Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> > 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.

So, if I use one of the Chinese lists in Oriental Warrior that
have the list rule that "any artillery and bow/crossbow may buy
incendiaries, ignoring 14.4 and 17.1 for circumstances of purchase",
I STILL have to declare to my opponent at set up:

"...And this unit is LHI front rank, LMI rear, Pavise front, shield
rear, bow through out.

By the way, all of my LHI/LMI Bow units have incendiaries, and I
put napalm on my Rocket Launchers, AND I put flaming cannonballs in
my Light Guns, all via list rule. Have a nice day."

> << 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.

My friendly advice? Don't bang your head against the wall too
much.

Gamers will ALWAYS find SOMETHING to give them a competitive
advantage.

And you can't just toss the incendiaries, because then TFs become
bloody difficult for some armies to deal with.

Try and find a compromise, and then live with it. Worse comes to
worse, you'll have something to errata in the future.

No one expects the new book to be COMPLETELY error and confusion-
free. Just better than 1st ed - and from what I've seen, you and
Beth have already got that done beautifully.

Regards,
Asif

[joncleaves]

Not a bad idea. Is there anyone who thinks limiting just one unit to flaming
missiles is the way we should go - instead of or combined with the other options
being discussed?

J

-----Original Message-----
From: tibnmich <tibnmich@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:11:13 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Rules question: Incendiary missiles same as
Artillery?


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]
>








Yahoo! Groups Links






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

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> Not a bad idea. Is there anyone who thinks limiting just one unit
to flaming missiles is the way we should go - instead of or combined
with the other options being discussed?
>
> J

Well Jon, if you goal is to make incendiaries totally pointless,
and never used in competition games, then the "one unit only" rule
will do that.

After all, are you going to limit opponents to only 1 6-element
section of TFs?

I've looked at some of those lists, and they get crazy amounts of
TFs and Wagons - ditches, ditched palisades, stone walls, wagon
laager, etc.

Throw in the fact that the unit with incendiaries gets declared at
the beginning (and thus gets a huge bulls-eye painted on them), and
you just about make incendiaries pointless - that one unit will
NEVER get in position to do anything before being shot up to tired
status (-2 factor), charged off, screened off by LI, or any of
another half a dozen strategems.

I think #2 (opponent actually buys TFs) is the way to go.

Regards,
Asif Chaudhry

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tibnmich <tibnmich@t...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:11:13 -0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Rules question: Incendiary missiles
same as Artillery?
>
>
> 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]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[joncleaves]

My goal is - so long as we don't do anything ahistorical - to please the
customers.

-----Original Message-----
From: shahadet_99 <shahadet_99@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:57:54 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Rules question: Incendiary missiles same as
Artillery?


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> Not a bad idea. Is there anyone who thinks limiting just one unit
to flaming missiles is the way we should go - instead of or combined
with the other options being discussed?
>
> J

Well Jon, if you goal is to make incendiaries totally pointless,
and never used in competition games, then the "one unit only" rule
will do that.

After all, are you going to limit opponents to only 1 6-element
section of TFs?

I've looked at some of those lists, and they get crazy amounts of
TFs and Wagons - ditches, ditched palisades, stone walls, wagon
laager, etc.

Throw in the fact that the unit with incendiaries gets declared at
the beginning (and thus gets a huge bulls-eye painted on them), and
you just about make incendiaries pointless - that one unit will
NEVER get in position to do anything before being shot up to tired
status (-2 factor), charged off, screened off by LI, or any of
another half a dozen strategems.

I think #2 (opponent actually buys TFs) is the way to go.

Regards,
Asif Chaudhry

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tibnmich <tibnmich@t...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:11:13 -0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Rules question: Incendiary missiles
same as Artillery?
>
>
> 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]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>








Yahoo! Groups Links






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

Okay, 2 things:

1.) You are NOT going to please ALL the customers - that way lies
only madness. So I'll run on the assumption that you want to please
the (mostly silent) majority, thus forever leaving you the vocal
minority with which to have these charming arguments on yahoogroups
<grin>.

2.) From the "ahistorical" argument - was it historical to have
only one unit of guys with flaming arrows?

"Okay Jean-Pierre, those foul Britons are holed up in their fort,
but I'm sure it will only take you and your 15 brave lads a single
volley to scare them out for a proper fight. Everyone knows they
are la cowards when it comes to fire. What? More volleys? More
units? Are you daft - oil is tres expensive!"

Regards,
Asif Chaudhry


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> My goal is - so long as we don't do anything ahistorical - to
please the customers.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: shahadet_99 <shahadet_99@y...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:57:54 -0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Rules question: Incendiary missiles
same as Artillery?
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> >
> > Not a bad idea. Is there anyone who thinks limiting just one
unit
> to flaming missiles is the way we should go - instead of or
combined
> with the other options being discussed?
> >
> > J
>
> Well Jon, if you goal is to make incendiaries totally
pointless,
> and never used in competition games, then the "one unit only" rule
> will do that.
>
> After all, are you going to limit opponents to only 1 6-element
> section of TFs?
>
> I've looked at some of those lists, and they get crazy amounts
of
> TFs and Wagons - ditches, ditched palisades, stone walls, wagon
> laager, etc.
>
> Throw in the fact that the unit with incendiaries gets declared
at
> the beginning (and thus gets a huge bulls-eye painted on them),
and
> you just about make incendiaries pointless - that one unit will
> NEVER get in position to do anything before being shot up to tired
> status (-2 factor), charged off, screened off by LI, or any of
> another half a dozen strategems.
>
> I think #2 (opponent actually buys TFs) is the way to go.
>
> Regards,
> Asif Chaudhry
>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: tibnmich <tibnmich@t...>
> > To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:11:13 -0000
> > Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Rules question: Incendiary missiles
> same as Artillery?
> >
> >
> > 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]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[joncleaves]

You have #1 totally dead on. :)

As for #2, that wasn't my idea - I was just seeing what people thought. See
#1...

-----Original Message-----
From: shahadet_99 <shahadet_99@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 20:12:53 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Rules question: Incendiary missiles same as
Artillery?


Okay, 2 things:

1.) You are NOT going to please ALL the customers - that way lies
only madness. So I'll run on the assumption that you want to please
the (mostly silent) majority, thus forever leaving you the vocal
minority with which to have these charming arguments on yahoogroups
<grin>.

2.) From the "ahistorical" argument - was it historical to have
only one unit of guys with flaming arrows?

"Okay Jean-Pierre, those foul Britons are holed up in their fort,
but I'm sure it will only take you and your 15 brave lads a single
volley to scare them out for a proper fight. Everyone knows they
are la cowards when it comes to fire. What? More volleys? More
units? Are you daft - oil is tres expensive!"

Regards,
Asif Chaudhry


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> My goal is - so long as we don't do anything ahistorical - to
please the customers.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: shahadet_99 <shahadet_99@y...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:57:54 -0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Rules question: Incendiary missiles
same as Artillery?
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> >
> > Not a bad idea. Is there anyone who thinks limiting just one
unit
> to flaming missiles is the way we should go - instead of or
combined
> with the other options being discussed?
> >
> > J
>
> Well Jon, if you goal is to make incendiaries totally
pointless,
> and never used in competition games, then the "one unit only" rule
> will do that.
>
> After all, are you going to limit opponents to only 1 6-element
> section of TFs?
>
> I've looked at some of those lists, and they get crazy amounts
of
> TFs and Wagons - ditches, ditched palisades, stone walls, wagon
> laager, etc.
>
> Throw in the fact that the unit with incendiaries gets declared
at
> the beginning (and thus gets a huge bulls-eye painted on them),
and
> you just about make incendiaries pointless - that one unit will
> NEVER get in position to do anything before being shot up to tired
> status (-2 factor), charged off, screened off by LI, or any of
> another half a dozen strategems.
>
> I think #2 (opponent actually buys TFs) is the way to go.
>
> Regards,
> Asif Chaudhry
>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: tibnmich <tibnmich@t...>
> > To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:11:13 -0000
> > Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Rules question: Incendiary missiles
> same as Artillery?
> >
> >
> > 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]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>








Yahoo! Groups Links






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