Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Patrick Byrne]

I have uploaded a jpeg to the WarriorRules group files with my
question on gaps (labeled 'Gap Question').

Jon, I hope you can see my concern. The upper portion/picture is the
way we played the rules this past weekend. I found that it could be
abused and flat out no fun.

[joncleaves]

Steve et al.

I am doing the gaps rule before I post the Historicon draft. I have a copy
of every mail and i have listened to every issue.
Rule is still in progress.

Jon

[Don Coon]

> I have uploaded a jpeg to the WarriorRules group files with my
> question on gaps (labeled 'Gap Question').
>
> Jon, I hope you can see my concern. The upper portion/picture is the
> way we played the rules this past weekend. I found that it could be
> abused and flat out no fun.

Thats kind of offensive isnt it? I adapt and play by the rules, kick your
ASS, and you call it abuse? If you want to say the rule seems illogical and
was no fun, or it was frustrating and no fun, I hear and am with you buddy,
but abuse it was not!

Don

[Patrick Byrne]

I didn't say you DID abuse it, I said,"I found that it could be abused and flat
out no fun."

I think we played fair and that you DID NOT abuse it. But in looking at what we
did during the game (and analyzing afterwards), I can see how one could set up
so as not to be charged period (see my picture). That's abuse. And it is that
kind of game I don't want to play.

So I'll restate my opinion. I won't have fun in playing a game where when you
line up to charge the enemy, he wheels slightly to the left so you can't charge
him.


Furthermore, after rereading 6.53 for the fifth time, I am beginning to think
that you never measure from a near edge of a unit to the farther edge of another
unit. I think you always measure from the nearest point of one unit to the
nearest point of the second unit for gap creation.
-PB


DONALD COON wrote:

> > I have uploaded a jpeg to the WarriorRules group files with my
> > question on gaps (labeled 'Gap Question').
> >
> > Jon, I hope you can see my concern. The upper portion/picture is the
> > way we played the rules this past weekend. I found that it could be
> > abused and flat out no fun.
>
> Thats kind of offensive isnt it? I adapt and play by the rules, kick your
> ASS, and you call it abuse? If you want to say the rule seems illogical and
> was no fun, or it was frustrating and no fun, I hear and am with you buddy,
> but abuse it was not!
>
> Don
>
> 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/

I've looked at your jpeg and I have several points to put across.
Some might be a little "off" but please bear with me.

1. The "sea to shining sea" defence. This is RUBBISH! Let's look
at each defending unit in turn and using the troop positions as laid
out in the jpeg.

Unit A cannot be attacked on either flank in this scenario but CAN be
attacked frontally because the "gap" cannot exist to the front as
there is no "shoulder" unit projecting forward on it's left side.

Unit B could (in some circumstances) be shot at in the left flank if
the GAP between the end of Unit A and the side of Unit B is 40 paces
wide or greater. Unit B CANNOT be charged on it's left flank due to
the GAP between it's left flank and the front right corner of Unit A
is less than 120 paces. It can be FRONTALLY charged for the same
reason that Unit A can be frontally charged.

Same for Units C and D. Unit D cannot be charged frontally if there
is no room for the attacker to conform to face without leaving the
table. Remember, difficult terrain does NOT stop a charge if the
attacker is of the right type. ie non-chariot.

As for the "flank charging" in the second diagram. No way Jose!
It's either face to face on one unit or not at all. There is no way
Unit X can flank charge as;
1. he is not starting behind a flank AND,
2. there is not a 120 pace gap for Unit X to charge through anyway.
3. And whats more, any third unit sitting inside the gap but
stepped back 40 paces cannot be charged by Unit X either due to the
less than 120 pace GAP formed by the shoulders of units A and B.
This should be the ONLY time where a frontal charge cannot be carried
out.

End result? Charge into the angled units and do your worst. The
difficult terrain is just the place to put LI. Or even in front of
the angled units to tempt them (or shoot them)out of their
positions. But if these units are on HOLD, will the LI still need to
waver test at the end of counters / retirements? See Jon? You
thought I'd forgotten........



--- In WarriorRules@y..., cuan@f... wrote:
> I have uploaded a jpeg to the WarriorRules group files with my
> question on gaps (labeled 'Gap Question').
>
> Jon, I hope you can see my concern. The upper portion/picture is
the
> way we played the rules this past weekend. I found that it could
be
> abused and flat out no fun.

Picked it in one. Otherwise you will NEVER get a charge in. Move the
arrows on the jpeg to go from CLOSEST corner to CLOSEST corner and
you will be amazed at the difference. So Unit A, by being where it
is, prevents a charge from being declared on Unit B's LEFT FLANK.
Unit C likewise protects Unit B's RIGHT FLANK. However, there is
nothing to prevent Unit A (or any other Unit in the line)from being
frontally charged by the unit to it's front.


--- In WarriorRules@y..., Patrick Byrnes <cuan@f...> wrote:
>>>
Furthermore, after rereading 6.53 for the fifth time, I am beginning
to think that you never measure from a near edge of a unit to the
farther edge of another unit. I think you always measure from the
nearest point of one unit to the nearest point of the second unit for
gap creation.
-PB

[Patrick Byrne]

Steve, I now agree with you.
As I reread the rules yet again, I see that you in fact can not measure
between the far side of one unit to the near side of another unit (dif.
terrain, or table edge to define a gap), or even worse, from the far side of
one unit to the far side of another. A GAP must be measure from nearest
point of a unit, terrain, or table edge to nearest point of a unit, terrain
or table edge.
Got it, this solves a lot of problems.

I must disagree with you on two points though:
1. per 6.165, example "contacting the Flank in a charge #1", you do not need
to start behind a flank to initiate a flank charge.
2. I still believe the gap rule, 6.53, could be better written. If anything
re-edit it to make it look and more like rule 6.61 of the same page. (By the
way is a format which I love and find easy to read).
-PB



Steve Honeyman wrote:

> I've looked at your jpeg and I have several points to put across.
> Some might be a little "off" but please bear with me.
>
> 1. The "sea to shining sea" defence. This is RUBBISH! Let's look
> at each defending unit in turn and using the troop positions as laid
> out in the jpeg.
>
> Unit A cannot be attacked on either flank in this scenario but CAN be
> attacked frontally because the "gap" cannot exist to the front as
> there is no "shoulder" unit projecting forward on it's left side.
>
> Unit B could (in some circumstances) be shot at in the left flank if
> the GAP between the end of Unit A and the side of Unit B is 40 paces
> wide or greater. Unit B CANNOT be charged on it's left flank due to
> the GAP between it's left flank and the front right corner of Unit A
> is less than 120 paces. It can be FRONTALLY charged for the same
> reason that Unit A can be frontally charged.
>
> Same for Units C and D. Unit D cannot be charged frontally if there
> is no room for the attacker to conform to face without leaving the
> table. Remember, difficult terrain does NOT stop a charge if the
> attacker is of the right type. ie non-chariot.
>
> As for the "flank charging" in the second diagram. No way Jose!
> It's either face to face on one unit or not at all. There is no way
> Unit X can flank charge as;
> 1. he is not starting behind a flank AND,
> 2. there is not a 120 pace gap for Unit X to charge through anyway.
> 3. And whats more, any third unit sitting inside the gap but
> stepped back 40 paces cannot be charged by Unit X either due to the
> less than 120 pace GAP formed by the shoulders of units A and B.
> This should be the ONLY time where a frontal charge cannot be carried
> out.
>
> End result? Charge into the angled units and do your worst. The
> difficult terrain is just the place to put LI. Or even in front of
> the angled units to tempt them (or shoot them)out of their
> positions. But if these units are on HOLD, will the LI still need to
> waver test at the end of counters / retirements? See Jon? You
> thought I'd forgotten........
>
> --- In WarriorRules@y..., cuan@f... wrote:
> > I have uploaded a jpeg to the WarriorRules group files with my
> > question on gaps (labeled 'Gap Question').
> >
> > Jon, I hope you can see my concern. The upper portion/picture is
> the
> > way we played the rules this past weekend. I found that it could
> be
> > abused and flat out no fun.
>
> 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/

Is cool. Gaps are such wunnerful things.

I'm still not sure about the Unit X thing. I'll need to re-read the
rules.

Cheers

--- In WarriorRules@y..., Patrick Byrnes <cuan@f...> wrote:
> Steve, I now agree with you.
> As I reread the rules yet again, I see that you in fact can not
measure
> between the far side of one unit to the near side of another unit
(dif.
> terrain, or table edge to define a gap), or even worse, from the
far side of
> one unit to the far side of another. A GAP must be measure from
nearest
> point of a unit, terrain, or table edge to nearest point of a unit,
terrain
> or table edge.
> Got it, this solves a lot of problems.
>
> I must disagree with you on two points though:
> 1. per 6.165, example "contacting the Flank in a charge #1", you do
not need
> to start behind a flank to initiate a flank charge.
> 2. I still believe the gap rule, 6.53, could be better written. If
anything
> re-edit it to make it look and more like rule 6.61 of the same
page. (By the
> way is a format which I love and find easy to read).
> -PB
>
>
>
> Steve Honeyman wrote:
>
> > I've looked at your jpeg and I have several points to put across.
> > Some might be a little "off" but please bear with me.
> >
> > 1. The "sea to shining sea" defence. This is RUBBISH! Let's
look
> > at each defending unit in turn and using the troop positions as
laid
> > out in the jpeg.
> >
> > Unit A cannot be attacked on either flank in this scenario but
CAN be
> > attacked frontally because the "gap" cannot exist to the front as
> > there is no "shoulder" unit projecting forward on it's left side.
> >
> > Unit B could (in some circumstances) be shot at in the left flank
if
> > the GAP between the end of Unit A and the side of Unit B is 40
paces
> > wide or greater. Unit B CANNOT be charged on it's left flank due
to
> > the GAP between it's left flank and the front right corner of
Unit A
> > is less than 120 paces. It can be FRONTALLY charged for the same
> > reason that Unit A can be frontally charged.
> >
> > Same for Units C and D. Unit D cannot be charged frontally if
there
> > is no room for the attacker to conform to face without leaving the
> > table. Remember, difficult terrain does NOT stop a charge if the
> > attacker is of the right type. ie non-chariot.
> >
> > As for the "flank charging" in the second diagram. No way Jose!
> > It's either face to face on one unit or not at all. There is no
way
> > Unit X can flank charge as;
> > 1. he is not starting behind a flank AND,
> > 2. there is not a 120 pace gap for Unit X to charge through
anyway.
> > 3. And whats more, any third unit sitting inside the gap but
> > stepped back 40 paces cannot be charged by Unit X either due to
the
> > less than 120 pace GAP formed by the shoulders of units A and B.
> > This should be the ONLY time where a frontal charge cannot be
carried
> > out.
> >
> > End result? Charge into the angled units and do your worst. The
> > difficult terrain is just the place to put LI. Or even in front
of
> > the angled units to tempt them (or shoot them)out of their
> > positions. But if these units are on HOLD, will the LI still
need to
> > waver test at the end of counters / retirements? See Jon? You
> > thought I'd forgotten........
> >
> > --- In WarriorRules@y..., cuan@f... wrote:
> > > I have uploaded a jpeg to the WarriorRules group files with my
> > > question on gaps (labeled 'Gap Question').
> > >
> > > Jon, I hope you can see my concern. The upper portion/picture
is
> > the
> > > way we played the rules this past weekend. I found that it
could
> > be
> > > abused and flat out no fun.
> >
> > 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/

[Kelly Wilkinson]

--- DONALD COON <jendon@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I have uploaded a jpeg to the WarriorRules group
> files with my
> > question on gaps (labeled 'Gap Question').
> >
> > Jon, I hope you can see my concern. The upper
> portion/picture is the
> > way we played the rules this past weekend. I
> found that it could be
> > abused and flat out no fun.
>
> Thats kind of offensive isnt it? I adapt and play
> by the rules, kick your
> ASS, and you call it abuse? If you want to say the
> rule seems illogical and
> was no fun, or it was frustrating and no fun, I hear
> and am with you buddy,
> but abuse it was not!
>
> Don
>

LOL!
Kelly
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

[Don Coon]

> I didn't say you DID abuse it, I said,"I found that it could be abused and
flat
> out no fun."

I mistake in my reading semantics.

> I think we played fair and that you DID NOT abuse it.

Thanks. My poor interp of the written word.

>But in looking at what we
> did during the game (and analyzing afterwards), I can see how one could
set up
> so as not to be charged period (see my picture). That's abuse. And it is
that
> kind of game I don't want to play.

BTW in your diagram if a body charged any on of your bodies at the leading
point, they would not have to cross the gap line would they? Would not that
make all the elements eligible to be charged?

> So I'll restate my opinion. I won't have fun in playing a game where when
you
> line up to charge the enemy, he wheels slightly to the left so you can't
charge
> him.

Semantically different from your original post, but I get what you are
saying.

> Furthermore, after rereading 6.53 for the fifth time, I am beginning to
think
> that you never measure from a near edge of a unit to the farther edge of
another
> unit. I think you always measure from the nearest point of one unit to
the
> nearest point of the second unit for gap creation.
> -PB

This would be a rather elegant solution except for the long exchanges Greg
Regets and I had earlier in the week about this very subject. If you go
back and read them you will find that this allows the following: two units
who are front edge parallel and side edge contact, but one is stepped back
from the other 60p. The forward element can now be charged in its flank
that the stepped back unit is on. This puts the charging unit in flank
contact with one unit (the one it charged) and with its flank exposed to the
second. Seems very contrary to human nature. No one at River City that I
talked to (myself included and I must be misremembering because I thought
you agreed too) wants this to be legal. If you measure nearest point to
nearest point then side edge contact protects you not. Again if that is
what 6.53 intends, thats cool - I will just get more horses.

Don - sticking to the gap issue like glue

[Don Coon]

> Steve, I now agree with you.
> As I reread the rules yet again, I see that you in fact can not measure
> between the far side of one unit to the near side of another unit (dif.
> terrain, or table edge to define a gap), or even worse, from the far side
of
> one unit to the far side of another. A GAP must be measure from nearest
> point of a unit, terrain, or table edge to nearest point of a unit,
terrain
> or table edge.
> Got it, this solves a lot of problems.

Except that this is not strictly speaking accurate and creates more
problems. The rule says a gap is the minimum distance between two things it
does NOT say nearest point to nearest point. This is IMHO the minimum
distance at the point in question however, not the absolute minimum. This
is a huge difference. Imagine 2 horse shoes with open ends facing each
other but the shoes are not parallel, but at 45. One set of legs is much
closer than the other. The "gap" at one end is tighter than the other.
Imagine a long unit in column whose left edge is 45 to the left table edge
and back rank is touching the edge by its back left corner (the apex of the
45) The gap to the table edge at the tail is 0p, but the gap at the head of
the column to the table edge is .7071(D)(N) where D = depth of element and
N= number of elements. A 6 element column of LC would have a gap of 169p at
its head. Are you trying to say that since the tail is at 0p to the table
that I cant not flank charge its head with a unit of lying 20p inside the
left table edge? I doubt this is what you want. That is the crux of this
whole debate. None of this is touching on my continued example of 2 units
(A and B, A to the left of B) parellel front edges and in side edge contact
but A is stepped back 60p from B. Now per the way you are saying it the gap
between A and B is 0p. This is ONLY true for something trying to squeeze by
A and B. A unit trying to smash into A is passing a gap from The front left
corner of A to the front left corner of B. If this is not true the same
unit trying (and by your interp) able to hit A frontally, could also hit B
in its left flank. Steve? Partick? Do you both want this to be ok? Do
you think the rules currently say it is ok? Also in Patricks jpeg unit B
could be hit in the left flank by your guys interp. I just have to hit it
far enough towards its front to not cross a line between the absolute
minimum points of A and B (why I think your interp is wrong). The fit issue
is not true, because charge moves per the rules are handled in three steps.
1. Move and make contact (only time gap crossing is an issue). 2. pivot to
conform (must have room to do this) 3. Line up. In step 3 (assuming the
charger has properly executed steps 1 and 2) if the charger can not fit, the
charged unit is moved to help out. Says so quite clearly in the rules.

The problem here is one we found at River City Rumble and that Steve in his
reply seemed to fall into too. Everyone inherently knows what charges
should and should not be legal, but the rules as written do not support
them. My agenda here is not to change the game we play, just get the rule
squeeky clean. Jon has acknowledged that he is hearing us. I guess we must
wait. I only caution you that when you seize onto a potential solution you
sit down and draw out some diagrams. Work through what can and can not be
done by the rule as written or your proposed fix. See if it works. You
will soon see that a fix like "units charged frontally do not count as a
shoulder for gap calculations" is fairly simple and achieves a clear goal.
An interp like your (absolute minimum distance no matter where the action is
taking place) has a few holes yet.

Don

[Don Coon]

> Unit A cannot be attacked on either flank in this scenario but CAN
be
> attacked frontally because the "gap" cannot exist to the front as
> there is no "shoulder" unit projecting forward on it's left side.

Why does not the line (labeled Gap B) not count as a gap line
crossed. You seem to imply unit A cant anchor one point of a gap line
(then in the example with unit X you draw a line between A and B and
say X can not cross this) Are you confusing the miltary term
"shoulder" with the Warrior term "shoulder"? In the miltary world Gap
B is not a gap. In the Warrior world it is.


> It can be FRONTALLY charged for the same
> reason that Unit A can be frontally charged.

Not per the current rules.


> As for the "flank charging" in the second diagram. No way Jose!
> It's either face to face on one unit or not at all. There is no way
> Unit X can flank charge as;
> 1. he is not starting behind a flank AND,

Not an issue unless you are LI or LC.

> 2. there is not a 120 pace gap for Unit X to charge through
anyway.

I agree, but Gap B above is also less than 120p and you let that
charge happen.


> 3. And whats more, any third unit sitting inside the gap but
> stepped back 40 paces cannot be charged by Unit X either due to the
> less than 120 pace GAP formed by the shoulders of units A and B.
> This should be the ONLY time where a frontal charge cannot be
carried
> out.

100% enthusiastic agreement.

> End result? Charge into the angled units and do your worst.

Only if the rule is rewritten.

Don

[Don Coon]

--- In WarriorRules@y..., Patrick Byrnes <cuan@f...> wrote:
> Steve, I now agree with you.
> As I reread the rules yet again, I see that you in fact can not
measure
> between the far side of one unit to the near side of another unit
(dif.
> terrain, or table edge to define a gap), or even worse, from the far
side of
> one unit to the far side of another. A GAP must be measure from
nearest
> point of a unit, terrain, or table edge to nearest point of a unit,
terrain
> or table edge.
> Got it, this solves a lot of problems.

Careful here P man. Your jpeg shows gap B as less than 120p,
therefore Unit A and unit B are less than 120p at their closest
point. This would of course by your new found interp disallow any
charge into unit A's front as it would have to sit between unit A and
unit B, an illegal less than 120p gap.

Don

[Don Coon]

--- In WarriorRules@y..., Patrick Byrnes <cuan@f...> wrote:
> Steve, I now agree with you.
> As I reread the rules yet again, I see that you in fact can not
measure
> between the far side of one unit to the near side of another unit
(dif.
> terrain, or table edge to define a gap), or even worse, from the far
side of
> one unit to the far side of another. A GAP must be measure from
nearest
> point of a unit, terrain, or table edge to nearest point of a unit,
terrain
> or table edge.
> Got it, this solves a lot of problems.

This is not IMHO what Steve is saying. He is talking about shoulders
(as in projecting a line along a bodies front and rear edges out to
infinity - BTW the military definition of shoulder if I understand
Chris Bump correctly).

Don

[Greg Regets]

Hello Steve ...

I don't get where you get "closest corner to the closest corner", for
measuring, unless I'm reading an old set ... which is highly likely!

At any rate, the "sea to shining sea" defense is not exclusively a gap
issue, it is a "gap combined with what fits in contact AFTER lining up
elememnt issue", as per my original posting. This is not only possible, but
a damn good idea if you dave a lot of crappy troops, ~laughs~. Worse still,
you can even do it with close order foot in terrain. You will be disordered,
buw who cares, you can't be charged anyway.

~said tongue in cheek~ Greg