Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/4/2003 17:10:13 Central Standard Time,
thresh1642@... writes:
Just looking for a point of clarification here.
Say for example
a unit of SHK dismounts and chooses to keep the
horseys in a rank to
their rear.
Representing mounts (6.64) is optional and ONLY for aesthetics. They have no
game purpose whatever.
Now a bound passes and everyone is
undisordered.
Doesn't typically take a bound as cessation-cured disorder is generally
recovered in the same end phase, barring other circumstances.
Next,
the afformentioned unit is charged by Camels,
elephants or comes
within 80 paces of these beasties. Is the whole SHK
unit disordered
even though they are dismounted?
They are not SHK, they are SHI. No.


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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Just looking for a point of clarification here. Say for example
a unit of SHK dismounts and chooses to keep the horseys in a rank to
their rear. Now a bound passes and everyone is undisordered. Next,
the afformentioned unit is charged by Camels, elephants or comes
within 80 paces of these beasties. Is the whole SHK unit disordered
even though they are dismounted?

Kelly Wilkinson

[Todd Schneider]

Once a unit of SHK dismounts they are counted as SHI
for everything I believe, so I think the answer is no,
unless theres an exception i missed when going through
the rules...


--- jwilkinson62 <jwilkinson62@...> wrote:

---------------------------------

Just looking for a point of clarification here.
Say for example
a unit of SHK dismounts and chooses to keep the
horseys in a rank to
their rear. Now a bound passes and everyone is
undisordered. Next,
the afformentioned unit is charged by Camels,
elephants or comes
within 80 paces of these beasties. Is the whole SHK
unit disordered
even though they are dismounted?

Kelly Wilkinson


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

[Kelly Wilkinson]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 12/4/2003 17:10:13 Central Standard Time,
> thresh1642@s... writes:
> Just looking for a point of clarification here.
> Say for example
> a unit of SHK dismounts and chooses to keep the
> horseys in a rank to
> their rear.
> Representing mounts (6.64) is optional and ONLY for aesthetics.
They have no
> game purpose whatever.
> Now a bound passes and everyone is
> undisordered.
> Doesn't typically take a bound as cessation-cured disorder is
generally
> recovered in the same end phase, barring other circumstances.
> Next,
> the afformentioned unit is charged by Camels,
> elephants or comes
> within 80 paces of these beasties. Is the whole SHK
> unit disordered
> even though they are dismounted?
> They are not SHK, they are SHI. No.
>
Jon,
Thank you for your curt reply. Now will you please tell me why? It
seems to me that the horses are still part of the unit as the
dismounters are able to remount. Aren't the horses still present?
Having this in mind, wouldn't the dismounted unit still become
disordered based on 5.22 Page 26 of the Warrior Rules, "Cessation-
cured Disorder occurs when :" Bullets 5 and 6 which read as follows--

*A body containing camels, mules, asses, or non-Indian horses are
within 80 paces of elephants, or non-Arab horses of camels.

*A body containing any animals is within 40 paces of a fire, or
receives 1 CPF from incendary missiles or weapons.

The key terminology is "A body containing"

clearly this states that a body containing horses (which are also
ANIMALS) would be disordered. If dismounted Knights are allowed to
remount as they are in the rules, then... they contain their horses
or whatever animal they were mounted on. Since this is the case,
shouldn't players be given the oportunity to send their mounts to
the rear as the French Knights clearly did at Agincourt? Or any poor
slob that dismounts in the face of camels or Elephants?

Just to add to this, I thought I would remind everyone of the following
question and reply from Jon.


<<Under 6.64, which is optional, it says players may include mount
elements as
rear ranks of dismounted troops. The rule states that these elements
"have
no separate existence...and are there for aesthetic purposes only."

If the unit under consideration is camel-mounted infantry, and the unit
dismounts and places elements of camels in the rear ranks, would these
elements disorder cavalry? If so, is the range for disorder measured
from
the mount elements?>>

Yes they disorder, but the disorder is measured from the infantry
elements. The
precedent is the list rule in lists like Dark Age Warrior 15, Arab
Conquest, but
I plan on putting this explicitly in the clarification update I will
have out
soon.

<<If a player chooses not to represent the mount elements,
is this unit still capable of disordering cavalry (assuming the answer
to
question 1 is yes)?>>

Yes. 6.64 is for aesthetics.


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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Charles,

Clearly, great minds think alike. Or as some would
say, "Derranged Minds think alike!" As you know, I'm an Arabphile
and I was going to follow up my point with the very question you
just asked. Thanks for the follow-up.

kelly

PS How's that 6th horseman design coming along? I can't wait to get
it for Historicon! :)

[joncleaves]

Charlie is dead on in including this question/reply (clipped in at the bottom of
this mail) as part of this discussion.

I don't normally go into the 'background' of rules on this egroup, but I am
concerned that folks are not reading this section carefully and am launching a
preemptive strike to save explaining later:

In the case of SHK dismounting as SHI an then coming in proximity to camels,
yes, the horses are still there, but they are being held in the rear by squires
and the like and whatever the camels do to them is not affecting the fighting
power of the dismounted knights.

In the case of camel-mounted infantry dismounting, the camels are still there
(just like the horses are still there to be remounted in the SHK case) and so
would affect horse-mounted troops in the vicinity.

In both cases, the rules do not require marking the dismounts with riderless
horses or camels, although they DO require you have the dismounted figures in
order to dismount. 6.64 allows a player to place riderless mounts with the
dismounted troops for aesthetic purposes. If this option is exercised, such
mount figures have NO additonal effect on game play. The fact that dismounted
camel-borne infantry can disorder nearby horses is true whether 6.64 is used or
not, hence the words 'additional effect.'

I use a single camel on a small base next to my arab infantry when they get off
the camels (using 6.64) to remind my opponent that there are camels there. But
they are there whether I use 6.64 or not.

Charlie's recount of an old answer of mine:

> Just to add to this, I thought I would remind everyone of the following
> question and reply from Jon.
>
>
> <<Under 6.64, which is optional, it says players may include mount
> elements as
> rear ranks of dismounted troops. The rule states that these elements
> "have
> no separate existence...and are there for aesthetic purposes only."
>
> If the unit under consideration is camel-mounted infantry, and the unit
> dismounts and places elements of camels in the rear ranks, would these
> elements disorder cavalry? If so, is the range for disorder measured
> from
> the mount elements?>>
>
> Yes they disorder, but the disorder is measured from the infantry
> elements. The
> precedent is the list rule in lists like Dark Age Warrior 15, Arab
> Conquest, but
> I plan on putting this explicitly in the clarification update I will
> have out
> soon.
>
> <<If a player chooses not to represent the mount elements,
> is this unit still capable of disordering cavalry (assuming
> the answer
> to
> question 1 is yes)?>>
>
> Yes. 6.64 is for aesthetics.

[Tim Grimmett]

Does this same reasoning apply to generals (staff elements) joining a foot unit?
For example, if a chariot-based general's element joins a foot unit, the foot
will not be disordered if an elephant approaches w/i 80 paces.

TBG

JonCleaves@... wrote:
In a message dated 12/4/2003 17:10:13 Central Standard Time,
thresh1642@... writes:
Just looking for a point of clarification here.
Say for example
a unit of SHK dismounts and chooses to keep the
horseys in a rank to
their rear.
Representing mounts (6.64) is optional and ONLY for aesthetics. They have no
game purpose whatever.
Now a bound passes and everyone is
undisordered.
Doesn't typically take a bound as cessation-cured disorder is generally
recovered in the same end phase, barring other circumstances.
Next,
the afformentioned unit is charged by Camels,
elephants or comes
within 80 paces of these beasties. Is the whole SHK
unit disordered
even though they are dismounted?
They are not SHK, they are SHI. No.


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


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/5/2003 12:36:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,
grimmetttim@... writes:

> Does this same reasoning apply to generals (staff elements) joining a foot
unit? For example, if a chariot-based general's element joins a foot unit, the
foot will not be
> disordered if an elephant approaches w/i 80 paces.>>

Correct.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/5/2003 17:25:14 Central Standard Time,
jjendon@... writes:
Do you really dismount them. I find that the less than 1/1 dismount ratio
is a killer. How well does this work for you? Do you do it to avoid
missile fire?
Don, these are camel mounted infantry. There's no ratio.


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

[Don Coon]

> I use a single camel on a small base next to my arab infantry when they
get off the camels (using 6.64) to remind my opponent that there are camels
there. But they are there whether I use 6.64 or not.

Do you really dismount them. I find that the less than 1/1 dismount ratio
is a killer. How well does this work for you? Do you do it to avoid
missile fire?

Don

[Don Coon]

> Do you really dismount them. I find that the less than 1/1 dismount ratio
> is a killer. How well does this work for you? Do you do it to avoid
> missile fire?
> Don, these are camel mounted infantry. There's no ratio.

Well then I guess you BETTER dismount them !.

Don