Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Don Coon]

>
> Do you really measure from each and every part of one shoulder (body or
> other) to each and every part of the other shoulder, not just from the
> closest part (body)? I wish I could draw diagrams on emails, but I can't,
so
> I will do my best.
>
> Unit A & B are both 16 figure REG LMI JLS Sh in good order and not in
> contact. Both units are two stands wide and two stands deep. They are at
> prefect right angles to each other, with a 40p gap between the rear
elements
> corner measured at an angle. The distance from the front elements corner
is
> less that two elements. So, the flanks of both units are protected, right,
> because there is an imaginary line of less that two elements length that
> can't be crossed between the front corners of each unit?

Greg,

I can picture the formation (I even have two little sticky notes in front of
me to simulate the bodies). Another example that is more head ache causing
is the same two bodies described above except they are 1 element wide and 4
deep. Their front edges are perfectly parallel. The right front corner of
body A is in contact with the left rear corner of body B (i.e the front
edges are 40p apart, and A is stepped back from B). Can A be frontally
charged by a good order unit (not light troops). Can B be flank charged in
its left flank (the one A is stepped back from)? The answere should be no
to both because of gap being less than 2 elements, but many people I have
encountered contend that A CAN be frontally charged in this situation. What
if A was only stepped back 1p from B? Still too small a gap to frontally
charge them per the rules. This creates the tactic of slightly stepped
bodies providing complete charge protection. Is that the intent Jon?

Patrick and I asked a wad of gappage questions over a month ago. I know you
are working on the rules and will let us get our answeres at your next
update. I am cool with that. Just wanted to let you know the gap issue is
very much alive and well. At the River City Rumble it was THE most
discussed rule.

Don

[Greg Regets]

Well Don ... that is only the tip of the iceburg as far as slippery gap
tactics goes.

I had this nutty idea right in the middle of our game last weekend, when my
knights were doing the dirty on those poor legionaries of yours. I thought
to myself, "What if Don put his units like this (each slash is a legionary
unit);

(EDGE)////(TERRAIN)

So that the gap on both the open flanks and the frontages were less than two
elements". You couldn't charge the front, or the flank, because of gap
issues.

I figured at that point something was slippery with the whole thing. This is
what prompted me to write Jon about this issue.

Take care, and I had a great time last weekend ...

Greg ~hinky tactic user~

[joncleaves]

I am struggling to work out gaps as the last thing between me and the
Historicon draft. probably Saturday or Sunday before I post it. Will also
make sure rules explicitly state that testudos don't shoot.

[Don Coon]

> I had this nutty idea right in the middle of our game last weekend, when
my
> knights were doing the dirty on those poor legionaries of yours. I thought
> to myself, "What if Don put his units like this (each slash is a legionary
> unit);
>
> (EDGE)////(TERRAIN)
>
> So that the gap on both the open flanks and the frontages were less than
two
> elements". You couldn't charge the front, or the flank, because of gap
> issues.

We have actually seen this tactic used (to a smaller scale of course). We
call it "the shallow V". It gets maximum coverage, and prevents a lot of
charges. Of course to attack your opponent you have to break out of the V,
but its a great tournament stalling formation.

Don

[Greg Regets]

I know you are all over this Jon, but if I might offer a very simple
suggestion. All you have to do is add four words: "or not being charged", to
the existing rule and you solve all the hinky stuff.

6.53 Gaps. A gap is defined as (obviously enough) the minimum space
existing between two things (bodies, terrain features or table edges). We
use the term 'shoulder' to describe the 'things' that form a gap.
The minimum passable gap is one element wide. Passable means it is possible
for a body to move through such a gap. Unless following-up or pursuing,
this minimum passable gap doubles to two elements wide if either shoulder is
unbroken enemy not in hand-to-hand combat OR NOT BEING CHARGED. Gaps to be
routed through must be two elements wide (6.32).

Take care ... Greg

[Don Coon]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Regets" <greg@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 8:57 AM
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] Gaps



> 6.53 Gaps. A gap is defined as (obviously enough) the minimum space
> existing between two things (bodies, terrain features or table edges). We
> use the term 'shoulder' to describe the 'things' that form a gap.
> The minimum passable gap is one element wide. Passable means it is
possible
> for a body to move through such a gap. Unless following-up or pursuing,
> this minimum passable gap doubles to two elements wide if either shoulder
is
> unbroken enemy not in hand-to-hand combat OR NOT BEING CHARGED. Gaps to
be
> routed through must be two elements wide (6.32).
>
> Take care ... Greg

This does NOT clear up all the kinky stuff. Your definition still leaves
the minum gap at 1 element for a body being charged. A 1X2 body in side
edge contact with another friendly body whose front edge is parallel to but
stepped forward from it still creates a gap of 1 element or less making it
ineligible to be charged, even with your new wording. You need wording to
the effect of, "a body being charged does NOT count as one of the shoulders
of a gap". This is a stand alone sentance not an "or" or a comma addition
to an existing one. This wording however allows units to sneak into the
flanks of bodies whose buddies are less than 120p away so you might want to
go with"a body being FRONTALLY charged does not count as one of the
shoulders of a gap". That is what we toyed with up here.

Don

[Greg Regets]

That assumes Don, that you have a problem with these staggered units in side
edge to side edge contact, not being legal charge targets. I quite frankly
think that this is a proper simulation of historical tactics and do not have
a problem with it.

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: DONALD COON [mailto:jendon@...]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 5:34 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Gaps



----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Regets" <greg@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 8:57 AM
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] Gaps



> 6.53 Gaps. A gap is defined as (obviously enough) the minimum space
> existing between two things (bodies, terrain features or table edges). We
> use the term 'shoulder' to describe the 'things' that form a gap.
> The minimum passable gap is one element wide. Passable means it is
possible
> for a body to move through such a gap. Unless following-up or pursuing,
> this minimum passable gap doubles to two elements wide if either shoulder
is
> unbroken enemy not in hand-to-hand combat OR NOT BEING CHARGED. Gaps to
be
> routed through must be two elements wide (6.32).
>
> Take care ... Greg

This does NOT clear up all the kinky stuff. Your definition still leaves
the minum gap at 1 element for a body being charged. A 1X2 body in side
edge contact with another friendly body whose front edge is parallel to but
stepped forward from it still creates a gap of 1 element or less making it
ineligible to be charged, even with your new wording. You need wording to
the effect of, "a body being charged does NOT count as one of the shoulders
of a gap". This is a stand alone sentance not an "or" or a comma addition
to an existing one. This wording however allows units to sneak into the
flanks of bodies whose buddies are less than 120p away so you might want to
go with"a body being FRONTALLY charged does not count as one of the
shoulders of a gap". That is what we toyed with up here.

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/

[Don Coon]

> That assumes Don, that you have a problem with these staggered units in
side
> edge to side edge contact, not being legal charge targets. I quite frankly
> think that this is a proper simulation of historical tactics and do not
have
> a problem with it.

So are you saying that you think staggered units should not be legal charge
targets (at least the stepped back ones). If you are then the rules are
fine and your fix is a good one. If you are saying stepped back units
should be able to be charged, then my fix is required. Which are you
saying?

As far as historical behavior of men on the battle field I defer to the
Regets and Bumps of the world who know far more about this than I. My role
here is to have CLEAR rules. I want to play a game with ONE interpretation.
I want this one interp to be because the rules are written iron clad, not
because of some ruling handed down. If you historian type dudes get the
rules to better simulate historical behavior, I am all the more happy.

Don

[joncleaves]

Don't sweat it, Don, I got it.

[Don Coon]

I have just looked at Patricks Gap diagrams and I must say I do NOT
like his solution. I have posted about this twice publically and
once privately to Jon. I even explained it to Patrick on Saturday
and thought we were in agreement. You CAN NOT allow unit X to charge
either of the other two units flanks. It is completely contrary to
human behavior to do that. Omnipotent battle field commanders with
complete control of their men of course want that charge. N0 way a
man is going to charge past a unit then turn its back on them.

As I have stated again and again, if the top diagram gap is to be
disolved the rule has to be written as "bodies being FRONTALLY
charged do not count as a shoulder for gap determination". If the
top gap diagram that Patrick drew is what is desired, the the rule is
worded properly. In either case, the flank charge in the bottom
diagram should NEVER be allowed. Whatever the rule falls out as we
will play. Jon, I know you are in "recluse-get the rules out" mode,
but your playtesters have hit a big snag here, and if you could throw
us a tiny bone to chew on, it would be delicious.

We played the River City Rumble per the top diagram. It caused a few
grumbles, but most players found ways around it. Patricks sea to
shing sea formation is possible and looks to be no fun as he stated.
It would make for a good draw formation in a tournament.

I used the formation he has on top on Saturday (allthough both flanks
were exposed, and I always had 1 unit in three forwardly placed and
thus eligible to be charged). I must admit, my Romans found these
confines cozy. I was not playing a stall game, as my legionaries
charged at every available opportunity. I used the overlapping
protection to keep his horses and fire lances off me long enough to
inflict serious harm. I doubt the 4 LBS on carts sitting on the hill
overlooking his waiting 8 man MI units helped his mood any. Patricks
frustration is evident, and I doubt he is alone in this. I agree
with him the rule is broken. I have submitted a fix. Patrick has
submitted a fix as well. The DFW gaming community awaits the tablets
to come down.

Sorry for the heavy handed sound of my post, but I was not expecting
to be charged with abusing the rules.

Don

[joncleaves]

First, I am sure gaps are not 'broken'.

Second, I am not 100% sure I see the issue. If you are saying that we might
have taken the wording of the example in 6.165 and placed it one paragraph up in
the rule itself, I suppose that would have been better. But if you are saying
that you want to hit a shoulder in the flank when the gap is <2 elements wide,
that is not what the rule says so I don't get the issue.

Clarify, please. :)

Jon

[Don Coon]

I am now going through the rules with a fine tooth comb. Since the
last playtest version, 6.53 has changed. The Very important flank
charge line has been omitted. 6.53 says "this rule is only intended
for use when a body intends to move BETWEEN two shoulders to a
position beyond. This rule does not apply to a body moving into
contact with one of the shoulders itself. In that case the rule must
abide by 6.165.

Well, now charges at a bodies flanks do not count the body being
charged as a shoulder again. We went round and round on this, and a
line was added saying sometning like "the exception to this is when
the flank of a body making up one of the shoulders is the target of a
charge".

Not only that but the way 6.53 is now worded it says see 6.165 for
charging AT a target that might be a gap issue. 6.165 never even
talks about gaps until page 42 example number 1. It says "unit Y can
not contact Units B or C in the flank as the gap between them (g2) is
only an element and a half wide (6.53)".

Not only does the example directly contradict 6.53, it says to see
6.53, which in turn says to see 6.165. You have a circular reference
with no clear rule in either place. If you are trying to rest on
Example 1 as the "I can not hit a bodies flank without greater than 2
elements to the next nearest shoulder" statement, it is IMHO a very
bad place to do so. Examples are to reiterate and show already
written rules. An example shoulde never be the home of a rule itself.

Page 43 says "if the charging unit must pass through a gap to make
the charge, it must abide by 6.53" Ok, lets see, that would make
Unit Y able to contact Unit B or C (in example 1) per 6.53, yet the
example says it can not.

Gaps broken again I'm afraid. I hope I am wrong here and have
overlooked something.

Don

[joncleaves]

Don,

If your example is in 25mm, 119p is more than 2 elements so the charge could
happen as long as the body fit, and any 1x2 body I can think of would, except
elephants or chariots, as they would be too deep.

In 15mm, 1mm = 1.6p, so a 119p gap is just under 75mm which is not two elements
wide and therefore you can't charge in there. We have always been aware of the
difference, but we changed the support rules to match this (and to fix a couple
other inconsistencies).

Please make sure that any further examples note whether the example is in 15 or
25mm if you are going to reference paces and elements together. Also note what
kind of bodies they are, as it matters.

So, in your example, there is not enough room to charge into the flank of either
unit, given that I assume it is in 15mm.

Yes, I do remember toying with the idea of allowing a flank to be hit if the
space was less than 2 elements but greater than the depth of the charger. We
found that we did not want that and made it uniform that you could not charge
into a gap (against the flank of the shoulder or otherwise) less than 2E wide.
One of the many raesons we rejected this idea was the notion that you could be
supported at 120p, but you were still vulnerable to flank charges by small
units, something that didn't make sense.

The bottom line is: if you want to charge a flank, you have to be able to hit
just the flank, fit in any space after you conform and the space has to be >2
elements.

I will be happy to continue to explain this issue, Don, but you have to stop
using language like broken and fix - I don't want to confuse anyone else who is
reading this thread.

The sentence about shoulders and against in 6.53 is to take care if the issue of
hitting a shoulder in the face, which is always ok.

Thanks
Jon

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated Mon, 4 Mar 2002 8:11:24 AM Eastern Standard Time,
JonCleaves@... writes:

> Don,
>
> If your example is in 25mm, 119p is more than 2 elements so the charge could
happen as long as the body fit, and any 1x2 body I can think of would, except
elephants or chariots, as they would be too deep.
>
> In 15mm, 1mm = 1.6p, so a 119p gap is just under 75mm which is not two
elements wide and therefore you can't charge in there. We have always been
aware of the difference, but we changed the support rules to match this (and to
fix a couple other inconsistencies).
>

This is confusing. Paces are the common measurement. 119 paces is always less
than 2 elements, I thought. A 25mm pace is bigger than a 15mm pace, but both
scales have element frontages of 60 PACES, don't they? IF so then the scale of
the demonstration or question is mute. Am I wrong here?

Chris

[joncleaves]

Chris you are totally right. I was answering two mails at the same time and
hopelessly snarled that one - on me.