Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[scott holder]

I agree 100% with you Jon. The rules are clear, and no rule is needed. But
Scott basically said, anticipate that the chariot would get stuck, and
instead approach the second closest enemy.

>That is what I said, true.

This is not per the rules.

>Since I don't have a copy of the latest draft in front of me, okay. I'm only
stating what I know at the moment. If that changes, I'll adapt accordingly.

The
rules are clear as written. That chariot much get closer to the forbidden
unit. When the chariot can no longer get closer due to terrain it is stuck.
Unable to approach, counter, or retire. I do not want, nor did I ask for a
new rule. Scott however said he adjudicated this situation DIFFERENTLY than
the stated rules. That is what woke me from my slumber. An interp is what
I call it.

>Or perhaps I disagree with the rule as it's written right now? Jon, for what
it's worth, this isn't how I've shoved it down player's throats for years.
Probably time to take this one offline.

Scott
List Ho

[Patrick Byrne]

I don't know what ahistorical is, but via this subject matter I must take it
that
you don't line the Scythed Chariots to hit the woods or rocky ground.
Am I correct that they are best used charging across the open plains? (The
Romans call me Obvious Maximus)
-PB


JonCleaves@... wrote:

> While Scott and I talk offline - let me clarify. What I thought Scott was
> saying was that he was warning players not to get scythed chariots stuck in
> such a fashion, not letting them choose second closest.
>
> We are talking about it, and we will let you all know. Be warned that I am
> philosophically against flexible expendables. They should be awesome if used
> under superbly ideal conditions, risky in average situations and downright
> dangerous to only yourself if used in any ahistorical or foolish manner.
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[scott holder]

I don't know what ahistorical is, but via this subject matter I must take it
that
you don't line the Scythed Chariots to hit the woods or rocky ground.
Am I correct that they are best used charging across the open plains?

That is correct. The problem as I've seen it over the years is that
oftentimes, players setup their chariots to do exactly what they were designed
to do historically, charge over open areas and break up "stuff" on the other
side. Opponents can, under a literal reading of the rules, lay out terrain
and inhabit it with troops so as to "attract" the scythe chariot much like a
magnet attracts metal filings. This, then leads to all kinds of anachronistic
situations where the chariot is literally "sucked" over to the impassible
terrain feature only to sit and stare at the unit inside. To me, that is
clearly not the way they were intended to be used historically.

Don't anyone get me wrong here, scythe chariots were one of the worst features
of 7th edition during it's first 5 years of existence. The cost-to-affect
ratio was totally outta whack with reality, or at least the reality of the
historical record. Therefore, everything I've done has been to limit their
effectiveness from the base point of WRG 7.0. And I think to date, I've been
pretty successful in that since we no longer see overwhelming numbers of them
and I can attest to the fact that they've not been an umpiring issue for
years--totally unlike the first 5 years of 7th when I coulda shot virtually
every Seleucid player in the USofA. And that's been done by allowing them to
more or less ignore troops in terrain they can't enter. Now there's nothing
to say that the opponent of said scythe chariot couldn't put something in
impassible (to chariots) terrain, wait for the chariot to roll by as it
trundles merrily along toward it's intended target, and then pop the unit out,
thus "freezing" the chariot in it's tracks. At least that's how I've done it
to date. Of course one could argue that the chariot user, knowing he'll get
"sucked" into staring at some body in impassible terrain, should deploy them
in such a way as to completely avoid that. Again, I've seen players adhering
to the spirit of the late-7th Ed era rulings and do that only to still get
potentially tangled up by a LI unit in the brush. I've allowed them to ignore
it and we haven't seen a rush of Seleucid or Pontic armies as a result:)
God forbid:):)

Jon and I are having a typical offline Jon and Scott discussion on the issue
and regardless of which way it ends up, obviously I'll ump it that way.

Scott
List Ho
Uninformed Umpire

[joncleaves]

The issue, Greg, is historically did scythed drivers ever veer away from stuff
they knew they couldn't get to. I am learning the answer is yes.

[Greg Regets]

Representing the intolerant masses ...

If a commander lines his chariots up where they will get fragged on woods, rocky ground, etc ... let him sit there with his scythe in his hand the whole game.
Like all other troop types, they have to be used properly to be effective. Lets not make rules to give players an "out" when they do a stupid thing.
Greg

[Phil Gardocki]

I have read John and Scotts comments, and I still do not know what they decided on the chariot issue.

Either A: If the chariot's nearest foe is beyond impassable terrain, the chariot then approaches the next attainable target.
B: If the chariot's nearest foe is beyond impassable terrain, the chariot sits staring mournfully at the morsel just beyond its reach.
C: If the chariot's nearest foe is beyond impassable terrain, the chariot charges and is destroyed upon hitting the terrain. ( there is one historical precedent for this.)

[joncleaves]

We haven't decided anything. We are working on a rewrite of the rule. Just
hang in there.

[scott holder]

C: If the chariot's nearest foe is beyond impassable terrain, the chariot
charges and is destroyed upon hitting the terrain. ( there is one historical
precedent for this.)

>Could you share this historical example? I'm in the middle of a draft email
to you all outlining the historical examples of scythed chariots and my take
on their meaning.

Scott
List Ho
Scythed Chariot hater

[Phil Gardocki]

Scott,
      What I refereed to, is based on a memory of an old Spearpoint article about 10 years ago, where it outlined 6 scythed chariot actions.  I think it was a Greek Vs Persian battle where the Greeks lured the scythed chariots onto irregular terrain and described chariots bounding about and overturning.  But I cannot quote the event.       I have read your accounts, and remember them from that issue of Spearpoint, but do not see anything that could be interpreted accordingly.  I will have to sift through my old Spearpoints.  I do recall responding to the article, taking the tact that I did not see a problem with the rules as written then, and our irreg.' chariots behaved historically.  
Phil



C: If the chariot's nearest foe is beyond impassable terrain, the chariot charges and is destroyed upon hitting the terrain. ( there is one historical precedent for this.)

>Could you share this historical example?  I'm in the middle of a draft email
to you all outlining the historical examples of scythed chariots and my take
on their meaning.

Scott
List Ho
Scythed Chariot hater