Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Bill Chriss]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> Well said. So just out of curiosity I'm wondering how Romans will
do head to head with Phalangites? Did they ever beat Phalangites head
to head?

Oxhi! (No).

Or did they use maneuver to get around on their lumbering flanks?

Nai. (Yes).

Yiati pantote dikeo exhei o Kellis?

(Why is Kelly always right?)


The Greek Kid

[scott holder]

Well said. So just out of curiosity I'm wondering how Romans will
do head to head with Phalangites? Did they ever beat Phalangites head
to head?

Oxhi! (No).

>To be specific in WARRIOR 1:50 figure to troop ratios, as a rule, during the
few Roman on phalangite encounters, you had a 64 figure pike block fighting
one-two 8 figure Roman legionary block. OF COURSE they lost! It's one reason
the Romans began moving away from the maniple system to the cohortal one.
What's lost in all of this is that the Roman maniples were pushed back, not
steam rolled.

Or did they use maneuver to get around on their lumbering flanks?

Nai. (Yes).

>And it wasn't maneuver, per se. At Cynosephalae (sp), two commands of the army
ended being very very offset from each other. As the massive pike blocks were
slowly pushing back one Roman command, the other ended up being off to one side
but behind the massive pike blocks. They simply turned and slammed into the
rear.

>The Roman list rules change nothing vis a vis legionaries vs phalangites.
We're smart that way:):)

scott

[joncleaves]

It is too early to tell what form the Spanish, Carthaginian and other Classical
Warrior lists or list rules might take. You may want to save this discussion
until IW is published and work begins on CW in earnest.

Jon

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/5/2003 11:47:23 AM Eastern Standard Time,
hrisikos@... writes:

> Yiati pantote dikeo exhei o Kellis?
>
> (Why is Kelly always right?)>>

This one gets the award for funniest post of the year....lol

[Kelly Wilkinson]

> >The Roman list rules change nothing vis a vis legionaries vs
phalangites. We're smart that way:)
>
> scott

************************************************************
Glad to hear/read that! :)

kelly

[Kelly Wilkinson]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 12/5/2003 11:47:23 AM Eastern Standard Time,
hrisikos@D... writes:
>
> > Yiati pantote dikeo exhei o Kellis?
> >
> > (Why is Kelly always right?)>>
>
> This one gets the award for funniest post of the year....lol
****************************************************************

I agree, what should I give him for a prize! Unpainted Greeks
perhaps?

kelly

[Don Coon]

YEAH!!!

Don


> You DON'T round up in any case with new FHE lists. In specific individual
cases in the old lists, I allow you to. This is NOT a blanket thing and
once all the FHW lists are out, this whole "rounding up" nonsense we've been
forced to use to mitigate the problems with old lists will be a thing of the
past.
>
>
> > Kelly *** Actually good players will make up 3 element units and half
the
> elements (which is rounded up get the HTW,JLS,Sh combo.
>
> Where do you get the data that you can round up? 1/2 is 1/2 and if you
buy
> only 3E, then only 1E can have the option. You can not go over 1/2 as far
> as I know.
>
> Don

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Don,
Writing from Negative from and Sarcastic Central at Greg Regets house. Read
Scott Holder's replys concerning this. It's okay, all you have to do is buy 4
elements and put the HTW,JLS, Sh in the first two ranks and you only pay 79
points and munch up a 122 point legionaire unit on even dice. Very unfair.
Kelly

jjendon@... wrote:

> Kelly *** Actually good players will make up 3 element units and half the
elements (which is rounded up get the HTW,JLS,Sh combo.

Where do you get the data that you can round up? 1/2 is 1/2 and if you buy
only 3E, then only 1E can have the option. You can not go over 1/2 as far
as I know.

Don


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]

[Don Coon]

I was not questioning your math on the combat. I am staying uninvolved in
that portion of the discussion. I was only commenting on the 1/2 rounded up
portion, and that issue has been discussed, defended, rebuffed, accepted by
all parties thouroughly and to me at least clearly. I feel I have a good
picture of the history, and most important a bedrock statement about the
current and future state of this issue from Scott.

Don


> Don,
> Writing from Negative from and Sarcastic Central at Greg Regets
house. Read Scott Holder's replys concerning this. It's okay, all you have
to do is buy 4 elements and put the HTW,JLS, Sh in the first two ranks and
you only pay 79 points and munch up a 122 point legionaire unit on even
dice. Very unfair.

[Greg Regets]

Jon ...

While I may be breaking my pre-New Year's resolution to not be so
sarcastic and negative on this message board (and with my wife), I
can't help but point out that you have used this version of "the
voice" from Dune before - where you tell us to wait until we see
something in writing, then having done so, tell us it is now past the
time for commentary.

Thanks ... g

P.S. I agree with you on the ruling for dismounted knights, but do
think the wording in the rules says the exact opposite. (insert
appropriate Greek text, so Bill can read it.)


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> It is too early to tell what form the Spanish, Carthaginian and
other Classical Warrior lists or list rules might take. You may want
to save this discussion until IW is published and work begins on CW
in earnest.
>
> Jon

[Greg Regets]

Jon ...

While I may be breaking my pre-New Year's resolution to not be so
sarcastic and negative on this message board (and with my wife), I
can't help but point out that you have used this version of "the
voice" from Dune before - where you tell us to wait until we see
something in writing, then having done so, tell us it is now past the
time for commentary.

Thanks ... g

P.S. I agree with you on the ruling for dismounted knights, but do
think the wording in the rules says the exact opposite. (insert
appropriate Greek text, so Bill can read it.)


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> It is too early to tell what form the Spanish, Carthaginian and
other Classical Warrior lists or list rules might take. You may want
to save this discussion until IW is published and work begins on CW
in earnest.
>
> Jon

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/8/2003 10:17:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, gar@...
writes:

> I
> can't help but point out that you have used this version of "the
> voice" from Dune before - where you tell us to wait until we see
> something in writing, then having done so, tell us it is now past the
> time for commentary.>>

Not getting that Greg. It is NOT past time for commentary on either IW or CW
lists. All I was saying was that any CW commentary will be saved until it is
time to work on that. If someone has information on an IW list they wish to
share, now absolutely *IS* the time because that is what we are working on.

>
> P.S. I agree with you on the ruling for dismounted knights, but do
> think the wording in the rules says the exact opposite. >>

Which ruling and which wording??

[Greg Regets]

Disorder by camels when dismounted.

Thanks ... g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 12/8/2003 10:17:28 AM Eastern Standard Time,
gar@t... writes:
>
> > I
> > can't help but point out that you have used this version of "the
> > voice" from Dune before - where you tell us to wait until we see
> > something in writing, then having done so, tell us it is now past
the
> > time for commentary.>>
>
> Not getting that Greg. It is NOT past time for commentary on
either IW or CW lists. All I was saying was that any CW commentary
will be saved until it is time to work on that. If someone has
information on an IW list they wish to share, now absolutely *IS* the
time because that is what we are working on.
>
> >
> > P.S. I agree with you on the ruling for dismounted knights, but
do
> > think the wording in the rules says the exact opposite. >>
>
> Which ruling and which wording??

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/8/2003 10:55:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, gar@...
writes:

> Disorder by camels when dismounted.>>

I assume by this you mean that you feel horses are 'in' a body of SHI that is
dismounted SHK, even though SHI contains no horses. I can see the 'logic'
behind that and that is why I am adding a clarification on that one to the next
update.

[Greg Regets]

I COMPLETELY agree with your decisive ruling and logic that the SHI
would not disordered, as the horses are behind. Thank you!!

But, the bases would be touching, and that somewhat implies "in the
body", so the wording (to Kelly's point) is difficult.

Thanks for the ruling though Jon. In a forum where we somewhat badger
you to no end, I will say that I appreciate your decisive and timely
responses.

Thanks ... g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 12/8/2003 10:55:26 AM Eastern Standard Time,
gar@t... writes:
>
> > Disorder by camels when dismounted.>>
>
> I assume by this you mean that you feel horses are 'in' a body of
SHI that is dismounted SHK, even though SHI contains no horses. I
can see the 'logic' behind that and that is why I am adding a
clarification on that one to the next update.