Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Tom McMillan]

In a message dated 8/5/01 10:27:05 PM, WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com writes:

<< But I feel it important to point out that I would make it because the
intent
of the rule is to show historical differnences between shock and missile
cavalry and NOT because a player would find a particular army 'worthless'
because of it. If I felt that Japanese cav was primarily skirmishing cav, I
would not 'change' the rule. >>

Yes, this has always been a rule, and i dont think it should be changed.
Having troops with both missle and melee capability is a plus, and the points
cost, especially for cav, is not great. We can't just grab the pluses and get
the minuses removed for our armies of choice. Comments like 'wasted my time'
and 'army in the toilet' are out of place.
The unprompted first op charge under Attack orders can be fairly easily
defused by an experienced opponent, in enough cases to keep you from relying
on it. This has always been my problem with D class troops- the low morale is
fine, but a Sumerian army that can not charge is pretty lame.
I hope the rule is not changed, and would strongly argue against changes
to a twelve year old system made because someone happens to own a particular
army.

[joncleaves]

NO official change has been made at this point to the missile armed troops
and attack order issue. Play as written.

[scott holder]

Yes, this has always been a rule, and i dont think it should be changed.
Having troops with both missle and melee capability is a plus, and the points
cost, especially for cav, is not great. We can't just grab the pluses and get
the minuses removed for our armies of choice. Comments like 'wasted my time'
and 'army in the toilet' are out of place.
The unprompted first op charge under Attack orders can be fairly easily
defused by an experienced opponent, in enough cases to keep you from relying
on it. This has always been my problem with D class troops- the low morale is
fine, but a Sumerian army that can not charge is pretty lame.
I hope the rule is not changed, and would strongly argue against changes
to a twelve year old system made because someone happens to own a particular
army.

>Correct. It ain't gonna be changed.

Scott
List Ho

[scott holder]

NO official change has been made at this point to the missile armed troops
and attack order issue. Play as written.

>And unless Jon has some epiphany to the contrary on his vacation AND gets the
other 2 horsemen to go along with him IF that epiphany occurs, there won't be
a change. This rule has worked extremely well for the last dozen years. It
ain't broke so we're not inclined to "fix" it.

Scott
List Ho

[joncleaves]

Don, we are not upset.  I will still make Scott show me the appropriate history, but I suspect they are not 'fanatic' (or we'd make them Irr A) and they did use those missiles to break enemy cohesion.  But don't hold your breath on anything changing.

And add to the end of every sentence I write....

[Don Coon]

>
> Yes, this has always been a rule, and i dont think it should be changed.
> Having troops with both missle and melee capability is a plus, and the
points
> cost, especially for cav, is not great. We can't just grab the pluses and
get
> the minuses removed for our armies of choice. Comments like 'wasted my
time'
> and 'army in the toilet' are out of place.

I do not think the context I wrote them in was. I tried very hard to show
no disrespect for Jon, Warrior, or WRG, all of which clearly stated the
missile troops rule. I, ME, MYSELF, (who is allowed to have personal
feelings) feel I wasted my time, and my army went in the tiolet. It is MY
fault. The rule was there for me to read. I chose to mentally edit it out,
making the Japanese in my mind something they are not. I had an image of
the army based more on wishful thinking than rule supported facts.

Don

[Don Coon]

>
> NO official change has been made at this point to the missile armed troops
> and attack order issue. Play as written.
>
> >And unless Jon has some epiphany to the contrary on his vacation AND gets
the
> other 2 horsemen to go along with him IF that epiphany occurs, there won't
be
> a change. This rule has worked extremely well for the last dozen years.
It
> ain't broke so we're not inclined to "fix" it.
>
> Scott
> List Ho

Again, I just want to be clear on my position here. I do not think it is
broke. I was merely sending out a forlorn hope that troops armed two ways
might be given a pass on this rule. Obviously the rule is balanced as it
has been around for years. The responses to my posts from you Scott, and
another gent seem very heavy handed for the tone of my original post. I was
not trying to attack the sanctity of the game, or get a special clause just
for me and my new army. Sorry if I upset some of you.

Don