Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/20/2003 18:40:55 Central Daylight Time,
eforbes100@... writes:

> Thanks Jon,
>
> You addresed the point.
>

Awesome!!!! Man, I was so worried I had no clue what you were asking me.
Roll up!


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

[Ed Forbes]

Thanks Jon,

You addresed the point.

On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 18:13:33 EDT JonCleaves@... writes:
> In a message dated 4/20/2003 13:15:06 Central Daylight Time,
> eforbes100@... writes:
>
> >
> > 6.123 Change in Frontage: seems to imply that the element is
> picked up
> > off the table and is then placed back on the table, adjacent an
> element
> > in the front rank and on the end of the line
>
> That is correct.
>
.......
.
>
> I will guess that some of your fellow players feel that there is
> supposed to
> be a 'gap' between the end of the recoiling unit and the nearest
> flanking
> friendly unit before an expanding element of the following up unit
> can 'move
> through it'. This isn't correct for a lot of reasons, but the most
> simple of
> which is that 6.53 says:
>
> "This rule is only intended for use when a body intends to move
> between two
> .shoulders. to a position beyond."
>
> The following up body is not moving through (or attempting to move
> through)
> the small gap between the friendly flank units and the recoiler to a
> position
> beyond. An element of the following up unit may be in a space
> between those
> two units that is less than an element wide as it is not trying to
> move
> between them to a position beyond.
>
> Also true is:
>
> "This rule does not apply to a body moving into contact with one
> of the shoulders itself."
>
> As the following up unit is in contact with the recoiler, it is not
> bound by
> any 6.53 considerations between the recoiler and another unit, only
> the two
> flank units between which, if I understand the question, the
> recoil/followup
> occurred.
>
>

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

Thanks Jon for addressing Edroe's e-mail. Just wanted to add a
little clarity to the issue. I happened to walk in on Edroe's and
Paul's game as they were heavily involved in the question of
expansion.

I've taken your advise and added a powerpoint description of the
situation in question. Please review powerpoint "Expanding Frontage"
file located in "Files" section under the "PB Folder". Side note to
all, Jon's powerpoint element icons is a big help in describing the
situation in picture versus words and x's and o's. Strong
recomendation for use.

Jon please review and provide feedback in understanding Edroe's
maneuver. Is it a legal maneuver?
Thanks,
Craig


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/20/2003 18:40:55 Central Daylight Time,
> eforbes100@j... writes:
>
> > Thanks Jon,
> >
> > You addresed the point.
> >
>
> Awesome!!!! Man, I was so worried I had no clue what you were
asking me.
> Roll up!
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/23/2003 01:15:52 Central Daylight Time,
cburdine@... writes:

> I've taken your advise and added a powerpoint description of the
> situation in question. Please review powerpoint "Expanding Frontage"
> file located in "Files" section under the "PB Folder". Side note to
> all, Jon's powerpoint element icons is a big help in describing the
> situation in picture versus words and x's and o's. Strong
> recomendation for use.
>
> Jon please review and provide feedback in understanding Edroe's
> maneuver. Is it a legal maneuver?
> Thanks,
> Craig
>

Man, I would have sworn I have already answered a question about this diagram
- but can't for the life of me find the message...lol

Yes, Craig - you can do what is shown in the superb diagram. I don't know
what 'death from above' means as applied to this situation, but I do know
that -

If someone is objecting to this 'move' because of the gap between A and B,
remember:

gaps don't really matter if you are in contact with a shoulder, which is true
here
gaps don't really matter if you are not moving through it to a position
beyond, which is not being done here

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/23/2003 08:39:16 Central Daylight Time, cuan@...
writes:

> Perhaps a statement should be added in the next clarification that Gaps 6.53
> do not apply to combat result moves.
> -PB
>
>

Gaps very much do 'apply' to combat results moves. But they do not 'apply'
when one of the shoulders is a body you are in contact with.

And in looking to see where a clarification might help, I keep seeing
everything that mattered to my answer to this past question right in the
first paragraph:

"This rule is only intended for use when a
body intends to move between two .shoulders. to a position beyond. This rule
does not apply to a body moving into contact with one
of the shoulders itself."

I'll keep looking at it, but finding it hard to 'improve' on the wording in
those two sentences. Any recommendations? Don?


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

[Patrick Byrne]

Perhaps a statement should be added in the next clarification that Gaps 6.53
do not apply to combat result moves.
-PB

> From: JonCleaves@...
> Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 07:58:44 EDT
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Change in frontage: expansion in H-H followup
>
> In a message dated 4/23/2003 01:15:52 Central Daylight Time,
> cburdine@... writes:
>
>> I've taken your advise and added a powerpoint description of the
>> situation in question. Please review powerpoint "Expanding Frontage"
>> file located in "Files" section under the "PB Folder". Side note to
>> all, Jon's powerpoint element icons is a big help in describing the
>> situation in picture versus words and x's and o's. Strong
>> recomendation for use.
>>
>> Jon please review and provide feedback in understanding Edroe's
>> maneuver. Is it a legal maneuver?
>> Thanks,
>> Craig
>>
>
> Man, I would have sworn I have already answered a question about this diagram
> - but can't for the life of me find the message...lol
>
> Yes, Craig - you can do what is shown in the superb diagram. I don't know
> what 'death from above' means as applied to this situation, but I do know
> that -
>
> If someone is objecting to this 'move' because of the gap between A and B,
> remember:
>
> gaps don't really matter if you are in contact with a shoulder, which is true
> here
> gaps don't really matter if you are not moving through it to a position
> beyond, which is not being done here
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/23/2003 11:55:42 Central Daylight Time,
eturner@... writes:

> John,
>
> I would look at it form the POV that Gaps 6.53 is right and well
> written. But adding something to 6.31 Recoils/Follow-ups may remind
> readers that gaps are not a concern due to incontact. This stresses
> the point in a different section of the rules.
>
> Eric
>

Not a bad idea, Ehrihc. I'll save this one for the next update.
Jon


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

[Eric Turner]

John,

I would look at it form the POV that Gaps 6.53 is right and well
written. But adding something to 6.31 Recoils/Follow-ups may remind
readers that gaps are not a concern due to incontact. This stresses
the point in a different section of the rules.

Eric

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/23/2003 08:39:16 Central Daylight Time,
cuan@w...
> writes:
>
> > Perhaps a statement should be added in the next clarification
that Gaps 6.53
> > do not apply to combat result moves.
> > -PB
> >
> >
>
> Gaps very much do 'apply' to combat results moves. But they do
not 'apply'
> when one of the shoulders is a body you are in contact with.
>
> And in looking to see where a clarification might help, I keep
seeing
> everything that mattered to my answer to this past question right
in the
> first paragraph:
>
> "This rule is only intended for use when a
> body intends to move between two .shoulders. to a position beyond.
This rule
> does not apply to a body moving into contact with one
> of the shoulders itself."
>
> I'll keep looking at it, but finding it hard to 'improve' on the
wording in
> those two sentences. Any recommendations? Don?
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]