Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Tom McMillan]

In a message dated 8/29/01 4:12:11 AM, WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com writes:

<< Scott and I are writing a rule for this situation offline. Please be
patient.

Jon >>

That's fine, and its too bad so many folks, (including me) pounced on
that one. it wasn't so much the interp- just an odd, curious little glitch,
as the reply-

It is possible that a scythed chariot, faced with a closest enemy unit in
terrain impassable to it, would have to 'sit' until some part of its
condition changed.
Jon

Which caught some people up. Many people get itchy at a 'Yes, that
doesn't make much sense, but that's what happens', rather than a ' Yes, that
doesn't make much sense. We'll fix it.'

[joncleaves]

<<it wasn't so much the interp- just an odd, curious little glitch,
as the reply->>

It is possible that a scythed chariot, faced with a closest enemy unit in
terrain impassable to it, would have to 'sit' until some part of its condition
changed.
Jon

Which caught some people up. Many people get itchy at a 'Yes, that doesn't
make much sense, but that's what happens', rather than a ' Yes, that
doesn't make much sense. We'll fix it.'>>

Except that is not what happened at all. I wrote the rule and let it penalize a
scythed chariot user who was out maneuvered by his opponent on terrain in which
the chariot was useless. That was a deliberate act that made sense based on my
then knowledge of how these things worked in real life.
I am 'fixing' the rule because I have been shown evidence, historical evidence,
to the contrary.

If I had thought the rule did not make sense in the first place, I would not
have allowed it to stand or even written it that way.

[scott holder]

Which caught some people up. Many people get itchy at a 'Yes, that doesn't
make much sense, but that's what happens', rather than a ' Yes, that
doesn't make much sense. We'll fix it.'>>

Except that is not what happened at all. I wrote the rule and let it penalize
a scythed chariot user who was out maneuvered by his opponent on terrain in
which the chariot was useless. That was a deliberate act that made sense
based on my then knowledge of how these things worked in real life.
I am 'fixing' the rule because I have been shown evidence, historical
evidence, to the contrary.

>Tomorrow, I hope to have a brief summary on scythed chariots in history for
everyone to chew over. There is certainly no smoking gun here one way or the
other, in fact, the data points are fairly few for what was considered
archaic, even by 331 BC when Alexander faced them at Gaugamela. But, when
looked at in total, it's pretty clear that commanders did have *some* control
over the chariots and that they would not have simply plowed up to some brush
and sat there waiting for something to happen. Oops, I'm getting ahead of
myself. Summary tomorrow.

Scott
List Ho

> But, when
> looked at in total, it's pretty clear that
> commanders did have *some* control
> over the chariots

This should go without saying, as things military that
don't work don't remain in use--i.e. the brewster
buffalo or copper swords.

and that they would not have
> simply plowed up to some brush
> and sat there waiting for something to happen.

Arent there two occasions in which the field was
completely cleared of brush/stones in preparation for
the use of sythed chariots? One would surmize from
this that commanders knew the dangers of having too
much tumbleweed in one's sythes..

Just using the ho.

Wanax

> Scott
> List Ho
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com