Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ewan McNay]

I never use SHC - so I never thought about this. But while
looking up the skirmish stuff, I happened to re-read, and note
that SHC are made uneasy by charging other SHC (!) as well as if
they happpen to be charging or being charged by SHK.

That latter seems pretty debatable, given that HK are not made so
uneasy, but the former seems just silly .

No, this is not a rules Q, but I'd be interested in
commentary/thoughts. Seems to make, in particular, regular SHC
much worse in-period, as they'll never be able to go impetuous,
unlike their potentially IrrB SHC enemy. Odd.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/28/2004 08:37:15 Central Daylight Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

I never use SHC - so I never thought about this. But while
looking up the skirmish stuff, I happened to re-read, and note
that SHC are made uneasy by charging other SHC (!) as well as if
they happpen to be charging or being charged by SHK.

That latter seems pretty debatable, given that HK are not made so
uneasy, but the former seems just silly .

No, this is not a rules Q, but I'd be interested in
commentary/thoughts. Seems to make, in particular, regular SHC
much worse in-period, as they'll never be able to go impetuous,
unlike their potentially IrrB SHC enemy. Odd.>>
I never like going here. I want to answer Ewan's call for comments, but
can't get involved in a lengthy debate if someone does not like what is said.
Here goes...
First, this rule has of course been around for 12+ years (I think closer to
19..) in the engine's various incarnations. I only say that because I want
to reassure folks that this is no mistake, has been thoroughly playtested and
is in no way a new concept.
SHC vs SHC didn't happen to any extent historically. Unease is as much
uncertainty as to how a particular interaction will play out as it is 'fear',
and
there is no easy way to split the two.
Warrior rules and lists are playtested and balanced historically. If some
minor freakish things happen when knights of the 15th century charge cavalry
of the negative 3d, well, that is the way that goes...lol
J



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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/29/2004 13:49:18 Central Daylight Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

{One possibility that occurs to me is that despite their
classification, medieval SHC are somehow different to earlier SHC, and
need list rules to reflect this?]>>
Yes, that is something I am going to ask Scott to look at. I don't think we
considered it when we gave the medieval german SHC option. We'll see.
Jon





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

[Ewan McNay]

On Sat, 29 May 2004 JonCleaves@... wrote:
> ewan.mcnay@... writes:
>
> I never use SHC - so I never thought about this. But while
> looking up the skirmish stuff, I happened to re-read, and note
> that SHC are made uneasy by charging other SHC (!) as well as if
> they happpen to be charging or being charged by SHK.
>
> That latter seems pretty debatable, given that HK are not made so
> uneasy, but the former seems just silly .
>
> No, this is not a rules Q, but I'd be interested in
> commentary/thoughts. Seems to make, in particular, regular SHC
> much worse in-period, as they'll never be able to go impetuous,
> unlike their potentially IrrB SHC enemy. Odd.>>

> I never like going here. I want to answer Ewan's call for comments, but
> can't get involved in a lengthy debate if someone does not like what is said.
> Here goes...
> First, this rule has of course been around for 12+ years (I think closer to
> 19..) in the engine's various incarnations. I only say that because I want
> to reassure folks that this is no mistake, has been thoroughly playtested and
> is in no way a new concept.

Oh, I agree. As i noted, not being a SHC player, it had just never gotten
through to me.

> Warrior rules and lists are playtested and balanced historically. If some
> minor freakish things happen when knights of the 15th century charge cavalry
> of the negative 3d, well, that is the way that goes...lol

Well, 'laughing out loud' aside, consider the medieval Germans who have
the option to be either K or SHC. Obviously, the player's choice on this
is not going to affect whether the troops in question would ever have
faced opposing SHC, nor whether they would be confident or otherwise of
their outcome in such a matchup. And they're contemporary, not some
massive number of centuries apart.

The comment on 'SHC rarely/never fought each other' provides some insight
into the thought process, for which I thank you; and as I noted, I don't
necessarily expect prolonged contribution, given the lack of a rules Q
here. But that last justification is, ah, thin to the point of
disintegration. {One possibility that occurs to me is that despite their
classification, medieval SHC are somehow different to earlier SHC, and
need list rules to reflect this?]

E

[Todd Schneider]

My understanding is those Germans that can be classed as SHC rode Knee to
knee, were heavily armored, and never charged at faster than what may be
considered a “fast trot”.



Is the game definition of SHC different than that somehow?



Todd







_____

From: ewan.mcnay@... [mailto:ewan.mcnay@...]
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 1:45 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] SHC and unease



On Sat, 29 May 2004 JonCleaves@... wrote:
> ewan.mcnay@... writes:
>
> I never use SHC - so I never thought about this. But while
> looking up the skirmish stuff, I happened to re-read, and note
> that SHC are made uneasy by charging other SHC (!) as well as if
> they happpen to be charging or being charged by SHK.
>
> That latter seems pretty debatable, given that HK are not made so
> uneasy, but the former seems just silly .
>
> No, this is not a rules Q, but I'd be interested in
> commentary/thoughts. Seems to make, in particular, regular SHC
> much worse in-period, as they'll never be able to go impetuous,
> unlike their potentially IrrB SHC enemy. Odd.>>

> I never like going here. I want to answer Ewan's call for comments, but
> can't get involved in a lengthy debate if someone does not like what is
said.
> Here goes...
> First, this rule has of course been around for 12+ years (I think closer
to
> 19..) in the engine's various incarnations. I only say that because I
want
> to reassure folks that this is no mistake, has been thoroughly playtested
and
> is in no way a new concept.

Oh, I agree. As i noted, not being a SHC player, it had just never gotten
through to me.

> Warrior rules and lists are playtested and balanced historically. If
some
> minor freakish things happen when knights of the 15th century charge
cavalry
> of the negative 3d, well, that is the way that goes...lol

Well, 'laughing out loud' aside, consider the medieval Germans who have
the option to be either K or SHC. Obviously, the player's choice on this
is not going to affect whether the troops in question would ever have
faced opposing SHC, nor whether they would be confident or otherwise of
their outcome in such a matchup. And they're contemporary, not some
massive number of centuries apart.

The comment on 'SHC rarely/never fought each other' provides some insight
into the thought process, for which I thank you; and as I noted, I don't
necessarily expect prolonged contribution, given the lack of a rules Q
here. But that last justification is, ah, thin to the point of
disintegration. {One possibility that occurs to me is that despite their
classification, medieval SHC are somehow different to earlier SHC, and
need list rules to reflect this?]

E






Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



ADVERTISEMENT
HYPERLINK
"http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=1297q2841/M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups
/S=1705059080:HM/EXP=1085942909/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*http:/companion
.yahoo.com"click here


HYPERLINK
"http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups/S=
:HM/A=2128215/rand=838469728"



_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
HYPERLINK
"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/W
arriorRules/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HYPERLINK
"mailto:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe"Warrior
Rules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the HYPERLINK
"http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/"Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.692 / Virus Database: 453 - Release Date: 5/28/2004



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.692 / Virus Database: 453 - Release Date: 5/28/2004



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

Whatever you do, do not eliminate the SHC option. These lists are
some of the best potential cycle breakers out there. I love the
troop mix possibilities. No where else will you get SHC and SHK!
Wanax

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 5/29/2004 13:49:18 Central Daylight Time,
> ewan.mcnay@y... writes:
>
> {One possibility that occurs to me is that despite their
> classification, medieval SHC are somehow different to earlier SHC,
and
> need list rules to reflect this?]>>
> Yes, that is something I am going to ask Scott to look at. I
don't think we
> considered it when we gave the medieval german SHC option. We'll
see.
> Jon
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]