Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

--- On October 24 Ewan McNay said: ---

> This is a huge change. Please note that I am aware you will get mad with
> my noting such, but this is *not* a clarification, it is a (major) change
> to how troops of all kinds make manouvres when in proximity to enemy.

I have to side with Ewan here. This would be a real change, not just a
clarification. I'm not saying don't do it, just be clear about what you're
doing. And consider the ramifications.

In the process of fiddling with orientation, wheels, expansions, contractions,
and what not I routinely have units that at some point in their approach move
might be within 40p of the enemy. Even more often I have units that at some
point in their counter are, for the moment, nearer to the enemy. My most common
example is a unit that wants to counter away in skirmish, but on a slightly
different angle of retreat from its current orientation. Given that skirmishers
going back can only go _straigth_ back -- no wheeling -- the only way to achieve
the desired effect is to wheel forward slightly, then go into skirmish, then
move straight back.

I grant you that this sort of thing is a bit of finesse that many players
overlook. But the possibility of this sort of finesse has _always_ been in the
rules, and -- I would have thought -- for good reason. Our movement system is a
somewhat abstract one, and the starting and final positions matter much more
than the permutations by which a unit got from one to the other. The actual
maneuvers don't represent specific motions each soldier in a body engaged in,
but instead set parameters on where a unit can get to, and in what formation.

Hence the use of the word "end" in the "no nearer than 40p" for approaches, and
"no nearer to known enemy within 240p" for counters. Change that, and you
really are changing a basic dynamic of the game.

Now, having said that I do think that passing a LC unit through a 40p gap
between two enemy bodies sounds more like teleporting than moving. My hunch,
though, is that the fix is not in a change in the wording of approach moves,
but somewhere in the wording on passable gaps.


--- And on October 24 Jon Cleaves said: ---

> They just like Warrior as a game and not a simulation of
> history (yes, I know, Mark, that you don't think we've made a
> simulation...lol).

I like Warrior as more than just a game. But no, I don't consider it a
simulation. I think of it as a functional representation (as in, you don't
simulate Almughuvars by giving them shields that they really seldom had, but
you do best represent the way they functioned historically....).

A functional representation is, in my opinion, both an easier and a more useful
thing to provide than a simulation.


-Mark

[joncleaves]

<< Now, having said that I do think that passing a LC unit through a 40p gap
between two enemy bodies sounds more like teleporting than moving. My hunch,
though, is that the fix is not in a change in the wording of approach moves,
but somewhere in the wording on passable gaps.>>

I could not agree more, Mark. I have no intention of changing the rule that
allows formation changes and turns etc 'inside' an approach move to
theoretically come within 40p. I am out to prevent an unrealistic LC
penetration of a solid battle line. I think you're right that the fix is in the
gap rule, not the wording of the approach rule.

Jon


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

Jon hi,

I have to add my input to this question of moving within 40 paces
during a move that ends no close than 40 paces.

UNIT A(any type of unit)is in a 1 wide/2 deep column.

UNIT A
_
|_|
|_|

60 paces apart
_
|_|
|_|

UNIT B

UNIT B(REG LC)is also in a 1 wide/2 deep column, facing UNIT A and 60
paces
away and is moving second. If UNIT B wheels 45 degrees either left
or right it will pass UNIT A within 0 paces(do the geometry) and
wind up on the flank at a 45 degree angle of UNIT A and at 40 paces

If UNIT A is wider than 1 element, then UNIT B has to align with
either end elements of UNIT A.

It will have fulfilled all the approach rules..
is that what you intend?


Dennis

[Doug]

>Even more often I have units that at some
>point in their counter are, for the moment, nearer to the enemy. My
>most common
>example is a unit that wants to counter away in skirmish, but on a slightly
>different angle of retreat from its current orientation.

>Given that skirmishers
>going back can only go _straigth_ back -- no wheeling -- the only
>way to achieve
>the desired effect is to wheel forward slightly, then go into skirmish, then
>move straight back.

>Hence ...
>"no nearer to known enemy within 240p" for counters. Change that, and you
>really are changing a basic dynamic of the game.


But doesn't wheeling forwards cause you to go "nearer to known
enemy???" It seems to me that wheeling forward would constitute an
Approach.

The Arthur Murray School of Tactical Dance...

[Mark Stone]

--- On October 24 Doug said: ---

> But doesn't wheeling forwards cause you to go "nearer to known
> enemy???" It seems to me that wheeling forward would constitute an
> Approach.
>
> The Arthur Murray School of Tactical Dance...

That's the whole point. Nothing in the rule about counters says you can't "go"
nearer to the enemy. It just says you can't "end" nearer to the enemy.

Thus: wheel slightly forward to get the orientation you want, then go into
skirmish, then move straight back more than the slightly forward you moved.
You've ended further away, which is all that a counter requires.


-Mark Stone

[Doug]

>--- On October 24 Doug said: ---
>> But doesn't wheeling forwards cause you to go "nearer to known
>> enemy???" It seems to me that wheeling forward would constitute an
>> Approach.
>>
>> The Arthur Murray School of Tactical Dance...
>
>That's the whole point. Nothing in the rule about counters says you can't "go"
>nearer to the enemy. It just says you can't "end" nearer to the enemy.
>
>Thus: wheel slightly forward to get the orientation you want, then go into
>skirmish, then move straight back more than the slightly forward you moved.
>You've ended further away, which is all that a counter requires.
>-Mark Stone

The "problem" I'm having is the fact that the rules don't define
"approaching" or "countering" based upon how the unit moves.
Instead, you get to declare which you are doing, and then your moves
are constrained by the appropriate parameters.

Intuitively, if the very first thing a body does is get _closer_ to
the nearest enemy, it is "approaching."

I'd rather have rules that say "if you move in this manner, its an
approach. If you move in that manner, its a counter."


--
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then,
that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress
shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every
other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an
American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of
either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it
will ever remain, in the hands of the People."- Tench Coxe, 1788.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm

This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains
information that may be privileged, confidential or copyrighted under
applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-mail,
in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender
by return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. Unless
explicitly and conspicuously designated as "E-Contract Intended",
this e-mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment,
or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-mail does not constitute
a consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing
purposes or for transfers of data to third parties.

[Frank Gilson]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Doug <rockd@p...> wrote:
> The "problem" I'm having is the fact that the rules don't define
> "approaching" or "countering" based upon how the unit moves.
> Instead, you get to declare which you are doing, and then your moves
> are constrained by the appropriate parameters.
>
> Intuitively, if the very first thing a body does is get _closer_ to
> the nearest enemy, it is "approaching."
>
> I'd rather have rules that say "if you move in this manner, its an
> approach. If you move in that manner, its a counter."

It is very difficult to impose rules that require players to moderate
the actual movement process of bodies in specific ways.

Discrete checks to make sure movement is legal are simpler and easier
to remember and apply.

Warrior relies on checking that a movement is legal at the beginning
and the end, and that certain prohibited things are not done during
the movement (largely related to gaps, permitted wheel angle,
formation or facing changes.)

Trying to govern movement from the continuous moment to moment
standpoint would add to arguments, delay games, and needlessly
complicate the experience.

Frank Gilson

[John Murphy]

I might, however, just add that this is the kind of thing that
should be EXPLICITLY stated in the new rulebook. Not just left to
draw lines of strict linguistic semantics around what the text says.

It is, as Ewan found out, hardly how the rules are commonly
understood.

And as for me, I absolutely HATE "bunny rules" where only a select
few are privvy to the twists and turns of how the semantics are
ruled by the umps.

In the absence of further language in the rules explaining this,
this rule definately falls into the "bunny rule" category, although
admittedly with much less dire consequences than most.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Gilson"
<franktrevorgilson@h...> wrote:
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Doug <rockd@p...> wrote:
> > The "problem" I'm having is the fact that the rules don't define
> > "approaching" or "countering" based upon how the unit moves.
> > Instead, you get to declare which you are doing, and then your
moves
> > are constrained by the appropriate parameters.
> >
> > Intuitively, if the very first thing a body does is get _closer_
to
> > the nearest enemy, it is "approaching."
> >
> > I'd rather have rules that say "if you move in this manner, its
an
> > approach. If you move in that manner, its a counter."
>
> It is very difficult to impose rules that require players to
moderate
> the actual movement process of bodies in specific ways.
>
> Discrete checks to make sure movement is legal are simpler and
easier
> to remember and apply.
>
> Warrior relies on checking that a movement is legal at the
beginning
> and the end, and that certain prohibited things are not done
during
> the movement (largely related to gaps, permitted wheel angle,
> formation or facing changes.)
>
> Trying to govern movement from the continuous moment to moment
> standpoint would add to arguments, delay games, and needlessly
> complicate the experience.
>
> Frank Gilson
>

Jon,

have you been able to give any thought to my question Re:approaches,
counters etc?

To add more, UNIT B since it is regular can turn 90 degrees at the
end of its move

awaiting your reply

Dennis


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "dennis_omm"
<militarymatters@a...> wrote:
>
> Jon hi,
>
> I have to add my input to this question of moving within 40 paces
> during a move that ends no close than 40 paces.
>
> UNIT A(any type of unit)is in a 1 wide/2 deep column.
>
> UNIT A
> _
> |_|
> |_|
>
> 60 paces apart
> _
> |_|
> |_|
>
> UNIT B
>
> UNIT B(REG LC)is also in a 1 wide/2 deep column, facing UNIT A and
60
> paces
> away and is moving second. If UNIT B wheels 45 degrees either left
> or right it will pass UNIT A within 0 paces(do the geometry) and
> wind up on the flank at a 45 degree angle of UNIT A and at 40 paces
>
> If UNIT A is wider than 1 element, then UNIT B has to align with
> either end elements of UNIT A.
>
> It will have fulfilled all the approach rules..
> is that what you intend?
>
>
> Dennis
>

[joncleaves]

Dennis

I am working on it...


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

[joncleaves]

Ok, Dennis, I *think* I get what you are asking in your mail below.

The bottom line is that the way the rule is written now (where you end is what
matters, not where you 'pass by') is designed to permit formation changes and
turns to be made by elements in the game that would not actually end up 'passing
by' enemy but *look* like they do with the way element bases are in the game.

I am trying to find a solution to this. The two I have are - leave it the way
it is and fix the gap rule to not permit an LC to use the 'end' rule to sneak
through a gap, OR change the rule so that MANEUVERS can temporarily place a body
within 40p as long as the body ends => 40p but that linear moves including
wheels cannot get closer than 40p at any point.

Both options meet the intent of the rules as they are now written. I'll take
thoughts from the audience...

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: dennis_omm <militarymatters@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 21:31:04 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: approaches, counters, and moving vs. ending


Jon hi,

I have to add my input to this question of moving within 40 paces
during a move that ends no close than 40 paces.

UNIT A(any type of unit)is in a 1 wide/2 deep column.

UNIT A
_
|_|
|_|

60 paces apart
_
|_|
|_|

UNIT B

UNIT B(REG LC)is also in a 1 wide/2 deep column, facing UNIT A and 60
paces
away and is moving second. If UNIT B wheels 45 degrees either left
or right it will pass UNIT A within 0 paces(do the geometry) and
wind up on the flank at a 45 degree angle of UNIT A and at 40 paces

If UNIT A is wider than 1 element, then UNIT B has to align with
either end elements of UNIT A.

It will have fulfilled all the approach rules..
is that what you intend?


Dennis







Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:

> Ok, Dennis, I *think* I get what you are asking in your mail below.
>
> The bottom line is that the way the rule is written now (where you end is what
matters, not where you 'pass by') is designed to permit formation changes and
turns to be made by elements in the game that would not actually end up 'passing
by' enemy but *look* like they do with the way element bases are in the game.
>
> I am trying to find a solution to this. The two I have are - leave it the way
it is and fix the gap rule to not permit an LC to use the 'end' rule to sneak
through a gap, OR change the rule so that MANEUVERS can temporarily place a body
within 40p as long as the body ends => 40p but that linear moves including
wheels cannot get closer than 40p at any point.
>
> Both options meet the intent of the rules as they are now written. I'll take
thoughts from the audience...

I obviously don't see a problem with the current rule as written .
However, if there is a perceived need to change the rule, then changing
the gap rules seems a smaler step - except that then we get into more
arguments about exactly where a gap exists .