Warhammer Ancient Battles: Chariot Wars - Rules Question (Camels)

[wmyers]

Then my work here is done! 

Or is it just beginning ... ?

[Silent bob]

I still potter along using WAB for my Slave Wars games.....not professionally of course - only for fun.....oh yes...isn't that the idea of wargaming....fun....

I think over the past 40 years, wargames rules have become more fun to play.....perhaps because they are now written with a specific war or period in mind (rather than 4000bc to 1485 - whatever it was) - I hark back here to the legal tomes of Newbury Rules and WRG

[tikitang]

For the record, I managed to get a message to Nigel Stillman himself, via the Perry brothers, asking him this question.

Today I got a reply. Nigel says:

In the spirit of Warhammer, players are free to agree their own interpretations

That is all!

As previously stated, I've decided to give the Midianite Arabs two shots per model (as written in WAB 2.0 Armies of Antiquity), but for my own project, I've borrowed a rule from Warhammer Skirmish, where the first wound dealt actually kills the mount, not the riders. As such, when my camel riders take their first wound, the camel will die and the two archers will then proceed on foot as two separate models.

[wmyers]

For the record, I managed to get a message to Nigel Stillman himself, via the Perry brothers, asking him this question.

Today I got a reply. Nigel says:

That is all!

As previously stated, I've decided to give the Midianite Arabs two shots per model (as written in WAB 2.0 Armies of Antiquity), but for my own project, I've borrowed a rule from Warhammer Skirmish, where the first wound dealt actually kills the mount, not the riders. As such, when my camel riders take their first wound, the camel will die and the two archers will then proceed on foot as two separate models.

Thank you for this update!

Being used to some rule sets that allow/require odds rolls, I was thinking, as I read your decision on a roll to see if a rider or mount are hit.

I’m trying to remember elephants’ rules.  Camels are about twice the size of horses.  Then, of course, there are two riders.

[Jjonas]

Actually making a camel a separate mount in WAB would be a nice touch.  The more skirmish oriented one's games the better this kind of rule idea works. WAB always worked well when played by "agreeable players", often a combination as rare as a unicorn with butterflies and rainbows sprouting from its hindquarters. Luckily camelry in WAB are as rare as unicorns and mostly as ineffective as unicorns in WFB. To paraphrase the late Allen Curtis- "Who would be stupid enough to ride a camel into a battle"? Someone as he with a vast knowledge of Crusader warfare had nothing but contempt of the idea of camel effectiveness other than as herds used as gambits and trickery against the hapless.

But then there is the infamous barded Roman camelphracts on the original Imperial Romans list...

[wmyers]

If I recall correctly, and I may not, I believe I read that camels were used to transport troops. Not as cavalry mounts. 

Then again, who was there and gave the primary source documentation ...?

Now, if you watch Lawrence of Arabia, camels are shown leading charges.

[DivisMal]

What we should not forget is, that warfare is a lot more about supply and logistics than actual battles. And while camels might not be of much use against a charge of armored knights, they can handily transport people and supplies over the vast deserts that is the Near East.

Also do not forget that the biblical era (whenever you want to place it Old or New Testament, Late Bronze, Iron Age or Roman Occupation of Palestine) is very, very different from the era of the crusaders.

No heavy cavalry there, sir. No charging knights and fanaticsl pilgrims, but beautiful chariots (ok, not anymore in Roman times ). So especially in small scale skirmish operations I see no reason, why camels should not be used to raid a village or disrupt supply lines.