Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Hi all. This question came up (to my detriment) during a tournament in
Canada that I attended this past weekend.

My LHI unit (in brush) got shot up with incendiary bowfire, sustaining
2 CPF.

It was then claimed that since incendiaries use the same line and
factor as Artillery, that the 3rd to last paragraph on page 73, section
11.1 applied, namely:

"Close or loose formation foot, not including Irr A, must waver test
from 2 CPF inflicted entirely or partially by HG and/or artillery in
preparatory shooting. This is because shields offer no protection
against such weapons. ....."

(as a corollary, are shield troops shot at by incendiary missiles
considered "shieldless" ?)

However, at reading section 16.1 Fire, and 16.12, Incendiary Attacks,
this waver test on foot isn't mentioned as one of the effects of
Incendiary attacks.

I'd like to know the answer to this for future reference, since
incendiaries will be much easier to get in the future with the new
rules.

Thanks,
-Asif

[joncleaves]

<< My LHI unit (in brush) got shot up with incendiary bowfire, sustaining
2 CPF.

It was then claimed that since incendiaries use the same line and
factor as Artillery, that the 3rd to last paragraph on page 73, section
11.1 applied, namely:

"Close or loose formation foot, not including Irr A, must waver test
from 2 CPF inflicted entirely or partially by HG and/or artillery in
preparatory shooting. This is because shields offer no protection
against such weapons. ....."

(as a corollary, are shield troops shot at by incendiary missiles
considered "shieldless" ?)>>

No and no. You have to be either HG or ART for that rule to take effect, not
just be using that line of the chart.

<<I'd like to know the answer to this for future reference, since
incendiaries will be much easier to get in the future with the new
rules.>>

Hmmm, is that so? What makes you say that? I am not writing any 'new rules'
especially any that make incendiaries 'easier to get'....

J


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

[joncleaves]

What was aggravating was that if I had KNOWN that my opponent COULD
POSSIBLY get incendiaries, I would have gone into skirmish and BACKED
UP, so I could get the -2 shooting factor, and then I would have been
more effective with MY incendiaries (which I had bought since my
ENEMY had the ABILITY to get TFs, in this case ditch).>>
1. The changes to 14 have been out since December. Not sure what to tell
you about that.

2. The fact of having the incendiaries isn't a secret in any case.


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

Side note 1: Am I the only one who considers it odd that ditch or
Stone Walls (which incendiaries have NO effect on) enable either army
to get incendiaries?>>
The bigger issue is trying to control a guy getting flaming arrows shooting
things using the TF instead of buying them because the other guy took a TF but
using them on his cav. I don't want to write a page of rules just for
another 'strategem', but I will take suggestions. Since the change in 14, no
one
has been taking TFs because they didn't want the other guy to take flaming
missiles, so it has not really come up. This leaves TFs and flaming missiles
in the realm of scenarios and more or less out of competition games and I am
personally ok with that. This is the first time someone has said anything
negative about it since the change.

I don't know what to tell you about your judge ruling that flaming arrows
had the 11.1 effect of artillery. That's like saying a P fights like an LTS
because they are on the same line as the weapon factors chart...



Side question 1: What are the ranges for using incendiary bow?
incendiary Crossbow? incendiary Longbow? Are they ALL "effective 40,
no long range", or has this been changed?>>
40p is effective. 120p is long for flaming CB and LB and 80p is long for
flaming B missiles.

J


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

> <<I'd like to know the answer to this for future reference, since
> incendiaries will be much easier to get in the future with the new
> rules.>>
>
> Hmmm, is that so? What makes you say that? I am not writing
>any 'new rules' especially any that make incendiaries 'easier to
>get'....
>
> J.

Old Rules (printed Warrior Rules for retail sale):
--------------------------------------------------

pg 96, Section 17.1, middle of page - "Incendiaries, etc." :

" Incendiary missiles (flaming arrows) may be purchased for any
troops armed with B or LB if the *ENEMY'S* army list *PROVIDES THE
ABILITY* to purchase temporary fortifications or fighting transport

Other incendiary missiles may only be purchased if the army list
permits."

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

New Rules (Section 14, posted in the files section of WarriorRules
Yahoo group, scheduled for inclusion in the 2nd edition retail rules,
and currently legal for tourney play with 1st edition rules)

pg 108, Section 14.46, end of column - "Adjusting Army Lists in
Competition"

" What can be purchased with points made available through list
adjustment?

- TFs, Portable Obstacles, Po(r)table Hazards, Mantlets and Boats:
Only those available to army list.

- Incendiary Missiles:
- If available for that army list, OR
- After both players have made any adjustments for TFs, but
before any other adjustments are made, each player announces if they
have TF's and/or Fighting Transport or not. If *ONE* of them does,
then Incendiary missiles (flaming arrows) may be purchased for any
troops armed with B or LB OF EITHER SIDE."

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

Real world application/example:

At the recent Migscon in Toronto last weekend, I was playing list
18 from Feudal Warrior - Sicilian Hohenstaufen, early period.

This list has no option for TFs or Fighting Transport. Thus,
having NOT reviewed my internet printouts recently, and going by the
printed book, I incorrectly assumed that I had obtained immunity from
my opponents buying incendiary missiles (unless they are Chinese, or
one of the other lists that can get incendiaries as a list rule).
This defensive immunity was one of the reasons I liked list #18 (note
past tense).

My opponent, having read Section 14 from the internet, paid 10pts
to buy a 6-element section of ditch, thus allowing him to buy
incendiaries with which to shoot up my shielded LHI/LMI Muslim bow
unit. Since incendiaries were ruled at the time as being Artillery
damage, I had to take a waver test for having sustained 2 or more CPF
(and yes, of course I rolled a "1"). My then-shaken Bow unit of
course got routed by the 2 HC L,B,Sh units that had just shot them up
with incendiaries (failing the waver for *charged while shaken*).
This caused my flank to completely buckle and collapse, as my army
was fairly dense on that side, making use of the brush that was on
that side to prevent waver tests for "Loose order charged in the
open".

What was aggravating was that if I had KNOWN that my opponent COULD
POSSIBLY get incendiaries, I would have gone into skirmish and BACKED
UP, so I could get the -2 shooting factor, and then I would have been
more effective with MY incendiaries (which I had bought since my
ENEMY had the ABILITY to get TFs, in this case ditch).

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

Side note 1: Am I the only one who considers it odd that ditch or
Stone Walls (which incendiaries have NO effect on) enable either army
to get incendiaries?

Side question 1: What are the ranges for using incendiary bow?
incendiary Crossbow? incendiary Longbow? Are they ALL "effective 40,
no long range", or has this been changed?

So to answer your question Jon, it wasn't a "new" rule per se, but I
made the distinction in my post based on what the printed rules say,
versus the internet Section 12&14 which have over-ridden the relevant
book sections.

Thanks,
-Asif

[Ewan McNay]

Just back from Tactical Retreat, and three great games; thanks to Jake for
the organisation and my opponents for the noyment!

We did have a question come up (hypothetical, mostly) about the use of
incendiary HTW; as far as I can see they're just a missile wea;pon with
range 40p, but several folk thought they could be used as incendiaries
somehoe in hth. Am I missing something here?

Also, not really as a rules Q but because it caused general consternation:
note that (Jon can please leap in here if this is incorrect) (i) there is
no need for >1 element-wodth of a gap being passed in normal movement,
even if one or both shoulder are enemy; only in charges would that double
the passable size to 2 elements; and (ii) there is no requirement to stay
outside 40p of enemy *throughout* an approach move, only to end no closer
than 40.

[A 2E unit of my LC considered merrily walking through a 1E gap between
opposing spear units in line, then turning around in their rear at 40p.
Didn't do it, but my opponent and the surrounding tables were in general
amazed that anyone would even think it was legal...]

No other real Qs that I recall. And I'm very glad that Jake indeed
adjusted things to get 3 games in by 8.30 p.m.. One of my games posed an
interesting challenge: facing Carthaginian, there's a line of max-size
woods. 4 of them. across the centre line, essentially, with some small
variation in spacing between the two deployment zones and a total of maybe
6E of gaps between them acros the width of the table. How do you plan to
fight there with an army consisting of LC, SHC and elephants? And what
is it about Carthaginians that causes my armies fits? Paging Tim Brown
and a minor water feature..



On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 JonCleaves@... wrote:

>
> What was aggravating was that if I had KNOWN that my opponent COULD
> POSSIBLY get incendiaries, I would have gone into skirmish and BACKED
> UP, so I could get the -2 shooting factor, and then I would have been
> more effective with MY incendiaries (which I had bought since my
> ENEMY had the ABILITY to get TFs, in this case ditch).>>
> 1. The changes to 14 have been out since December. Not sure what to tell
> you about that.
>
> 2. The fact of having the incendiaries isn't a secret in any case.
>
>
> ---------------------------
>
> Side note 1: Am I the only one who considers it odd that ditch or
> Stone Walls (which incendiaries have NO effect on) enable either army
> to get incendiaries?>>
> The bigger issue is trying to control a guy getting flaming arrows shooting
> things using the TF instead of buying them because the other guy took a TF but
> using them on his cav. I don't want to write a page of rules just for
> another 'strategem', but I will take suggestions. Since the change in 14, no
one
> has been taking TFs because they didn't want the other guy to take flaming
> missiles, so it has not really come up. This leaves TFs and flaming missiles
> in the realm of scenarios and more or less out of competition games and I am
> personally ok with that. This is the first time someone has said anything
> negative about it since the change.
>
> I don't know what to tell you about your judge ruling that flaming arrows
> had the 11.1 effect of artillery. That's like saying a P fights like an LTS
> because they are on the same line as the weapon factors chart...
>
>
>
> Side question 1: What are the ranges for using incendiary bow?
> incendiary Crossbow? incendiary Longbow? Are they ALL "effective 40,
> no long range", or has this been changed?>>
> 40p is effective. 120p is long for flaming CB and LB and 80p is long for
> flaming B missiles.
>
> J
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> 1. The changes to 14 have been out since December. Not sure what
to tell
> you about that.

There's nothing really to tell. I should have paid more attention
to 12 & 14 - I was just a Mr. Grouchy Pants at the time is all.

> 2. The fact of having the incendiaries isn't a secret in any case.

?????? Clarify please.

As far as I am aware, although you "adjust army lists", no where
does it state that you have to reveal whether you bought
incendiaries, and if you did, whether you have to declare to your
opponent which unit(s) HAVE them.

The fact that the rules for Chinese Fire Lance in Oriental Warrior
explicitly state that you MUST reveal, seemed (to me) to be an
implicit confirmation that IF incendiaries needed to be revealed to
an opponent, it would have said so, and since it doesn't say so, you
do not have to.

Or is this something else in Section 14 that I missed?

> The bigger issue is trying to control a guy getting flaming arrows
shooting
> things using the TF instead of buying them because the other guy
took a TF but
> using them on his cav.

True - but it seems to be an unavoidable problem. It seems
comparable to the way I percieve Skirmish formation to be used - it's
supposed to be a shooting formation, but people use it primarily for
it's defensive abilities (LC with shields is a 3 against B, but in
Skirmish, it's a 2 (+1 for shieldless, -2 for Skirmish)).

Granted, my experience in the wider world of Warrior (and
historicals in general) is still very small, but just looking at the
way the rules and factors work, I still see Skirmish this way.

Likewise, although incendiaries are (supposed to be) for burning down
fortifications, there is no denying that it messes up mounted troops
really hard. Especially in the world of SHC, your opponent will not
like a +5 shift in tactical factor (from -1 to +4) - that's a quick
way to get tired SHC.

How to avoid this? Honestly couldn't tell you - it's hard to try and
legislate EVERY possible situation.

> This is the first time someone has said anything
> negative about it since the change.

I'm willing to bet that as more people think about the uses
of "offensive TF" and incendiaries, they will start becoming more
prevalent in competition again.

Particularly, predominately foot armies will likely have NO
hesitation about taking some ditches (or worse, Stone Walls) to try
and break up massed Cav charges, and then use flaming missiles to
butcher those knights/SHC as they come in. And woe betide those
Elephants - yes the factor is reduced, but you only need the ONE Cpf
for disorder, and El are close order troops, so that's a -2 on their
fight back. Just send in the impetous LI with 2HCW or JLS - icky.

> I don't know what to tell you about your judge ruling that flaming
arrows
> had the 11.1 effect of artillery. That's like saying a P fights
like an LTS
> because they are on the same line as the weapon factors chart...

It was a "heat of the moment/rushing to get a ruling" type thing.
Besides, they're my friends, so I know it wasn't intentional, just
misguided, so I'm fine with it.

I just wanted to get it clarified for future reference.

> Side question 1: What are the ranges for using incendiary bow?
> incendiary Crossbow? incendiary Longbow? Are they ALL "effective
40,
> no long range", or has this been changed?>>
> 40p is effective. 120p is long for flaming CB and LB and 80p is
long for
> flaming B missiles.

Thanks Jon. I assume this is being included in the new rulebook's
Section 8 for ranged weapon ranges? I haven't seen 8 yet, so I don't
know.

Regards,
Asif Chaudhry

[Doug]

>The bigger issue is trying to control a guy getting flaming arrows shooting
>things using the TF instead of buying them because the other guy took a TF but
> using them on his cav.

I don't understand the above sentence at all.

Are you trying to say that the opportunity to buy incindiaries due to
the enemy having TF was meant to allow them to assault the TF with
fire, but people instead use them against other things in a generally
non-historical manner?

Historically, what do we know about the logistics of making flaming
missiles available? I would think that it would result in the unit
using them being unable to move freely. With the possible exception
of those few with gunpowder-based fireworks/pyrotechnic technology.

An adjustment requiring transport elements and set-up/take down
delays maybe? Or am I getting into the province of the Seige
supplement?

Good afternoon,
I would agree with this fellow here. I think this should be the most
important consideration.

> Historically, what do we know about the logistics of making flaming
> missiles available? I would think that it would result in the unit
> using them being unable to move freely. With the possible exception
> of those few with gunpowder-based fireworks/pyrotechnic technology.

I've been at the receiving end of the fire arrows (from the same
opponent that sparked this discussion). Quite frankly, not having
faced them before and not expecting them (having no option for TF
myself), I was really caught off guard. The weapons weren't disclosed
and when they were I really didn't expect them to be that much more of
a threat to my HI than "regular" arrows. I'm not complaining about my
opponent (I enjoyed that game), It's my fault for not knowing all of
the rules.

It brings me to another point I'd like to make. I doubt they'd be
that much more effective. The factor is a 4 vs a 1/2 against HI/MI.
Would fire arrows kill that many more guys? It's still the pointed end
that is doing the killing, not the fire. I think it would be scary,
but not really any more dangerous. (I admit, Ive never had the real
experience of being shot at with flaming arrows!)Maybe a cause of
unease, disorder, or a halt/waver-test or something while people try
to pull flaming arrows out of their shields. Double to quadruple the
number of casualties seems too much.

I would like to see the factors of flaming arrows reduced to
weapon's normal factors when shooting at non TF/transport targets.
Perhaps giving a them additional "scary" effects instead. However,
there may be other solutions.

Noel

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 10/23/2005 14:14:51 Central Standard Time,
rockd@... writes:

Are you trying to say that the opportunity to buy incindiaries due to
the enemy having TF was meant to allow them to assault the TF with
fire, but people instead use them against other things in a generally
non-historical manner?



Yes, I am still not satisfied that we have that right. I don't want flaming
missiles at all in standard competitions, but it seems I am in the minority.
So, we tried to craft a permission tied to TFs. But no matter what we do,
it gets abused - which is why I would prefer to disallow them entirely.
I haven't finalized 14 in the new book yet, so I am still in the hunt for a
good way to handle this.

Of course, you could all write Scott and tell him that you would prefer they
weren't in comp games at all.... ;)

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 10/22/2005 21:57:44 Central Standard Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

We did have a question come up (hypothetical, mostly) about the use of
incendiary HTW; as far as I can see they're just a missile wea;pon with
range 40p, but several folk thought they could be used as incendiaries
somehoe in hth. Am I missing something here?>>
They are certainly not missile weapons. Incendiary HTW can only affect TF
and fighting transport and only in HTH.



Also, not really as a rules Q but because it caused general consternation:
note that (Jon can please leap in here if this is incorrect) (i) there is
no need for >1 element-wodth of a gap being passed in normal movement,
even if one or both shoulder are enemy; only in charges would that double
the passable size to 2 elements;>>
Well, theoretically no. But as you can't get within 40p on the enemy on an
approach, that would be hard to make happen.

and (ii) there is no requirement to stay
outside 40p of enemy *throughout* an approach move, only to end no closer
than 40.>>
Hmmm. Approaches does say 'end'. I see where this is going.




[A 2E unit of my LC considered merrily walking through a 1E gap between
opposing spear units in line, then turning around in their rear at 40p.
Didn't do it, but my opponent and the surrounding tables were in general
amazed that anyone would even think it was legal...]>>
Of course it should not be legal and it sure isn't my intent, but I do see
the issue with the wording in the approach rule not being abuse-proof. Here's
an official fix:
"An approach move by a friendly body through a gap with one or more enemy
bodies as 'shoulders' cannot be made if any part of the linear distance of the
approach move would take the body within 40p of an enemy body."
I am sure I have still not completely got it entirely abuse-proof, but I
will work on it. I am sure this will delay the production of the revised rules
somewhat, along with what I apparently have to do with flaming missiles....
<sigh>




No other real Qs that I recall. And I'm very glad that Jake indeed
adjusted things to get 3 games in by 8.30 p.m.. One of my games posed an
interesting challenge: facing Carthaginian, there's a line of max-size
woods. 4 of them. across the centre line, essentially, with some small
variation in spacing between the two deployment zones and a total of maybe
6E of gaps between them acros the width of the table. How do you plan to
fight there with an army consisting of LC, SHC and elephants? >>
Oh yeah...like you lost...geez... :)

J


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

[joncleaves]

> 2. The fact of having the incendiaries isn't a secret in any case.

?????? Clarify please.>>

You can't keep your purchase of flaming missiles secret.


The only things I can think of off the top of my head that can be secret in
Warrior are:

Morale class til it is used in game.
Ambush til revealed.
A flank march until bound 2 and its composition until it arrives.
Incendiary expendables.
Rocks (and of course the rocks are not secret, just the fact a player
prepped them to be rolled).

There are no weapon categories or ammunitions that are kept secret.


<< I'm willing to bet that as more people think about the uses
of "offensive TF" and incendiaries, they will start becoming more
prevalent in competition again.>>

Yes, I am concerned about that too and it is really playing hell with
getting this damned rulebook done.





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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 10/24/2005 06:00:16 Central Standard Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

OK. What rules govern their factors? Or, is it simply that they are now
deemed to be doing incendiary damage? And where is the limitation to hth?>>
2.32. If you're aware of a place that says HTW is ever a missile weapon,
please point it out to me so that I amy fix it.



> Also, not really as a rules Q but because it caused general consternation:
> note that (Jon can please leap in here if this is incorrect) (i) there is
> no need for >1 element-wodth of a gap being passed in normal movement,
> even if one or both shoulder are enemy; only in charges would that double
> the passable size to 2 elements;>>
> Well, theoretically no. But as you can't get within 40p on the enemy on
an
> approach, that would be hard to make happen.

Could you please tell me which rule states this? This is what many were
claiming to, my rather adamant opposition.

Note that this is *not* new and has been this way 'always' - I was
utterly amazed to find it a source of controversy!>>
Ewan, I understand that the rulebook only says 'end' outside of 40p. But
the idea that this should allow one to send his LC between two enemy bodies 1E
apart is incorrect. Obviously it did not occur to me that someone would try
this. There's no historical precedent for such and it is - to me and
apparently to everyone around you when you brought it up - a loophole in the
rules
that must be closed. I am in no way amazed that it was a source of
controversy.

The 'end' wording is designed to not have players worry about formation
change and turn mechanics in proximity to the enemy as elements do not always
act
in these situations as their real life counterparts did. I would *think*
that one would know intuitively that we don't want LC making contact with the
enemy while they pass by them due to this wording. I see you even mention
that everyone but you in whatever venue you were in caught this error. I am
certainly not mad at anyone. But I am going to fix what I feel is an obvious
error in the rules wording and I am grateful that we found this now and not
after the revised book was done - no matter what work it makes for me and Beth.

I apologize for the word 'abuse'. What I meant was: there are players who
don't use history for their measuring stick when they decide for themselves
what the rules must be trying to replicate (or why lists or list rules are the
way they are). They just like Warrior as a game and not a simulation of
history (yes, I know, Mark, that you don't think we've made a
simulation...lol).
I have to write a rulebook that simulates history as best we here at FHE
know it - for better or worse. I don't have examples of LC simply driving into
contact with formed troops or through and inside and beyond their battle line
and then leaving at will. Sure, they could dance around them at some
nominal range (which we have at 40p, which is indeed a compromise). But we
have to
reward a guy for having his stuff closed up in a battle line and that is how
we have chosen to do it. The use of the word 'end' in the approach rule was
NOT in any way put there to permit LC to move between two enemy units while
entering contact with them and then move beyond. I'm am sorry I didn't see
that someone might try and use it for that purpose earlier - I could have
saved us this conversation and the one you had wherever you were.

Jon


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

To all and to Jon

Re writing a rule limiting incendiaires. If the intention for
incendiaries was to attack/defend TFs, then what of simply limiting
one unit to having incendiaries in this context (the unit supposedly
set to attack them in real life can have the incendiaries and vice
versa in defence). Furthermore, sa TFs require a unit to defend them
during placement/deployment, then it can be THAT unit which can have
incendiairies as well.

This better simlates the 'real life' designation of units for
assault etc. A large unit can be designated and used by the player
if they want more incendiaries.

This anchors the incendiairy units to the TFs that have made their
use possible in the first place and should avoid willy nilly
dispersion of this weapon through the army.

I could be takling through my hat but this might be simpler than
writing complicated occurrences and contexts for the weapons' use.

Respond and let me know what you think.

Tibor


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 10/22/2005 21:57:44 Central Standard Time,
> ewan.mcnay@y... writes:
>
> We did have a question come up (hypothetical, mostly) about the
use of
> incendiary HTW; as far as I can see they're just a missile
wea;pon with
> range 40p, but several folk thought they could be used as
incendiaries
> somehoe in hth. Am I missing something here?>>
> They are certainly not missile weapons. Incendiary HTW can only
affect TF
> and fighting transport and only in HTH.
>
>
>
> Also, not really as a rules Q but because it caused general
consternation:
> note that (Jon can please leap in here if this is incorrect) (i)
there is
> no need for >1 element-wodth of a gap being passed in normal
movement,
> even if one or both shoulder are enemy; only in charges would
that double
> the passable size to 2 elements;>>
> Well, theoretically no. But as you can't get within 40p on the
enemy on an
> approach, that would be hard to make happen.
>
> and (ii) there is no requirement to stay
> outside 40p of enemy *throughout* an approach move, only to end
no closer
> than 40.>>
> Hmmm. Approaches does say 'end'. I see where this is going.
>
>
>
>
> [A 2E unit of my LC considered merrily walking through a 1E gap
between
> opposing spear units in line, then turning around in their rear
at 40p.
> Didn't do it, but my opponent and the surrounding tables were in
general
> amazed that anyone would even think it was legal...]>>
> Of course it should not be legal and it sure isn't my intent, but
I do see
> the issue with the wording in the approach rule not being abuse-
proof. Here's
> an official fix:
> "An approach move by a friendly body through a gap with one or
more enemy
> bodies as 'shoulders' cannot be made if any part of the linear
distance of the
> approach move would take the body within 40p of an enemy body."
> I am sure I have still not completely got it entirely abuse-proof,
but I
> will work on it. I am sure this will delay the production of the
revised rules
> somewhat, along with what I apparently have to do with flaming
missiles....
> <sigh>
>
>
>
>
> No other real Qs that I recall. And I'm very glad that Jake
indeed
> adjusted things to get 3 games in by 8.30 p.m.. One of my games
posed an
> interesting challenge: facing Carthaginian, there's a line of max-
size
> woods. 4 of them. across the centre line, essentially, with
some small
> variation in spacing between the two deployment zones and a total
of maybe
> 6E of gaps between them acros the width of the table. How do
you plan to
> fight there with an army consisting of LC, SHC and elephants?
>>
> Oh yeah...like you lost...geez...
>
> J
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[Ewan McNay]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 JonCleaves@... wrote:
> We did have a question come up (hypothetical, mostly) about the use of
> incendiary HTW; as far as I can see they're just a missile wea;pon with
> range 40p, but several folk thought they could be used as incendiaries
> somehoe in hth. Am I missing something here?>>
> They are certainly not missile weapons. Incendiary HTW can only affect TF
> and fighting transport and only in HTH.

OK. What rules govern their factors? Or, is it simply that they are now
deemed to be doing incendiary damage? And where is the limitation to hth?

> Also, not really as a rules Q but because it caused general consternation:
> note that (Jon can please leap in here if this is incorrect) (i) there is
> no need for >1 element-wodth of a gap being passed in normal movement,
> even if one or both shoulder are enemy; only in charges would that double
> the passable size to 2 elements;>>
> Well, theoretically no. But as you can't get within 40p on the enemy on an
> approach, that would be hard to make happen.

Could you please tell me which rule states this? This is what many were
claiming to, my rather adamant opposition.

Note that this is *not* new and has been this way 'always' - I was
utterly amazed to find it a source of controversy!

> and (ii) there is no requirement to stay
> outside 40p of enemy *throughout* an approach move, only to end no closer
> than 40.>>
> Hmmm. Approaches does say 'end'. I see where this is going.

Not 'going' anywhere - (emphasis) THIS IS NOT NEW. I think that there
appears to have been a common assumption about something that is honestly
very clearly against what the rules say.

> [A 2E unit of my LC considered merrily walking through a 1E gap between
> opposing spear units in line, then turning around in their rear at 40p.
> Didn't do it, but my opponent and the surrounding tables were in general
> amazed that anyone would even think it was legal...]>>
> Of course it should not be legal and it sure isn't my intent, but I do see
> the issue with the wording in the approach rule not being abuse-proof.
Here's
> an official fix:

Yikes.

This is a huge change. Please note that I am aware you will get mad with
my noting such, but this is *not* a clarification, it is a (major) change
to how troops of all kinds make manouvres when in proximity to enemy.

I'm sorry that I mentioned it if this is the reaction.

I'm even more sorry that you are quick to use condemning terms of 'abuse'
for an action that is utterly legal and utterly in line with the - repeat,
very clear and I had thought nicely worded! - rules.

Bleagh.

More later, perhaps!

> "An approach move by a friendly body through a gap with one or more enemy
> bodies as 'shoulders' cannot be made if any part of the linear distance of the
> approach move would take the body within 40p of an enemy body."
> I am sure I have still not completely got it entirely abuse-proof, but I
> will work on it. I am sure this will delay the production of the revised
rules
> somewhat, along with what I apparently have to do with flaming missiles....
> <sigh>
>
>
>
>
> No other real Qs that I recall. And I'm very glad that Jake indeed
> adjusted things to get 3 games in by 8.30 p.m.. One of my games posed an
> interesting challenge: facing Carthaginian, there's a line of max-size
> woods. 4 of them. across the centre line, essentially, with some small
> variation in spacing between the two deployment zones and a total of maybe
> 6E of gaps between them acros the width of the table. How do you plan to
> fight there with an army consisting of LC, SHC and elephants? >>
> Oh yeah...like you lost...geez...
>
> J
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Doug]

You might want to post this under a relevent subject heading,
otherwise only people reading about flaming missiles will know about
it.

>[A 2E unit of my LC considered merrily walking through a 1E gap between
>opposing spear units in line, then turning around in their rear at 40p.
>Didn't do it, but my opponent and the surrounding tables were in general
>amazed that anyone would even think it was legal...]
>>>
>Of course it should not be legal and it sure isn't my intent, but I do see
>the issue with the wording in the approach rule not being abuse-proof.
>
>Here's an official fix:
>
>"An approach move by a friendly body through a gap with one or more enemy
>bodies as 'shoulders' cannot be made if any part of the linear
>distance of the
>approach move would take the body within 40p of an enemy body."
>
>I am sure I have still not completely got it entirely abuse-proof, but I
>will work on it. I am sure this will delay the production of the
>revised rules
>somewhat, along with what I apparently have to do with flaming missiles....
><sigh>
>
>J

--
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then,
that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress
shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every
other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an
American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of
either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it
will ever remain, in the hands of the People."- Tench Coxe, 1788.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm

This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains
information that may be privileged, confidential or copyrighted under
applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-mail,
in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender
by return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. Unless
explicitly and conspicuously designated as "E-Contract Intended",
this e-mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment,
or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-mail does not constitute
a consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing
purposes or for transfers of data to third parties.