Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Frank Gilson]

<<(3) a mixed unit of reg longbowmen, front rank LHI 2HCW, Sh, is
recoiled (disordered) by mounted. Next bound, the cav get to
fight the LMI, fine. The rules say "count the shields of the
front rank". Now, the front rank have shields but count as
shieldless b/c of 2HCW. The rear rank would not count shieldless
if they posessed a shield (!). So, it was argued that the rear
rank are LMI with the benefit of a shield (because the front rank
has one) but no reason to be counted as shieldless. We assumed
again, that this is wrong, but can see the logic to this
argument. Is our assumption correct?>>
The Cav would be fighting shieldless LMI.
Jon
*******************************************
Hmmm, this may be a holdover from TOG, but I have always done the following:
Use the target class of the 2nd rank, but the shieldless factor of the front
rank. So, for HI 2HCW backed by MI JLS,Sh, when disordered, I look up the MI
combat factor and add the +2 of the HI shieldless factor.

The 9.41 rules line states "If the target body's ranks differ in type, count
it as having the type and shields of the element in contact if steady,
otherwise the type of that immediately behind if worse, but the shields of
that in contact." My question is what "shields of that in contact" means. As
above, I have taken it to mean the shieldless factor of those in contact if
shieldless.

I'm probably wrong? ;)

Frank Gilson

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 9 Dial-up Internet Access fights spam and pop-ups – now 3 months FREE!
http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/

[Ewan McNay]

Frank Gilson wrote:

><<(3) a mixed unit of reg longbowmen, front rank LHI 2HCW, Sh, is
>recoiled (disordered) by mounted. Next bound, the cav get to
>fight the LMI, fine. The rules say "count the shields of the
>front rank". Now, the front rank have shields but count as
>shieldless b/c of 2HCW. The rear rank would not count shieldless
>if they posessed a shield (!). So, it was argued that the rear
>rank are LMI with the benefit of a shield (because the front rank
>has one) but no reason to be counted as shieldless. We assumed
>again, that this is wrong, but can see the logic to this
>argument. Is our assumption correct?>>
>The Cav would be fighting shieldless LMI.
>Jon
>*******************************************
>Hmmm, this may be a holdover from TOG, but I have always done the following:
>Use the target class of the 2nd rank, but the shieldless factor of the front
>rank. So, for HI 2HCW backed by MI JLS,Sh, when disordered, I look up the MI
>combat factor and add the +2 of the HI shieldless factor.
>
>The 9.41 rules line states "If the target body's ranks differ in type, count
>it as having the type and shields of the element in contact if steady,
>otherwise the type of that immediately behind if worse, but the shields of
>that in contact." My question is what "shields of that in contact" means. As
>above, I have taken it to mean the shieldless factor of those in contact if
>shieldless.
>

Which makes 3 ways to read it . (1) shieldless factor of those in
contact, (2) shieldless state ditto, (3) posession of shields, applied
to rear rank and shieldless state thus calculated.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/3/2004 12:43:52 Central Daylight Time,
franktrevorgilson@... writes:

Hmmm, this may be a holdover from TOG, but I have always done the following:
Use the target class of the 2nd rank, but the shieldless factor of the front

rank. So, for HI 2HCW backed by MI JLS,Sh, when disordered, I look up the MI
combat factor and add the +2 of the HI shieldless factor.>>
[
[
That is correct.



The 9.41 rules line states "If the target body's ranks differ in type, count
it as having the type and shields of the element in contact if steady,
otherwise the type of that immediately behind if worse, but the shields of
that in contact." My question is what "shields of that in contact" means. As
above, I have taken it to mean the shieldless factor of those in contact if
shieldless.>>
[
[
Correct.
Jon


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