Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

--- On April 25 Jon Cleaves said: ---
>
> The non-disorder effect is that the Numidians are more effective in the
terrain,
> not that they prevent the enemy from finding local protection and security
from
> it.
>

Jon,

Thanks for taking the time to provide this answer. Whether or not I agree with
it, it does help me to anticipate how best to understand other related
situations.


-Mark Stone

[Ed Forbes]

Jon,

My point is that the way it is written you could have ruled either way and been
justified the way I read it.

Is brush difficult for Numidian cav: No
Is brush classified as a difficult area: Yes



-- JonCleaves@... wrote:

Difficult terrain includes rough areas, very rough areas and obstacles. 12.32.

Jon



___________________________________________________________________
Speed up your surfing with Juno SpeedBand.
Now includes pop-up blocker!
Only $14.95/month -visit http://www.juno.com/surf to sign up today!

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "eforbes100@j..."
<eforbes100@j...> wrote:
>
Ed, I think you're missing the point from Jon's earlier posts.

Going by what you just wrote, the LI would NOT have to test. Why?
Because the was no way for the Numidian cav to make contact with the
LI without entering difficult terrain.

Bullet 8 of 5.52 makes NO mention of the mounted unit being
DISORDERED by the rough terrain. If the mounted has to cross ANY
rough terrain before contacting the LI, then the LI do not have to
test.

The fact that the Numidians can charge through brush without being
disordered is a list rule that simulates their effectiveness at
maintaining their OWN formation and cohesiveness during a charge
through rough terrain. (The Numidians stay "steady" instead of
becoming "unsteady")

That list rule has NO effect on the morale of an enemy foot unit
that gets charged by said Numidian unit (The foot unit stays at its
current morale level (willing) and doesn't have to test to see if
their nerve gives out (shaken) because the brush/rough ground gives
them some hope that the cavalry charge will falter, or they can find
some low brush to dive behind).

That list rule gives more "power" to the Numidian LC, it doesn't
"de-power" enemy foot units.

Regards,
Asif Chaudhry


> Jon,
>
> Is there a new clarification on 5.52 that is not yet on the web?
>
> I just looked and did not see one.
>
> Rule Book 5.52, bullet #8...."difficult terrain must be crossed to
reach them.." for the LI to test.
>
> I could find no mention of "if mounted cross a rough area" LI do
not test.
>
> As written, if the Numidian cav is not disorded by the terrain, the
LI test.
>
> Ed
>
> -- JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
>
> I am forced to non-concur. The list rule says Numidian cav is not
disordered for charging in a rough area. The rules say open/loose
foot don't take a waver if the mounted cross a rough area (5.52).
The rules do NOT say open/loose foot take the waver if the terrain
does not disorder the mounted.
>
> Jon

[Mark Stone]

--- On April 26 Asif Chaudhry said: ---
>
> The fact that the Numidians can charge through brush without being
> disordered is a list rule that simulates their effectiveness at
> maintaining their OWN formation and cohesiveness during a charge
> through rough terrain. (The Numidians stay "steady" instead of
> becoming "unsteady")
>
> That list rule has NO effect on the morale of an enemy foot unit
> that gets charged by said Numidian unit (The foot unit stays at its
> current morale level (willing) and doesn't have to test to see if
> their nerve gives out (shaken) because the brush/rough ground gives
> them some hope that the cavalry charge will falter, or they can find
> some low brush to dive behind).
>

What I am about to say is not intended to be a counter-argument or a re-opening
of this debate. Jon has given what he considers to be an answer, and I consider
the matter closed. My intent, rather, is to defend Ed and show how easy it is
for a reasonable person to come to a different point of view.

So, Asif, suppose we take your passage above -- one that you clearly regard as
sensible -- and rewrite it as follows:
"The fact that the elephants can charge through stakes without facing a -2 is a
rule that simulates their effectiveness at maintaining their OWN formation and
cohesiveness during a charge through stakes.

That rule has NO effect on the morale of an enemy foot unit that gets charged by
said elephant unit (The foot unit stays at its current morale level (willing)
and doesn't have to test to see if their nerve gives out (shaken) because the
stakes give them some hope that the elephant charge will falter, or they can
find some emplaced stakes to dive behind)."

Doesn't that sound just as sensible? I think that's Ed's point: that a
reasonable person has a tough time differentiating the logic of the two
situations, and thus could sensibly conclude that the two situations should be
read the same. Jon disagrees, and that's fine, but I think Ed's viewpoint --
though rejected -- is still within the bounds of reason.


-Mark Stone