reason there are two lines is that two bodies always create 2 gap
> lines! PLEASE READ my posts. I have explained this ad nausium. A
> gap is a local thing. Two things can have and must have 2 (yes thats
> right 2) gap lines. Did you do my BB in the fingers exercise? This
> has to be true. It is true, and it will always be true. I can not
> come up with a better way to explain it to you. You obviously do not
> see it. I have shown why your interp can not work over and over
> again. You have never yet addressed any of the points I made. Steve
> and I are discussing from the same side of the fence at least. I am
> proposing over and over a clear rule fix to this problem. All you
> keep doing is quoting the CURRENT rule wording. Are you trying to fix
> the rule with us, or do you like it the way it is? If you like it the
> way it is, and it stays the way it is, cheese has only just begun. I
> have shown over and over why the one gap line interp can not work.
>
> My rule proposal is there to CLARIFY what I assume Steves pictures
> show. 2 gap lines. Also to show that a body contemplating a move is
> not hamstrung by gap lines it itself created prior to the actual move.
>
> Wow who thought I would ever get more animated about something than
> the testudo? Email sucks for some things. I bet if we were all in a
> room with a few units and stayed civil, we would come to a mutual
> agreement and understanding in about 10 minutes. Then we could write
> a leak proof rule to sy exactly what we had agreed on.
>
> Don
>
> 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/

It's easy if unit 1 approaches unit A and does not change the angle
of it's approach. If the closest point of unit 1 is now 40 paces
from unit A, the distance between the two units at the other end of
the units must be greater than 40 paces. Since Unit 1 is facing
directly down the table (paper? picture?) and unit A is angled, the
distances from each end of the unit MUST be different.



--- In WarriorRules@y..., cuan@f... wrote:
> Steve,
> You have two light blue lines denoting Gaps between Unit 1 and Unit
A
> (like wise for the others). The distance measurement of these two
> lines are different. So how can you have "minimal space existing
> between two things" with two different lenght measurements?
>
> I agree that your dark blue and red lines denoting Gaps between
other
> 'things' captures the existing rules.
> -PB
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@y..., "Steve Honeyman" <loki_in_oz@y...> wrote:
> > Jon, Don, et al
> >
> > I have posted a powerpoint slide on this. Please look at it as I
> > think it covers all the angles in the jpeg file.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > S

[Don Coon]

--- In WarriorRules@y..., "Steve Honeyman" <loki_in_oz@y...> wrote:
> What I am trying to say is that units 1 and A have a SPACE between
> their fronts and a gap only exists at the open sides of the area.
So,
> units 1 and A can charge / countercharge as there is no gap for
them
> to worry about. Units MOVING into the area bounded by units 1 and A
> (except if interpenatrating from the rear of these units) are
entering
> into a gap. Basically, if your unit is one edge of this gap, then
it
> is NOT a gap for that unit or the unit on the other side of the gap.

I agree with all of this. I hope the rewritten rule says it clearly.


> This whole thing comes about from reading the rules too literally.

It is impossible to read a rule too literally.

> Your proposed change to the rule will not change this unless it is
> clear that a THIRD party is the one who is effected by the gap.

I tried a rewrite that said this. Hopefully Jon got it. It was in my
last post. "Prior to moving a unit, that unit is not considered for
gap determination purposes for its own move"


> your own definition, if your unit A is moving, then the gap between
> units 1 and A no longer exists for any third party.

Not with the fix.

>This is incorrect
> as unit X would still need to pass between units 1 and A.

Agree.

> Example. If in the diagram, unit A and C were stepped forward of
unit
> B and where LESS than 2 elements wide, unit B could NOT be chargeds
> unless BOTH A and C were in contact with the enemy. By your
> definition, if A and C were charging, B could be charged as the
moving
> units A, C and X no longer count gaps.

Not with the fix.

> Pedantic I know..... and seeing as how I never went to West Point,
my
> version of shoulders is the Warrior version.

Cool. BTW, you are not reading the rules literally enough. The side
Patrick has taken is the correct one (per the current written rule).
You have created boxes between 2 units (which I agree with), but the
CURRENT rule does not support this. I think much of the disagreement
between Patrick and I is that he keeps discussing what the rule IS,
and I am discussing WHAT IT SHOULD BE.

Don

[Don Coon]

--- In WarriorRules@y..., Patrick Byrnes <cuan@f...> wrote:
> I did propose a new rule. As a matter of fact, I rewrote all of
6.53. It is
> under a warrior email called Gap Rule dated 6/27/01.

Read it, answered it, and since it is what I have been barking about
all along, agree with it in principle.

> I haven't addressed why I think your interp of the rule is wrong,
because
> they are just that, interps. No need argueing over an interp for a
rule that
> definately needs change.

Not true. Thats how things get settled.

> Read my Gap Rule, please. I have been anxious for comments because
I think
> it address' all the problems Steve, Greg, you and I have brought up.
I put a
> lot of thought into it.
> -PB

Again, I have, and obviously I agree with it, as it says what I have
been spouting since River City Rumble.

Don

[Don Coon]

--- In WarriorRules@y..., "Steve Honeyman" <loki_in_oz@y...> wrote:
> It's easy if unit 1 approaches unit A and does not change the angle
> of it's approach. If the closest point of unit 1 is now 40 paces
> from unit A, the distance between the two units at the other end of
> the units must be greater than 40 paces. Since Unit 1 is facing
> directly down the table (paper? picture?) and unit A is angled, the
> distances from each end of the unit MUST be different.

The question was not, "how can you physically do it", it was "how are
you justifying drawing 2 gap lines when the rule says "minimum
distance"? The current rule 6.53 as written does not support your
slides Steve. I think that is all that Patrick was trying to say. I
am responding to your slides from a "lets fix the rule so that your
picture is true" standpoint.

You appear to think therule is ok as written. If you do, I must
respectfully disagree.

Don