Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

Jon,

Last question on this point, I promise.

I had some time to think over yesterday's discussion, and there's just one thing
I want to make sure I understand.

Take the example in "gaps2.ppt", and modify it as follows: assume that Red A is
a unit of loose order foot instead of close order foot. This would give it a
depth of 60p. Specifically, in Slide 3, that would mean that Blue 1's frontage
exactly matches Red A's depth, and hence Blue 1 never crosses the shortest line
-- hence the gap -- between Red A and Red B.

If I follow your reasoning, you would say this is then a permissible flank
charge, even though no space greater than 39p exists between Red A and Red B.
Correct?


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

If I follow your reasoning, you would say this is then a permissible flank
charge, even though no space greater than 39p exists between Red A and Red B.
Correct?>>

In that case correct.
But you allow me to make an even more important point here.

You may be horrified at my answer, but you must understand that this is an
entirely theoretical situation. First the uncharged red unit is doing what,
exactly? Was it shot for 2CPF and chose to halt so it cannot charge blue in the
flank? Ok, then the blue player should be rewarded for that.
Is another unit from blue charging the second red unit and therefore keeping
from interfering with Blue's charge? Ok again.
The bottom line is, yes, under your changed circumstances that charge would be
legal. And yes, I am fine with that because the only way to make it happen is
for:
1. Red to have his units not in a solid line, but instead canted in a pattern
away from each other and
2. For blue to have done all the right things tactically to permit it to happen.

Warrior rewards combined arms and penalizes broken battlelines. That is 1000%
my intent.

Jon

[Mark Stone]

--- On October 8 Jon Cleaves said: ---

>
> You allow me to make an even more important point here.
>
> You may be horrified at my answer, but you must understand that this is an
> entirely theoretical situation. First the uncharged red unit is doing what,
> exactly?

Well, we are through with the rules discussion; now we're just talking tactics.
I want to thank you again, by the way, for clarifying a really sticky point in
the rules.

>
> And yes, I am fine with that because the only way to make it happen is
> for:
> 1. Red to have his units not in a solid line, but instead canted in a pattern
> away from each other and
> 2. For blue to have done all the right things tactically to permit it to
> happen.
>
> Warrior rewards combined arms and penalizes broken battlelines. That is 1000%
> my intent.
>

I agree with this whole-heartedly, and indeed it is that combined arms aspect of
Warrior that has me hooked. I don't think Red's battle line is quite as "broken"
as I have made it appear, however. I said several times in this discussion that
my example was an extreme case of a common situation. Here's the common
situation:

Red is playing a predominantly foot, and indeed close order foot army, such as
Seleucids or Scots Common Army. These two units are not 39p apart, but in fact
more like 79p apart (which shouldn't change any of the applicable rules).
Assume Red A to be a loose order foot unit in the brush. Blue is playing a
cavalry and skirmishing army, such as my cherished Later Paleologan Byzantines,
Teutonic Knights, or Medieval Spanish. All of these can get SHK and regular foot
armed with some kind of hand to hand weapon.

Typically in such situations the cav/skirmishing player covers more frontage and
advances more quickly, causing the infantry player to bend back his line at some
point, thus creating a hinge. I don't regard this as bad tactics on the infantry
player's part; it's just a fact of life in these kinds of matchups.

In the situation I've described, let's say that Red B is a Seleucid pike unit,
and its frontage is parallel to the base edge of the table, and it is part of a
general line of troops advancing, forming the left-most part of that line. Red A
is Peltasts in the brush, angled back, covering the left flank of the advancing
line. Again, this situation, or small variations on it, is extremely common.
Suppose that Blue 1 is an 8 figure unit of longbowmen armed with 2HCW, and
accompanying it is the not-depicted Blue 2, 2 stands of Irr B SHK L,Sh.

I'll wager that I, along with 90% of the guys on this list, have assumed that so
long as the distance between the front corner of Red A and the front corner of
Red B was less than 80p, that this was not a passable gap, and thus the flanks
of the hing units were protected.

In fact, because A and B are angled slightly apart from each other (which will
always be the case with hinge units), the gap is between the back corners, not
the front corners. As the guy running the cav army, I'm now looking at a whole
new realm of tactical possibilities for breaking the hinge.

First, I'll happily throw my knights into the pike block to pin it for a turn.
My charge won't be impetuous, so I'll do 5@3 = 13, and the pikes will do 8@2 =
16. I lose, which is fine, and break off. Unless the pikes roll up I'm not even
disordered. Meanwhile there are many situations in which my accompanying longbow
unit could, in approaches, go from a 1 wide 2 deep block to something very like
the positioning shown in gap2.ppt:slide1. So a thow away charge by the knights
buys me 4@9 on the Peltasts (2HCW vs. LMI + charging + shieldless). Roll up 1
and they rout on the spot (assuming the typical 4 stand unit). Sure, I have to
have some way of dealing with the pikes next bound, but that's why they call it
combined arms.

So as the enveloping player I have a lot to think about in terms of how to
potentially exploit hinges. As the infantry player I have to rethink how to
position my hinge units so that they indeed cover each other.

And it all has to do with a very fundamental point that, as I said, I'll bet
most of us were unaware of: at the hinge in a line, gaps occur at the back of
units, not the front.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

<<Typically in such situations the cav/skirmishing player covers more frontage
and
advances more quickly, causing the infantry player to bend back his line at some
point, thus creating a hinge. I don't regard this as bad tactics on the infantry
player's part; it's just a fact of life in these kinds of matchups.>>

Well, since we are talking tactics, I would submit that it is the 'infantry
player' who is seeking a clash where he does NOT create a hinge. And I believe
such to be possible. Well, actually, I *know* such to be possible...lol

<<In the situation I've described, let's say that Red B is a Seleucid pike unit,
and its frontage is parallel to the base edge of the table, and it is part of a
general line of troops advancing, forming the left-most part of that line. Red A
is Peltasts in the brush, angled back, covering the left flank of the advancing
line. Again, this situation, or small variations on it, is extremely common.
Suppose that Blue 1 is an 8 figure unit of longbowmen armed with 2HCW, and
accompanying it is the not-depicted Blue 2, 2 stands of Irr B SHK L,Sh.

<<I'll wager that I, along with 90% of the guys on this list, have assumed that
so
long as the distance between the front corner of Red A and the front corner of
Red B was less than 80p, that this was not a passable gap, and thus the flanks
of the hing units were protected.>>

Well, if they are 'angled' such that the gap is 'in the back' this isn't true.
And has not been.

<<In fact, because A and B are angled slightly apart from each other (which will
always be the case with hinge units), the gap is between the back corners, not
the front corners.>>

Exactly. But you are saying that blue has turned red's line and somehow it
should be 'ok' to 'hinge' and that the rules should protect the hinge in some
way. I do not believe that. 'Bent' lines are how the 'cav player' wins...

<< As the guy running the cav army, I'm now looking at a whole
new realm of tactical possibilities for breaking the hinge.>>

Careful. I think that statement is a huge overreaction - many players have
known how this rule works correctly and they are not exploding the game with
hundreds of 'new' flank charges because the situation we are discussing is both
rare and substantially 'lab-created'.

<<First, I'll happily throw my knights into the pike block to pin it for a turn.
My charge won't be impetuous, so I'll do 5@3 = 13, and the pikes will do 8@2 =
16. I lose, which is fine, and break off. Unless the pikes roll up I'm not even
disordered.>>

Ok, me too. No issue. Do it all the time.

<< Meanwhile there are many situations in which my accompanying longbow
unit could, in approaches, go from a 1 wide 2 deep block to something very like
the positioning shown in gap2.ppt:slide1. So a thow away charge by the knights
buys me 4@9 on the Peltasts (2HCW vs. LMI + charging + shieldless). Roll up 1
and they rout on the spot (assuming the typical 4 stand unit). Sure, I have to
have some way of dealing with the pikes next bound, but that's why they call it
combined arms.>>

Again, that begs many questions. The failed or not attempted red counter is
one. Or the fact that red did not approach with both units angled to the right.
Or....

This situation, if it occurred in exactly the isolation and with exactly the
units shown and no other terrain or conditions present doesn't bother me. So
many things have been done incorrectly by red and correctly by blue that all
seems well. I do not agree that this is common.

<<So as the enveloping player I have a lot to think about in terms of how to
potentially exploit hinges. As the infantry player I have to rethink how to
position my hinge units so that they indeed cover each other.>>

Welcome to the club...lol

<<And it all has to do with a very fundamental point that, as I said, I'll bet
most of us were unaware of: at the hinge in a line, gaps occur at the back of
units, not the front.>>

I don't know what to tell you about that. That's a 7.6 rule...lol So either a
guy learned Warrior and it has always been there or a guy was a 7th player and
it is the same...

Jon

[Ewan McNay]

Much snippage.

JonCleaves@... wrote:

> <<And it all has to do with a very fundamental point that, as I said, I'll bet
> most of us were unaware of: at the hinge in a line, gaps occur at the back of
> units, not the front.>>
>
> I don't know what to tell you about that. That's a 7.6 rule...lol So either
a guy learned Warrior and it has always been there or a guy was a 7th player and
it is the same...

I don't think this is the case. Gaps, and where they exist, have been
one of the most common causes for umpire queries for a long time,
without a uniform standard. Certainly there has been no rule that
gaps only exist between *these* points on two units but not between
*those* points. So, I think Mark is completely correct, up to and
including the very best players.

[joncleaves]

<<Certainly there has been no rule that
gaps only exist between *these* points on two units but not between
*those* points. >>

The language for how/where one measures a gap is taken verbatim from the 93
NASAMW rules interp book for 7th. I played 7th, as did all of my opponents,
that way from 93 on.
Of course not only have I found numerous cases of guys blowing off either that
book or the most recent 7th update from WRG (!) in NASAMW tourneys during those
years, we even have guys playing Warrior *today* with 7th charts and even 7th
rulebooks on their table. So, that there may be people who have not read 6.53
all the way through would not surprise me in the least.

The Warrior rules are a combination of the rulebook and the most current
clarifications provided here for free. One cannot rely on how one played 7th in
1992 (or any other year) for how the rules are in Warrior....lol

Jon

[Mark Stone]

Jon said:

>>> I don't know what to tell you about that. That's a 7.6 rule...lol So either
>>> a guy learned Warrior and it has always been there or a guy was a 7th player
>>> and it is the same...

To which Ewan replied:

>> I don't think this is the case. Gaps, and where they exist, have been
>> one of the most common causes for umpire queries for a long time,
>> without a uniform standard. Certainly there has been no rule that
>> gaps only exist between *these* points on two units but not between
>> *those* points. So, I think Mark is completely correct, up to and
>> including the very best players.

To which Jon further replied:

> Of course not only have I found numerous cases of guys blowing off either that
> book or the most recent 7th update from WRG (!) in NASAMW tourneys during
> those years, we even have guys playing Warrior *today* with 7th charts and
> even 7th rulebooks on their table. So, that there may be people who have not
> read 6.53 all the way through would not surprise me in the least.

I'd like to make a meta-point here. I've bitten my tongue on this one for a
couple of years now, but I really have to say this. What follows is not said in
anger, or even irritation. It is criticism, but intended as constructive
criticism, and I hope it will be taken as such.

Jon, you just aren't doing yourself or FHE any favors by taking this attitude.
It is a poor writer indeed who blames his readers.

For more than a decade I've been a professional technical writer, editor, and
publisher. I've worked on documentation for Fortune 500 tech companies, and for
software projects far more complex than Warrior. In those contexts, when a
writer finds someone with reasonable expertise making a fundamental
misunderstanding that's a big warning sign. The response typically is _not_ to
say or imply that the reader just isn't paying attention and/or reading it
right, but to immediately investigate and see if others have the same
misunderstanding. When a second reader with reasonable expertise comes forth to
express similar misunderstanding that should tell you that in all likelihood the
fault is with the writing.

To respond in the dismissive manner you have here is arrogant and
unprofessional.

Jon, you have a real genius for game mechanics and rules systems; I admire that
greatly. But as a writer, you're srictly amature and it's a problem.

The fact that you make yourself so available on this list is great, and the fact
that you are willing to respond to almost any query posted here is commendable.
I know this isn't anything close to a full time gig for you, and you're making
a huge contribution on our behalf.

But you are really shooting yourself in the foot with the "blame the reader"
attitude you exhibit here and on so many previous occaisions. That's such an
alienating way to treat your customers, and I suspect there are a number of
guys who don't even bother to post on this list any more because of the way you
respond.

These days I'm getting in about 50 games of Warrior a year with a variety of
opponents. I read the rules cover to cover every three months or so. I'm sure
that Ewan and many others would say the same. I don't appreciate being told
that my misunderstanding is due to my lack of attentiveness. More importantly,
if you shrug off my misunderstandings and those of others with that attitude,
you will inevitably make product inferior to what it could and should be.

Accept the fact that we, and not you, are the final judge of what your words
convey. Meaning is decided by the reader, not the author. You are, of course,
the deciding architect in all of this, but if you can't take a more
professional attitude about translating that vision into the written word, then
maybe you should find a volunteer who can.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

Jon, you just aren't doing yourself or FHE any favors by taking this attitude.
It is a poor writer indeed who blames his readers.>>

You have misunderstood me. I was not blaming any reader for misreading 6.53 or
any other Warrior rule - I am the first to admit there are problems of language
there and I am selling heart and soul to fix them - and I also admit they are my
fault and my fault alone. As I have before...

I was responding to Ewan's mail that the rules have not defined where a gap is
between two units. It has been defined as the line between the closest points
in Warrior since day one. It was that way in NASAMW-played 7th since 93.
That's all. I made no other statement.

Chill dude.

Jon

[joncleaves]

Oh, and Mark, one more thing. If I did somehow tweak the nose of those who have
7th books and or charts out during a Warrior game -

good! lol

Jon