Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

I vote for Option 2. I'd like to see Option 2 amended to say "only the opponent
of a player who actually took flamable TFs can have incendiaries".

I'm OK with option 3; really don't like option 1.


-Mark

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Okay, Mark. Does this mean that common sense is now in order. I mean to say that
it always seemed silly that people would need incendiaries when their opponent
had a ditch as ditches aren't really going to be destroyed by fire, right?

k

Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
I vote for Option 2. I'd like to see Option 2 amended to say "only the opponent
of a player who actually took flamable TFs can have incendiaries".

I'm OK with option 3; really don't like option 1.


-Mark



SPONSORED LINKS
Miniature wargaming Wargaming Four horsemen Warrior

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

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.


---------------------------------




---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

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

Weren't they ever used against PF?

On 10/25/05, Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
> I vote for Option 2. I'd like to see Option 2 amended to say "only the
opponent
> of a player who actually took flamable TFs can have incendiaries".
>
> I'm OK with option 3; really don't like option 1.
>
>
> -Mark
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

As a long time wargamer I look at things in a way that I feel makes the hobby
most enjoyable regardless of the game/simulation being played . I never mind
losing when I am simply outplayed or even when I have my typically bad dice
rolls (dice are easy to blame). I do however dislike losing to gimmick play.
Having written a couple sets of rule I know the difficulty in trying to meet
every circumstance that can arise on the gaming table. I believe it is next to
impossible. There will always be players that look for and use any gimmicks
they feel gives them a competitive edge, that will never change. If you are
looking at this area i believe that number 2 is the direction I would travel but
I would also add "flammable" TF's.

Just my opinion.
Bob

JonCleaves@... wrote:
Bridge aside - is that your preference?

J

-----Original Message-----
From: Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:53:55 -0400
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Incendiary missiles


Of those 3? It'll be a unanimous vote* for option 2.

[*there is a long and glorious history of bridge bidding competitions for
predictions of 'unanimous votes'...]

JonCleaves@... wrote:

> There are other choices than these, but here's the three we are considering.
>
> 1. leave it the way it is. If either player chooses to place TFs, either
player may take flaming arrows for B or LB.
>
> 2. make it so only the opponent of a player who actually took TFs can have
them.
>
> 3. allow anyone to buy them.
>
>
>
> From my perspective, I don't like any of those. I don't find the historical
justification for any army to take them any time it wants in an open field
battle. If the TF restriction is relaxed, we will see them in every game....
> But this isn't about me.
>
> Of the three above, the problem with the way it is now (number 1) is that a
guy can take a ditch and use that to justify taking flaming arrows, whether his
opponent chooses to or not. This is what is meant by 'offensive incendiaries'.
>
> In number 2, at least there is a limiter and it has some historical basis in
that 90%+ of all battles with flaming missiles added to the army (as opposed to
part of standard doctrine as with some oriental armies, etc.) had TFs involved
and were set-piece.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian and Sarah <cgc.sjw@...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:17:58 -0400
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Incendiary missiles
>
>
>
> Jon and list,
> lots of armies (I won't bore you with a list) had access to
> strategem technologies that affected archery--fire, poison, noises,
> etc. Lots of ink could be spilt on their effect--whether animals shied
> from noise arrows, whether widespread use of poison intended to cause
> pain (vice death) actually disordered animals or men--but I'll leave
> that for another, longer e-mail.
> It seems to me that a great many ancient armies did this sort of
> thing--some limited, some ubiquitous, some only in seiges, some on the
> battlefield. The intention was, I think to cause terror, rather than to
> achieve a quantifiable tactical result--but that's another arguement too.
> So my short opinion is that incendiaries should remain just exactly
> as they are--they have limitations, they cost points, they offer some
> players an answer to some otherwise insoluable tactical problems, they
> fail to help others at all, and all players have various remedies to
> prevent them from ruling the battlefield.
> My only addition (tee-hee) is that I'd like to see them able to set
> fire to terrain features in certain weather conditions. : )
>
> Seriously--up here in Canada, many new players immediately started
> to experiment with incendiaries (and even try to exploit them) virtually
> as soon as the rules were clarified. They have a certain effect in
> action, but not against players who know what to expect, and not any
> greater than any other tactic.
>
> If we were to start debating the history/authenticity/utilization
> of them, I'd wonder if the user shouldn't have to shoot them as his
> FIRST shot with that unit. Maybe, maybe not.
>
> As usual, just my two cents.
>
> Yours,
> Christian
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>





Yahoo! Groups Links






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



SPONSORED LINKS
Miniature wargaming Wargaming Four horsemen Warrior

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

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.


---------------------------------




---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

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

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 10/24/2005 17:13:30 Central Standard Time,
> franktrevorgilson@h... writes:
>
> I think the current connection of Incendiary missile purchase to TF
> potential is just fine.
>
>
>
> We are looking at only the opponent of a player who actually took a
TF being
> eligible to adjust for flaming B, LB missiles.
>
> What do folks think?

I like this result John. It prevents players from simply paying
10pts for a ditch, and then going hog wild with the incendiaries. It
will also force players who were planning to take a bunch of TFs and
hiding to reconsider the ramifications for doing so. And it allows a
restoration of some parity for those lists (like Hohenstaufen) that
can't get TFs - their opponents can't get flaming missiles to shoot
them up unless they have a list rule.

And finally, it makes the Chinese list rule of being able to take
incendiaries relevant again.

I disagree with Frank - the current set up of Section 14.46 will
not work in the long run, and this solution will work better (it's
much more similar to the 1st ed rulebook, except more restrictive,
since it is not just ability to purchase, but the actual purchase,
that is necessary).

-Asif Chaudhry

> I'm of two minds about this. On the positive side:
> Sure, this sounds like the right approach Jon, though I'd add the
further caveat
> that it has to be a TF that can actually be affected by
incendiaries. If my
> opponent has a ditch or a stone wall, my flaming arrows aren't
going to help
> much.

Good point Mark - I'd be content with seeing this in the revised
14.46.

> On the negative side:
> This will become yet another rule used as a pretext for doing
> something other than what you (Jon) intend.
>
> This will be the same thing. The intent might be to let people
take incendiaries
> as a way of dealing with a TF. In fact, people will take
incendiaries and
> frequently (almost always?) avoid the TF and simply dump
> incendiary fire on some other hapless target.

Uh, Mark? That's happening NOW - people are already using
flaming missiles to butcher mounted troops instead of burn down TFs.

The idea to revising 14.46 is to CUT down on this - not make it
MORE prevalent.

> And if that's what people are really going to do, then maybe it's
more honest to
> just say anybody can use incendiaries. Frank is right: they have a
cost, and
> they have some limitations.


The points cost for incendiaries is NOT overly burdensome for
the benefits they give, particularly in the "one-list" tourney
environment.

We have all talked about the "rocks/paper/scissors" nature of
Warrior, or the "Romans/Elephants/Knights" as it were.

But suppose you have a Knight army with significant Reg LHI B
support? Now, not only do you butcher Romans, but for those times
you face Elephants, you can buy some incendiaries for your LHI B,
either intimidate or shoot the Elephants to pieces, and romp merrily
through the rest of the army.

Yes, things cost points. But it is the cost-to-benefit ratio that
is more relevant to the discussion.

> Let people use them whenver. And who knows? There
> might even be a good historical justification for that, if you
> look at who really used fire arrows, when, and why.

I can't argue the historics of incendiaries - but as a GAME that
I go to play and enjoy, not get stomped 1-5 every time, I'd like to
see SOME attempt at balancing the gaming aspect with the historical
simulation aspect.

Regards,
Asif Chaudhry

[joncleaves]

Oh yes. We'll have flaming missiles glaore in Siege Warrior! where they
belong....lol

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Scott <steve.Scott.Southend@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:43:01 +0100
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Incendiary missiles


Weren't they ever used against PF?

On 10/25/05, Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
> I vote for Option 2. I'd like to see Option 2 amended to say "only the
opponent
> of a player who actually took flamable TFs can have incendiaries".
>
> I'm OK with option 3; really don't like option 1.
>
>
> -Mark
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




Yahoo! Groups Links






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

I vote for Mark's amended #2: the opponent of a player who took
flammable TFs/Fighting Transport can get flaming arrows.

-Asif Chaudhry


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> There are other choices than these, but here's the three we are
considering.
>
> 1. leave it the way it is. If either player chooses to place
TFs, either player may take flaming arrows for B or LB.
>
> 2. make it so only the opponent of a player who actually took TFs
can have them.
>
> 3. allow anyone to buy them.
>
>
>
> From my perspective, I don't like any of those. I don't find the
historical justification for any army to take them any time it wants
in an open field battle. If the TF restriction is relaxed, we will
see them in every game....
> But this isn't about me.
>
> Of the three above, the problem with the way it is now (number 1)
is that a guy can take a ditch and use that to justify taking
flaming arrows, whether his opponent chooses to or not. This is
what is meant by 'offensive incendiaries'.
>
> In number 2, at least there is a limiter and it has some
historical basis in that 90%+ of all battles with flaming missiles
added to the army (as opposed to part of standard doctrine as with
some oriental armies, etc.) had TFs involved and were set-piece.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian and Sarah <cgc.sjw@s...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:17:58 -0400
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Incendiary missiles
>
>
>
> Jon and list,
> lots of armies (I won't bore you with a list) had access to
> strategem technologies that affected archery--fire, poison,
noises,
> etc. Lots of ink could be spilt on their effect--whether animals
shied
> from noise arrows, whether widespread use of poison intended to
cause
> pain (vice death) actually disordered animals or men--but I'll
leave
> that for another, longer e-mail.
> It seems to me that a great many ancient armies did this sort
of
> thing--some limited, some ubiquitous, some only in seiges, some on
the
> battlefield. The intention was, I think to cause terror, rather
than to
> achieve a quantifiable tactical result--but that's another
arguement too.
> So my short opinion is that incendiaries should remain just
exactly
> as they are--they have limitations, they cost points, they offer
some
> players an answer to some otherwise insoluable tactical problems,
they
> fail to help others at all, and all players have various remedies
to
> prevent them from ruling the battlefield.
> My only addition (tee-hee) is that I'd like to see them able
to set
> fire to terrain features in certain weather conditions. : )
>
> Seriously--up here in Canada, many new players immediately
started
> to experiment with incendiaries (and even try to exploit them)
virtually
> as soon as the rules were clarified. They have a certain effect
in
> action, but not against players who know what to expect, and not
any
> greater than any other tactic.
>
> If we were to start debating the
history/authenticity/utilization
> of them, I'd wonder if the user shouldn't have to shoot them as
his
> FIRST shot with that unit. Maybe, maybe not.
>
> As usual, just my two cents.
>
> Yours,
> Christian
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Greetings Jon,
It seems the "abuse" centers mostly around the use of the Art. factors.
Perhaps that should be restricted to TF and Tr. I would be fine if it is
removed till Siege Warrior.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 10/24/2005 18:04:07 Central Standard Time,
> mark@d... writes:
>
> The intent might be to let people take incendiaries
> as a way of dealing with a TF. In fact, people will take incendiaries and
> frequently (almost always?) avoid the TF and simply dump incendiary fire on
> some other hapless target.
>
>
>
> Oh, I know - that is exactly the issue. My personal solution would be (and
> has always been) to not have them be part of a competition battle at all and
> save them for Siege Warrior only. The reason we are having this conversation
> is the belief that the majority of players want them in competitions
> *somehow* so that the base conditions of 14.0 should allow them.
>
> However, we still want an historical game and these things just did not
> appear in open battles.
>
> Therefore we are soliciting opinions to a solution. Believe me, this isn't
> a case of me just doing whatever I want...lol If I just did whatever I
> wanted, there wouldn't be any flaming arrows in baseline Warrior..
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[joncleaves]

One thing to consider...

Flaming arrows were most often used in sieges - including and mostly against
troops protected by stone at least to some extent, even if mixed with wooden
structures. The reason I did not limit it to wooden TFs is because the theory
was that by choosing TFs one player was making the battle static and set piece
enough and TFs are difficult enough to crack that flaming missiles were more
appropriate - whether used to burn down the Tf itself OR used to punish
defenders of any TF type.

Does this change your view or do you think it should still be wooden TF only?

J

-----Original Message-----
From: shahadet_99 <shahadet_99@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:25:57 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Incendiary missiles


I vote for Mark's amended #2: the opponent of a player who took
flammable TFs/Fighting Transport can get flaming arrows.

-Asif Chaudhry


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> There are other choices than these, but here's the three we are
considering.
>
> 1. leave it the way it is. If either player chooses to place
TFs, either player may take flaming arrows for B or LB.
>
> 2. make it so only the opponent of a player who actually took TFs
can have them.
>
> 3. allow anyone to buy them.
>
>
>
> From my perspective, I don't like any of those. I don't find the
historical justification for any army to take them any time it wants
in an open field battle. If the TF restriction is relaxed, we will
see them in every game....
> But this isn't about me.
>
> Of the three above, the problem with the way it is now (number 1)
is that a guy can take a ditch and use that to justify taking
flaming arrows, whether his opponent chooses to or not. This is
what is meant by 'offensive incendiaries'.
>
> In number 2, at least there is a limiter and it has some
historical basis in that 90%+ of all battles with flaming missiles
added to the army (as opposed to part of standard doctrine as with
some oriental armies, etc.) had TFs involved and were set-piece.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian and Sarah <cgc.sjw@s...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:17:58 -0400
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Incendiary missiles
>
>
>
> Jon and list,
> lots of armies (I won't bore you with a list) had access to
> strategem technologies that affected archery--fire, poison,
noises,
> etc. Lots of ink could be spilt on their effect--whether animals
shied
> from noise arrows, whether widespread use of poison intended to
cause
> pain (vice death) actually disordered animals or men--but I'll
leave
> that for another, longer e-mail.
> It seems to me that a great many ancient armies did this sort
of
> thing--some limited, some ubiquitous, some only in seiges, some on
the
> battlefield. The intention was, I think to cause terror, rather
than to
> achieve a quantifiable tactical result--but that's another
arguement too.
> So my short opinion is that incendiaries should remain just
exactly
> as they are--they have limitations, they cost points, they offer
some
> players an answer to some otherwise insoluable tactical problems,
they
> fail to help others at all, and all players have various remedies
to
> prevent them from ruling the battlefield.
> My only addition (tee-hee) is that I'd like to see them able
to set
> fire to terrain features in certain weather conditions. : )
>
> Seriously--up here in Canada, many new players immediately
started
> to experiment with incendiaries (and even try to exploit them)
virtually
> as soon as the rules were clarified. They have a certain effect
in
> action, but not against players who know what to expect, and not
any
> greater than any other tactic.
>
> If we were to start debating the
history/authenticity/utilization
> of them, I'd wonder if the user shouldn't have to shoot them as
his
> FIRST shot with that unit. Maybe, maybe not.
>
> As usual, just my two cents.
>
> Yours,
> Christian
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>








Yahoo! Groups Links






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

My vote is for #2. Your prediction is good so far Ewan.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...> wrote:
>
> Of those 3? It'll be a unanimous vote* for option 2.
>
> [*there is a long and glorious history of bridge bidding competitions for
> predictions of 'unanimous votes'...]
>
> JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> > There are other choices than these, but here's the three we are considering.
> >
> > 1. leave it the way it is. If either player chooses to place TFs, either
player may take flaming arrows for B or LB.
> >
> > 2. make it so only the opponent of a player who actually took TFs can have
them.
> >
> > 3. allow anyone to buy them.
> >

Hmmmm......

As I have noted before, the actual historics of wargaming is still
a bit beyond me.

However, the image you portray of flaming arrows raining down on
the defenders of a castle parapet, and into the interior beyond,
DOES resonate with what little I do know.

I was actually going to mention this point, but I felt that I
should agree with Mark from the purely gamer perspective (i.e.
seeing a hole in the ground in front of you doesn't make your guys
break out the old rags and flasks of oil to fix up your arrows),
since my knowledge from the dedicated scholar/historian perspective
is poor.

Part of my problem is also that I'm not completely familiar with
how the rules work for shooting at troops in/behind TFs.

If a unit of infantry is behind a stone wall, do they simply count
as "cover", or is there some other (shooting) benefit to being
behind such?

Assuming it is just cover, I would agree with you Jon - it should
apply to all TFs. You are attempting to drive out the defenders.

Which neatly dovetails with Chris Cameron's point
on "psychological effect versus actually killing power".

Although it IS the pointy end that does the killing, I think most
grown men have some instinctive reflex to shy away from a hail of
fire raining down from the sky. With the possible exception of Pyro
Kelly <grin> .....

-Asif Chaudhry


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> One thing to consider...
>
> Flaming arrows were most often used in sieges - including and
mostly against troops protected by stone at least to some extent,
even if mixed with wooden structures. The reason I did not limit it
to wooden TFs is because the theory was that by choosing TFs one
player was making the battle static and set piece enough and TFs are
difficult enough to crack that flaming missiles were more
appropriate - whether used to burn down the Tf itself OR used to
punish defenders of any TF type.
>
> Does this change your view or do you think it should still be
wooden TF only?
>
> J
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: shahadet_99 <shahadet_99@y...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:25:57 -0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Incendiary missiles
>
>
> I vote for Mark's amended #2: the opponent of a player who took
> flammable TFs/Fighting Transport can get flaming arrows.
>
> -Asif Chaudhry
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> >
> > There are other choices than these, but here's the three we are
> considering.
> >
> > 1. leave it the way it is. If either player chooses to place
> TFs, either player may take flaming arrows for B or LB.
> >
> > 2. make it so only the opponent of a player who actually took
TFs
> can have them.
> >
> > 3. allow anyone to buy them.
> >
> >
> >
> > From my perspective, I don't like any of those. I don't find
the
> historical justification for any army to take them any time it
wants
> in an open field battle. If the TF restriction is relaxed, we
will
> see them in every game....
> > But this isn't about me.
> >
> > Of the three above, the problem with the way it is now (number
1)
> is that a guy can take a ditch and use that to justify taking
> flaming arrows, whether his opponent chooses to or not. This is
> what is meant by 'offensive incendiaries'.
> >
> > In number 2, at least there is a limiter and it has some
> historical basis in that 90%+ of all battles with flaming missiles
> added to the army (as opposed to part of standard doctrine as with
> some oriental armies, etc.) had TFs involved and were set-piece.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christian and Sarah <cgc.sjw@s...>
> > To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:17:58 -0400
> > Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Incendiary missiles
> >
> >
> >
> > Jon and list,
> > lots of armies (I won't bore you with a list) had access to
> > strategem technologies that affected archery--fire, poison,
> noises,
> > etc. Lots of ink could be spilt on their effect--whether
animals
> shied
> > from noise arrows, whether widespread use of poison intended to
> cause
> > pain (vice death) actually disordered animals or men--but I'll
> leave
> > that for another, longer e-mail.
> > It seems to me that a great many ancient armies did this
sort
> of
> > thing--some limited, some ubiquitous, some only in seiges, some
on
> the
> > battlefield. The intention was, I think to cause terror, rather
> than to
> > achieve a quantifiable tactical result--but that's another
> arguement too.
> > So my short opinion is that incendiaries should remain just
> exactly
> > as they are--they have limitations, they cost points, they offer
> some
> > players an answer to some otherwise insoluable tactical
problems,
> they
> > fail to help others at all, and all players have various
remedies
> to
> > prevent them from ruling the battlefield.
> > My only addition (tee-hee) is that I'd like to see them
able
> to set
> > fire to terrain features in certain weather conditions. : )
> >
> > Seriously--up here in Canada, many new players immediately
> started
> > to experiment with incendiaries (and even try to exploit them)
> virtually
> > as soon as the rules were clarified. They have a certain effect
> in
> > action, but not against players who know what to expect, and not
> any
> > greater than any other tactic.
> >
> > If we were to start debating the
> history/authenticity/utilization
> > of them, I'd wonder if the user shouldn't have to shoot them as
> his
> > FIRST shot with that unit. Maybe, maybe not.
> >
> > As usual, just my two cents.
> >
> > Yours,
> > Christian
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Sheesh - doesn't take a neurosurgeon to see which way THIS bridge is
heading. <grins>

Regards,
Asif Chaudhry


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:
>
> Of those 3? It'll be a unanimous vote* for option 2.
>
> [*there is a long and glorious history of bridge bidding
competitions for
> predictions of 'unanimous votes'...]
>
> JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> > There are other choices than these, but here's the three we are
considering.
> >
> > 1. leave it the way it is. If either player chooses to place
TFs, either player may take flaming arrows for B or LB.
> >
> > 2. make it so only the opponent of a player who actually took
TFs can have them.
> >
> > 3. allow anyone to buy them.
> >
> >
> >
> > From my perspective, I don't like any of those. I don't find
the historical justification for any army to take them any time it
wants in an open field battle. If the TF restriction is relaxed, we
will see them in every game....
> > But this isn't about me.
> >
> > Of the three above, the problem with the way it is now (number
1) is that a guy can take a ditch and use that to justify taking
flaming arrows, whether his opponent chooses to or not. This is
what is meant by 'offensive incendiaries'.
> >
> > In number 2, at least there is a limiter and it has some
historical basis in that 90%+ of all battles with flaming missiles
added to the army (as opposed to part of standard doctrine as with
some oriental armies, etc.) had TFs involved and were set-piece.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christian and Sarah <cgc.sjw@s...>
> > To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:17:58 -0400
> > Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Incendiary missiles
> >
> >
> >
> > Jon and list,
> > lots of armies (I won't bore you with a list) had access to
> > strategem technologies that affected archery--fire, poison,
noises,
> > etc. Lots of ink could be spilt on their effect--whether
animals shied
> > from noise arrows, whether widespread use of poison intended to
cause
> > pain (vice death) actually disordered animals or men--but I'll
leave
> > that for another, longer e-mail.
> > It seems to me that a great many ancient armies did this
sort of
> > thing--some limited, some ubiquitous, some only in seiges, some
on the
> > battlefield. The intention was, I think to cause terror, rather
than to
> > achieve a quantifiable tactical result--but that's another
arguement too.
> > So my short opinion is that incendiaries should remain just
exactly
> > as they are--they have limitations, they cost points, they offer
some
> > players an answer to some otherwise insoluable tactical
problems, they
> > fail to help others at all, and all players have various
remedies to
> > prevent them from ruling the battlefield.
> > My only addition (tee-hee) is that I'd like to see them
able to set
> > fire to terrain features in certain weather conditions. : )
> >
> > Seriously--up here in Canada, many new players immediately
started
> > to experiment with incendiaries (and even try to exploit them)
virtually
> > as soon as the rules were clarified. They have a certain effect
in
> > action, but not against players who know what to expect, and not
any
> > greater than any other tactic.
> >
> > If we were to start debating the
history/authenticity/utilization
> > of them, I'd wonder if the user shouldn't have to shoot them as
his
> > FIRST shot with that unit. Maybe, maybe not.
> >
> > As usual, just my two cents.
> >
> > Yours,
> > Christian
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[John Murphy]

Given the real problem that is bothering some (might include
myself)....

why not just make incidiary B or LB not provided in an army list only
useable against flammable TF's?

then you will not have to police who can take them - nobody will spend
the points on something they can not use. and you will not have the
flaming arrows taken ostensibly for "seige" use used instead against
enemy cavalry.

[Ed Forbes]

I very much agree
Ed Forbes

-- "John" <jjmurphy@...> wrote:

Given the real problem that is bothering some (might include
myself)....

why not just make incidiary B or LB not provided in an army list only
useable against flammable TF's?

then you will not have to police who can take them - nobody will spend
the points on something they can not use. and you will not have the
flaming arrows taken ostensibly for "seige" use used instead against
enemy cavalry.







Yahoo! Groups Links







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