Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

This is one of the times I should probably keep my mouth shut, but...

Sportsmanship is in the eye of the beholder. A laurel wreath to
the guy who went to a tournament and blew his chances helping a newbie.
That's great.
My idea of sportsmanship (because I've grown up a little since
1987) is that top rank players who don't need to play for blood (ie,
have qualified) should take an interesting or challenging army. Not all
armies are created equal. For teaching new guys in Toronto, I play
Mycenaens, not Komnenan Byzantine. That way I can play "full out", not
take a points handicap, and still give a player options he'd not have
against Manuel Komnena's machine.
I wouldn't resist a handicap system, or any of the methods
mentioned. On the other hand, my feeling is that given one of the
armies he really knows and that has "all the stuff" any top player can
be handicapped immensely and still beat a new player. Intangibles that
cost no points (as Mike Bard said last night) like terrain placement,
army list composition, and set up are likely to doom a new player before
the first dice are rolled.
The other night I played a game where a single Irr. C LI unit with
JLS and no shields won me a 5-0 victory. That player will not ever
leave a woods unexplored on the flank of his cavalry wing again. In
fact, in a more recent game, he very neatly rolled all my ambushes out
of terrain with careful use of his skirmishers.
Anyway, play a lesser army,. says I. Have your qual? Play Libyans
and Sea Peoples... I may be wrong, but it seems to me that many Warrior
players have a tournament army and a labor of love (or campaign) army.
So play that!
This was supposed to be the short essay on Steppe Nomad cultural
and military strategies that Mark Stone requested two nights ago. Maybe
Sunday...

Chris Cameron


>
>

Hello everyone, here follows the musings of a newb. Of course, I don't
pretend to speak for all newbs.

Cold Wars this year will mark my One Year Anniversary of playing Warrior.
Maybe I'm past the newb stage right now. I find these days that I can
actually beat someone who really is new at the game. I have learned to
recognize an opponents mistake and take an advantage of it, so I'm quite
happy with my progress.

Qualifying for the National Tournament is a long way away though as far as I
can see. As I understand it, to quallify, I have to finish first in a
tourney of at least 6 players. In this part of the world, that means
defeating Christian Cameron, Greg Hauser, and Jevon Garret, all seasoned
veterans of ancient wargaming. Quite frankly, it may be a long time before I
am up to their calibre.


On the other hand, I'm not sure qualifying for the National Tournament is
really a priority for me. I see tournaments as a chance to get a lot of
games in. I do however, want to get really good at wielding My chosen army,
the Han. Since the subject of handicaps has come up I started to wonder if a
handicap was something I might like to see. It not something that had ever
occured to me in the past. My first thought, is what is there in learning to
beat a short handed opponent? If my opponent defeats me, I can pick up on
what they did and apply it to my own game. I have learned a thing or two
from Mike Bard recently, who has some interesting tricks with his Syracuse
Army. To me, that is more valuable as a learning experience than any
victory. More to the point, Mike Bard, suffered a long string of defeats
playing Hoplites against me, and ultimately learned to beat me with an
equally pointed force. Mike knows that he can take those same tactics and
apply them elsewhere, because they work without a handicap. At the same
time, I took a valuable lesson away.

I imagine I can learn to beat a handicapped opponent, but then what happens
when the handicaps are no longer there? I like Christians idea, although
honestly, I didn't realise he was doing me some kind of favour playing
Myceneans You still beat me you know (tee hee). But I can say that those
lessons were learned. I know what parts of the game I need to improve on.

That's it.

Allan

What is it that you like about the Han? I never thought of them as a
particularly attractive army.

J

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Allan Lougheed" <redcoat24@c...>
wrote:
> Hello everyone, here follows the musings of a newb. Of course, I
don't
> pretend to speak for all newbs.
>
> Cold Wars this year will mark my One Year Anniversary of playing
Warrior.
> Maybe I'm past the newb stage right now. I find these days that I
can
> actually beat someone who really is new at the game. I have learned
to
> recognize an opponents mistake and take an advantage of it, so I'm
quite
> happy with my progress.
>
> Qualifying for the National Tournament is a long way away though as
far as I
> can see. As I understand it, to quallify, I have to finish first in
a
> tourney of at least 6 players. In this part of the world, that means
> defeating Christian Cameron, Greg Hauser, and Jevon Garret, all
seasoned
> veterans of ancient wargaming. Quite frankly, it may be a long time
before I
> am up to their calibre.
>
>
> On the other hand, I'm not sure qualifying for the National
Tournament is
> really a priority for me. I see tournaments as a chance to get a lot
of
> games in. I do however, want to get really good at wielding My
chosen army,
> the Han. Since the subject of handicaps has come up I started to
wonder if a
> handicap was something I might like to see. It not something that
had ever
> occured to me in the past. My first thought, is what is there in
learning to
> beat a short handed opponent? If my opponent defeats me, I can pick
up on
> what they did and apply it to my own game. I have learned a thing or
two
> from Mike Bard recently, who has some interesting tricks with his
Syracuse
> Army. To me, that is more valuable as a learning experience than any
> victory. More to the point, Mike Bard, suffered a long string of
defeats
> playing Hoplites against me, and ultimately learned to beat me with
an
> equally pointed force. Mike knows that he can take those same
tactics and
> apply them elsewhere, because they work without a handicap. At the
same
> time, I took a valuable lesson away.
>
> I imagine I can learn to beat a handicapped opponent, but then what
happens
> when the handicaps are no longer there? I like Christians idea,
although
> honestly, I didn't realise he was doing me some kind of favour
playing
> Myceneans You still beat me you know (tee hee). But I can say
that those
> lessons were learned. I know what parts of the game I need to
improve on.
>
> That's it.
>
> Allan

Well, I never met an army I didn't like. It's like that song, did you ever
have to finally decide? So other options might have been Condottiari, or
Romans, or Hundred Years War English, Egyptians.

I went to visit an exhibition of the Terra Cotta Warriors, and it was very
cool. I think that is what clinched it. Wargaming provides an opportunity to
focus on an historical period. I think some people like to choose an army
that they have studied for a long time. In my case, I knew virtually nothing
about ancient China, and the Terra Cotta Warriors made me want to learn
more. Those soldiers are actually from the short lived Qin Dynasty, although
the weapons and equipment of the Han are pretty well identical. At the
beginning of the revolution that brought the Han to power, they actually dug
up the Qin Mausoleum and retrieved the weapons from it.

I have come to admire the Han because they accomplished a great deal. The
Han provided unified, stable rule for about 400 years, unprecedented in
China up till that time. There was a lot of political intrigue at court, but
overall, the Han rulers seem to have had the best interests of the ordinary
people at heart. For example, metallurgy flourished during the Han dynasty.
The government established a centrally run steel industry, not to equip the
army, but to ensure that the peasantry had access to improved agricultural
tools. The army soldiered on with Bronze weapons for a long time. The
military campaigns of the Han were aimed at providing security from Nomadic
raiders, which they achieved, and making the Silk Road safe to travel, which
they also achieved.

As an organization, the Han army was efficient and generally well led. Sun
Tzu was well known to Han generals. It has much of the look and feel of a
modern army. At an archaeological dig, it was discovered that one of their
Fortresses had 14 layers of white wash, which is something any soldier can
relate to I think. They kept meticulous administrative records and had
regulations for everything. It wasn't flashy but supremely functional and it
did it's job well. They were ordinary people serving their country to the
best of their ability, which is the mark of true heroes.

So there you go.

Allan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan" <ccoutoftown@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 5:24 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Handicaps


>
>
> What is it that you like about the Han? I never thought of them as a
> particularly attractive army.
>
> J
>

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/6/2005 07:16:53 Central Standard Time,
ccoutoftown@... writes:

that gives you 3 attacks on a charge - horses, crew and LTS
infantry from the 2nd rank. >>

I am sure you mean JLS. Qin chariot runners cannot have LTS and even if
they did, LTS does not fight behind anything but other LTS.

Jon






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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/6/2005 07:41:11 Central Standard Time,
ccoutoftown@... writes:

Oops. Now that I look at previous posts I see that OW has given the Han
chariots LTS
infantry support. >>

Han chariot runners cannot have LTS in OW. I am not sure where you are
seeing this.

<< Over here in Beijing we're still using the old 7th edition "armies of the
far east, asia and america" list.>>


The old Han list did not permit this either. And LTS could not fight behind
chariots in 7th as well...

Chariots runners in those lists can have JLS, which DOES fight from behind a
chariot, or B or 2HCT or 2HCW. The latter do NOT fight from behind a
chariot, but would when expanded or would when the detachment was a separate
unit.

Jon








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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/6/2005 10:31:33 Central Standard Time,
ccoutoftown@... writes:

Oh.

I guess my list has a mistake in it then. I'm looking at it right now it
reads:

Chariot supports Reg B LMI, LTS @16 pts 0-8>>


You are referring to the old Hutchby and Clark Qin list. And yes, that is a
mistake. :)


<<I guess another reason why I should buy OW.>>

There are a thousand reasons to buy it!! lol

<<Which brings me to another question. Because I am in China the shipping
on book will be
ten times what it costs. Can I buy an electronic version and download it?>>

I am sorry, but at today's state of encryption technology, we cannot sell
electronic versions of our material. When the day comes when a small business
can afford to protect its electronic property, we will change this policy.

J








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

I asked in part because I live in Beijing. I game with a group of expats and
Chinese and we
usually do China related ancients. My personal favorite army to use is the Qin
army.
You're right; it's very similiar to the Han but with the Qin the heavy chariots
can have reg B
support infantry with LTS. that gives you 3 attacks on a charge - horses, crew
and LTS
infantry from the 2nd rank. On top of that because the chariots count as 5 figs
for CPF
calcs you almost always can route an enemy on the first charge. With the Han
army you
don't get that extra 2nd rank LTS attack and it is usually just enough to tip
the scales so
the enemy won't break. Once they don't rout the chariots are at a big
disadvantage in
hand to hand.

Admittedly this is all game mechanics stuff, but if we accept the game then we
accept it as
an abstraction of the strengths, weaknesses and mechanics of the army whose list
we like.

So: other than admiring the Han as a dynasty and an army (I do to. They were as
it turns
out the longest lasting dynasty in Chinese history), is there something about it
that kicks
ass? Always looking for something with which to beat up the other players as
well as
insight into why any one dynasty organized it's armed forces the way it did.

Other armies i like:
Song - very strong defensively
Mongols - Not Chinese but beat them up a lot. Nobody better for attacking


J

PS - Do you game your Han against Xiongnu?



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Allan Lougheed" <redcoat24@c...> wrote:
> Well, I never met an army I didn't like. It's like that song, did you ever
> have to finally decide? So other options might have been Condottiari, or
> Romans, or Hundred Years War English, Egyptians.
>
> I went to visit an exhibition of the Terra Cotta Warriors, and it was very
> cool. I think that is what clinched it. Wargaming provides an opportunity to
> focus on an historical period. I think some people like to choose an army
> that they have studied for a long time. In my case, I knew virtually nothing
> about ancient China, and the Terra Cotta Warriors made me want to learn
> more. Those soldiers are actually from the short lived Qin Dynasty, although
> the weapons and equipment of the Han are pretty well identical. At the
> beginning of the revolution that brought the Han to power, they actually dug
> up the Qin Mausoleum and retrieved the weapons from it.
>
> I have come to admire the Han because they accomplished a great deal. The
> Han provided unified, stable rule for about 400 years, unprecedented in
> China up till that time. There was a lot of political intrigue at court, but
> overall, the Han rulers seem to have had the best interests of the ordinary
> people at heart. For example, metallurgy flourished during the Han dynasty.
> The government established a centrally run steel industry, not to equip the
> army, but to ensure that the peasantry had access to improved agricultural
> tools. The army soldiered on with Bronze weapons for a long time. The
> military campaigns of the Han were aimed at providing security from Nomadic
> raiders, which they achieved, and making the Silk Road safe to travel, which
> they also achieved.
>
> As an organization, the Han army was efficient and generally well led. Sun
> Tzu was well known to Han generals. It has much of the look and feel of a
> modern army. At an archaeological dig, it was discovered that one of their
> Fortresses had 14 layers of white wash, which is something any soldier can
> relate to I think. They kept meticulous administrative records and had
> regulations for everything. It wasn't flashy but supremely functional and it
> did it's job well. They were ordinary people serving their country to the
> best of their ability, which is the mark of true heroes.
>
> So there you go.
>
> Allan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonathan" <ccoutoftown@y...>
> To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 5:24 AM
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Handicaps
>
>
> >
> >
> > What is it that you like about the Han? I never thought of them as a
> > particularly attractive army.
> >
> > J
> >

Oops. Now that I look at previous posts I see that OW has given the Han
chariots LTS
infantry support. Over here in Beijing we're still using the old 7th edition
"armies of the
far east, asia and america" list.

Maybe we like it for the same reason. I guess I need to order a copy of OW.

J



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan" <ccoutoftown@y...> wrote:
>
> I asked in part because I live in Beijing. I game with a group of expats and
Chinese and
we
> usually do China related ancients. My personal favorite army to use is the
Qin army.
> You're right; it's very similiar to the Han but with the Qin the heavy
chariots can have reg
B
> support infantry with LTS. that gives you 3 attacks on a charge - horses,
crew and LTS
> infantry from the 2nd rank. On top of that because the chariots count as 5
figs for CPF
> calcs you almost always can route an enemy on the first charge. With the Han
army you
> don't get that extra 2nd rank LTS attack and it is usually just enough to tip
the scales so
> the enemy won't break. Once they don't rout the chariots are at a big
disadvantage in
> hand to hand.
>
> Admittedly this is all game mechanics stuff, but if we accept the game then we
accept it
as
> an abstraction of the strengths, weaknesses and mechanics of the army whose
list we
like.
>
> So: other than admiring the Han as a dynasty and an army (I do to. They were
as it turns
> out the longest lasting dynasty in Chinese history), is there something about
it that
kicks
> ass? Always looking for something with which to beat up the other players as
well as
> insight into why any one dynasty organized it's armed forces the way it did.
>
> Other armies i like:
> Song - very strong defensively
> Mongols - Not Chinese but beat them up a lot. Nobody better for attacking
>
>
> J
>
> PS - Do you game your Han against Xiongnu?
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Allan Lougheed" <redcoat24@c...> wrote:
> > Well, I never met an army I didn't like. It's like that song, did you ever
> > have to finally decide? So other options might have been Condottiari, or
> > Romans, or Hundred Years War English, Egyptians.
> >
> > I went to visit an exhibition of the Terra Cotta Warriors, and it was very
> > cool. I think that is what clinched it. Wargaming provides an opportunity to
> > focus on an historical period. I think some people like to choose an army
> > that they have studied for a long time. In my case, I knew virtually nothing
> > about ancient China, and the Terra Cotta Warriors made me want to learn
> > more. Those soldiers are actually from the short lived Qin Dynasty, although
> > the weapons and equipment of the Han are pretty well identical. At the
> > beginning of the revolution that brought the Han to power, they actually dug
> > up the Qin Mausoleum and retrieved the weapons from it.
> >
> > I have come to admire the Han because they accomplished a great deal. The
> > Han provided unified, stable rule for about 400 years, unprecedented in
> > China up till that time. There was a lot of political intrigue at court, but
> > overall, the Han rulers seem to have had the best interests of the ordinary
> > people at heart. For example, metallurgy flourished during the Han dynasty.
> > The government established a centrally run steel industry, not to equip the
> > army, but to ensure that the peasantry had access to improved agricultural
> > tools. The army soldiered on with Bronze weapons for a long time. The
> > military campaigns of the Han were aimed at providing security from Nomadic
> > raiders, which they achieved, and making the Silk Road safe to travel, which
> > they also achieved.
> >
> > As an organization, the Han army was efficient and generally well led. Sun
> > Tzu was well known to Han generals. It has much of the look and feel of a
> > modern army. At an archaeological dig, it was discovered that one of their
> > Fortresses had 14 layers of white wash, which is something any soldier can
> > relate to I think. They kept meticulous administrative records and had
> > regulations for everything. It wasn't flashy but supremely functional and it
> > did it's job well. They were ordinary people serving their country to the
> > best of their ability, which is the mark of true heroes.
> >
> > So there you go.
> >
> > Allan
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jonathan" <ccoutoftown@y...>
> > To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 5:24 AM
> > Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Handicaps
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > What is it that you like about the Han? I never thought of them as a
> > > particularly attractive army.
> > >
> > > J
> > >

LTS support for Chariots? That's interesting. I'm still waiting to get my
copy too. I'm not sure that LTS chariot runners change my mind about
chariots. I prefer actual Cavalry. I'm not sure the Han army does have
anything that can "drop the hammer" on the enemy, I think you need to
finesse an enemy to death. but I may be wrong. I'm no expert yet.

I'm not convinced that chariots did a lot of fighting historically. Sun
Tsu describes them as going to the flanks during battle. I presume this is
to harass and limit enemy mobility.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan" <ccoutoftown@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 8:39 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Handicaps


>
>
> Oops. Now that I look at previous posts I see that OW has given the Han
> chariots LTS
> infantry support. Over here in Beijing we're still using the old 7th
> edition "armies of the
> far east, asia and america" list.
>
> Maybe we like it for the same reason. I guess I need to order a copy of
> OW.
>
> J
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan" <ccoutoftown@y...> wrote:
>>
>> I asked in part because I live in Beijing. I game with a group of expats
>> and Chinese and
> we
>> usually do China related ancients. My personal favorite army to use is
>> the Qin army.
>> You're right; it's very similiar to the Han but with the Qin the heavy
>> chariots can have reg
> B
>> support infantry with LTS. that gives you 3 attacks on a charge -
>> horses, crew and LTS
>> infantry from the 2nd rank. On top of that because the chariots count as
>> 5 figs for CPF
>> calcs you almost always can route an enemy on the first charge. With the
>> Han army you
>> don't get that extra 2nd rank LTS attack and it is usually just enough to
>> tip the scales so
>> the enemy won't break. Once they don't rout the chariots are at a big
>> disadvantage in
>> hand to hand.
>>
>> Admittedly this is all game mechanics stuff, but if we accept the game
>> then we accept it
> as
>> an abstraction of the strengths, weaknesses and mechanics of the army
>> whose list we
> like.
>>
>> So: other than admiring the Han as a dynasty and an army (I do to. They
>> were as it turns
>> out the longest lasting dynasty in Chinese history), is there something
>> about it that
> kicks
>> ass? Always looking for something with which to beat up the other
>> players as well as
>> insight into why any one dynasty organized it's armed forces the way it
>> did.
>>
>> Other armies i like:
>> Song - very strong defensively
>> Mongols - Not Chinese but beat them up a lot. Nobody better for
>> attacking
>>
>>
>> J
>>
>> PS - Do you game your Han against Xiongnu?
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Allan Lougheed" <redcoat24@c...>
>> wrote:
>> > Well, I never met an army I didn't like. It's like that song, did you
>> > ever
>> > have to finally decide? So other options might have been Condottiari,
>> > or
>> > Romans, or Hundred Years War English, Egyptians.
>> >
>> > I went to visit an exhibition of the Terra Cotta Warriors, and it was
>> > very
>> > cool. I think that is what clinched it. Wargaming provides an
>> > opportunity to
>> > focus on an historical period. I think some people like to choose an
>> > army
>> > that they have studied for a long time. In my case, I knew virtually
>> > nothing
>> > about ancient China, and the Terra Cotta Warriors made me want to learn
>> > more. Those soldiers are actually from the short lived Qin Dynasty,
>> > although
>> > the weapons and equipment of the Han are pretty well identical. At the
>> > beginning of the revolution that brought the Han to power, they
>> > actually dug
>> > up the Qin Mausoleum and retrieved the weapons from it.
>> >
>> > I have come to admire the Han because they accomplished a great deal.
>> > The
>> > Han provided unified, stable rule for about 400 years, unprecedented in
>> > China up till that time. There was a lot of political intrigue at
>> > court, but
>> > overall, the Han rulers seem to have had the best interests of the
>> > ordinary
>> > people at heart. For example, metallurgy flourished during the Han
>> > dynasty.
>> > The government established a centrally run steel industry, not to equip
>> > the
>> > army, but to ensure that the peasantry had access to improved
>> > agricultural
>> > tools. The army soldiered on with Bronze weapons for a long time. The
>> > military campaigns of the Han were aimed at providing security from
>> > Nomadic
>> > raiders, which they achieved, and making the Silk Road safe to travel,
>> > which
>> > they also achieved.
>> >
>> > As an organization, the Han army was efficient and generally well led.
>> > Sun
>> > Tzu was well known to Han generals. It has much of the look and feel of
>> > a
>> > modern army. At an archaeological dig, it was discovered that one of
>> > their
>> > Fortresses had 14 layers of white wash, which is something any soldier
>> > can
>> > relate to I think. They kept meticulous administrative records and had
>> > regulations for everything. It wasn't flashy but supremely functional
>> > and it
>> > did it's job well. They were ordinary people serving their country to
>> > the
>> > best of their ability, which is the mark of true heroes.
>> >
>> > So there you go.
>> >
>> > Allan
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Jonathan" <ccoutoftown@y...>
>> > To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
>> > Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 5:24 AM
>> > Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Handicaps
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > What is it that you like about the Han? I never thought of them as a
>> > > particularly attractive army.
>> > >
>> > > J
>> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks for the clarification,

Allan

----- Original Message -----
From: <JonCleaves@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Handicaps


>
>
> In a message dated 2/6/2005 07:41:11 Central Standard Time,
> ccoutoftown@... writes:
>
> Oops. Now that I look at previous posts I see that OW has given the Han
> chariots LTS
> infantry support. >>
>
> Han chariot runners cannot have LTS in OW. I am not sure where you are
> seeing this.
>
> << Over here in Beijing we're still using the old 7th edition "armies of
> the
> far east, asia and america" list.>>
>
>
> The old Han list did not permit this either. And LTS could not fight
> behind
> chariots in 7th as well...
>
> Chariots runners in those lists can have JLS, which DOES fight from
> behind a
> chariot, or B or 2HCT or 2HCW. The latter do NOT fight from behind a
> chariot, but would when expanded or would when the detachment was a
> separate unit.
>
> Jon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Oh.

I guess my list has a mistake in it then. I'm looking at it right now it reads:

Chariot supports Reg B LMI, LTS @16 pts 0-8

I guess another reason why I should buy OW.

Which brings me to another question. Because I am in China the shipping on book
will be
ten times what it costs. Can I buy an electronic version and download it?

J



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2/6/2005 07:41:11 Central Standard Time,
> ccoutoftown@y... writes:
>
> Oops. Now that I look at previous posts I see that OW has given the Han
> chariots LTS
> infantry support. >>
>
> Han chariot runners cannot have LTS in OW. I am not sure where you are
> seeing this.
>
> << Over here in Beijing we're still using the old 7th edition "armies of the
> far east, asia and america" list.>>
>
>
> The old Han list did not permit this either. And LTS could not fight behind
> chariots in 7th as well...
>
> Chariots runners in those lists can have JLS, which DOES fight from behind a
> chariot, or B or 2HCT or 2HCW. The latter do NOT fight from behind a
> chariot, but would when expanded or would when the detachment was a separate
unit.
>
> Jon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> I am sorry, but at today's state of encryption technology, we cannot sell
> electronic versions of our material. When the day comes when a small
business
> can afford to protect its electronic property, we will change this policy.

No problem. understood.


But let me make sure I've got this right now:

1) My JLS armed infantry in the second rank behind my charging chariots attack
with "other
infantry weapons and circumstances" + javelins at half strength correct?

2) can I put a line of Elite Spearmen with 2HCT in the third rank who can then
"exchange ranks" and come to the front rank in the second round of hand to hand?


Finally, your website seems to be blocked in China (who knows why) so what is
the best
way to order your stuff?

J




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

[joncleaves]

1) My JLS armed infantry in the second rank behind my charging chariots attack
with "other
infantry weapons and circumstances" + javelins at half strength correct?>>
[
Yes.

<<2) can I put a line of Elite Spearmen with 2HCT in the third rank who can then
"exchange ranks" and come to the front rank in the second round of hand to
hand?>>
[
I am not aware of that troop type - that's not another H+C thing is it? But
yes, what you describe can be done.

<<Finally, your website seems to be blocked in China (who knows why) so what is
the best
way to order your stuff?>>
[
Write to Jake at eaglewars@... and describe your problem.

Jon