Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:

> Unlike Don, I will have some more questions to piggy back on yours.
>
> Try this one; If C, D, E, & F don't march, but G, H, I & J do then G, H, I,
> & J will run into the back of C, D, E, & F. However, this will qualify
> these 4 for meeting orders because they moved their entire possible march
> move. The fact that they could not interpenetrate in the march is hardly
> there fault.
>

Well, that's not actually what Jon's clarification says. To be a qualifying
advance, you cannot be stopped by a friendly body. So their fault or not, they
don't qualify as Jon has it worded. I'm sure that Jon's rationale here is to
avoid the practice of deliberately pinning one of your units still marching
behind another now halted, and calling that a qualifying advance since you've
moved as far as possible in some sense of "possible". The problem is, ruling out
all those gimmicks is tough without ruling out some common sense alternatives as
well.


> While obviously curious about Jon's answer, I do wonder why moving A & B
> straight ahead, would not accomplish both functions. Each march segment would
> be getting closer and you would of course be moving towards you flank shot.
>
> I do not believe it says you have to move 'towards an enemy by the closest
> possible direct course', just end closer (minimize distance) in each march
> segment ... correct? If A and/or B marched straight ahead until pinned, they
> would be in obeyance.
>

No. That's precisely my problem. Jon's wording says you have to "minimize"
distance to the enemy body. If another path would bring you closer, then you
haven't minimized distance. Therefore A and B don't qualify by moving straight
ahead, since there's another shorter path to the enemy they could have taken.

I keep trying to find some other way to read it, because I remember in our
previous discussion on this thread that Jon said he didn't want a rule that made
you follow the shortest possible path to the enemy. But that seems synonymous
with minimizing to me. Which is where I get stuck, hence my question.


-Mark Stone