Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/23/2005 17:20:55 Central Standard Time,
redcoat24@... writes:

Wow, does that include support shooting? That is to say, if I have a unit
engaged with Elephants, and another unit armed with Bow behind my engaged
unit can the bow armed unit support shoot at the Elephants during the
combat? That sounds crazy.>>


Well, no, since you can't shoot over your own troops like that.

Jon







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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/23/2005 18:10:27 Central Standard Time,
greg.regets@... writes:

As an aside, I think we all like when you give these more detailed
explanations to what seems to be edgy questions, Jon>>

I'd do it more if it didn't typically start a damned kibitzing cycle...lol.
Let's see what happens with this one...

J






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

Jon:



Not certain if you saw Kelly's question buried in one of his many recent
emails. But he asked a question regarding elephants and shooting and I'm
very interested in your response. I had similar questions also against Rob
Turnbull at last year's DoW tournament at West Point. Specifically, the
ability of bow armed elephants to shoot over intervening units.



I believe I fully understand the correct answer to the question, but have
had disagreement from players and umpires in the past.



There is no rush on the response, next "serious" game for me will be at On
Military Matters in mid-March followed by West Point later that month.



I have snipped Kelly's question (and highlighted the most interesting part)
and placed it below. Thank you.



Fred Stratton



In regard to your ruling on overhead shooting where elephants can be shot at
over intervening units, can you explain that to the readership here. I
understand your reasoning and will readily agree with you, but don't want a
similar situation to be over-ruled by Scott (this happened at the NICT as in
a game I had with Rob Turnbull). Basically we had been allowing shooting
over intervening units @ elephants and by them over their fellow units.



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

[joncleaves]

The reason Elephants cannot shoot over intervening friendly troops is that 8.7
says:

"No other overhead shooting is permitted, even if to or from a greater height."

And there is no exception for elephants.

I am typically not into background explanations to certain folks who like to
constantly quibble over them and Kelly just won't let this one go - much to my
great annoyance. But for you, Fred, who are blissfully uninvolved in that - I
will indulge.

Ancient and medieval missile fire was not an exact science. Very many missiles
that *could* theoretically be shot over another body of troops fell short as
part of a volley, which would be very irritating to the friendlies they fell
upon. It simply was not done on a massed basis with things like B and LB.
Stone throwers on a height are, as an example, an exception because they could
be sure not to go short into the other body due to trajectory, etc.

Its the difference between what is possible to an individual and what happens
with a mass of troops in real life.

J

Jon:



Thanks for the answer. You quoted the passage I expected to see, but had
encountered some disagreement with others in the past. However to
follow-up:



Elephants, due to visibility rules (see 13.15 and others), are legal targets
to missile armed troops over intervening bodies. Of course, the elephants,
as a target, must reflect the priorities listed in 8.3. Also, as stated in
8.3, elephants in HTH, even if every base is in contact, are eligible
targets. Anything wrong with the above statements? Thanks.



Fred Stratton









The reason Elephants cannot shoot over intervening friendly troops is that
8.7 says:



"No other overhead shooting is permitted, even if to or from a greater
height."



And there is no exception for elephants.



(Remainder of Jon's background answer snipped)







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

[joncleaves]

<<Elephants, due to visibility rules (see 13.15 and others), are legal targets
to missile armed troops over intervening bodies. Of course, the elephants,
as a target, must reflect the priorities listed in 8.3. Also, as stated in
8.3, elephants in HTH, even if every base is in contact, are eligible
targets. Anything wrong with the above statements? Thanks.>>

Nope, that is all good.

J

Wow, does that include support shooting? That is to say, if I have a unit
engaged with Elephants, and another unit armed with Bow behind my engaged
unit can the bow armed unit support shoot at the Elephants during the
combat? That sounds crazy.

Thanks for fielding this absurd question, Jon

Allan

----- Original Message -----
From: <JonCleaves@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 5:32 PM
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] Elephant Question


>
> <<Elephants, due to visibility rules (see 13.15 and others), are legal
> targets
> to missile armed troops over intervening bodies. Of course, the
> elephants,
> as a target, must reflect the priorities listed in 8.3. Also, as stated
> in
> 8.3, elephants in HTH, even if every base is in contact, are eligible
> targets. Anything wrong with the above statements? Thanks.>>
>
> Nope, that is all good.
>
> J
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Jon:



I'm not trying to flay a dead horse (elephant) here, but wanted to confirm
due to wording my statements from the earlier question a little tighter:



Elephants with all elements in contact with body A cannot be shot at by body
B (3rd party), unless body B is on the flank. If body B was behind body A,
the rule as stated in 8.7, "No other overhead shooting is permitted, even if
to or from a greater height" would apply, since body A exists between body B
and the elephants.



The elephants are eligible to be shot at by a 2nd rank of Body A while Body
A is in contact, as long as the rear rank is not eligible to fight the
elephant in HTH.



Once again, is this all correct? Thanks for the patience.



Fred Stratton







<<Elephants, due to visibility rules (see 13.15 and others), are legal
targets

to missile armed troops over intervening bodies. Of course, the elephants,

as a target, must reflect the priorities listed in 8.3. Also, as stated in

8.3, elephants in HTH, even if every base is in contact, are eligible

targets. Anything wrong with the above statements? Thanks.>>



Nope, that is all good.



J









Yahoo! Groups Links



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/



WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/











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

[Greg Regets]

Jon ... I completely agree.

If you don't mind my adding in (like that has ever stopped me in the
past)... as a person that has actually ridden a few elephants, this
is not exactly the best platform in the world to shoot from, and the
idea that you could pinpoint shoot over you own guys into a target,
wouldn't be the kind of thing the guys being shot over would enjoy. ;-
)

On horseback, you can kind of use your leverage and body lean to stay
pretty steady, and the horse is not so big that you can't control it
a little. An elephant is such a big platform ... its gonna go, where
it wants to go, and you're going with it! Every time a muscle moves,
you move with it ... because even a single muscle is as big as a man.

As an aside, I think we all like when you give these more detailed
explanations to what seems to be edgy questions, Jon ... and it does
usually end the arguement.

Thanks ... g


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> The reason Elephants cannot shoot over intervening friendly troops
is that 8.7 says:
>
> "No other overhead shooting is permitted, even if to or from a
greater height."
>
> And there is no exception for elephants.
>
> I am typically not into background explanations to certain folks
who like to constantly quibble over them and Kelly just won't let
this one go - much to my great annoyance. But for you, Fred, who are
blissfully uninvolved in that - I will indulge.
>
> Ancient and medieval missile fire was not an exact science. Very
many missiles that *could* theoretically be shot over another body of
troops fell short as part of a volley, which would be very irritating
to the friendlies they fell upon. It simply was not done on a massed
basis with things like B and LB. Stone throwers on a height are, as
an example, an exception because they could be sure not to go short
into the other body due to trajectory, etc.
>
> Its the difference between what is possible to an individual and
what happens with a mass of troops in real life.
>
> J

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Jon Cleaves wrote:
I am typically not into background explanations to certain folks who like to
constantly quibble over them and Kelly just won't let this one go - much to my
great annoyance.


***Jon,
I'm sorry that your annoyed, it's just that when "WE" here in Kansas City
are told one thing by you, the rules guru, and then we go to the NICT and it's
over-ruled by Scott Holder, I am the one that is more than annoyed. . . more
like exasperated b/c I really don't understand how the rule is supposed to work.
I still don't understand. Sometimes it takes a picture to get it. All I want to
do is understand how it's supposed to apply in Lancaster where it will matter in
the NICT. Remember, the only 25mm army I happen to own is Burmese-a elephant
heavy army-. Perhaps it's because I have never encountered such a rule or my own
ignorance,but I will tell you this, I don't blame my students for not
comprehending my lesson. I certainly don't ignore their questions. But then
again, you are not a teacher or are you? I plead the same ignorance as Todd
Kaeser. I ask for the same patience as him.

kw

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Jon,

Thank you for clearing this up for me here. For some reason it has not
stuck and the reason that it has here is that you showed the specifics that
support this. I certainly will be copying this for future use on Charles's
Jumbo's! Run Tantore Run! :)

kelly

Greg Regets <greg.regets@...> wrote:

Jon ... I completely agree.

If you don't mind my adding in (like that has ever stopped me in the
past)... as a person that has actually ridden a few elephants, this
is not exactly the best platform in the world to shoot from, and the
idea that you could pinpoint shoot over you own guys into a target,
wouldn't be the kind of thing the guys being shot over would enjoy. ;-
)

On horseback, you can kind of use your leverage and body lean to stay
pretty steady, and the horse is not so big that you can't control it
a little. An elephant is such a big platform ... its gonna go, where
it wants to go, and you're going with it! Every time a muscle moves,
you move with it ... because even a single muscle is as big as a man.

As an aside, I think we all like when you give these more detailed
explanations to what seems to be edgy questions, Jon ... and it does
usually end the arguement.

Thanks ... g


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> The reason Elephants cannot shoot over intervening friendly troops
is that 8.7 says:
>
> "No other overhead shooting is permitted, even if to or from a
greater height."
>
> And there is no exception for elephants.
>
> I am typically not into background explanations to certain folks
who like to constantly quibble over them and Kelly just won't let
this one go - much to my great annoyance. But for you, Fred, who are
blissfully uninvolved in that - I will indulge.
>
> Ancient and medieval missile fire was not an exact science. Very
many missiles that *could* theoretically be shot over another body of
troops fell short as part of a volley, which would be very irritating
to the friendlies they fell upon. It simply was not done on a massed
basis with things like B and LB. Stone throwers on a height are, as
an example, an exception because they could be sure not to go short
into the other body due to trajectory, etc.
>
> Its the difference between what is possible to an individual and
what happens with a mass of troops in real life.
>
> J




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.

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

[joncleaves]

<<Elephants with all elements in contact with body A cannot be shot at by body
B (3rd party), unless body B is on the flank. >>

No, if all elements of A are in contact, the only way it can be shot at is if it
is an elephant. See 8.3 first bullet.

<< If body B was behind body A,
the rule as stated in 8.7, "No other overhead shooting is permitted, even if
to or from a greater height" would apply, since body A exists between body B
and the elephants.>>

Not tracking on this one. Is B friendly to A or not? How about a diagram?

<<The elephants are eligible to be shot at by a 2nd rank of Body A while Body
A is in contact, as long as the rear rank is not eligible to fight the
elephant in HTH. >>

True.

Jon

[joncleaves]

>
>
> ***Jon,
> I'm sorry that your annoyed, it's just that when "WE" here in
Kansas City are told one thing by you, the rules guru, and then we
go to the NICT and it's over-ruled by Scott Holder, I am the one
that is more than annoyed. . .>>

I do NOT want to get into this, but I also don't like how this issue
has been portrayed and want to set the record straight.

Scott is the ump at the NICT. His word is law in that venue. There
are even times when I get ruled against - and I should. If I
haven't made my intent clear enough for him to understand as a
fellow member of FHE, then I 'deserve' whatever judgment he feels is
best. Period. And believe me, I have....lol

In any case, I am not in charge of what rulings come in anyone
else's tourney and I will not be. I am human - and it is tough to
watch an ump rule differently than I intended. But in the end, I
have no one to blame but myself. The ump is the man, and I have
plenty of soccer red cards to prove it...

Therefore, when I answer rules questions I answer them as the author
with the official answer. If someone doesn't like what their ump
does with that answer, I can't help that. FHE is NOT in the
business of telling folks how to run their events.

<<more like exasperated b/c I really don't understand how the rule
is supposed to work. I still don't understand.>>

As you know, but fail to point out here, I have explained this rule
to you on several occasions in person. You have clearly understood
what I have said. I am aware that you tried to play it that you
could shoot your elephants over your own archers to double frontage
on missile power. Who wouldn't 'want' this...? lol But don't act
like I haven't already been asked this question multiple times by
you and don't act like you didn't get what I said. In fact, I gave
you exactly the same historical reasoning for the rule that I gave
here yesterday during our game in the league playoffs not more than
ten days ago.

<<Perhaps it's because I have never encountered such a rule or my
own ignorance,but I will tell you this, I don't blame my students
for not comprehending my lesson. I certainly don't ignore their
questions. But then again, you are not a teacher or are you? I plead
the same ignorance as Todd Kaeser. I ask for the same patience as
him.>>

I am a teacher, and you know it. Todd doesn't pull this stuff - he
can have whatever he wants from me. This isn't about you not
getting what I said and you know it.

I'm done with this one.

J

[Greg Regets]

Referees at a tournament are like officials in a sporting event.

You have to go in it with the mindset that they will do a perfect job
at just about the same percentage that players play perfect games. I
have been playing since TOG 6.0 and have never once played a perfect
game.

Also consider that the bad thing that happen to you, always looks
worse than those that happen to everyone else ... but as there is a
clear understanding that there will probably never be a perfectly
refereed tournament, there are in fact bad things happening to
everyone.

It really all does tend to come out in the wash.

What has really helped me the most over the years (not that I'm the
worlds greatest player or anything) is making tactics and army lists
that don't rely on any single factor, in order to win. That way, if a
call or two doesn't go my way, there are still many other clubs in
the bag.

Thanks ... g




- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Jon" <JonCleaves@a...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > ***Jon,
> > I'm sorry that your annoyed, it's just that when "WE" here
in
> Kansas City are told one thing by you, the rules guru, and then we
> go to the NICT and it's over-ruled by Scott Holder, I am the one
> that is more than annoyed. . .>>
>
> I do NOT want to get into this, but I also don't like how this
issue
> has been portrayed and want to set the record straight.
>
> Scott is the ump at the NICT. His word is law in that venue.
There
> are even times when I get ruled against - and I should. If I
> haven't made my intent clear enough for him to understand as a
> fellow member of FHE, then I 'deserve' whatever judgment he feels
is
> best. Period. And believe me, I have....lol
>
> In any case, I am not in charge of what rulings come in anyone
> else's tourney and I will not be. I am human - and it is tough to
> watch an ump rule differently than I intended. But in the end, I
> have no one to blame but myself. The ump is the man, and I have
> plenty of soccer red cards to prove it...
>
> Therefore, when I answer rules questions I answer them as the
author
> with the official answer. If someone doesn't like what their ump
> does with that answer, I can't help that. FHE is NOT in the
> business of telling folks how to run their events.
>
> <<more like exasperated b/c I really don't understand how the rule
> is supposed to work. I still don't understand.>>
>
> As you know, but fail to point out here, I have explained this rule
> to you on several occasions in person. You have clearly understood
> what I have said. I am aware that you tried to play it that you
> could shoot your elephants over your own archers to double frontage
> on missile power. Who wouldn't 'want' this...? lol But don't act
> like I haven't already been asked this question multiple times by
> you and don't act like you didn't get what I said. In fact, I gave
> you exactly the same historical reasoning for the rule that I gave
> here yesterday during our game in the league playoffs not more than
> ten days ago.
>
> <<Perhaps it's because I have never encountered such a rule or my
> own ignorance,but I will tell you this, I don't blame my students
> for not comprehending my lesson. I certainly don't ignore their
> questions. But then again, you are not a teacher or are you? I
plead
> the same ignorance as Todd Kaeser. I ask for the same patience as
> him.>>
>
> I am a teacher, and you know it. Todd doesn't pull this stuff - he
> can have whatever he wants from me. This isn't about you not
> getting what I said and you know it.
>
> I'm done with this one.
>
> J

[Ewan McNay]

> - In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Jon" <JonCleaves@a...> wrote:

> There are even times when I get ruled against - and I should.

Actually, shouldn't it be the case that if there is enough ambiguity to
have a difference of opinion, the rules author automatically gets ruled
against?



































;) of course...