Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

I have finally had a chance to look in detail at the two posted gap diagram
sets.

They are almost completely wrong.

Gaps are between two things, not across the front of something. They only
matter if you are doing something 'through' the gap, that is to say to move
or shoot into a space between two things.

There can be only one 'gap line' between two things. It is the shortest line
that connects them.

If two things are near each other and have a gap between them, that has no
direct bearing on anyone charging one or both of the two things. Gaps only
matter if you are doing something to a third thing through the gap.

I am struggling to get the draft done and would have intervened sooner. It
is my fault that this has gone on so long, and most of the discussion has
been for naught as these diagrams are so misleading, but I will try and look
at new diagrams you guys post immediately in the future to check for such
issues.

Would the authors of those two diagram sets delete them for me?

Again, sorry. gap rule out shortly.
Jon

[Patrick Byrne]

My jpeg deleted.

BTW, diagrams were meant for questions only, not to tell anyone
else how to play. Sorry if I've been misleading.
-PB


--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> I have finally had a chance to look in detail at the two posted
gap diagram
> sets.
>
> They are almost completely wrong.
>
> I am struggling to get the draft done and would have intervened
sooner. It
> is my fault that this has gone on so long, and most of the
discussion has
> been for naught as these diagrams are so misleading, but I
will try and look
> at new diagrams you guys post immediately in the future to
check for such
> issues.
>
> Would the authors of those two diagram sets delete them for
me?
>
> Again, sorry. gap rule out shortly.
> Jon

[joncleaves]

Oh, patrick, don't get me wrong - posting the diagrams was a great idea, and
I would encourage people to do so. The problem is ALL mine, I should have
checked them sooner.

[Harlan Garrett]

Pat:

I understand the intent of the picture was to facilitate discussions and
to detail where we are confused. I think the real confusion is in the
use of shoulder to shoulder in 6.53 and in our prior discussions (before
this latest round of discussions) on gaps of units not in a perfectly
abreast line. Hopefully, Jon will address this issue and make it
crystal clear.

HG

-----Original Message-----
From: cuan@... [mailto:cuan@...]
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 11:24 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: gap emergency


My jpeg deleted.

BTW, diagrams were meant for questions only, not to tell anyone
else how to play. Sorry if I've been misleading.
-PB


--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> I have finally had a chance to look in detail at the two posted
gap diagram
> sets.
>
> They are almost completely wrong.
>
> I am struggling to get the draft done and would have intervened
sooner. It
> is my fault that this has gone on so long, and most of the
discussion has
> been for naught as these diagrams are so misleading, but I
will try and look
> at new diagrams you guys post immediately in the future to
check for such
> issues.
>
> Would the authors of those two diagram sets delete them for
me?
>
> Again, sorry. gap rule out shortly.
> 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/

Done, done and done. At the risk of sounding like a newsgroup
wannbe, "me too" in regard to only meaning to use the files as
questions.

Cheers





--- In WarriorRules@y..., cuan@f... wrote:
> My jpeg deleted.
>
> BTW, diagrams were meant for questions only, not to tell anyone
> else how to play. Sorry if I've been misleading.
> -PB
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> > I have finally had a chance to look in detail at the two posted
> gap diagram
> > sets.
> >
> > They are almost completely wrong.
> >
> > I am struggling to get the draft done and would have intervened
> sooner. It
> > is my fault that this has gone on so long, and most of the
> discussion has
> > been for naught as these diagrams are so misleading, but I
> will try and look
> > at new diagrams you guys post immediately in the future to
> check for such
> > issues.
> >
> > Would the authors of those two diagram sets delete them for
> me?
> >
> > Again, sorry. gap rule out shortly.
> > Jon

[Don Coon]

--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:

> There can be only one 'gap line' between two things. It is the
shortest line
> that connects them.

While I respectfully disagree, they will be your rules and I will play
by them (I ask that you make a V out of your index and middle fingers,
roll a bb from the large end of the V, to the apex. When it is half
way, it would not be in gap[ by your definition because the shortest
distance is 0p at the apex. Hogwash in my geometry book).

> If two things are near each other and have a gap between them, that
has no
> direct bearing on anyone charging one or both of the two things.
Gaps only
> matter if you are doing something to a third thing through the gap.

Not clear by the rules as written. As written bodies creating gaps
can prevent movement against themselves. Thats what all of our
diagramming and discussion has been for.

Don

[joncleaves]

<< While I respectfully disagree, they will be your rules and I will play
by them (I ask that you make a V out of your index and middle fingers,
roll a bb from the large end of the V, to the apex. When it is half
way, it would not be in gap[ by your definition because the shortest
distance is 0p at the apex. Hogwash in my geometry book).>>

Hogwash or not, that is a 0 pace gap. Which cannot be charged or shot
through. But since you CAN charge (or shoot) either finger, what on earth is
the issue? I have been following this discussion for weeks and still have no
idea what the issue with the V is. There's no 'gap' so you don't need 6.53,
so why talk about it? Don't tell me you think there is some kind of 'zone'
in front of a unit in Warrior that prevents you from charging the other
finger since part of you might enter the other finger's 'zone'. That is DBM.

> If two things are near each other and have a gap between them, that
has no direct bearing on anyone charging one or both of the two things.
Gaps only matter if you are doing something to a third thing through the gap.

<<Not clear by the rules as written. As written bodies creating gaps
can prevent movement against themselves.>>

Well, I am revising the rule as we speak for clarity, but I do not address
'bodies creating gaps preventing movement against themselves' because they
don't. Is the issue that the V is so narrow that a charger can't 'fit'
against one without touching the other finger of the V? That would mean the
flank of that body was hanging out to be charged.

<< Thats what all of our diagramming and discussion has been for.>>

Yes, except that the two diagrams I have seen have been 100% NOT Warrior. Is
there another diagram I am missing? The two I saw completely ignored the
fact that gap is ONLY minimum distance and tried to make 'gaps' across the
fronts of bodies. If there is another diagram, let me know where to find it.

Jon

[joncleaves]

<< Respectfully,
I can think of two instances when 'bodies creating gaps preventing
movement against themselves':
1. is flank charges.>>

It is true that a body can be placed in proximity to another friendly body such
that its flank is protected from being charged. In order for a flank charge to
be legal, there must be room for the attacker to fit, among other restrictions.
But this typically does not have anything to do with 6.53 as it is rarely the
fact that this flank is between TWO other things (not just simply covered by
one). For 6.53 to be relevant to a charge discussion, there need to be three
things on the 'charged side': the potential target and the TWO shoulders of the
gap. That is why the V formation discussion has nothing whatever to do with
6.53: there are only two things there.
Don't confuse 6.53, which is about charging (ormoving, shooting) between TWO
things, and 6.165's discussion of making contact, pivoting to conform, lining up
and fitting in any restricted space. NOT the same thing, although either rule
might prevent a flank charge.

<<2. was a conveluted situation we ran into. One of the bodies was turned about
90 degress from the battle and the distances worked out the he couldn't be
charged. As a matter of fact, it was that charge
prevention that sparked this whole gap contriversy for us in DFW.>>

Could you post a diagram of just that situation?

[Patrick Byrne]

Respectfully,
I can think of two instances when 'bodies creating gaps preventing
movement against themselves':
1. is flank charges.
2. was a conveluted situation we ran into. One of the bodies was
turned about 90 degress from the battle and the distances worked out
the he couldn't be charged. As a matter of fact, it was that charge
prevention that sparked this whole gap contriversy for us in DFW.
-PB


>
> Well, I am revising the rule as we speak for clarity, but I do not address
> 'bodies creating gaps preventing movement against themselves' because they
> don't.

> Jon

[joncleaves]

<< I have downloaded a jpeg with questions initiated by the new gap rule.>>

The rule is not new. Just cleaned up langauge from WRG 7.6 + incorporation of
the detailed discussion of gaps from NASAMW's interp book. No change from the
way this game has been played - just more detail actually in the rules to avoid
having players consult several sources.

I am looking at the file and will address each in turn.

#1a+b relies on both 6.53 and 6.165 as 6.165 says "If the charging unit must
pass through a gap to make the charge, it must abide by 6.53.

My comment about moving against, etc was mainly directed at the V-thing where
someone was saying you couldn't charge the front of a unit set at an angle to
another unit even though the charger did not pass through the point of minimum
distance between the two. Sorry for any confusion. Some flank chargers will
pas through a gap to get at the flank of a shoulder of that gap. Those chargers,
too must meet the requirements of 6.53.

#2's description trails off after "less than". However if Unit B is not in hth
or broken that gap would have to be 2 elements or greater.

I note that in both #1 and #2 even though the diagrams are not to scale it looks
a lot like there are no flank charges as the chargers aren't going to hit with
an element entirely on the flank of the target. But that is another issue
enirely.

#3 if the gap is not big enough, they do what 6.32 tells them to do. Please
read it.

#4 Terrain features and table edges can also be shoulders of gaps. Read 6.53's
first two lines.

All of these, but #3 and #4 especially, make me think we are rushing into these
questions without having read the relevant rules cases thoroughly.

<<The only response I have to your answer to my first question below is that
6.165 "Contacting the Flank in a Charge #1" has verbage about being able to
charge through a gap. Please look at it as it contradits the new 6.53 rule.>>

It does not, and 6.53 is not a new rule. Flank charges must abide by gap rules
just like any other charge and just as they always have. Nothing I have posted
is in any way different from the way this game has been played and interpreted
by the Society for the last several years. I am sorry for those who have had to
suffer through transitioning from another method of playing WRG 7th, but that is
one of our purposes - to have only one way.

Jon

[Patrick Byrne]

I have downloaded a jpeg with questions initiated by the new
gap rule. The picture of second question asked below is shown
as #1b on the jpeg.

The only response I have to your answer to my first question
below is that 6.165 "Contacting the Flank in a Charge #1" has
verbage about being able to charge through a gap. Please look
at it as it contradits the new 6.53 rule.
-PB

--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> << Respectfully,
> I can think of two instances when 'bodies creating gaps
preventing
> movement against themselves':
> 1. is flank charges.>>
>
> It is true that a body can be placed in proximity to another
friendly body such that its flank is protected from being charged.
In order for a flank charge to be legal, there must be room for the
attacker to fit, among other restrictions. But this typically does
not have anything to do with 6.53 as it is rarely the fact that this
flank is between TWO other things (not just simply covered by
one). For 6.53 to be relevant to a charge discussion, there need
to be three things on the 'charged side': the potential target and
the TWO shoulders of the gap. That is why the V formation
discussion has nothing whatever to do with 6.53: there are only
two things there.
> Don't confuse 6.53, which is about charging (ormoving,
shooting) between TWO things, and 6.165's discussion of
making contact, pivoting to conform, lining up and fitting in any
restricted space. NOT the same thing, although either rule might
prevent a flank charge.
>
> <<2. was a conveluted situation we ran into. One of the bodies
was turned about 90 degress from the battle and the distances
worked out the he couldn't be charged. As a matter of fact, it was
that charge
> prevention that sparked this whole gap contriversy for us in
DFW.>>
>
> Could you post a diagram of just that situation?

[Patrick Byrne]

Jon,
I have read the rules carefully and am not rushing into the questions. Maybe I
need further clarifications. When I read the new warrior information you put
out, I throw out my knowledge of the old.

Below I have interspersed my reply to the my confusions that still abound...


JonCleaves@... wrote:

> << I have downloaded a jpeg with questions initiated by the new gap rule.>>
>
> The rule is not new. Just cleaned up langauge from WRG 7.6 + incorporation of
the detailed discussion of gaps from NASAMW's interp book. No change from the
way this game has been played - just more detail actually in the rules to avoid
having players consult several sources.
>
> I am looking at the file and will address each in turn.
>
> #1a+b relies on both 6.53 and 6.165 as 6.165 says "If the charging unit must
pass through a gap to make the charge, it must abide by 6.53.
>
> My comment about moving against, etc was mainly directed at the V-thing where
someone was saying you couldn't charge the front of a unit set at an angle to
another unit even though the charger did not pass through the point of minimum
distance between the two. Sorry for any confusion. Some flank chargers will
pas through a gap to get at the flank of a shoulder of that gap. Those chargers,
too must meet the requirements of 6.53.
>

If your rule says, "This rule is only intended for use when a body intends to
move between two ‘shoulders’ and has no direct bearing on a body moving into or
against one of the ‘shoulders’ itself." (which is quoted exactly), then how can
Unit X not charge Unit B through Gap 1 (which may be 90paces) in the flank if it
can reach and conform after pivoting?And if that is the case, then it is a
direct conflict of 6.165 which says that "the gap (g1)
is more than two elements wide," for a flank charge to occur.

> #2's description trails off after "less than". However if Unit B is not in hth
or broken that gap would have to be 2 elements or greater.
>
> I note that in both #1 and #2 even though the diagrams are not to scale it
looks a lot like there are no flank charges as the chargers aren't going to hit
with an element entirely on the flank of the target. But that is another issue
enirely.

In #2, Unit Y is not trying to flank charge. It is trying to frontally hit Unit
A but can't because of the gap between Unit X and Unit B. The point of this
question is to point out that gaps caused by the different armies can bollux up
charge moves. It is my suggestion that gaps created between 'bodies' only be
created between 'bodies' of the same army.

>
>
> #3 if the gap is not big enough, they do what 6.32 tells them to do. Please
read it.

6.32 does not address what happens if the routing unit runs into situation 3a.
According to the Gap Rule, it can not pass through even though it is able to
fit. 6.32 makes provisions for interposing enemy or impassable terrain, but not
for a gap less than 2 elements.For 3b, I will take your answer above that the
routing unit falls under the 'Rout path is blocked by friendly bodies' section
of 6.32.

>
>
> #4 Terrain features and table edges can also be shoulders of gaps. Read
6.53's first two lines.

Then why say, "with respect to enemy bodies"?

>
>
> All of these, but #3 and #4 especially, make me think we are rushing into
these questions without having read the relevant rules cases thoroughly.
>
> <<The only response I have to your answer to my first question below is that
6.165 "Contacting the Flank in a Charge #1" has verbage about being able to
charge through a gap. Please look at it as it contradits the new 6.53 rule.>>
>
> It does not, and 6.53 is not a new rule. Flank charges must abide by gap
rules just like any other charge and just as they always have. Nothing I have
posted is in any way different from the way this game has been played and
interpreted by the Society for the last several years. I am sorry for those who
have had to suffer through transitioning from another method of playing WRG 7th,
but that is one of our purposes - to have only one way.
>

See my answer to #1 above.

> Jon

I apologize if I come off a bit snippy, but I honestly try to read the rules as
if I am a beginner player. For I too want no interps. And on this issue, I
have invested a lot of time and have attempted to keep my opinions out of it.
When I play against people, I want to make moves using what the rules will
support. If I set up an attack which is denounced by a judge because he has a
different interpretation of the rules, then I get upset.

Would it be better if I was to set up my questions and include actual
photographs of units to show scale? (I have this technology)

Thank you for your time.
-PB

[joncleaves]

<< If your rule says, "This rule is only intended for use when a body intends
to move between two ‘shoulders’ and has no direct bearing on a body moving
into or against one of the ‘shoulders’ itself." (which is quoted exactly)>>

Ok, you are KILLING me here. I'll look at writing that sentence differently.
something like 'against the front of one of the shoulders' will that do?


<<In #2, Unit Y is not trying to flank charge.>>

The text of your diagram discusses a potential flank charge for unit Y. But
let's just say it doesn't.

<< It is trying to frontally hit Unit A but can't because of the gap between
Unit X and Unit B.>>

It might not be able to. That kind of maneuvering is not historical.

<< The point of this question is to point out that gaps caused by the
different armies can bollux up charge moves.>>

Yup. I am aware of that. Don't try this totally ahistorical move and it
won't 'bollux'.

<< It is my suggestion that gaps created between 'bodies' only be created
between 'bodies' of the same army.>>

A suggestion I continue to reject. I read it, I considered it, I understand
it. We think it gives armies in Warrior a capability for complex maneuvering
unheard of in the time period covered.

<< 6.32 does not address what happens if the routing unit runs into
situation 3a. According to the Gap Rule, it can not pass through even though
it is able to fit. 6.32 makes provisions for interposing enemy or impassable
terrain, but not for a gap less than 2 elements.For 3b, I will take your
answer above that the routing unit falls under the 'Rout path is blocked by
friendly bodies' section of 6.32.>>

Typically if the gap is not big enough and that problem is NOT due to enemy
or terrain, it is due to friendly bodies. Not many other things it could be
due to, huh? :)

<< Then why say, "with respect to enemy bodies"?>>

???? The rule says:

"If either shoulder of a gap is an enemy body, approach, counter, retirement
and march moves must abide by all restrictions with respect to enemy bodies."

It says "with respect to" because one or both of the shoulders IS an enemy
body in this case. See first nine words of that sentence.

??????

The V-thing and the problem you have with your own units creating gaps you
might not be able to charge through are gamisms - meaning those 'formations'
are ahistorical gimmicks we have been ruthlessly eliminating and will
continue to do so.

<<Would it be better if I was to set up my questions and include actual
photographs of units to show scale? (I have this technology)>>

Not before July 18th. I can afford no more time with gaps - I am already way
too far behind. Now I'll be lucky to give the Hcon guys a week with the next
draft.

Jon

[joncleaves]

Ok, despite my best efforts, I still have to deal with this apparently.

Nothing in 6.53, Feb or July, said anything about gaps across the fronts of
units. It said 'minimum distance', it will go on saying minimum distance, it
has always been about minimum distance. It said between, it has always said
between and will always say between. It did not say across. Nothing about a
gap stops a charge against the front of a shoulder.

Those V formation things (and the associated completely incorrect interpretation
of 6.53 that went with them) are the mark of a player trying to get over on
rules and not play an historical game and I am admittedly frustrated that I had
to spend so much time dealing with this kind of gaming behavior, which I hate.

The desire to cross in front of one of your own units in a confined space
between that unit and an unoccupied enemy unit is also entirely ahistorical and
I am sorry 6.53 prevents it, but it will go on preventing it.

I will admit to the following, though:

-I should have gotten involved and stopped this whole mess very early on. That
is entirely on me. I never should have allowed the discussion to leave the
rules so badly and confuse people.

-I should have said 'front' more often. The flank of a shoulder is inside the
gap by definition and could be the target of a charge thereby kicking in 6.53.

Jon

[joncleaves]

I appreciate your help with the additional line for 6.53 that makes the
flank/front of a shoulder issue more clear. That is the kind of thing I was
looking for by posting the draft of 6.53.

Let's just agree to disagree on the other stuff.