Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Tim Brown]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:

> Pavises do nothing for figures armed with B when they shoot. It
only protects them from shooting when they do not shoot.
>


You're the boss Jon, but I seem to recall ( probably along w/ Damour)
that you not only count as cover, but shielded when using bow with
Pa's. As opposed to CB, etc, which is slightly different. I could be
nuts, however.

Tim Brown

[Todd Schneider]

I thought Pavise users counted as unshielded in all
cases including Hand to Hand, but the Pavise acts as
cover. So a pavise Armed LMI CB guy being shot at by
a B is 3, and a LHI guy is 2.

Jon?

--- browntj007 <browntj007@...> wrote:

---------------------------------
--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a...
wrote:

> Pavises do nothing for figures armed with B when
they shoot. It
only protects them from shooting when they do not
shoot.
>


You're the boss Jon, but I seem to recall ( probably
along w/ Damour)
that you not only count as cover, but shielded when
using bow with
Pa's. As opposed to CB, etc, which is slightly
different. I could be
nuts, however.

Tim Brown




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/17/2004 11:58:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
browntj007@... writes:

> You're the boss Jon, but I seem to recall ( probably along w/ Damour)
> that you not only count as cover, but shielded when using bow with
> Pa's. As opposed to CB, etc, which is slightly different. I
> could be
> nuts, however.
>
> Tim Brown>>

It seems there is a disconnect as to how 7th was interpreted and how Warrior is
written that is causing some angst. We are taking this one offline to be
absolutely sure before we say anything more. Please be patient.

Jon

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/17/2004 15:03:59 Central Daylight Time,
mark@... writes:

Under 7.1 it says that "Figures with shields count as shieldess in the
following
circumances... using a weapon requiring both hands such as bow....">>
That is the controlling rule, yes. The other part is: "A pavise is a near
equivalent to an infantry shield and costs the same. It is assumed to provide
superior protection from
missiles but to be too heavy or clumsy to be useful in hand-to-hand combat."

Note also that the CB and HG exception is because without it they would
count shieldless and out of cover as well, not because they are 'worse' with Pa
than B/LB/SS.

Now, I am totally granting that there is no explicit statement in 7.2 that
says B/LB/SS who shoot don't get Pa protection. Coincidentally, Scott is
visiting me here tonight and we are going to take a hard look at any troop
types
that might have been able to shoot and manipulate their pavise somehow to
provide protection.
Another possibility is that some troops might have actually had what would
qualify as a 'mini-mantlet' that could have been placed in the ground while a
two-handed weapon was employed. Note that is why a mantlet costs more - it
is not a shield or 'near equivalent' and could be up and in place while a
bowman fired.

Jury's out on what precisely happens next, but I can assure you the
'history' of what actually happened with troops with B and Pa will be the
dominant
factor.

Jon


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

[Mark Stone]

Jon,

I have always thought that pavise-equipped troops who fired bows counted both
shielded and in cover. Let me explain my reasoning, and you can tell me where
I'm wrong (again):

Presumably the relevant section is 7.0: "Use of Shields, cover, defensive
obstacles, and hazards".

Under 7.1 it says that "Figures with shields count as shieldess in the following
circumances... using a weapon requiring both hands such as bow...."

This rule clearly does not apply because the troops in question do not have
shields; they have pavise.

Under 7.2 it says that "It counts as both shield and cover (7.4) against
shooting...."

This suggests that the relevant explanation will come in 7.4, "Cover". Looking
at 7.4, it says that "Troops protected from shooting by cover never count
shieldless to shooting (except pavises, see 7.2)." So we need to refer back to
7.2 for an exception, but other than the applicable exception, "never" seems
pretty clear. It doesn't say "when shooting"; it says "never". Not really a lot
of room for interpretation there.

So let's go back to 7.2 and see what the exception is. Turns out, this has to do
with crossbow and handgun: "A crossbow or handgun armed figure with a pavise
counts as in cover but not shielded when shooting...." No mention made here of
bows (or longbows, for that matter).

So as far as I can tell, bow-armed troops with pavise count as in cover. As
troops in cover, per 7.4, they count as both shielded and in cover. No
exceptions, no special circumstances for when they themselves are shooting.
When do they count shieldless to shooting? Per 7.4: "never".


-Mark Stone

I was'nt quite sure what a pavise looked like not having any armies who have
them, so I came up with these results.

Kingo


Pavise
(n.) A large shield covering the whole body, carried by a pavisor, who
sometimes screened also an archer with it.

Pavise


Large, usually rectangular shield carried by infantrymen and frequently used
in siege operations to protect archers. The largest pavises were equipped
with a prop to support them.

http://www.dixon-minis.com/details.asp?code=sp1&desc=Pavise%20for%20use%20wi
th%20arquebusiers%20or%20archers

Wow!, check these out a bit beyond me in 15mm me thinks.
http://www.armouronline.com/home/products/shields/st0701006_pavisepainted_bi
gwooden

Kingo


.

[Ewan McNay]

Mark Stone wrote:
> Under 7.1 it says that "Figures with shields count as shieldess in the
following
> circumances... using a weapon requiring both hands such as bow...."
>
> This rule clearly does not apply because the troops in question do not have
> shields; they have pavise.

Right - there is then some text about pavises which clarifies that
they are not shields (and notes that they provide greater protection
against missiles).

> Under 7.2 it says that "It counts as both shield and cover (7.4) against
> shooting...."

This gets tricky, though. Presumably, counting as a shield means that
you treat the figure as having a shield - and so 7.1 means that they
would be shieldless when firing (B or CB or HG or LB or even SS)

> This suggests that the relevant explanation will come in 7.4, "Cover". Looking
> at 7.4, it says that "Troops protected from shooting by cover never count
> shieldless to shooting (except pavises, see 7.2)." So we need to refer back to
> 7.2 for an exception, but other than the applicable exception, "never" seems
> pretty clear. It doesn't say "when shooting"; it says "never". Not really a
lot
> of room for interpretation there.

Agreed. Now we have a conflict, on my reading, but I would agree that
this rule appears to override any 'count as shieldless' provision of
7.1 for pavise users, assuming that they're in cover.

> So let's go back to 7.2 and see what the exception is. Turns out, this has to
do
> with crossbow and handgun: "A crossbow or handgun armed figure with a pavise
> counts as in cover but not shielded when shooting...." No mention made here of
> bows (or longbows, for that matter).

Right again. Nothing here that negates any aspect of pavise providing
cover to a B/LB/SS user, and so nothing that counteracts 7.4. So the
CB/HG case is very clear; the B/LB/SS is equally clear but different,
counting as both shielded and in cover.

> So as far as I can tell, bow-armed troops with pavise count as in cover. As
> troops in cover, per 7.4, they count as both shielded and in cover. No
> exceptions, no special circumstances for when they themselves are shooting.
> When do they count shieldless to shooting? Per 7.4: "never".

I note that Jon's response didn't disagree with any of this, but
talked instead about history and stuff that from a game-player's point
of view must be irrelevant [as we have to go by rules, not any given
view of history ]. However, I suspect this is somethig else that
will be changed, perhaps before H'Con. I agree with Tim (?) who noted
that the Yuan epecially will be interested in the outcome! :)

Personally, given that the Yuan are a potential opponent, I hope the
rule is changed, of course .

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/18/2004 13:34:21 Central Daylight Time,
rockd@... writes:

uggh. Am I correct in thinking that it gets down to filling in this
matrix with Yes or No in each cell:>.

Nope...lol Please be patient.
Jon


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

[Doug]

uggh. Am I correct in thinking that it gets down to filling in this
matrix with Yes or No in each cell:

PAVISE USER:..............................................B / LB / SS / CB / HG
count shielded when being fired upon
count shielded when firing
count shielded in HH under circumstances
when troops with shield would do so
count as being in cover

And you might as well include columns for JLS and anything weird in
Fantasy Warrior.

Have I omitted any relevent circumstances?