Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

Quoting WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com:

> From: JonCleaves@...
>
> What you can't do is move so that you get 1p closer than you were to the
> enemy body that you choose and make your march move in such a way that you
> are not using it in its entirety to go toward that body, which is what I
> *think* you said you did. That move, if I understand you correctly, is
> illegal as you did not go entirely toward an enemy body - all you did was get
>
> a little closer to it.
>
> 'Get closer' is not the language of the march as advance rule. Only your max
>
> march move entirely (not a little bit - entirely) toward an enemy body
> qualifies.

Jon, I don't know anybody that reads the rule this way or plays the rule this
way. So if this is what you intended to say, then you're far from clear. Let me
point out some issues I'm seeing:

(1) You've said that you don't want the rule to read as "must move directly
towards" or "must take shortest path towards". But your explanation of
"entirely" above sounds just like that. What difference is there that I'm
missing?

(2) "All possible march segments" needs some definite clarification. Suppose,
for example, that I have a 32 figure pike block (4 wide, 2 deep), force marched
to the center. 720 paces behind it I have a 6 figure HC unit. My opponent
marches until he is 240 paces from my pike block. Are you saying I must attempt
to march around my pike block to get to 240 from the enemy if at all possible?
Or can I march up until I'm stopped by my own pike block? The former is using
all possible march segments to get to 240; the latter is using march segments
until it is no longer possible to march. Which is it?

(3) I know from talking with you that the general intent of many of the rules in
Warrior is to encourage armies to engage, to make the game "bloodier", and to
make it more likely that decisive result will be achieved promptly. I'm all in
favor of that. But there are ways you could choose to clarify the march
requirement that would cause many players to simply abandon Attack or Probe
orders altogether. Then your efforts to define those orders more aggressively
would produce a frustratingly less aggressive game overall.

I guess I fear that you may be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. The
original situation described on this email thread sounded pretty minor and open
to interpretation to me, and I can't think in tournament play over the last
three years if I've _ever_ seen anyone under Probe or Attack orders fail to get
into a good fight.

Most stalling and delaying tactics occur after armies have closed to within 240,
not before. Just make sure you're solving the right problem.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

In a message dated Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:38:42 +0000, mark@...
writes:

> I guess I fear that you may be trying to solve a problem
> that doesn't exist.>>

Mark, I totally agree. I do not feel there is a problem. I have reviewed the
rule and even looked at some situations in the three games we played yesterday
to see where the problem is. I do not have any intent at this point to write a
clarification, but neither do I oppose Pat writing a question (or more than one)
and having the answer(s) in the FAQ for those who want it(them).
I have saved various rewordings of 4.52 to look at, but none yet states the rule
better than the book does, so they are all in my hold pile for the time being.

This all started with a text description of a situation that was not legal, and
I stated so. All I am doing now is making sure I have a correct picture of that
text-based description. Based on the reactions to my initial answer to the
initial question, I am not sure I have it right. A picture of Pat's 'situation'
would really be helpful in closing this out.

J