Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ed Forbes]

Jon,
I uploaded a file into the file section on a question on both attacking and
defending a TF at the corners. I am unclear on the mechanics.

Ed


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

[joncleaves]

Ed

In your diagram, the unit defending the TF is in an illegal formation. See rule
6.41, which says:

"Blocks may be modified to depict unsteadiness (5.2), line a defended
feature, drop back to pass a gap (6.53), expand in a follow-up (11.2), or be
joined by a staff element (2.51). A block cannot face both front and flank, or
curve its front to concentrate shooting. "

Your defending unit violates the last clause of this by facing both to front and
flank. It is also illegal because its elements are not in contact with each
other, but that may be a result of the software.
You can bend the front of a block slightly to defend a feature, but you can't
'break it' or face in separate directions.

I have uploaded a powerpoint called defending a TF to help show legal formations
defending TFs.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: eforbes100@... <eforbes100@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:10:24 GMT
Subject: [WarriorRules] Rule Question: attacking and defending a TF


Jon,
I uploaded a file into the file section on a question on both attacking and
defending a TF at the corners. I am unclear on the mechanics.

Ed


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





Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Ed Forbes]

Jon,
I will look at this in detail later, but in the case of woods, town, ect, are
you saying that it takes 2 units to defend the corner? One unit would be
conforming to line a defended
feature in these cases. I can find nothing that defines the amount of curve
allowed by a unit to defend a feature. I could see where one unit defends a
round feature in 360d. With 12 stands, it would not be a particularly small
feature either.
Ed



-- JonCleaves@... wrote:
Ed

In your diagram, the unit defending the TF is in an illegal formation. See rule
6.41, which says:

"Blocks may be modified to depict unsteadiness (5.2), line a defended
feature, drop back to pass a gap (6.53), expand in a follow-up (11.2), or be
joined by a staff element (2.51). A block cannot face both front and flank, or
curve its front to concentrate shooting. "

Your defending unit violates the last clause of this by facing both to front and
flank. It is also illegal because its elements are not in contact with each
other, but that may be a result of the software.
You can bend the front of a block slightly to defend a feature, but you can't
'break it' or face in separate directions.

I have uploaded a powerpoint called defending a TF to help show legal formations
defending TFs.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: eforbes100@... <eforbes100@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:10:24 GMT
Subject: [WarriorRules] Rule Question: attacking and defending a TF


Jon,
I uploaded a file into the file section on a question on both attacking and
defending a TF at the corners. I am unclear on the mechanics.

Ed


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





Yahoo! Groups Links






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





Yahoo! Groups Links







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

[joncleaves]

Ed
Since you can't face both front and flank, you could not bend more than 45
degrees across the front of the whole unit as a practical limit.

yes, it would take more than one unit, essentially. A '360' unit is in
violation of at least two rules.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: eforbes100@... <eforbes100@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 18:50:14 GMT
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Rule Question: attacking and defending a TF


Jon,
I will look at this in detail later, but in the case of woods, town, ect, are
you saying that it takes 2 units to defend the corner? One unit would be
conforming to line a defended
feature in these cases. I can find nothing that defines the amount of curve
allowed by a unit to defend a feature. I could see where one unit defends a
round feature in 360d. With 12 stands, it would not be a particularly small
feature either.
Ed



-- JonCleaves@... wrote:
Ed

In your diagram, the unit defending the TF is in an illegal formation. See rule
6.41, which says:

"Blocks may be modified to depict unsteadiness (5.2), line a defended
feature, drop back to pass a gap (6.53), expand in a follow-up (11.2), or be
joined by a staff element (2.51). A block cannot face both front and flank, or
curve its front to concentrate shooting. "

Your defending unit violates the last clause of this by facing both to front and
flank. It is also illegal because its elements are not in contact with each
other, but that may be a result of the software.
You can bend the front of a block slightly to defend a feature, but you can't
'break it' or face in separate directions.

I have uploaded a powerpoint called defending a TF to help show legal formations
defending TFs.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: eforbes100@... <eforbes100@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:10:24 GMT
Subject: [WarriorRules] Rule Question: attacking and defending a TF


Jon,
I uploaded a file into the file section on a question on both attacking and
defending a TF at the corners. I am unclear on the mechanics.

Ed


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





Yahoo! Groups Links






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





Yahoo! Groups Links







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





Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Doug]

What about putting the unit into Orb formation?

How will units defend things like castle walls in the Seige
supplement? Surely they need to extend along the ramparts even when
the rampart turns 90 degrees.

>Ed
>Since you can't face both front and flank, you could not bend more
>than 45 degrees across the front of the whole unit as a practical
>limit.
>
>yes, it would take more than one unit, essentially. A '360' unit is
>in violation of at least two rules.
>
>J

>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: eforbes100@... <eforbes100@...>
>To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 18:50:14 GMT
>Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Rule Question: attacking and defending a TF
>
>
>Jon,
>I will look at this in detail later, but in the case of woods, town, ect, are
>you saying that it takes 2 units to defend the corner? One unit would be
>conforming to line a defended
>feature in these cases. I can find nothing that defines the amount of curve
>allowed by a unit to defend a feature. I could see where one unit defends a
>round feature in 360d. With 12 stands, it would not be a particularly small
>feature either.
>Ed
>
>
>
>-- JonCleaves@... wrote:
>Ed
>
>In your diagram, the unit defending the TF is in an illegal
>formation. See rule
>6.41, which says:
>
>"Blocks may be modified to depict unsteadiness (5.2), line a defended
>feature, drop back to pass a gap (6.53), expand in a follow-up (11.2), or be
>joined by a staff element (2.51). A block cannot face both front and flank, or
>curve its front to concentrate shooting. "
>
>Your defending unit violates the last clause of this by facing both
>to front and
>flank. It is also illegal because its elements are not in contact with each
>other, but that may be a result of the software.
>You can bend the front of a block slightly to defend a feature, but you can't
>'break it' or face in separate directions.
>
>I have uploaded a powerpoint called defending a TF to help show
>legal formations
>defending TFs.
>
>Jon
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: eforbes100@... <eforbes100@...>
>To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:10:24 GMT
>Subject: [WarriorRules] Rule Question: attacking and defending a TF
>
>
>Jon,
>I uploaded a file into the file section on a question on both attacking and
>defending a TF at the corners. I am unclear on the mechanics.
>
>Ed
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 10/13/2005 02:08:30 Central Standard Time,
rockd@... writes:

What about putting the unit into Orb formation?>>
Orb is certainly a good way to defend 360 and the only real way to do so in
basic Warrior.



How will units defend things like castle walls in the Seige
supplement? Surely they need to extend along the ramparts even when
the rampart turns 90 degrees.>>
Don't know how that will work yet, but surely you are correct.


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

[Ed Forbes]

Jon,
This effective 45d limitation to defend features needs be be spelled out in
greater detail in the rules. It is not logically obvious and I am not the only
one who has read it the way I have.
There are many cases in the rules where something is prohibited except for
specified exceptions. The rules give an exception to being in a block to defend
a feature. If there is a limitation to ability to bend to defend a feature, it
should be directly stated. As it currently reads, the requirement to be in block
is overridden by the ability to bend to defend a feature. If the rules on
defending a feature do not give the maximum amount bend allowed, the logical
conclusion is that defending such as the 360d feature example is allowed.
Personally, I think the ability to defend a wagon lager set up in a half circle
and defended by a unit is historically a common event and should be allowed to
be modeled.
If the 45d restriction is made as the limit for each individual stand, then this
should take care of most of the strange issues raised by a 90d bend between 2
stands as I originally posted.
As a note, a circle has no end points (flanks) and therefore does not face both
to the front and to the flank at the same time. A curved line would only have
flanks at the endpoints. Thus a unit defending a wagon lager set up in a half
circle would not be defending to both its front and its flanks at the same time.
The facing rule would not be violated.
Thanks,
Ed
JonCleaves@... wrote:
Ed
Since you can't face both front and flank, you could not bend more than 45
degrees across the front of the whole unit as a practical limit.

J




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

[joncleaves]

Ok, sure.



-----Original Message-----
From: eforbes100@... <eforbes100@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:57:46 GMT
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Rule Question: attacking and defending a TF


Jon,
This effective 45d limitation to defend features needs be be spelled out in
greater detail in the rules. It is not logically obvious and I am not the only
one who has read it the way I have.
There are many cases in the rules where something is prohibited except for
specified exceptions. The rules give an exception to being in a block to defend
a feature. If there is a limitation to ability to bend to defend a feature, it
should be directly stated. As it currently reads, the requirement to be in block
is overridden by the ability to bend to defend a feature. If the rules on
defending a feature do not give the maximum amount bend allowed, the logical
conclusion is that defending such as the 360d feature example is allowed.
Personally, I think the ability to defend a wagon lager set up in a half circle
and defended by a unit is historically a common event and should be allowed to
be modeled.
If the 45d restriction is made as the limit for each individual stand, then this
should take care of most of the strange issues raised by a 90d bend between 2
stands as I originally posted.
As a note, a circle has no end points (flanks) and therefore does not face both
to the front and to the flank at the same time. A curved line would only have
flanks at the endpoints. Thus a unit defending a wagon lager set up in a half
circle would not be defending to both its front and its flanks at the same time.
The facing rule would not be violated.
Thanks,
Ed
JonCleaves@... wrote:
Ed
Since you can't face both front and flank, you could not bend more than 45
degrees across the front of the whole unit as a practical limit.

J




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





Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Doug]

>If the 45d restriction is made as the limit for each individual
>stand, then this
>should take care of most of the strange issues raised by a 90d bend between 2
> stands as I originally posted.


Finding a wording that will allow 90 degrees needs to be done for
Seige anyway...

So should it look like this?

XXXXXXXX
X. .1111
X. .2222
X34
X34
X34
X34

XXX is a linear defense. 1,2,3,4 are elements of a unit. Each
counts as being bent 45 degrees, which adds up to the 90 degree angle
needed.

Saying "45 degree bend for each individual stand" is not the same as
"45 degree gap between two adjacent stands."

I've shown them two deep, because if they are loose order it will
leave a rather large empty space in the corner. How to handle it?
You could declare that only single deep lines can get the 45 degree
benefit.

Its really annoying that the keyboard has no symbols that are angled
at 45 degrees.

You could alternatively require one element or 2 deep pair to face
the inside corner, and count it as facing front to both of the sides
of the linear defense. No flanks, but could have two elements
attacking its frontage.


>Ok, sure.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: eforbes100@... <eforbes100@...>
>To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:57:46 GMT
>Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Rule Question: attacking and defending a TF
>
>
> Jon,
>This effective 45d limitation to defend features needs be be spelled out in
>greater detail in the rules. It is not logically obvious and I am
>not the only
>one who has read it the way I have.
>There are many cases in the rules where something is prohibited except for
>specified exceptions. The rules give an exception to being in a
>block to defend
>a feature. If there is a limitation to ability to bend to defend a feature, it
>should be directly stated. As it currently reads, the requirement to
>be in block
>is overridden by the ability to bend to defend a feature. If the rules on
>defending a feature do not give the maximum amount bend allowed, the logical
>conclusion is that defending such as the 360d feature example is allowed.
>Personally, I think the ability to defend a wagon lager set up in a
>half circle
>and defended by a unit is historically a common event and should be allowed to
>be modeled.
>If the 45d restriction is made as the limit for each individual
>stand, then this
>should take care of most of the strange issues raised by a 90d bend between 2
>stands as I originally posted.
>As a note, a circle has no end points (flanks) and therefore does
>not face both
>to the front and to the flank at the same time. A curved line would only have
>flanks at the endpoints. Thus a unit defending a wagon lager set up in a half
>circle would not be defending to both its front and its flanks at
>the same time.
>The facing rule would not be violated.
>Thanks,
> Ed
>
> JonCleaves@... wrote:
>Ed
>Since you can't face both front and flank, you could not bend more than 45
>degrees across the front of the whole unit as a practical limit.
>
>J
>