Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Recruit Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 19

Dear Jon,
We had a discussion at Historicon about your proposal to expand the
shooting arc of units by an imaginary element to either side of the shooting
element. I would Highly recomend that you include a shooting template in the
published version of Warrior. You could make this out of clear plastic and
have it be 240 paces long with subdivisions by weapon type and range. Simply
doubling it for artillery. You could also write the rules to accomodate the
use of the template. This would require changeing alot of the Shooting rules
language but it might clarify things like shooting priorities(which I thought
I understood and it was proved I had it all wrong) and who is in range or
not. If you want to explore this further I have more ideas I could share with
you.
GREG HAUSER

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

Not a bad idea Greg. Even if not in the rules, we'll make one to be on the
web for free and bless it as official.

Note that this is not an expanded shooting arc, but another place where there
are apparently folks making different assumptions about the rules. Warrior
is the same way I have always played arcs. But that is water under the
bridge at this point.

Other such play aids are always welcome.

Harlan Garrett · Centurion Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 943

This sounds like the first rules interp?

HG

-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 12:39 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] The expanded shooting arc

Not a bad idea Greg. Even if not in the rules, we'll make one to be on
the
web for free and bless it as official.

Note that this is not an expanded shooting arc, but another place where
there
are apparently folks making different assumptions about the rules.
Warrior
is the same way I have always played arcs. But that is water under the
bridge at this point.

Other such play aids are always welcome.

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/

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

This is not an 'interp', nor can it be since we will never have to interpret
ourselves - we know what we meant to say.

An element can shoot at anything to its front or to the front of an element
to either side of it - whether one is actually there or not.

Apparently some folks played WRG 7th that the shooting arc only existed if
there actually was an element there. This of course would mean that the
front element of a two element LI unit (with one element behind the other)
could only shoot to its direct front but an LI element in the center of a
three element line had a much better arc despite being the same troops armed
with the same number type and order of missile weapon. Surely the archers do
not march into their brother's ranks and then turn and shoot before scurrying
back to their own element.

Greg's idea isn't going in the rulebook because it is not necessary - the arc
is defined using the theoretical element to left and right BECAUSE we do not
want players to have to use templates (Phil B had the same reasoning, but, in
any case, Warrior is Warrior, not WRG). However, if players want to post
such a template in the egroup and use it though, we'll support it.

Phil Gardocki · Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2001 11:44 am Post subject: Re: The expanded shooting arc

In a message dated 7/29/01 3:07:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, JonCleaves@aol.com writes:

An element can shoot at anything to its front or to the front of an element to either side of it - whether one is actually there or not.

FH,
Has this been approved by all the Four Horsemen? When I brought this up at Cold Wars, Scott gave me that "you know better than that, look."
Phil

Chris Bump · Legate Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1625

This does bring up an interesting point of view.

As I understand the current arc rule, an element may shoot at an opponent who
occupies real estate to the front of the shooting element up to 1 element to
either side of the shooting element. The second criteria is that the
shooting element must be able to draw straight, unobstructed lines from the
two front corners of itself to the element to be shot at. This can cause a
bit of consternation, because if the element to be shot at is all but a gnats
hair behind the flank of the element shooting, by the laws of nature two
lines can be drawn from the front corners of the shooting element and hence
the shooting element is effectively making a facing movement in order to make
a shot. Was this the intent or just a position not considered when scripting
the rules?

Chris

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

I'll talk with Scott. I have no idea why he would do that.

It will be the rule.

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

Chris
Good issue - that language does have to be cleaned up and get a supporting
diagram. It is on my list of things to do.
J

scott holder · Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2001 7:32 pm Post subject: Re: The expanded shooting arc

Correct. Jon and I are talking offline on this. I'll be the first to admit,
this "expanded" shooting arc is new to me and I've not thought it through to
know whether or not it's something worth implementing.

>>> PHGamer@... 07/29/01 07:45 AM >>>

In a message dated 7/29/01 3:07:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
JonCleaves@... writes:

> An element can shoot at anything to its front or to the front of an element
> to either side of it - whether one is actually there or not.
>

FH,
Has this been approved by all the Four Horsemen? When I brought this
up at Cold Wars, Scott gave me that "you know better than that, look."
Phil

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

Offline is right. At this time, this is just four horsemen.

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

Thanks Don - shooting arc will also contain some form of the "line drawn from
... " rule as well. Just have to work it out internally here at FHE.

Don Coon · Imperator Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2742

> Correct. Jon and I are talking offline on this. I'll be the first to
admit,
> this "expanded" shooting arc is new to me and I've not thought it through
to
> know whether or not it's something worth implementing.

We have played at least 20 games with the expanded shooting arc. We find it
to be balanced and very playable. The only hitch we have is the one Chris
Bump posted about, where an enemy is partially beyond your flank but closer
the 60p to you (putting him in the ghost element zone). When most of that
enemy body is beyond your flank and only a gnats ass is sticking out front
of you, the shooting angle is horrendous. We have allowed this shot too, as
we do not want to get into an angle issue.

I do not speak for opur group, but I have found this shooting arc to be
fine, and very playable.

Don

Don Coon · Imperator Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2742

> This does bring up an interesting point of view.
>
> As I understand the current arc rule, an element may shoot at an opponent
who
> occupies real estate to the front of the shooting element up to 1 element
to
> either side of the shooting element. The second criteria is that the
> shooting element must be able to draw straight, unobstructed lines from
the
> two front corners of itself to the element to be shot at.

Actually Chris, the two corner LOS rule is our groups rule in force due to a
complete lack of LOS support in the rules. The rules are totally incomplete
as to how much of me has to see how much of you to count as in LOS.
Don