Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ewan McNay]

adster68 wrote:
> One situation that we encountered seems fairly clear cut from the
> rules but I wanted to check that I am reading it correctly. A
> somewhat reckless gamble by a unit of Tamil Indian MC left them in
> the situation that is illustrated in the picture I have put in the
> files (Cavalry in a world of pain.) Basically the diversions in
> direction of the two marching units left the MC with a unit of
> Hypaspists LHI on their flank. When the LHI inevitably charged the
> cavalry, my reading of the rules is that the MC can do nothing but
> stand and take the charge in the flank. (They may only be in column
> in very rough terrain so cannot turn to flank and they do not have
> enough move distance to wheel the column and charge themselves.)Do
> they have any other options? Or is this the intent of the rules in
> this situation?

No, they have no other options; yes, that's intentional. And painful ;)

E

I finally got around to playing a 1600 point Warrior game after
months of Fast Warrior and at the same time broke my string of
disasterous defeats! A few points for clarification were thrown up
during the course of the game, naturally I do not have my careful
notes with me but I shall try to remember the queries we had.

One situation that we encountered seems fairly clear cut from the
rules but I wanted to check that I am reading it correctly. A
somewhat reckless gamble by a unit of Tamil Indian MC left them in
the situation that is illustrated in the picture I have put in the
files (Cavalry in a world of pain.) Basically the diversions in
direction of the two marching units left the MC with a unit of
Hypaspists LHI on their flank. When the LHI inevitably charged the
cavalry, my reading of the rules is that the MC can do nothing but
stand and take the charge in the flank. (They may only be in column
in very rough terrain so cannot turn to flank and they do not have
enough move distance to wheel the column and charge themselves.)Do
they have any other options? Or is this the intent of the rules in
this situation?

The glorious army of Alexander completely stuffed the Tamil Indians
adding the south of India to Alexanders other conquests! I was
helped by some very generous dice rolling by my opponent, who refused
to roll anything but minuses once my phalanx was engaged!

Adam

[joncleaves]

I concur. Ewan does this all the time so he is very familiar with it... :)


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

If you concur with this view Jon I shall scrub the picture off the
files so as not to take up room.

Adam

--- In WarriorRules@y..., Ewan <ewan.mcnay@y...> wrote:
> adster68 wrote:
> > One situation that we encountered seems fairly clear cut from the
> > rules but I wanted to check that I am reading it correctly. A
> > somewhat reckless gamble by a unit of Tamil Indian MC left them in
> > the situation that is illustrated in the picture I have put in the
> > files (Cavalry in a world of pain.) Basically the diversions in
> > direction of the two marching units left the MC with a unit of
> > Hypaspists LHI on their flank. When the LHI inevitably charged the
> > cavalry, my reading of the rules is that the MC can do nothing but
> > stand and take the charge in the flank. (They may only be in
column
> > in very rough terrain so cannot turn to flank and they do not have
> > enough move distance to wheel the column and charge themselves.)Do
> > they have any other options? Or is this the intent of the rules in
> > this situation?
>
> No, they have no other options; yes, that's intentional. And
painful
>
> E

[Ewan McNay]

adster68 wrote:
>
> If you concur with this view Jon I shall scrub the picture off the
> files so as not to take up room.

And just to further clarify: the rough terrain forcing them into column
does not affect their ability to turn to flank as a charge response.
Even were they charged in such a manner in open terrain, they would
stand and get hit.

>
> Adam
>
> --- In WarriorRules@y..., Ewan <ewan.mcnay@y...> wrote:
> > adster68 wrote:
> > > One situation that we encountered seems fairly clear cut from the
> > > rules but I wanted to check that I am reading it correctly. A
> > > somewhat reckless gamble by a unit of Tamil Indian MC left them in
> > > the situation that is illustrated in the picture I have put in the
> > > files (Cavalry in a world of pain.) Basically the diversions in
> > > direction of the two marching units left the MC with a unit of
> > > Hypaspists LHI on their flank. When the LHI inevitably charged the
> > > cavalry, my reading of the rules is that the MC can do nothing but
> > > stand and take the charge in the flank. (They may only be in
> column
> > > in very rough terrain so cannot turn to flank and they do not have
> > > enough move distance to wheel the column and charge themselves.)Do
> > > they have any other options? Or is this the intent of the rules in
> > > this situation?
> >
> > No, they have no other options; yes, that's intentional. And
> painful ;)

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> I concur. Ewan does this all the time so he is very familiar with it... :)

Hey, I didn't even provoke that one! ;)

And I was about to write to the list and say laudatory things about your
building on/cleaning up of 7th, having been sold my very own copy of the
rules this weekend, but I guess I won't...

There are several things (nothing major, but some awkward) that I picked
up on my first reading; I'll check which of these have already been hit
on the errata sheet, but would you like any remaining to you or to the
list?

[p.s. One immediate note - that scythed chariots are rules-defined as
IrrA, so making them C class is presumably not an option for any future
lists. Thankfully ]

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
> When we all get back from HCon and Holy Warrior is wrapped up, Scott and I are
going to have a long talk about Scythed chariots and get them fixed points-,
rules- and lists- wise for good.
> Have no worries that they will be a big deal when I am done with that process.

Umm... they're fine as they are; I have no issue with them as currently
written and ruled. What do you see as problem(s)?

E

[joncleaves]

Ewan

Some humor is unprovoked. Ask Boyd, he's the humor guy.

I would love additional things you found about the rules. I store everything I
get so that when the gaming community wakes up and buys the rest of our stock of
Warrior, the better-physical-quality second printing will clean up the last of
the awkward language and typos. Even the most minor find is appreciated, though
it may not be significant enough to make the clarification sheet in the short
term.

When we all get back from HCon and Holy Warrior is wrapped up, Scott and I are
going to have a long talk about Scythed chariots and get them fixed points-,
rules- and lists- wise for good.
Have no worries that they will be a big deal when I am done with that process.
Jon

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> <<> Umm... they're fine as they are; I have no issue with them
> > as currently written and ruled. >>
>
> Oh, phew. I thought we had a problem - but since Ewan likes them I guess
we're all good... :)

Hey, if only the world worked this way...

> <<What do you see as problem(s)?>>
>
> Points cost, for one. Have to be consistent with all other expendables that
'act' as scythed chariots. Also have to be accurately proportioned in the lists
they appear in.

Oh. Well, yeah, I agree that having a stampeding herd that acts in all
ways as a chariot but costs twice as much is dumb - and has been dumb
for a long time - so we agree there, and I don't argue on
proportions. Hey, we agree far too much.

I do get worried every time the 'scythed chariots are too powerful'
thread starts up. If so, how come noone uses them [I have similar
feelings about 'killer' all-IrrA armies..]

E

[joncleaves]

<<> Umm... they're fine as they are; I have no issue with them
> as currently written and ruled. >>

Oh, phew. I thought we had a problem - but since Ewan likes them I guess we're
all good... :)

<<What do you see as problem(s)?>>

Points cost, for one. Have to be consistent with all other expendables that
'act' as scythed chariots. Also have to be accurately proportioned in the lists
they appear in.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated Tue, 23 Jul 2002 8:57:38 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

<< Oh. Well, yeah, I agree that having a stampeding herd that acts in all
> ways as a chariot but costs twice as much is dumb - and has
> been dumb
> for a long time >>

Yeah, if we only had a rules author with his head out of his ass... The good
news is lists always beat 17.0 so, we can fix it in lists and go back and
clarify 17.0 without hurting anyone.

<< - so we agree there, and I don't argue on proportions. Hey, we agree far too
much.>>

Yikes.

--- In WarriorRules@y..., Ewan <ewan.mcnay@y...> wrote:
> adster68 wrote:
> >
> > If you concur with this view Jon I shall scrub the picture off the
> > files so as not to take up room.
>
> And just to further clarify: the rough terrain forcing them into
column
> does not affect their ability to turn to flank as a charge
response.
> Even were they charged in such a manner in open terrain, they would
> stand and get hit.
>
> >
> > Adam
> >
> > --- In WarriorRules@y..., Ewan <ewan.mcnay@y...> wrote:
> > > adster68 wrote:
> > > > One situation that we encountered seems fairly clear cut from
the
> > > > rules but I wanted to check that I am reading it correctly. A
> > > > somewhat reckless gamble by a unit of Tamil Indian MC left
them in
> > > > the situation that is illustrated in the picture I have put
in the
> > > > files (Cavalry in a world of pain.) Basically the diversions
in
> > > > direction of the two marching units left the MC with a unit of
> > > > Hypaspists LHI on their flank. When the LHI inevitably
charged the
> > > > cavalry, my reading of the rules is that the MC can do
nothing but
> > > > stand and take the charge in the flank. (They may only be in
> > column
> > > > in very rough terrain so cannot turn to flank and they do not
have
> > > > enough move distance to wheel the column and charge
themselves.)Do
> > > > they have any other options? Or is this the intent of the
rules in
> > > > this situation?
> > >
> > > No, they have no other options; yes, that's intentional. And
> > painful ;)