Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Over the years I have seen a number of people play artillery/hand guns in
the following way: since artillery ignore shields, any non-skirmishing
close or loose formation foot that receive 2 CPF must waver test.

In fact the rule on artilllery says they count no one as "shieldless" and
the rule about 2 CPF applies if you are shooters. So a literal reading
would suggest the opposite. Common sense does suggest that if your shields
are useless against a shooter and you take 2 CPF, you would respond as if
shieldless.

So which is it?

Another question: what if you take 2 CPF in prep shooting and only some of
the shooting is at a shieldless flank or rear? Is the rule if you take a
total of 2 CPF or more and you are not shielded to all, or is the rule you
must take 2 CPF in shieldess shooting?


Mark

Mark Stone || strider@... || http://digitalpilgrim.com
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing
left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
-Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[joncleaves]

<< Over the years I have seen a number of people play artillery/hand guns in
the following way: since artillery ignore shields, any non-skirmishing
close or loose formation foot that receive 2 CPF must waver test.>>

Yep.

<<In fact the rule on artilllery says they count no one as "shieldless" and
the rule about 2 CPF applies if you are shooters.>>

Not any more.

<< Another question: what if you take 2 CPF in prep shooting and only some of
the shooting is at a shieldless flank or rear? Is the rule if you take a
total of 2 CPF or more and you are not shielded to all, or is the rule you
must take 2 CPF in shieldess shooting?>>

See 11.1. "...all the shooters..."

Jon

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/16/2001 23:44:49 Central Daylight Time,
loki_in_oz@... writes:

<< Since the shooting was partly done by the HG, although the LIR have
shields, are they are calculated as SHIELDLESS under Sect 11.1 and so
must waver test?

ie · If close or regular loose formation foot counting shielded to all
the shooters, or if elephants: halt until the end of the next bound.


Or am I just reading you wrongly??? >>

They have to count shielded to all the shooters and then choose halt or they
take a waver. They do not count shielded to all the shooters in your example.

Jon

Jon,

Is the following correct?

A unit of 16 figures Reg LHI HG front rank, xbow rear shoot to the
front of a LIR legionary unit for 2cpf. The shooting is 8 @ 4 (HG)
and 8 @ 1 (xbow).
Since the shooting was partly done by the HG, although the LIR have
shields, are they are calculated as SHIELDLESS under Sect 11.1 and so
must waver test?

ie · If close or regular loose formation foot counting shielded to all
the shooters, or if elephants: halt until the end of the next bound.


Or am I just reading you wrongly???




--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> << Over the years I have seen a number of people play artillery/hand
guns in
> the following way: since artillery ignore shields, any
non-skirmishing
> close or loose formation foot that receive 2 CPF must waver test.>>
>
> Yep.
>
> <<In fact the rule on artilllery says they count no one as
"shieldless" and
> the rule about 2 CPF applies if you are shooters.>>
>
> Not any more.
>
> << Another question: what if you take 2 CPF in prep shooting and
only some of
> the shooting is at a shieldless flank or rear? Is the rule if you
take a
> total of 2 CPF or more and you are not shielded to all, or is the
rule you
> must take 2 CPF in shieldess shooting?>>
>
> See 11.1. "...all the shooters..."
>
> Jon

Oops! Shooting to be PREP shooting. Sheesh. :)

--- In WarriorRules@y..., "Steve Honeyman" <loki_in_oz@y...> wrote:
> Jon,
>
> Is the following correct?
>
> A unit of 16 figures Reg LHI HG front rank, xbow rear shoot to the
> front of a LIR legionary unit for 2cpf. The shooting is 8 @ 4 (HG)
> and 8 @ 1 (xbow).
> Since the shooting was partly done by the HG, although the LIR have
> shields, are they are calculated as SHIELDLESS under Sect 11.1 and
so
> must waver test?
>
> ie · If close or regular loose formation foot counting shielded to
all
> the shooters, or if elephants: halt until the end of the next bound.
>
>
> Or am I just reading you wrongly???
>
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> > << Over the years I have seen a number of people play
artillery/hand
> guns in
> > the following way: since artillery ignore shields, any
> non-skirmishing
> > close or loose formation foot that receive 2 CPF must waver
test.>>
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> > <<In fact the rule on artilllery says they count no one as
> "shieldless" and
> > the rule about 2 CPF applies if you are shooters.>>
> >
> > Not any more.
> >
> > << Another question: what if you take 2 CPF in prep shooting and
> only some of
> > the shooting is at a shieldless flank or rear? Is the rule if you
> take a
> > total of 2 CPF or more and you are not shielded to all, or is the
> rule you
> > must take 2 CPF in shieldess shooting?>>
> >
> > See 11.1. "...all the shooters..."
> >
> > Jon

Way cool! Boy is THIS list looking better and better!

--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/16/2001 23:44:49 Central Daylight Time,
> loki_in_oz@y... writes:
>
> << Since the shooting was partly done by the HG, although the LIR
have
> shields, are they are calculated as SHIELDLESS under Sect 11.1 and
so
> must waver test?
>
> ie · If close or regular loose formation foot counting shielded to
all
> the shooters, or if elephants: halt until the end of the next
bound.
>
>
> Or am I just reading you wrongly??? >>
>
> They have to count shielded to all the shooters and then choose halt
or they
> take a waver. They do not count shielded to all the shooters in
your example.
>
> Jon

[joncleaves]

I'm sorry, Steve, I have resisted as long as I could, but I MUST ask.

What game is it you HAVE been playing, exactly?

:)

Jon

[joncleaves]

Steve
The good news is that those days are over. One rules set for the planet. No
interp books. And as ornery as I might seem now, once they are on the
street, we will be very responsive to players and tourney directors with
clarifications from a single official source, in near real time and for free.
Jon

Jon,

7th Edition (sigh) with the Noel "I phoned Phil" addendums and some
local rulings (lower cost of Allied Generals, P standards etc).

I've been meaning to ask the same question of the group as there
appears to be some large differences between down here and up there.
Or maybe it's just me??? Never seen the 7.6 rules until I got here so
some of the items are new and "exciting". So please excuse the dumb
questions. At least it's not WAB! hehehehehe

Cheers


--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> I'm sorry, Steve, I have resisted as long as I could, but I MUST
ask.
>
> What game is it you HAVE been playing, exactly?
>
>
>
> Jon

Jon,

I am not worthy, I am not worthy.

But at least you are fighting the good fight. Just let me know when
you are doing rules 6 and over. ;)

Cheers

--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Steve
> The good news is that those days are over. One rules set for the
planet. No
> interp books. And as ornery as I might seem now, once they are on
the
> street, we will be very responsive to players and tourney directors
with
> clarifications from a single official source, in near real time and
for free.
> Jon