Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Ewan, that's really a list issue and I will let Scott answer, but mechanically I
will tell you that I won't let lists get published that don't identify morale
class or troops type for transport-type troops.

[Ewan McNay]

I suspect that this is not Warrior-specific (i.e. was unresolved in 7.6),
but could be wrong.

Fightinng a Communnal Italian over the weekend, which had a sacred
Carroccio standard on a wagon. No troops attached to it. What morale
class is it? [It threw 2 1s, so we figured it didn't matter, but can it
react at all? There must be some kind of driver, right, even if the oxen
don't get scared?]

As a secondary question, does that wagon *have* to be attached to a
unit? Or is it legal as a single roaming element?

Ewan
--
Dr. Ewan McNay - Behavioral Neuroscience, Yale University.

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great
moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. - Dante Alighieri (1265-1321)

[scott holder]

Correct. Thus far the only army list that has something along those lines is
Early Hebrew and I made sure appropriate morale types, etc., were given. I
can tell you that unless something is put in front of me that warrants
something "special", standards like the one Ewan described won't be in a list
unless they are part of a unit. Don't quote me on that tho.

>>> JonCleaves@... 4/23/01 9:24:00 AM >>>
Ewan, that's really a list issue and I will let Scott answer, but mechanically
I will tell you that I won't let lists get published that don't identify
morale class or troops type for transport-type troops.

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/

On 23 Apr 2001, Holder, Scott <FHWA> wrote:

> Correct. Thus far the only army list that has something along those lines is
> Early Hebrew and I made sure appropriate morale types, etc., were given. I
> can tell you that unless something is put in front of me that warrants
> something "special", standards like the one Ewan described won't be in a list
> unless they are part of a unit. Don't quote me on that tho.
>
> >>> JonCleaves@... 4/23/01 9:24:00 AM >>>
> Ewan, that's really a list issue and I will let Scott answer, but mechanically
> I will tell you that I won't let lists get published that don't identify
> morale class or troops type for transport-type troops.
>

Please be careful how you rule on this. I have a Khazar army in 25mm that
I'm quite fond of. It's no killer list, but it is playable. One of the
negatives is having to buy that damned army standard in a wagon. It's
basically 30 points wasted. You don't want it anywhere near the front
line, so you rarely get "advancing towards enemy within 240" bonus, and
otherwise it's just an accident waiting to happen.

If I am now going to be forced to "garrison" it with actual troops, I will
simply retire the army. That would push it over the brink from "playable
and fun" to "untenable".

And frankly I'm puzzled what the big mystery is here. It's an ungarrisoned
transport element (just like a baggage camp). Why is that such a difficult
concept? No, it doesn't have a morale class when it's ungarrisoned, and
that has both positive and negative consequences. On the positive side: it
doesn't waver test, since there's no troop type there to test. On the
negative side: it can't be prompted, meaning once it stops marching its
basically done moving for the game.

That's the way I've always understood transport elements, anyhow. If we're
doing something different, I'd really like to know.


Mark

Mark Stone || strider@... || http://digitalpilgrim.com
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing
left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
-Antoine de Saint-Exupery