Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[suvarov]

I was taught the game by an experienced player, then later read the rules for myself.

I have found a significant difference in movement by wheeling in the rules as written and how I was taught.

It seems that the rules as written allow a "free" wheel of up to 45 degrees prior to movement without reducing movement distance.

This has the odd effect of allowing the ends of very long lines (say 4 or 6 elements wide) to "spring" forward, sometimes allowing elements to more than double their inherent movement allowance if slow troops. Weirdly, this makes wide bodies turn "faster" than narrow bodies which doesn't make much sense to me.

The way I was taught to wheel was to pivot the front rank of any formation (leaving a string or ruler in place along its long axis if only 1 rank) and then measure the distance moved by the outer cormer of the outermost element, and count that distance against the movement allowance.


So, my questions are:

1. Is my interpretation of the rules as written correct? Is the great leap forward allowed in a wheel?

2. Is there any basis in the rules as written for the method I was taught?

[Ewan McNay]

At the risk of Jon's wrath, given that this has 'sat' for a few days (albeit across a US holiday): no, there's no 'leap.' It sounds as though the method you were taught is exactly correct.

If you would post the bit or bits of rules that led you to the 'leap' conclusion, it would probably be helpful - thanks .

[suvarov]

The relevant section as I see it is 6.111

"A tactical move can also include the following WITHOUT ANY REDUCTION IN MOVE DISTANCE:


--ONE wheel of up to 45 degrees, measuring the move along its outer arc."



Combining the header sentence and the second bullet point makes it sound like one end of the line moves forward up to 45 degrees (measured along the outer arc) WITHOUT ANY REDUCTION IN MOVE DISTANCE.


We felt this to feel wrong, and have continued to play using the method we were taught, but the text from the rulebook doesn't seem to support that method.

[Ewan McNay]

Ah, I see.


The intent is to contrast wheels with e.g. formation changes, which can reduce movement distance permissible - hence the note with the wheel of 'measuring distance along the outer arc;' that distance gets deducted from the total move distance permissible. I understand your reading, but it's definitely wrong .

[Bill Chriss]

Like Ewan, I beg forgiveness in advance if stepping on Jon's toes. I actually read the relevant passage after Suvarov's post and prepared a semantic explanation, assuming that he was reading paragraph 6. 111 just as he now has shown he in fact did. I then deleted and did not send, in order to avoid pre-empting Jon's response.

Now that Ewan has broken the ice, however , I will reprise my earlier thoughts, with the proviso that only Jon and FHE can officially answer your question: I must say initially, Suvarov, that yours is an ingenious way of reading the passage, one that my legally trained mind can appreciate, but upon reflection it must be incorrect. A fundamental rule of interpretation is that no language in a given clause should be construed as meaningless. Other language in the same sentence that you quote, to wit: "measuring the move along its outer arc" makes clear that you still need to measure the wheel portion of the move. If your semantic interpretation of "WITHOUT ANY REDUCTION IN MOVE DISTANCE" were correct, this advice about the need to measure the wheel would be meaningless. On the contrary, it should now be clear that the "without any reduction in move distance" means only that wheeling does not count as a "MANEUVER" and thus doesn't, in and of itself, reduce irregs to 40 paces of move distance or restrict regs to either their full move or only one additional maneuver plus 40 paces.

This is the only way to read the quoted sentence while giving meaning and effect to all of its parts. I hope this is helpful from a logical and semantic standpoint, and because of it, I would argue no need for any clarification or erratum. Certainly, Ewan is correct that everyone plays the relevant rule in the way you were originally taught, not in the way you propose to construe it. I'm not doing anything official here, and theoretically, Ewan and I and everyone else we know may have been playing this wrong until Jon weighs in officially. I just thought I'd try to help you see how to read the language.

[suvarov]

>Suvarov, that yours is an ingenious way of reading the passage, one that my legally trained mind can appreciate

Actually, it wasn't particularly ingenious, it was merely the direct reading of the text by someone who wasn't a player of the game or invested in its outcome.


>A fundamental rule of interpretation is that no language in a given clause should be construed as meaningless.

Uh-huh, yep. But not so fast...

>Other language in the same sentence that you quote, to wit: "measuring the move along its outer arc" makes clear that you still need to measure the wheel portion of the move.

Presumably, however, 45 degrees is to be measured, not eyeballed, right? So the measurement at the outer arc could easily mean a measurement of the angle in degrees, not of the distance in, say, inches.


>... it should now be clear that the "without any reduction in move distance" means only that wheeling does not count as a "MANEUVER" and thus doesn't, in and of itself, reduce irregs to 40 paces of move distance or restrict regs to either their full move or only one additional maneuver plus 40 paces.


In fact, we found the more plain meaning of the text odd, and we have been playing in a way that though we believed was contrary to the Rules As Written (but is not) but that SEEMED right. We just didn't want to be surprised if we ever showed up at a tournament with our "fruity house rules on wheeling"

>This is the only way to read the quoted sentence while giving meaning and effect to all of its parts.

Not so. I believe I have shown an alternate interpretation is reasonable given the text once you expand the universe of measuring to include both angles and distances.

_________________

[Bill Chriss]

Hmmm. Interesting refinement of the argument that "measuring" might relate to the 45 degrees and not the distance. Good show. However, my recollection of geometry (not my strongest subject) is that one measures degrees of arc anyplace one wants and gets the same result. In other words, there is no reason to measure 45 degrees "along the outside of the arc," as opposed to anywhere else. In fact degree measurements are taken between radii of a circle. It would make no sense to require that degrees be measured "along the outside of the arc." The rules actually say the MOVE is to be measured in that fashion, not the angle, in degrees or otherwise. The arc is the same in degrees no matter where you judge it from. So, while I admire the effort, I come back to the position of requiring every statement in a rules provision to have meaning, and while it's not for me to judge, I still come down on the side of no change in wording being required here.

At any rate, I find this a stimultating discussion from a semantic point of view, although perhaps I have too much time on my hands I'll leave the rest to Jon and Ewan or anyone else that wants to chime in. Good gaming!

[suvarov]

>However, my recollection of geometry (not my strongest subject) is that one measures degrees of arc anyplace one wants and gets the same result. In other words, there is no reason to measure 45 degrees "along the outside of the arc," as opposed to anywhere else.

Indeed, in theory, that would be true. HOWEVER in practice, given the nature of tabletop instrumentation, the longer the line upon which the angle is measured, the more accurate the angle measurement is likely to be.

For example, it would be easier to accurately measure, given a standard protractor, to measure a 45 degree move of a line 1 foot long than a 45 degree move of a line 1/16 of an inch long. Similarly, the outer edge of the outermost element would provide the most accurate point from which to measure a 45 degree angle in a wheeling movement.

Besides, if I am a strict constructionist (or playing against one!) it is not required to get inside the heads of the authors of the rules to wonder WHY the rules require or prohibit certain things...reading the text is enough.

>The rules actually say the MOVE is to be measured in that fashion, not the angle, in degrees or otherwise.

But what about the move is to be measured? Both distance and angle are changing. And while the rule does not say that an angle is to be measured, neither do they say that a distance is to be measured.

And if the angle is not to be measured, if that is your implication, can each player then judge for himself what constitutes 45 degrees? I doubt you mean that.

>The arc is the same in degrees no matter where you judge it from. So, while I admire the effort....

Effort? I would say, in terms of semantics alone, my position prevails.

With regards to the game, I think we both play it the same way.

>I come back to the position of requiring every statement in a rules provision to have meaning,...

And indeed they would have in the interpretation I forwarded. It just wasn't the meaning you assumed. Don't read what isn't there, counselor.

>At any rate, I find this a stimultating discussion from a semantic point of view,

As have I, obviously.


In fact, my objective of this post was to verify that this alternative interpretation was not the intent of the Rules as Written, and I think we all agree on that.

[Bill Chriss]

[Noel White]

He he.
I see your point Mr Suvarov.
The last three times I've asked a question (that I thought was reasonable), I was mocked/reprimanded for not knowing any better.
(see skirmishing LEHI, spartan list rule question, in-tournament first-contact question)

I live up in Canada, and I only have 2 other regular opponents, one of them doesn't get out to tournaments much and the other doesn't have an internet connection. I'm often surprised during tournaments to find that the three of us have "misinterpreted" the rules at home in one manner or another. We only have each other to learn from; we are alone with our rulebooks.

Nothing upsets me more (on this forum) than having someone tell me that the answer is "perfectly clear" when it is clearly not. I wouldn't be asking the @#%&$Xg question if it was. I also dislike being accused of trying to bend the rules or manipulate the text. I'm not trying to be a pain, and I'm minding my manners as best I know how. I just want to do it right.

Noel.

[scott holder]

You have to measure, the move is not free and to be honest, I don't read the text any other way.

One additional playing aid as it were, we figured out (mathmatically) the actual distance a 1E wide unit moves when it makes a 45 degree wheel. I *think* it's 47p but I need to double check that.

So, if you're 2E wide, it would be 94p (assuming I've got the 47p correct).

By knowing this, it makes figuring out move distances that involve wheels much easier.

I'll edit this particular post when I confirm the above number.

scott

[suvarov]

>You have to measure, the move is not free and to be honest, I don't read the text any other way.

So you can't see that the text:

"A tactical move can also include the following WITHOUT ANY REDUCTION IN MOVE DISTANCE:

combined with bullet point:

--ONE wheel of up to 45 degrees, measuring the move along its outer arc."

Might not mean exactly what it says, that is, a wheel of 45 degrees WITHOUT ANY REDUCTION IN MOVE DISTANCE.


If you cannot concede that the words might not mean what they say, I suspect it is because you know the rule by heart, and have a fully formed mental picture of what you expect a reader to understand. However, a new player reading that rule has no idea what you intend other than by parsing the text.

Look, I think we both agree on how such wheel movements are to be done. This could be clarified easily by either changing "WITHOUT ANY REDUCTION IN MOVE DISTANCE" to something like "without counting as a maneuver or formation change" and or changing "measuring the move along its outer arc" to "measuring the DISTANCE of the move along its outer arc. In no case can any element move a greater distance than its allowable tactical move by wheeling"



I have written rules before. I know it is a painful process, because you have to use precise language to preclude any alternative interpretations, however bizarre. Such writing is rather difficult, because as the author who knows what the rule is supposed to mean, it is sometimes difficult to imagine that a reader might construe it differently.

If you want more people to enjoy the game and want to recruit new players, then you will want the rules to be as clear as possible.

If your intent is other, of course, that is something entirely different.

[joncleaves]

Ok, I'm back.

Note that the policy of FHE is that answers to rules questions from anyone not in the company are strongly discouraged. This thread is an excellent example of why. I have said please before. If some other set of words will stop the practice, please let me know and I will employ them.

You do indeed measure the distance for a wheel.

I will change the words "WITHOUT ANY REDUCTION IN MOVE DISTANCE:" to something like "without any reduction in max move distance permitted" with the next errata.

However, as with all my rules answers here on the forum, this is completely official and counts as rules as written.

Y'all have a Warrior day!

Jon

[suvarov]

Thank you Jon.

I consider your response to be civil, accurate, helpful, and final.

[joncleaves]

And fraught with misspellings, which I have corrected.

Ewan, Bill and Noel mean well and were trying to help. And its true I usually get to rules questions quicker and will try to get back on track with that.

Let me know if you need anything else.

Jon