Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[scott holder]

Yes to the first: no adding of distance. [in 7.6, at least]
No waver from being charged unless the mounted can contact an element of
foot; foot on the base do not waver.
More important: do they now move as foot or mounted for approach purposes?
[I think it should be foot, but I know that Scott disagrees]

>Correct, I disagree. Everything else is okay tho.


p.s. Note that if irregular, they also make the whole unit take double
CPF in h-t-h.

>Correct and there are only 1-2 lists that actually allow regular LI on the
base with an EL. Hmmmm, might hafta change that one:)

[scott holder]

This is probably a silly question, but if you put regular infantry on the
same base as elephants, does this preclude you from adding optional
distances?

>Reg/Irr foot, makes no difference. Foot on base with EL (chariots, whatever)
preclude additional movement.

[Greg Regets]

This is probably a silly question, but if you put regular infantry on the
same base as elephants, does this preclude you from adding optional
distances? Would wavet from charging mounted apply? I think not, but just
making sure.

Greg ~who has shot at a bunch, but never used actual elephants before~

[joncleaves]

Scott

#1, if you reply with both my address and WarriorRules, I get the mail twice.
Ok with me if you don't do that. :)

#2, are you sure we want EL with LI on a common base to move like mounted in
approach?

Feel free to answer off-line!

Jon

[Greg Regets]

Wow .... thats an interesting way of looking at it .... count them as foot
for one purpose and not as foot for another. It seems like the rational that
would apply to one instance would equally apply to the other.

Oh well, its more likely than not, a bad use of points, :-)

G

-----Original Message-----
From: Ewan Mcnay [mailto:ewan@...]
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 10:58 AM
To: 'WarriorRules@egroups.com'
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Elephants and LI


Yes to the first: no adding of distance. [in 7.6, at least]
No waver from being charged unless the mounted can contact an element of
foot; foot on the base do not waver.
More important: do they now move as foot or mounted for approach purposes?
[I think it should be foot, but I know that Scott disagrees]

Ewan

p.s. Note that if irregular, they also make the whole unit take double
CPF in h-t-h.

On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Greg Regets wrote:

> This is probably a silly question, but if you put regular infantry on the
> same base as elephants, does this preclude you from adding optional
> distances? Would wavet from charging mounted apply? I think not, but just
> making sure.
>
> Greg ~who has shot at a bunch, but never used actual elephants before~
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Life's too short to send boring email. Let SuperSig come to the rescue.
> http://click.egroups.com/1/6137/2/_/_/_/962812420/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>

--
Dr. Ewan McNay - Behavioral Neuroscience, Yale University.
(203) 432-7005


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was the salesman clueless? Productopia has the answers.
http://click.egroups.com/1/4633/2/_/_/_/962812656/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[Ewan McNay]

Yes to the first: no adding of distance. [in 7.6, at least]
No waver from being charged unless the mounted can contact an element of
foot; foot on the base do not waver.
More important: do they now move as foot or mounted for approach purposes?
[I think it should be foot, but I know that Scott disagrees]

Ewan

p.s. Note that if irregular, they also make the whole unit take double
CPF in h-t-h.

On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Greg Regets wrote:

> This is probably a silly question, but if you put regular infantry on the
> same base as elephants, does this preclude you from adding optional
> distances? Would wavet from charging mounted apply? I think not, but just
> making sure.
>
> Greg ~who has shot at a bunch, but never used actual elephants before~
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Life's too short to send boring email. Let SuperSig come to the rescue.
> http://click.egroups.com/1/6137/2/_/_/_/962812420/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>

--
Dr. Ewan McNay - Behavioral Neuroscience, Yale University.
(203) 432-7005

[Ewan McNay]

Hmm. I think that I think [ ] that they should be foot for all
purposes.

However, they are sure not 'loose or open formation foot responding to a
charge by mounted'

And yeah, I think it's almost always a bad use of points. The exception
might be for the Burmese, who are so damn expensive anyway, and why not
have even *more* bowfire since you're probably never planning to get to
h-t-h.

E

On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Greg Regets wrote:

> Wow .... thats an interesting way of looking at it .... count them as foot
> for one purpose and not as foot for another. It seems like the rational that
> would apply to one instance would equally apply to the other.
>
> Oh well, its more likely than not, a bad use of points,
>
> G
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ewan Mcnay [mailto:ewan@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 10:58 AM
> To: 'WarriorRules@egroups.com'
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Elephants and LI
>
>
> Yes to the first: no adding of distance. [in 7.6, at least]
> No waver from being charged unless the mounted can contact an element of
> foot; foot on the base do not waver.
> More important: do they now move as foot or mounted for approach purposes?
> [I think it should be foot, but I know that Scott disagrees]
>
> Ewan
>
> p.s. Note that if irregular, they also make the whole unit take double
> CPF in h-t-h.
>
> On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Greg Regets wrote:
>
> > This is probably a silly question, but if you put regular infantry on the
> > same base as elephants, does this preclude you from adding optional
> > distances? Would wavet from charging mounted apply? I think not, but just
> > making sure.
> >
> > Greg ~who has shot at a bunch, but never used actual elephants before~
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Life's too short to send boring email. Let SuperSig come to the rescue.
> > http://click.egroups.com/1/6137/2/_/_/_/962812420/
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>

--
Dr. Ewan McNay - Behavioral Neuroscience, Yale University.
(203) 432-7005

[Greg Regets]

Your quite right about the points thing, it might be a good place to spend a
small handful of points. If your using elephants with a bow armed crew and
infantry on the base, you do get a nice little bit firing though ... perhaps
enough to get rid of little LI units or 16 figure LMI archers. Of course, if
you are precluded from adding distance, the whole deal is shot, :-)

G

-----Original Message-----
From: Ewan Mcnay [mailto:ewan@...]
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 11:04 AM
To: 'WarriorRules@egroups.com'
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] Elephants and LI


Hmm. I think that I think [ ] that they should be foot for all
purposes.

However, they are sure not 'loose or open formation foot responding to a
charge by mounted'

And yeah, I think it's almost always a bad use of points. The exception
might be for the Burmese, who are so damn expensive anyway, and why not
have even *more* bowfire since you're probably never planning to get to
h-t-h.

E

On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Greg Regets wrote:

> Wow .... thats an interesting way of looking at it .... count them as foot
> for one purpose and not as foot for another. It seems like the rational
that
> would apply to one instance would equally apply to the other.
>
> Oh well, its more likely than not, a bad use of points,
>
> G
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ewan Mcnay [mailto:ewan@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 10:58 AM
> To: 'WarriorRules@egroups.com'
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Elephants and LI
>
>
> Yes to the first: no adding of distance. [in 7.6, at least]
> No waver from being charged unless the mounted can contact an element of
> foot; foot on the base do not waver.
> More important: do they now move as foot or mounted for approach purposes?
> [I think it should be foot, but I know that Scott disagrees]
>
> Ewan
>
> p.s. Note that if irregular, they also make the whole unit take double
> CPF in h-t-h.
>
> On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Greg Regets wrote:
>
> > This is probably a silly question, but if you put regular infantry on
the
> > same base as elephants, does this preclude you from adding optional
> > distances? Would wavet from charging mounted apply? I think not, but
just
> > making sure.
> >
> > Greg ~who has shot at a bunch, but never used actual elephants before~
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Life's too short to send boring email. Let SuperSig come to the rescue.
> > http://click.egroups.com/1/6137/2/_/_/_/962812420/
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>

--
Dr. Ewan McNay - Behavioral Neuroscience, Yale University.
(203) 432-7005


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accurate impartial advice on everything from laptops to table saws.
http://click.egroups.com/1/4634/2/_/_/_/962813068/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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