Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 1/31/2006 20:23:27 Central Standard Time,
ccoutoftown@... writes:

I asked a whole series of rule questions almost two weeks ago. I know
you're busy but we have another game coming up this weekend and I'd
like to play it correctly.>>
[
I have two unanswered question mails from you in my queue. Busy I am
indeed...

But I will see what I can do...

J




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

Hi Jon,

I asked a whole series of rule questions almost two weeks ago. I know
you're busy but we have another game coming up this weekend and I'd
like to play it correctly.

Is there some other way you would prefer me to ask these questions?
Should I contribute more to debates? I don't feel yet I'm an
experienced enough player to do that.

Possibly you feel the answers are in the archives; they may be, but
I've looked and haven't found them.

In any case, thanks for taking the time to answer so many rules
questions and I hope you can take a look at mine before the weekend.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/1/2006 01:50:05 Central Standard Time,
ccoutoftown@... writes:

QUESTION:
Incindiary artillery shots seem to have no extra effect on foot
troops. Why? >>
[
This is not a rules question. FHE has a policy of not answering why
questions except on a very limited case by case basis.

Jon


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

My most important question (of three) was a follow up to your answer
about Ming artillery:


QUESTION:
Incindiary artillery shots seem to have no extra effect on foot
troops. Why?


Not a complaint; just trying to understand the effects and utility of
ancient chinese artillery. Much more detailed version of this
question in the original post.

A teeny complaint: I have already asked this question several times.
the first time you answered and just said that the incidiaries could
be considered as explosive. I KNOW. I WROTE THAT MYSELF IN THE
ORIGINAL QUESTION. I wanted to know about incidiary and explosive
EFFECTS.

That said, I know you're busy and that you probably don't have time to
sift through long convoluted posts looking for the actual questions.
The fact that you take the time to answer and make yourself so
available is, in itself, rare, helpful and important for Warrior.

I will try to keep my questions more succint in the future.


Thanks a lot ffor all the help,
J




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 1/31/2006 20:23:27 Central Standard Time,
> ccoutoftown@y... writes:
>
> I asked a whole series of rule questions almost two weeks ago. I
know
> you're busy but we have another game coming up this weekend and I'd
> like to play it correctly.>>
> [
> I have two unanswered question mails from you in my queue. Busy I
am
> indeed...
>
> But I will see what I can do...
>
> J
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/1/2006 19:43:55 Central Standard Time,
ccoutoftown@... writes:

I guess you have limited time
and no desire to get into a rules brawl with people who disagree with
the analysis upon which the rules is based. >>
[
Nothing personal, J. But I wouldn't want to be part of such a conversation
if I had unlimited time...lol

And since you were so nice and are aware that I don't want to get into a
tit-for-tat....

At the Warrior level, the effect of artillery on foot, primarily shown by
the weapon factor and those weapons disregarding shields, is correct for the
variety of missiles portrayed. If we want to vary the effectiveness of
artillery, we raise or lower the number of CREW FIGURES, not the factor. Such
has
been done with many weapons in our list books.

Nuff said from me.
J




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

Jon,

thanks for all the helpful answers. I understand about the explosive
artillery not being a rules question. I guess you have limited time
and no desire to get into a rules brawl with people who disagree with
the analysis upon which the rules is based. I'm not saying I
disagree; I just want to understand ming artillery.

thanks,
J


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2/1/2006 01:50:05 Central Standard Time,
> ccoutoftown@... writes:
>
> QUESTION:
> Incindiary artillery shots seem to have no extra effect on foot
> troops. Why? >>
> [
> This is not a rules question. FHE has a policy of not answering why

> questions except on a very limited case by case basis.
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

got it.

makes sense.

thanks.


J


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2/1/2006 19:43:55 Central Standard Time,
> ccoutoftown@... writes:
>
> I guess you have limited time
> and no desire to get into a rules brawl with people who disagree
with
> the analysis upon which the rules is based. >>
> [
> Nothing personal, J. But I wouldn't want to be part of such a
conversation
> if I had unlimited time...lol
>
> And since you were so nice and are aware that I don't want to get
into a
> tit-for-tat....
>
> At the Warrior level, the effect of artillery on foot, primarily
shown by
> the weapon factor and those weapons disregarding shields, is correct
for the
> variety of missiles portrayed. If we want to vary the effectiveness
of
> artillery, we raise or lower the number of CREW FIGURES, not the
factor. Such has
> been done with many weapons in our list books.
>
> Nuff said from me.
> J
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>