Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Greetings

Thinking about the debate over only taking shields for some of a unit
led me to think about the logic of 8.92 which states that 'If a
target body is of mixed type it counts as the most vulnerable if
shooting at a body in skirmish formation, otherwise as that of the
nearest rank eligible as a target.'

However, in 8.4 we find that shooting at long range has the 'effect
of making a high trajectory necessary'.

There is an implication that shooting at high trajectory you are more
likely to clear the front ranks. Accordingly there could be some
logic to long range [high trajectory] fire counting as hitting the
rear rank(s) - typically the more vulnerable elements, especially if
they have no shields to protect themselves.

The factors may be too aggressive however to make this a viable
idea. Maybe an X rule to try out some day.

Regards

Edward

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I really think that it would be equitable to make it a consequence for having
shieldless troops in a second rank. Note, one cannot support shoot into a unit
that is 1 element in depth, thus it would seem the shieldless guys in rank two
are the recipients of the this kind of lovin. It certainly would make weapons
with a trajectory that could hit these troops very deadly to strike shieldless
MI for example.


k

Edward Sturges <edward_sturges@...> wrote:

Greetings

Thinking about the debate over only taking shields for some of a unit
led me to think about the logic of 8.92 which states that 'If a
target body is of mixed type it counts as the most vulnerable if
shooting at a body in skirmish formation, otherwise as that of the
nearest rank eligible as a target.'

However, in 8.4 we find that shooting at long range has the 'effect
of making a high trajectory necessary'.

There is an implication that shooting at high trajectory you are more
likely to clear the front ranks. Accordingly there could be some
logic to long range [high trajectory] fire counting as hitting the
rear rank(s) - typically the more vulnerable elements, especially if
they have no shields to protect themselves.

The factors may be too aggressive however to make this a viable
idea. Maybe an X rule to try out some day.

Regards

Edward




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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



---------------------------------
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web

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