Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Don

I stopped reading that email at the point where I was asked if I had read the
rules. If you want me to answer, try again.

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

Don

I think you are reading the 'option 2s' of both pivot and line up too
'loosely'. Those options were designed to permit charging of two bodies and
not pulling defenders out of terrain. Fit is there primarily for flank
charges, not these two cases.

I'll look at some language for the next clarification sheet if it will make
you feel better.

Jon


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

[Don Coon]

> Hmmm interesting thread here. No 'wrath', but I do have some
observations:
>
> > <<As I said, once Jon allows interpenetration in a charge to violate the
fit
> > rule, "fit will be a dead term in Warrior.>>
>
> It is very much alive. I have no intent to do more with interpenetration
in
> a charge than I have with the current clarifications. Nothing is being
done
> on this in the lab at this time. Fit still matters in a huge way and will
> continue to do so.

We have yet to have a game where fit came up. That is in over 100 games
since last July 15. For such a huge issue, we have never seen it.

I sure wish you could show me how. Did you read the 6.163 definition of
fit? Did you read 6.165 pivoting to conform, and lining up? Fit says "Fit
is the term for a body being able to
physically occupy the space required by the body once contact is made with
the target of the charge AND the bodies have been pivoted and lined up."
Well after they have been pivoted and lined up, they may not be in parallel
contact or in corner to corner contact. 6.165 specifically allows this.

> Not sure what you are saying here, Don, but the so-called 'just leave it'
> options for pivoting and conforming have more to do with terrain and
charging
> two bodies than they do with fit.

Wait a minute. The rules in 6.165 make no mention that they apply only if
charging two or more bodies or if terrain is present. I think I see what
you guys are doing. If a non charge target body is "in the way", you are
using "fit" to make the charge illegal. This makes good sense to me, now
that I think I see what you are trying to say. However the WRITTEN rules do
not support your position

Do you not remember the V debates? I have only written this same example
like 5 times, but what the heck I will do it again:

I am 3X2 Irr B LHI 2HCW,JLS+Sh. I am facing 2 1X2 bodies of REG LHI
JLS+Sh.They are 60p distant and 60p apart roughly centered on my body..
Their front edges are not parallel with me. They are angled back 30
degrees, so that the apex of the V they make is towards my center, and the
point of the
V is furthest away from me.

I do NOT fit at declaration. Can I charge? Of course I can because 6.165
says when I smack into those two bodies, even though I can not pivot to
conform to them, they pivot to conform to me. Legal charge into a spot I
did not FIT at declaration. That is why you added the 2 line items to
pivoting and lining up in 6.165. To allow this type of charge. Well those
same two lines allow me to pretty much FIT anywhere I can touch (regardless
of whether stuff in the way is a charge target or not).

Imagine the two LHI in the example above are parallel to me, but one behind
the other. I am now a 1X2 body of REG LHI JLS+Sh. They are separated by
40p and are not perfectly aligned. I can charge the furthest back unit on
the little sliver that is showing (Scott shudders at this from his 7th
days). I contact him, but can not line up due to his buddy. Viloa 6.165
lets him come sliding out from behind his pal right to me. I do not fit at
declaration, but I sure do after 6.165 applies. I even have the advantage
of 6.163 telling me that fit is an issue only after pivoting and lining up
any way.

You want the first charge to be legal. You fixed the rules and it is legal.
However the fix makes the second charge legal. I guess you can rule it
otherwise in a tourny, but at any tourny I am the ref at, I will use
published rules to support my possition to the satisfaction of the disputing
parties.

We had this discussion ad nauseum prior to the July 15 draft. Every one I
have ever met, saw it the way I do. Every one you have ever met, failed to
see my POV. I fail to see how anyone reading 6.163, and 6.165 can not
come to the conclussion that we do. Please go back and read 6.163, and
6.165. Unlear what you have learned and just read them. What do they say?
Is it what you meant? I do not think so.

Don

[Don Coon]

> Don
>
> I stopped reading that email at the point where I was asked if I had read
the
> rules. If you want me to answer, try again.
>
> Jon

All I am asking you to do is read 6.163, and 6.165 and explain to me where
you see that it only applies when attempting to charge multple bodies or if
terrain is present. I am asking that you not answere from memory, but with
the book laying in your lap. That is all I was trying to achieve.

I can see that in any tourny I was at , that you or Scott umped I would be
on the wrong side of the debate, that is the nature of disagreements. The
judge will rule one way or the other. In that case I would still say please
read the rule and explain your position to me.

I beleive any player involved in a dispute is entitled to have the judge
state specifically where and why a ruling is made. That would include
direct quotes from the rule book.

I would ask either of you for this if I was one side of a rule disagreement.
Would you not give me that ruling then? Would you not state where you were
achieving your position? That is all I am asking. Please point me to the
relevent text to support your contention. Please give me exact quotes where
possible (I did this 3 times in my post to Scott).

I have reposted my original email with the offending words deleted.

> on this in the lab at this time. Fit still matters in a huge way and will
> continue to do so.

We have yet to have a game where fit came up. That is in over 100 games
since last July 15. For such a huge issue, we have never seen it.

I sure wish you could show me how. In the 6.163 definition of
fit, Fit says "Fit is the term for a body being able to physically occupy
the space required by the body once contact is made with the target of the
charge AND the bodies have been pivoted and lined up."
Well after they have been pivoted and lined up, they may not be in parallel
contact or in corner to corner contact. 6.165 specifically allows this.

> Not sure what you are saying here, Don, but the so-called 'just leave it'
> options for pivoting and conforming have more to do with terrain and
charging
> two bodies than they do with fit.

Wait a minute. The rules in 6.165 make no mention that they apply only if
charging two or more bodies or if terrain is present. I think I see what
you guys are doing. If a non charge target body is "in the way", you are
using "fit" to make the charge illegal. This makes good sense to me, now
that I think I see what you are trying to say. However the WRITTEN rules do
not support your position

Do you not remember the V debates? I have only written this same example
like 5 times, but what the heck I will do it again:

I am 3X2 Irr B LHI 2HCW,JLS+Sh. I am facing 2 1X2 bodies of REG LHI
JLS+Sh.They are 60p distant and 60p apart roughly centered on my body..
Their front edges are not parallel with me. They are angled back 30
degrees, so that the apex of the V they make is towards my center, and the
point of the V is furthest away from me.

I do NOT fit at declaration. Can I charge? Of course I can because 6.165
says when I smack into those two bodies, even though I can not pivot to
conform to them, they pivot to conform to me. Legal charge into a spot I
did not FIT at declaration. That is why you added the 2 line items to
pivoting and lining up in 6.165. To allow this type of charge. Well those
same two lines allow me to pretty much FIT anywhere I can touch (regardless
of whether stuff in the way is a charge target or not).

Imagine the two LHI in the example above are parallel to me, but one behind
the other. I am now a 1X2 body of REG LHI JLS+Sh. They are separated by
40p and are not perfectly aligned. I can charge the furthest back unit on
the little sliver that is showing (Scott shudders at this from his 7th
days). I contact him, but can not line up due to his buddy. Viloa 6.165
lets him come sliding out from behind his pal right to me. I do not fit at
declaration, but I sure do after 6.165 applies. I even have the advantage
of 6.163 telling me that fit is an issue only after pivoting and lining up
any way.

You (and everyone I know) want the first charge to be legal. You fixed the
rules and it is legal.
However the fix makes the second charge legal. I guess you can rule it
otherwise in a tourny, but at any tourny I am the ref at, I will use
published rules to support my position to the satisfaction of the disputing
parties.

We had this discussion ad nauseum prior to the July 15 draft. Every one I
have ever met, saw it the way I do. Every one you have ever met, failed to
see my POV. I fail to see how anyone reading 6.163, and 6.165 can not
come to the conclussion that we do. Please pretend you are a brand new
player try to digest 6.163, and 6.165. Unlearn what you have learned and
just tell me what they say. What do they say?
Is it what you meant? I do not think so.

Don

[joncleaves]

Ok, tell you what, how about proposing to me a clarification that would have
us both playing the same game?

Jon


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

[Don Coon]

> Don
>
> I think you are reading the 'option 2s' of both pivot and line up too
> 'loosely'. Those options were designed to permit charging of two bodies
and
> not pulling defenders out of terrain. Fit is there primarily for flank
> charges, not these two cases.
>
> I'll look at some language for the next clarification sheet if it will
make
> you feel better.
>
> Jon

It would, but it is not about making me "feel better" (isnt that a bit
patronizing?). I have a difficult time, when you say I am reading the rules
too loosely. Rules are rigid black and white things. I feel very strongly
that you are playing the game other than it is written. I feel you know how
you want certain situations to be, but at the same time, the rulesa as
written do not seem to support your position. This is what causes multiple
interps.

How is a new player not privy to you or the other horse dudes going to play
6.163 and 6.165? I am not sure, but without you guidance there is a better
than average chance it will not be the way you do IMHO.

We are playing a different game in DFW than you are. It saddens me. I want
to play the same game as you so that when I meet you on the field of battle
we are in agreement. Regional factionalization is not good for a game. I
want very much for this game to grow and overwhelm the other historical
minature games. If I did not want this, I would not make all these posts.
I would stay down here with my 12 man group and just play in a vacuum.

We have a new 13 year old player. We let him read the rules and then come
watch us play and ask questions. New eyes do wonders to help you look past
preconceptions. All we ask, when we ask you a question is to read the
relevant sections with new eyes.

Don

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/23/2002 17:22:02 Central Daylight Time, cuan@...
writes:


> The reason (right or wrong) we don't allow that flank charge is due to gaps.
> The existing gap is 0mm. If the HC was to pivot to conform regardless of
> the stepped back unit, it would still be going through a gap of less than
> 120p.
>
>

That reason is wrong. I gave you the paragraph that tell you why that is not
a legal flank charge already. The fact it is illegal has nothing whatsoever
to do with 6.53.

J


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/23/2002 17:41:34 Central Daylight Time,
jjendon@... writes:


> I feel that with the changes to flank charge para we are discussing off
> line, the rules (6.163, and 6.165) are good as written, as we read them.
> However, this line of posts lead me to the conclussion that is not what you
> intend them to be, as FIT is a huge issue for you. I would like to show
> you
> how in over 100 play test games, fit has not entered into one single game
> (as we read the written rules) and have you be comforatble with that. I
> doubt that is the solution you are seeking however, so now I must pursue
> two
> courses.
>

Don , the '100 games' does not really help. You had many games with this
v-thing too, yet none of the top players in the country has ever seen such a
thing nor would they ever do it as it is tactical madness. When it all came
down to it, we found that you guys were calling things gaps that were clearly
NOT the minimum distance between anything. I suspect something similar is at
play here for two reasons:

1. Pat's email of this afternoon which demonstrates that at least he clearly
does not understand 6.53.

2. The fact that fit came up five or six times at Cold Wars and once Scott
or I showed the relevant rules to the players involved, everything was
kosher. It mattered in even more games (couple of mine as I recall), but the
players handled the issue without calling an umpire - merely noting to me or
Scott later that they had it come up.


> 1. We must adjust our play to the way you want fit to work.

Well, I certainly agree with that course of action.

>
> 2. I must propose to you a clarification that is worded so fit, pivoting,
> and lining up work as you intend (that will take some thought).
>
I really want this from you, as I think it will help us see your issue.

> <<Still the simplest clarification is that you embrace 6.163, and 6.165 as
> they are written and see how little impact they really have on the game.>>


Man, do you do stuff like this on purpose? Of course I embrace 6.163, 6.165
- I WROTE the damn things. See above for impact on the game. But man, Don,
you are making me want to just skip your emails when I read this 'Jon you
should read (embrace, whatever) the rules' shit.

>
> <<Yes we have seen little slivers of units get pulled out from behind a
> friend.>>


That is of course illegal. More evidence that something is fishy in DFW as I
saw a couple of players who had not read the rulebook try this and those that
had stop it at CW.

<<It is rare, and we all prepare and deal with it. Your call here>>

Good. My call is for you to offer up a clarification and for me to look at
it to see if it offers a clue to what you guys are getting wrong out there.

Jon


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

[Patrick Byrne]

It doesn't appear that there is a problem needing clarification. We've
played the way the rules are written without problems. 'Fit' just does not
appear to be a viable term any longer with the current rules.

The real problem is with-out seeing pictures or actual live units on the
table, we don't know what your intentions for 'Fit' are and what situations
they are to apply.

As of right now, only one 'Fit' issue exists, an Interpenetrating Charge
where the interpenetrated move back greater than 100p (per 4/10/02
clarifications). In which case the charge would be illegal. - An example
would be a 1x4 LC unit charging through LI. 4 units of LC are 160p long,
therefore the LI would go back 120p making it illegal because the 1x4
couldn't 'Fit'.
-PB


> From: JonCleaves@...
> Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 08:08:08 EDT
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Fit (again)
>
> Ok, tell you what, how about proposing to me a clarification that would have
> us both playing the same game?
>
> 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]

Don

1. Take the 'fit' discussion to my personal email. Include others in your
group if you like.

2. Start the next email you send me on this issue with your preferred
wording of 6.153, please. Please.

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

Let me give you another example, Pat. The cav can't flank charge that
light-colored foot unit in the image in the files section entirely due to the
issue of fit. If it wasn't for fit, that would be a flank charge.

Fit is primarily there for flank charges, true. I will look and see if I can
come up with a non-flank charge case where fit applies.

Jon

[Patrick Byrne]

The reason (right or wrong) we don't allow that flank charge is due to gaps.
The existing gap is 0mm. If the HC was to pivot to conform regardless of
the stepped back unit, it would still be going through a gap of less than
120p.

To explain this another way: There IS a different location for the stepped
back unit that provides support, makes the gap less than 120p and that the
HC would be able to pivot to conform. There should be no difference between
this spot and the spot shown in the photo. This is why we play it as an
illegal charge in DFW.

Maybe Don and I are just reading the rules too loosely here and it should
actually be a flank charge. However, if the above ruling is correct, then
no rules clarification is needed (as I think we interp correctly). Though
this would have little to do with 'Fit'.
-PB


> From: JonCleaves@...
> Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 18:05:50 -0400
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Re: [WarriorRules] Fit (again)
>
> Let me give you another example, Pat. The cav can't flank charge that
> light-colored foot unit in the image in the files section entirely due to the
> issue of fit. If it wasn't for fit, that would be a flank charge.
>
> Fit is primarily there for flank charges, true. I will look and see if I can
> come up with a non-flank charge case where fit applies.
>
> Jon
>
>
> 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/
>
>

[Patrick Byrne]

The reason (right or wrong) we don't allow that flank charge is due to gaps.
The existing gap is 0mm. If the HC was to pivot to conform regardless of
the stepped back unit, it would still be going through a gap of less than
120p.

To explain this another way: There IS a different location for the stepped
back unit that provides support, makes the gap less than 120p and that the
HC would be able to pivot to conform. There should be no difference between
this spot and the spot shown in the photo. This is why we play it as an
illegal charge in DFW.

Maybe Don and I are just reading the rules too loosely here and it should
actually be a flank charge. However, if the above ruling is correct, then
no rules clarification is needed (as I think we interp correctly). Though
this would have little to do with 'Fit'.
-PB


> From: JonCleaves@...
> Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 18:05:50 -0400
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Re: [WarriorRules] Fit (again)
>
> Let me give you another example, Pat. The cav can't flank charge that
> light-colored foot unit in the image in the files section entirely due to the
> issue of fit. If it wasn't for fit, that would be a flank charge.
>
> Fit is primarily there for flank charges, true. I will look and see if I can
> come up with a non-flank charge case where fit applies.
>
> Jon
>
>
> 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/
>
>

[Don Coon]

I feel that with the changes to flank charge para we are discussing off
line, the rules (6.163, and 6.165) are good as written, as we read them.
However, this line of posts lead me to the conclussion that is not what you
intend them to be, as FIT is a huge issue for you. I would like to show you
how in over 100 play test games, fit has not entered into one single game
(as we read the written rules) and have you be comforatble with that. I
doubt that is the solution you are seeking however, so now I must pursue two
courses.

1. We must adjust our play to the way you want fit to work.

2. I must propose to you a clarification that is worded so fit, pivoting,
and lining up work as you intend (that will take some thought).

Still the simplest clarification is that you embrace 6.163, and 6.165 as
they are written and see how little impact they really have on the game.

Yes we have seen little slivers of units get pulled out from behind a
friend. It is rare, and we all prepare and deal with it. Your call here
(obviously), and either way I am thinking about how to clarify the intent.

Don

> Ok, tell you what, how about proposing to me a clarification that would
have
> us both playing the same game?
>
> Jon

[Don Coon]

> > <<Still the simplest clarification is that you embrace 6.163, and 6.165
as
> > they are written and see how little impact they really have on the
game.>>
>
> Man, do you do stuff like this on purpose? Of course I embrace 6.163,
6.165
> - I WROTE the damn things. See above for impact on the game. But man,
Don,
> you are making me want to just skip your emails when I read this 'Jon you
> should read (embrace, whatever) the rules' shit.

WOW. I am trying to be cordial and you get like this? I have quoted 6.153
directly. I have asked (and offended you) to read it. I have asked (and
offended you) to embrace it. You are getting awful touchy here IMHO. I
have tried every avenue I can to get through to you. I quote 6.153, but
when you reply you trim my quote out. I give examples with relevant
portions of the text, and you ignore them. I offend you when I ask you to
read the rules. I am out of ideas.

Oh and on the subject of skipping emails. If I did not love this game and
shamelessly try to promote it to any and all who listen, I would be inclined
to skip yours as well. Sometime you might want to review your own demeanor
and imagine how others might percieve you.

Don

Don