Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 1/15/2006 19:12:11 Central Standard Time,
ccoutoftown@... writes:

1) Is a rocket automatically an incindiary?>>
Yes.



2) the Ming were famous for using gunpowder and shrapnel bombs. As far as I
can tell,
incindiaries v. troops have only one effect - they disorder animals if they
do at least one
CPF. They have, as far as I can tell no effect on foot troops. So I don't
see how I can
simulate the enhanced effect of a trebuchet throwing a bomb instead of a
stone. Is it A) it
is not possible to simulate with Warrior or B) the difference between say a
bomb and a big
rock is considered small enough to not matter for effect or C) It is like a
firing rate thing:
bombs do more damage but have a smaller firing rate so their effect over one
Warrior
Phase evens out or D) I misread the rules and it is something totally
different.>>
When allowed, the cost of making a stone thrower shoot 'flaming missiles' is
often actually some sort of explosive.

Jon


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

right, but my question (which I know was kind of long and convoluted)
was:

The explosive shot seems to have no extra game effect against foot.

Am I reading the rules correctly? If I am, what is the rationale?

I'm not complaining, just trying to understand how effective ancient
chinese artillery was on the battlefield.

Jonathan


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 1/15/2006 19:12:11 Central Standard Time,
> ccoutoftown@y... writes:
>
> 1) Is a rocket automatically an incindiary?>>
> Yes.
>
>
>
> 2) the Ming were famous for using gunpowder and shrapnel bombs. As
far as I
> can tell,
> incindiaries v. troops have only one effect - they disorder animals
if they
> do at least one
> CPF. They have, as far as I can tell no effect on foot troops. So
I don't
> see how I can
> simulate the enhanced effect of a trebuchet throwing a bomb instead
of a
> stone. Is it A) it
> is not possible to simulate with Warrior or B) the difference
between say a
> bomb and a big
> rock is considered small enough to not matter for effect or C) It
is like a
> firing rate thing:
> bombs do more damage but have a smaller firing rate so their effect
over one
> Warrior
> Phase evens out or D) I misread the rules and it is something
totally
> different.>>
> When allowed, the cost of making a stone thrower shoot 'flaming
missiles' is
> often actually some sort of explosive.
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

What rule would stop the LC from dropping back elements to slip
through a 1 element wide gap between two enemy pike blocks if it were
in pursuit of fleeing enemy LC?

A) can't get closer than 40 paces to enemy in a non-HTH resulting
move.
B) The LC could slip through
C) some other reason they couldn't

Jonathan


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> No, what i was saying was, if there was just the pike block on one
side and nothing on the other, the LC could still drop back in this
case.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hrisikos@D...
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:36:00 -0600 (CST)
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] rules question
>
>
> > 1) I think your friend could benefit from reading the
clarifications,
> > which state:
> >
> >
> > "6.161 (Pg 3 Add: "If a body of light troops encounters an
illegal
> > charge target in the path of an otherwise legal charge, the light
troops
> > must wheel and/or drop back elements to avoid the illegal 'target.
' If
> > the illegal 'target' is also charging this may not be possible and
may
> > result in the light troops making contact with it."
> >
> > Note that the above has nothing to do with gaps. But you were
quite
> > correct in your resolution.
> >
>
>
> Jon,
>
> I am a bit puzzled by the last sentence of your response. Perhaps
I am
> reading too much into it, so I'll ask. Do you mean to imply that the
LC
> can drop elements back and chase the target beyond the pike block
EVEN
> if there is only a one element wide gap between that pike block and
some
> other enemy body? Not a problem either way, just wondering if I have
yet
> more to learn about the rules system!
>
> -Greek
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 1/25/2006 21:35:28 Central Standard Time,
ccoutoftown@... writes:

What rule would stop the LC from dropping back elements to slip
through a 1 element wide gap between two enemy pike blocks if it were
in pursuit of fleeing enemy LC?

A) can't get closer than 40 paces to enemy in a non-HTH resulting
move.
B) The LC could slip through
C) some other reason they couldn't

Jonathan>>
[

The clarification:
6.161 (Pg 3 Add: “If a body of light troops encounters an illegal charge
target in the path of an otherwise legal charge, the light troops must wheel
and/or drop back elements to avoid the illegal ‘target.’ If the illegal
‘
target’ is also charging this may not be possible and may result in the light
troops making contact with it.�
Jon




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

Okay, I read this as saying "if there is a gap of more than 1 element
width between two enemy pike blocks, the LC can drop back elements to
pursue through."

Correct?

J


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 1/25/2006 21:35:28 Central Standard Time,
> ccoutoftown@y... writes:
>
> What rule would stop the LC from dropping back elements to slip
> through a 1 element wide gap between two enemy pike blocks if it
were
> in pursuit of fleeing enemy LC?
>
> A) can't get closer than 40 paces to enemy in a non-HTH resulting
> move.
> B) The LC could slip through
> C) some other reason they couldn't
>
> Jonathan>>
> [
>
> The clarification:
> 6.161 (Pg 3 Add: "If a body of light troops encounters an illegal
charge
> target in the path of an otherwise legal charge, the light troops
must wheel
> and/or drop back elements to avoid the illegal `target.´ If the
illegal `
> target´ is also charging this may not be possible and may result in
the light
> troops making contact with it."
> Jon
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/1/2006 01:30:11 Central Standard Time,
ccoutoftown@... writes:

Okay, I read this as saying "if there is a gap of more than 1 element
width between two enemy pike blocks, the LC can drop back elements to
pursue through."

Correct?

J>>
Pursue, but not charge - yes.

If it wants to charge through that gap, other things have to be true.

J




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

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 07/02/2006 09:24:00 GMT Standard Time,
ccoutoftown@... writes:

A Stone Thrower that wheels to change firing arc but DOES NOT otherwise move
is now:

1) unableto fire for two turns because it counts as having moved
2) unrestricted. It can fire because wheeling to change firing arc DOESN'T
count as
"moving"

I suspect it is A but just want to make sure.

J



** I more than suspect you are wrong
because wheeling is a forward motion

of course jon will confirm either way.

mark mallard


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

A Stone Thrower that wheels to change firing arc but DOES NOT otherwise move is
now:

1) unableto fire for two turns because it counts as having moved
2) unrestricted. It can fire because wheeling to change firing arc DOESN'T
count as
"moving"

I suspect it is A but just want to make sure.

J

[joncleaves]

A

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan <ccoutoftown@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 09:22:53 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] rules question


A Stone Thrower that wheels to change firing arc but DOES NOT otherwise move is
now:

1) unableto fire for two turns because it counts as having moved
2) unrestricted. It can fire because wheeling to change firing arc DOESN'T
count as
"moving"

I suspect it is A but just want to make sure.

J








Yahoo! Groups Links






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

Hey Jon,
A quick question about obstacles.
When does a charging body count as being in contact with the charge
target if there is an obstacle in place and being defended by the
target?
I am specifically interested in weather the charging body has its
tactical move distance reduced as in 6.11.
The charger clearly does not count as being in the obstacle for the
charge but does it have to cross it to reach contact?

Thanks,
Ambrose

[joncleaves]

I have spent a lot of time trying to figure this one out, Ambrose and am still
not sure I got it.

<<When does a charging body count as being in contact with the charge
target if there is an obstacle in place and being defended by the
target? >>
[
The answer to the above is 'when it makes contact', which is so obvious I feel
strongly that i am not understanding the question.

<<The charger clearly does not count as being in the obstacle for the
charge but does it have to cross it to reach contact?>>
[
This depends. If the obstacle is a palisade or wall, for example, then no, it
would not have to 'cross it' to reach contact. But if it were a ditch (or
ditched palisade) then it would. See also 12.324A.

Jon


-----Original Message-----
From: wacoddignton <TheBugKing@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 02:49:37 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Rules Question


Hey Jon,
A quick question about obstacles.
When does a charging body count as being in contact with the charge
target if there is an obstacle in place and being defended by the
target?
I am specifically interested in weather the charging body has its
tactical move distance reduced as in 6.11.
The charger clearly does not count as being in the obstacle for the
charge but does it have to cross it to reach contact?

Thanks,
Ambrose







Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/15/2006 16:47:29 Central Standard Time,
TheBugKing@... writes:

What is not clear to me is what troops if any have their movement
reduced when charging over a delaying obstacle. >>
Charging over it against a target beyond that isn't defending it?? I guess
that could happen, but it would beg the question why the target wasn't
defending the obstacle.

In any case, the answer is yes, if troops cross an obstacle, their move is
reduced or prevented.

Jon




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

What is not clear to me is what troops if any have their movement
reduced when charging over a delaying obstacle.
If there is a difference in what obstacles do to the charger I would
like to know that.
I know stakes only disorder when they are crossed. I assume that
when they are crossed they reduce the troop's movement as well.
A stone wall on the other hand disorders close and cav at contact.
So I would assume that there is some other form of movement
reduction going on here.

Hope that clears up the question some.

(The "When does it make contact" was alluding to when the disorder
is caused. But I like your interpretation better. Very funny!)

Ambrose


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> I have spent a lot of time trying to figure this one out, Ambrose
and am still not sure I got it.
>
> <<When does a charging body count as being in contact with the
charge
> target if there is an obstacle in place and being defended by the
> target? >>
> [
> The answer to the above is 'when it makes contact', which is so
obvious I feel strongly that i am not understanding the question.
>
> <<The charger clearly does not count as being in the obstacle for
the
> charge but does it have to cross it to reach contact?>>
> [
> This depends. If the obstacle is a palisade or wall, for example,
then no, it would not have to 'cross it' to reach contact. But if
it were a ditch (or ditched palisade) then it would. See also
12.324A.
>
> Jon
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wacoddignton <TheBugKing@...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 02:49:37 -0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Rules Question
>
>
> Hey Jon,
> A quick question about obstacles.
> When does a charging body count as being in contact with the
charge
> target if there is an obstacle in place and being defended by the
> target?
> I am specifically interested in weather the charging body has its
> tactical move distance reduced as in 6.11.
> The charger clearly does not count as being in the obstacle for
the
> charge but does it have to cross it to reach contact?
>
> Thanks,
> Ambrose
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

<sigh>
Again I get the wording wrong.
The defender is indeed defending the obstacle. So the charger does
not have to cross the obstacle and their movement will then not be
reduced? (Or prevented as Mark points out)


Sorry for the repeated questions here. But I am after a
clarification on a very specific situation.


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2/15/2006 16:47:29 Central Standard Time,
> TheBugKing@... writes:
>
> What is not clear to me is what troops if any have their movement
> reduced when charging over a delaying obstacle. >>
> Charging over it against a target beyond that isn't defending
it?? I guess
> that could happen, but it would beg the question why the target
wasn't
> defending the obstacle.
>
> In any case, the answer is yes, if troops cross an obstacle, their
move is
> reduced or prevented.
>
> Jon
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>