Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

1. Look at this 'fix' to the old problem in 90 degree turn 'rule#2' and tell me
what you think:

"In a 90-degree turn, two rules apply to how ranks are organized after the turn:
1. The element that marked the pivot point of the turn (Point “A”
in the examples below) must be in the front rank after the turn.
2. Any other elements in the front rank after the turn must FIRST come from
elements that were in the front rank before the turn."



2. Look at this addition to the pivot to conform rule and tell me what you
think:

"If other bodies or impassable terrain features prevent the charging body from
pivoting to conform, apply the following:
1. If other bodies or terrain would not prevent pivoting the non-charging body,
then do so.
2. If neither body can be pivoted due to other bodies or terrain, treat them as
though they conformed for all purposes."

[joncleaves]

Ok, Don, et al. Let me work the pivot and lining up stuff some more before we
go further. I'll come back soon with a rewrite.

[Patrick Byrne]

1. What about the column that turns and ends in block. It would not adhere to
principle #2. Maybe saying "In a 90-degree turn, one of the below
rules must apply...."

2. Wouldn't this just let charges happen when-ever? (or is that the intent). I
would think that if the charge moves would go like this:
a. Move charger distance until it touches the target.
b. Pivot to conform the charger.
c. Line-up the charger onto the target.
d. If the charger can't pivot to conform then conform the target.
e. If the charger can't line-up, then line up the target.

Note that if neither the charger or the target can't conform, then the charge is
cancelled due to not being able to fit. It might be said that the
target shouldn't both conform and line-up, ie perform both d & e.

As I write this though I am seeing fewer and fewer charges that would get
cancelled, especially with the sentence in the rules that says if the to
bodies aren't lining up, treat them as if they have lined up for all purposes.

I don't know if this is your intent, just offering my $.02.
-PB


JonCleaves@... wrote:

> 1. Look at this 'fix' to the old problem in 90 degree turn 'rule#2' and tell
me what you think:
>
> "In a 90-degree turn, two rules apply to how ranks are organized after the
turn:
> 1. The element that marked the pivot point of the turn (Point “A”
in the examples below) must be in the front rank after the turn.
> 2. Any other elements in the front rank after the turn must FIRST come from
elements that were in the front rank before the turn."
>
> 2. Look at this addition to the pivot to conform rule and tell me what you
think:
>
> "If other bodies or impassable terrain features prevent the charging body from
pivoting to conform, apply the following:
> 1. If other bodies or terrain would not prevent pivoting the non-charging
body, then do so.
> 2. If neither body can be pivoted due to other bodies or terrain, treat them
as though they conformed for all purposes."

[Don Coon]

> 1. Look at this 'fix' to the old problem in 90 degree turn 'rule#2' and
tell me what you think:
>
> "In a 90-degree turn, two rules apply to how ranks are organized after the
turn:
> 1. The element that marked the pivot point of the turn (Point
“A” in the examples below) must be in the front rank after the
turn.
> 2. Any other elements in the front rank after the turn must FIRST come
from elements that were in the front rank before the turn."

Cool. That is really the only way Ex #2 works.

> 2. Look at this addition to the pivot to conform rule and tell me what
you think:
>
> "If other bodies or impassable terrain features prevent the charging body
from pivoting to conform, apply the following:
> 1. If other bodies or terrain would not prevent pivoting the non-charging
body, then do so.
> 2. If neither body can be pivoted due to other bodies or terrain, treat
them as though they conformed for all purposes."

This is how we have been playtesting for the last 3 weeks. We found it
smooth and probelm free. It also clears up all the V cheese.

Don

[Don Coon]

> > 2. Look at this addition to the pivot to conform rule and tell me what
you think:
> >
> > "If other bodies or impassable terrain features prevent the charging
body from pivoting to conform, apply the following:
> > 1. If other bodies or terrain would not prevent pivoting the
non-charging body, then do so.
> > 2. If neither body can be pivoted due to other bodies or terrain, treat
them as though they conformed for all purposes."

Reading Patricks response has got me thinking that line 1 is a good line and
line 2 is bad. If the charger can not pivot, then try to pivot the charged
body (line 1), if this fails the charge should not be legal. I do not think
line 2 should be allowed for the same reasons Patrick stated. With line 2,
there will never be a case where a charger can not fit. All he has to do is
make contact and if all the pivoting and lining up fail, the two bodies will
be treated as if they are pivoted and lined up.

As a side note, we found the "lining up the charged body" rule to have an
interesting (albeit rare) effect. Sometimes you can pull an enemy unit well
out of position by having your lining up ability limited, but not his. We
actualy had a body yanked out of the woods in yesterdays game (yes it is
rare but it can and did happen). The body had a 2-4 mm sliver sticking out
of the woods, but was faced by an enemy 40p distant. A different enemy
charged (could not quite get the flank) and hit the little 2-4mm peice of
the front of the element that was out of the woods. The charger could not
conform fully, and could not line up at all due to his friend next to him.
The charged body complied with the conform and line up to the charger rules
and got yanked right out of the woods. It was pretty neat.

Don

> 1. Look at this 'fix' to the old problem in 90 degree
turn 'rule#2' and tell me what you think:
>
> "In a 90-degree turn, two rules apply to how ranks are organized
after the turn:
> 1. The element that marked the pivot point of the turn (Point
“A” in the examples below) must be in the front rank
after the turn.

Yes, this good. But can you tell me WHICH element would pivot in
this scenario:

A unit if 6 elements LI (3 wide x 2 deep)is charged on the right
flank by LC 200 paces away. The LI decide to evade (passed their
waver test) and now turn 90 degrees to their left. From WHICH end of
this three element wide unit does the turn commence? If from the
opposite end of the charge (ie the left hand side), the LI increases
the distance the LC have to charge by 1.5 base frontages or about 100
paces. Now the LC are 300 paces away before they even begin their
charge. Even if the LI roll "slow" to evade (80 paces), the LC would
not catch them! A bit unrealistic huh? I'm not sure if that's
covered in the rules.


> 2. Any other elements in the front rank after the turn must FIRST
come from elements that were in the front rank before the turn."

I've always played it that way.

========

> 2. Look at this addition to the pivot to conform rule and tell me
what you think:
>

"..And that's when I shot her, Your Honour" OK Jon, don't like
number one but like number two for the following;

> "If other bodies or impassable terrain features prevent the
>charging body from pivoting to conform, apply the following:
> 1. If other bodies or terrain would not prevent pivoting the non-
>charging body, then do so.

1. The "owner" of the defending unit might have set up so that his
unit is protected by said other bodies and terrain. If the defending
unit is close formation and their involuntary pivot puts them into
rough terrain (not unpassable), is the defender now disordered? If
so, this puts him at a great disadvantage. And looking at Don's
post, I would be greatly "miffed" that my unit was "pulled out of the
woods" when I would have put them there to gain the benefits of these
self same woods.

> 2. If neither body can be pivoted due to other bodies or terrain,
treat them as though they conformed for all purposes."


2. The danger here, as already pointed out that you could now have
an illegal charge made legal. However, if the charging unit can hit
PART of an element (such as the situation Don wrote about) and cannot
conform due to terrain etc, (say the attacker was Hch so cannot go
into woods) AND the charge is legal (gaps, fit, etc not being a
problem) then they should be DEEMED to be in contact and do the
combat, one element to one element. (or 2 if JLS applies) This being
the minimum they would be able to fight with. The combat
determinations would then be "who gets benefit of the woods?" Do you
count one figure as out of the woods and the rest in? Count that
element as out and all others in?

[joncleaves]

Don

Could you take a minute and recommend pivot/line up language that kills the V
but doesn't allow someone to pull the defender out of terrain?

Or have you already done that and it is in this foot-high pile I am working
through? :)

Jon

[Don Coon]

> Yes, this good. But can you tell me WHICH element would pivot in
> this scenario:
>
> A unit if 6 elements LI (3 wide x 2 deep)is charged on the right
> flank by LC 200 paces away. The LI decide to evade (passed their
> waver test) and now turn 90 degrees to their left. From WHICH end of
> this three element wide unit does the turn commence? If from the
> opposite end of the charge (ie the left hand side), the LI increases
> the distance the LC have to charge by 1.5 base frontages or about 100
> paces. Now the LC are 300 paces away before they even begin their
> charge. Even if the LI roll "slow" to evade (80 paces), the LC would
> not catch them! A bit unrealistic huh? I'm not sure if that's
> covered in the rules.

It is Steve. No evading unit can gain distance by changing shape. The
distance an evading unit goes is measured from the closest point from it and
the charger. Then any elements that drop back are placed behind (to shorten
the distance.). An evading unit that turns 90 to evade is NOT executing the
90 turn manuever. The whole 3X2 turns 90 as a 3X2 block. Remember turns
for evaders and routers are free turns and not manuevers. In fact many
times eveaders have to turn at angles other than 90 or 180. These are not
wheels. The block is picked up and turned to face AWAY from the charger and
then moves. I do not have my rules in my lap, but I have sent Jon rewording
for evades, routs, etc that say "the turn away from the chargers is free and
does not count as a manuever" I think he added it. Maybe he also needs to
add "the shape of the evading (routing etc) body does not change unless
elements have to be dropped back" Elements are dropped back towards the
charger/pursuer in order to shorten the distance."

Take a look at the July 15 draft Steve and see if it is clear. I will read
the rule later and post again too.

Don

[Chris Bump]

This post reminds me of a game we had a few weeks ago. Once a unit makes its
route move for the first time directly away from the victorious enemy I
believe that they are required to route directly towards the rear of the
board.

In this particular situation a 2x2 element unit was hit in the flank and
routed. Its first route move being directly away from the enemy caused the
unit to be in a 1x4 column running at (lets say for argument) a roughly 45%
angle to the rear edge of the board. The following phase a question arose
because one side felt that the unit had to wheel 45% in order to continue the
rout to the rear of the board, while the other side felt that the unit simply
turned to the rear (a 90 degree left turn) and run to the rear. The problem
was that the wheel option would have carried the unit through a friendly
irregular unit and all that that promises to do. The turn to the rear would
have avoided that problem. If the routing unit had made its first route move
away from the enemy exactly parallel to the rear of the board would they have
had to make multiple wheels to get to the rear or on the second bound would
they just turn to the left? Which way to go?

Chris

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 09/03/2001 5:23:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jjendon@... writes:

<<
> 1. Look at this 'fix' to the old problem in 90 degree turn 'rule#2' and
tell me what you think:
>
> "In a 90-degree turn, two rules apply to how ranks are organized after the
turn:
> 1. The element that marked the pivot point of the turn (Point
&#8220;A&#8221; in the examples below) must be in the front rank after the
turn.
> 2. Any other elements in the front rank after the turn must FIRST come
from elements that were in the front rank before the turn."

Cool. That is really the only way Ex #2 works.

> 2. Look at this addition to the pivot to conform rule and tell me what
you think:
>
> "If other bodies or impassable terrain features prevent the charging body
from pivoting to conform, apply the following:
> 1. If other bodies or terrain would not prevent pivoting the non-charging
body, then do so.
> 2. If neither body can be pivoted due to other bodies or terrain, treat
them as though they conformed for all purposes."

This is how we have been playtesting for the last 3 weeks. We found it
smooth and probelm free. It also clears up all the V cheese.

Don
>>
Yea Don,

But we did have the situation this past weekend where the Charging HC was
able to pull the loose order unit out of the woods by charging him and not
being able to fit between the charged unit and the chargers friends to the
charged unit's front. Aren't we trying to avoid this?

Chris

Don,

Thanks mate.

Cheers

Steve


--- In WarriorRules@y..., "DONALD COON" <jjendon@h...> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yes, this good. But can you tell me WHICH element would pivot in
> > this scenario:
> >
> > A unit if 6 elements LI (3 wide x 2 deep)is charged on the right
> > flank by LC 200 paces away. The LI decide to evade (passed their
> > waver test) and now turn 90 degrees to their left. From WHICH
end of
> > this three element wide unit does the turn commence? If from the
> > opposite end of the charge (ie the left hand side), the LI
increases
> > the distance the LC have to charge by 1.5 base frontages or about
100
> > paces. Now the LC are 300 paces away before they even begin their
> > charge. Even if the LI roll "slow" to evade (80 paces), the LC
would
> > not catch them! A bit unrealistic huh? I'm not sure if that's
> > covered in the rules.
>
> It is Steve. No evading unit can gain distance by changing shape.
The
> distance an evading unit goes is measured from the closest point
from it and
> the charger. Then any elements that drop back are placed behind
(to shorten
> the distance.). An evading unit that turns 90 to evade is NOT
executing the
> 90 turn manuever. The whole 3X2 turns 90 as a 3X2 block. Remember
turns
> for evaders and routers are free turns and not manuevers. In fact
many
> times eveaders have to turn at angles other than 90 or 180. These
are not
> wheels. The block is picked up and turned to face AWAY from the
charger and
> then moves. I do not have my rules in my lap, but I have sent Jon
rewording
> for evades, routs, etc that say "the turn away from the chargers is
free and
> does not count as a manuever" I think he added it. Maybe he also
needs to
> add "the shape of the evading (routing etc) body does not change
unless
> elements have to be dropped back" Elements are dropped back
towards the
> charger/pursuer in order to shorten the distance."
>
> Take a look at the July 15 draft Steve and see if it is clear. I
will read
> the rule later and post again too.
>
> Don

[Don Coon]

> Yea Don,
>
> But we did have the situation this past weekend where the Charging HC was
> able to pull the loose order unit out of the woods by charging him and not
> being able to fit between the charged unit and the chargers friends to the
> charged unit's front. Aren't we trying to avoid this?
>
> Chris

Yes I think we are. I posted that very example in my revised (prompted by
Patrick) answere. Jon has also asked for a way to avoid this problem. I am
thinking as I write.

Don

[joncleaves]

Don

Good. Always good for the tester to get a taste of design. :)

I am also working on some ideas - let me know if you come up with something. I
am opposed to pulling the target out of terrain, but want to allow most charges.
I am sure the words are there somewhere.

Jon

[Don Coon]

> Don
>
> Could you take a minute and recommend pivot/line up language that kills
the V
> but doesn't allow someone to pull the defender out of terrain?

I am having al ot of trouble with this. Every time I get a solution, I find
a charge that does not work. Also the pulling out of terrain is VERY
difficult to prevent in an environment where we are going to allow the
charged body to be moved.

I am thinking about it, but the solutions are very very wordy, and still
shot full of holes.

Don