Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[scott holder]

I delve into this at my own peril:) Since I'm not answering a
specific rules *question* (instead just dealing with the whole "designer
notes" issue), I feel I can plop my comments in here without getting new
bruises on my arms from where Jon beats on me so much.

1. Why can irregular light cavalry travel the same distance after a turn
as irregular close formation foot?

>Given Warrior's "roots", I will be hard pressed to provide the
"original intent" but I'll give you my take as a developer and uber
umpire of all these years. One major reason is to differentiate between
LC regulars and irregulars, an important distinction. A secondary
reason would be that the maneuver takes most of the time and it's
proportionately harder to turn mounted 90 degrees, redress the lines,
etc.

2. Bow armed light cavalry's tactical ethos was to stay out of range
whilst wearing down the enemy. Under Warrior average irregular LC have a
50/50 chance of countering and in my experience have often fallen foul
of JLS armed infantry.

>Wow! Really? I think most of us rarely see this type of thing, at
least in the general description you've provided.

Is this a case requiring rules to limit table top Generals
micro-management of a situation or is retiring in front of advancing
enemy something skirmishing troops just did?

>Heh heh, there are two "gaming" schools of thought about this. One is
as you describe, ie., skirmishers simply retired in the face of
advancing troops. That would be the Warrior approach. The other school
is that such skirmishers simply "evaporated" when within a certain range
of "real" enemy troops.

3. Counter charges cannot be impetuous and impetuous chargers cannot be
charged by foot. Therefore close formation foot( i.e. Irr A Galatians)
if charged outside of 80 paces by non-impetuous enemy foot would counter
charge non-impetuously and if charged by impetuous foot they would just
stand at the halt. Not my idea of fanatics especially when other parts
of the rules force them to charge.

>The "fanatic" part of this has more to do with the Irr A roll up than
anything else. The mechanical aspect of this has more to do with the
timing within a 15 minute bound. The assumption is that if said
fanatics were gearing up for a charge, then that takes "X" amount of
minutes to thump the chest, etc, then move forward. If they are simply
reacting, then they don't get those important "mental moments" to gear
up for the impetuous aspects of the charge. Moreover, taking away a
"benefit" (in this case the +1 for impetuous and the +1 for close foot
charging) reflects the tactical limitations of slower-moving close order
foot over something like LMI which supposedly has more speed and perhaps
a tad bit more tactical flexibility.

4. A scythed chariot trundles across the board at full speed, unhindered
by anyone or anything for a couple of moves and ends up 40 paces away
from the enemy thereby rendering it very ineffective when it charges. I
have previously countered these hazards by shooting them up or sending
psiloi against them but as a back up I can now hope they judge the
distance wrong?

>Here is where the rules are clear. Scythed chariots trundle across the
board until they get to 80p of the target, then they no longer have to
move closer (except when they charge of course), that way they still get
the scythes. Obviously the opponent can try to work his own units
closer than 80p but that's all part of the tactical fun of the
game:):)

6. Classical Indian armies sometimes put a rank of spearmen in front of
a rank of longbows which means in Warrior they cannot fire; but if other
longbowmen were in front instead they could. Why?

>I would need to do the historical analysis of this before I could
reply.

7. Going back to 7th you could REPLACE a counter with a manoeuvre
whereas now it can only INCLUDE. So to form testudo or skirmishers as a
counter you have to roll for it?

>Actually in the old rules, if you wanted to form testudo or go into
skirmish during the counter phase, you had to roll for it.

Scott
List Ho

[joncleaves]

Scott's 'answers' to these queries share my philosophy. But I feel a couple of
these queries need to be addressed from a rules standpoint (vice a designer's
notes standpoint):

<<2. Bow armed light cavalry's tactical ethos was to stay out of range whilst
wearing down the enemy. Under Warrior average irregular LC have a 50/50 chance
of countering and in my experience have often fallen foul of JLS armed infantry.
Is this a case requiring rules to limit table top Generals micro-management of a
situation or is retiring in front of advancing enemy something skirmishing
troops just did?>>

This is simulated in the game through many mechanics, not just counters.
Retirements, EVADES and probe orders join with counters to get the effect we
think best replicates what we understand of LC 'tactics'.

<<5. Why do we complete waver tests from HTH before moving onto the next combat?
I am probably reading this completely wrong but I got the impression that having
resolved a combat with a unit routing then the neighbouring HTH within 120 paces
carries out a waver test BEFORE resolving its own HTH?>>

You are reading this correctly. You resolve a combat, to include wavers
generated by it, before resolving the next.

<<6. Classical Indian armies sometimes put a rank of spearmen in front of a rank
of longbows which means in Warrior they cannot fire; but if other longbowmen
were in front instead they could. Why?>>

Could you rephrase this one? I don't undertsand and would like to address any
rules issues that may be part of this query.

<<7. Going back to 7th you could REPLACE a counter with a manoeuvre whereas now
it can only INCLUDE.>>

This is untrue as Scott has pointed out. One issue is there are many versions
of 7th and you may be remembering a version neither he nor I have played.

<< So to form testudo or skirmishers as a counter you have to roll for it?>>

As a counter, yes.

<< Presumably exchanging ranks and turning to face a flank in combat, or
anything else as a counter is diced for.>>

If you do it as a counter, you have to roll.

Jon

[Phil Gardocki]

> >Wow!  Really?  I think most of us rarely see this type of thing, at
> least in the general description you've provided.
>
It depends if you actually want effective bow fire out of the LC. Infantry
moves first, then Lt Cav approaches to short range. Next turn, Infantry
approaches to 40 paces, and then it is 50/50 chance for irreg LC to pull back.

Interestingly, it makes no difference what range the LC stays at. If it
approaches in bound 1 to 160p, the infantry is still at JLS range bound 2.
Assuming they stopped marching at 240p, the infantry is still at 40p by bound
2.
Phil



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

----- Original Message -----
From: Holder, Scott <FHWA> <Scott.Holder@...>
To: IPM Return requested (Receipt notification requested)
<WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Assorted queries


>
> 2. Bow armed light cavalry's tactical ethos was to stay out of range
> whilst wearing down the enemy. Under Warrior average irregular LC have a
> 50/50 chance of countering and in my experience have often fallen foul
> of JLS armed infantry.
>
> >Wow! Really? I think most of us rarely see this type of thing, at
> least in the general description you've provided.
>
> Scott
> List Ho

Scott,
I have played Parthians vs my brothers Hellenistic Greeks for many years in
7th and had my light cavalry badly shot up by JLS LMI/LHI on many occasions;
I don't see why the same is not about to happen in Warrior.
Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: <JonCleaves@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Assorted queries


> Scott's 'answers' to these queries share my philosophy. But I feel a
couple of these queries need to be addressed from a rules standpoint (vice a
designer's notes standpoint):
> <<5. Why do we complete waver tests from HTH before moving onto the next
combat? I am probably reading this completely wrong but I got the impression
that having resolved a combat with a unit routing then the neighbouring HTH
within 120 paces carries out a waver test BEFORE resolving its own HTH?>>
>
> You are reading this correctly. You resolve a combat, to include wavers
generated by it, before resolving the next.

OK fine. But the original question remains, why? If the game represents
simultaneous actions and you have units making contact in the same move why
do units effectively wait to see what is happening to their left or right
before resolving their combats?

> <<6. Classical Indian armies sometimes put a rank of spearmen in front of
a rank of longbows which means in Warrior they cannot fire; but if other
longbowmen were in front instead they could. Why?>>
>
> Could you rephrase this one? I don't undertsand and would like to address
any rules issues that may be part of this query.

If you have two ranks of longbows the second can fire at half effect. Now
put a rank of spears instead of the front rank of longbows and the rear rank
cannot fire at all?
> <<7. Going back to 7th you could REPLACE a counter with a manoeuvre
whereas now it can only INCLUDE.>>
>
> This is untrue as Scott has pointed out. One issue is there are many
versions of 7th and you may be remembering a version neither he nor I have
played.

The revised August 1992 edition page 26- " An approach, counter or
retirement move can also include, or be replaced by, any of....." what
Warrior now calls manoeuvres.As I said earlier the advantage of this site is
to get the correct interpretations; maybe 7th meant you to roll for anything
connected with counters but it didn't come across that way to me. And if you
don't play in competitions and you work weekends so you can,t really join
clubs then you end up with your own interpretation only. By the way, for
financial and time reasons I am really glad I didn't get into 25mm as it
sounds like you guys are having a real problem which once again demonstrates
the superiority of 15mm.
Excuse me whilst I finish off my bunker, put on my tin hat and await
incoming 25mm rounds.
Paul

>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

By the way, for
> financial and time reasons I am really glad I didn't
> get into 25mm as it
> sounds like you guys are having a real problem which
> once again demonstrates
> the superiority of 15mm.
> Excuse me whilst I finish off my bunker, put on my
> tin hat and await
> incoming 25mm rounds.
> Paul

Paul,
I've always been a 15mm player for time/money reasons.
And I personally think 15mm gives you a more
entertaining game with manuvers, as 25mm tends to be
line em up and move straight into combat. However,
now that I'm entering middleage (official term for
over 40), I find that I can't really see 15mm figs
from more than 2 feet away. 15mm now looks like lumpy
little blocks laying on the table. I like looking at
the artwork on figs, so I must devolve to 25mm :)

When I reach 60, perhaps I'll move to 54mm ;]

boyd

=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 04/16/2002 10:35:31 AM Central Daylight Time,
Scott.Holder@... writes:

<< <<6. Classical Indian armies sometimes put a rank of spearmen in front
of a rank of longbows which means in Warrior they cannot fire; but if
other longbowmen were in front instead they could. Why?>>
>
<<If you have two ranks of longbows the second can fire at half effect.
Now put a rank of spears instead of the front rank of longbows and the
rear rank
cannot fire at all?>>

My memory of CI longbow units is that they are double-armed, not three
ranks of LB, LB, spear. Scott?

>I have held off answering this one pending some research, research time
that I've been spending on Holy Warrior. I can say that the original
intent of the LB "rule" was that there was virtually no evidence of LB's
shooting from rear ranks over front "fighting" ranks not also armed with
LB. At least in a western european context. I have material on
Classical Indians but just haven't had the time to peruse it for a quick
answer to this question.

>Like all potential "historical perturbations" from the main set of
rules, if there is clear, widely accepted historical evidence for
something that's "different", good ole list rules come into play.
>>

:) I think that the question revolves around those eligible to shoot.
For instance second rank of B, CB, even Jls can shoot over a front rank of
anything, LTS, P, or other missle armed troops. LB seems to be required to
have LB in the front rank in order for the second rank to be able to shoot at
all. So a LB figure could not stand in the second rank behind a spearman and
shoot, but an B armed figure could. The question seems to be why is this?
At least that is how I am reading the question. I don't have the rules in
front of me, so is that accurate?

Chris

[joncleaves]

Paul

I'm not inclined to long exchanges over 'why', but since you asked in the spirit
of recruiting new players, you got me. :)

<< ... You resolve a combat, to include wavers generated by it, before
resolving the next.>>

<<OK fine. But the original question remains, why? If the game represents
simultaneous actions and you have units making contact in the same move why do
units effectively wait to see what is happening to their left or right before
resolving their combats?>>

Ultimately, Warrior is a game of morale. By having units react to a loss of
nerve by or destruction of nearby units we get the effect we are looking for.

> <<6. Classical Indian armies sometimes put a rank of spearmen in front of a
rank of longbows which means in Warrior they cannot fire; but if other
longbowmen were in front instead they could. Why?>>
>
<<If you have two ranks of longbows the second can fire at half effect. Now put
a rank of spears instead of the front rank of longbows and the rear rank
cannot fire at all?>>

My memory of CI longbow units is that they are double-armed, not three ranks of
LB, LB, spear. Scott?

<<The revised August 1992 edition page 26- " An approach, counter or retirement
move can also include, or be replaced by, any of....." what Warrior now calls
manoeuvres. As I said earlier the advantage of this site is to get the correct
interpretations; maybe 7th meant you to roll for anything
connected with counters but it didn't come across that way to me. >>

It really doesn't matter, as this is Warrior, not 7th, but that is neither the
interpretation of 7th that I played with nor the way I want it in Warrior.
Making a maneuver does not negate the roll in a counter.

<< By the way, for financial and time reasons I am really glad I didn't get into
25mm as it sounds like you guys are having a real problem which once again
demonstrates
the superiority of 15mm.>>

I'll take this bait. Warrior has no '25mm problem'. There are 243 people on
this list and many more who play Warrior, and hundreds more who play using the
same basing system. One or two guys who can't seem to get figures on a 25mm
base is not a Warrior 25mm problem. It is the manly scale!

<<Excuse me whilst I finish off my bunker, put on my tin hat and await incoming
25mm rounds.>>

Yes, but I fire 120mm DU high-velocity, fin-stabilized discarding sabot. Tin
hat ain't gonna help! :)

Jon

[scott holder]

> <<6. Classical Indian armies sometimes put a rank of spearmen in front
of a rank of longbows which means in Warrior they cannot fire; but if
other longbowmen were in front instead they could. Why?>>
>
<<If you have two ranks of longbows the second can fire at half effect.
Now put a rank of spears instead of the front rank of longbows and the
rear rank
cannot fire at all?>>

My memory of CI longbow units is that they are double-armed, not three
ranks of LB, LB, spear. Scott?

>I have held off answering this one pending some research, research time
that I've been spending on Holy Warrior. I can say that the original
intent of the LB "rule" was that there was virtually no evidence of LB's
shooting from rear ranks over front "fighting" ranks not also armed with
LB. At least in a western european context. I have material on
Classical Indians but just haven't had the time to peruse it for a quick
answer to this question.

>Like all potential "historical perturbations" from the main set of
rules, if there is clear, widely accepted historical evidence for
something that's "different", good ole list rules come into play.

Scott
List Ho

----- Original Message -----
From: <JonCleaves@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [WarriorRules] Assorted queries

> <<OK fine. But the original question remains, why? If the game represents
simultaneous actions and you have units making contact in the same move why
do units effectively wait to see what is happening to their left or right
before resolving their combats?>>
>
> Ultimately, Warrior is a game of morale. By having units react to a loss
of nerve by or destruction of nearby units we get the effect we are looking
for.

I'm obviously not making myself clear on this so here I go again. I fully
understand units reacting to the rout/destruction of nearby friends. My
point is why not resolve all combats started in that bound and then resolve
wavers in the combat direction which can of course mean units becoming
shaken. However why do we want a unit to possibly become shaken before it
has resolved its own combat which theoretically started at the same time?

> > <<6. Classical Indian armies sometimes put a rank of spearmen in front
of a rank of longbows which means in Warrior they cannot fire; but if other
longbowmen were in front instead they could. Why?>>
> >
> <<If you have two ranks of longbows the second can fire at half effect.
Now put a rank of spears instead of the front rank of longbows and the rear
rank
> cannot fire at all?>>
>
> My memory of CI longbow units is that they are double-armed, not three
ranks of LB, LB, spear. Scott?
I meant a two rank unit, longbows behind spears which sometimes happened
apparently.

> << By the way, for financial and time reasons I am really glad I didn't
get into 25mm as it sounds like you guys are having a real problem which
once again demonstrates
> the superiority of 15mm.>>
>
> I'll take this bait. Warrior has no '25mm problem'. There are 243 people
on this list and many more who play Warrior, and hundreds more who play
using the same basing system. One or two guys who can't seem to get figures
on a 25mm base is not a Warrior 25mm problem. It is the manly scale!
>
> <<Excuse me whilst I finish off my bunker, put on my tin hat and await
incoming 25mm rounds.>>
>
> Yes, but I fire 120mm DU high-velocity, fin-stabilized discarding sabot.
Tin hat ain't gonna help! :)

I never said Warrior had a 25mm problem and neither was I attempting to bait
you. In future I will keep my sense of humour out of this.
Paul
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

For me, the biggest advantage that 15mm figures have is that with my
eyesight,you only ever need one army. Thus Orcs can be Bavarian Grenadiers,
or peltasts, or the Iron Brigade, or.......

John C



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wanax Andron [mailto:vercengetorix@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 7:48 AM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Assorted queries
>
>
> By the way, for
> > financial and time reasons I am really glad I didn't
> > get into 25mm as it
> > sounds like you guys are having a real problem which
> > once again demonstrates
> > the superiority of 15mm.
> > Excuse me whilst I finish off my bunker, put on my
> > tin hat and await
> > incoming 25mm rounds.
> > Paul
>
> Paul,
> I've always been a 15mm player for time/money reasons.
> And I personally think 15mm gives you a more
> entertaining game with manuvers, as 25mm tends to be
> line em up and move straight into combat. However,
> now that I'm entering middleage (official term for
> over 40), I find that I can't really see 15mm figs
> from more than 2 feet away. 15mm now looks like lumpy
> little blocks laying on the table. I like looking at
> the artwork on figs, so I must devolve to 25mm
>
> When I reach 60, perhaps I'll move to 54mm ;]
>
> boyd
>
> =====
> Wake up and smell the Assyrians
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

> For instance second rank of B, CB, even Jls can
> shoot over a front rank of
> anything, LTS, P, or other missle armed troops. LB
> seems to be required to
> have LB in the front rank in order for the second
> rank to be able to shoot at
> all.

Back in those other rules, this was the main reason
more people didn't play LB armies. They get shot to
peices by CB, which is historically incorrect.


So a LB figure could not stand in the second
> rank behind a spearman and
> shoot, but an B armed figure could. The question
> seems to be why is this?

My question is which armies were armed/formed thusly?
Indians, IIRC, were armed with LB and large sword
(HCT) or such. Weather this is absolutely historical
or a Barkerism, I cannot say.


> At least that is how I am reading the question. I
> don't have the rules in
> front of me, so is that accurate?

Ditto.
boyd



=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

[Patrick Byrne]

If you can play 25mm on a 10x6 table, I would highly encourage it. It has
been very fun.
-PB

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wanax Andron" <vercengetorix@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 6:47 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Assorted queries


> By the way, for
> > financial and time reasons I am really glad I didn't
> > get into 25mm as it
> > sounds like you guys are having a real problem which
> > once again demonstrates
> > the superiority of 15mm.
> > Excuse me whilst I finish off my bunker, put on my
> > tin hat and await
> > incoming 25mm rounds.
> > Paul
>
> Paul,
> I've always been a 15mm player for time/money reasons.
> And I personally think 15mm gives you a more
> entertaining game with manuvers, as 25mm tends to be
> line em up and move straight into combat. However,
> now that I'm entering middleage (official term for
> over 40), I find that I can't really see 15mm figs
> from more than 2 feet away. 15mm now looks like lumpy
> little blocks laying on the table. I like looking at
> the artwork on figs, so I must devolve to 25mm
>
> When I reach 60, perhaps I'll move to 54mm ;]
>
> boyd
>
> =====
> Wake up and smell the Assyrians
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

[Patrick Byrne]

You may like Fantasy Warrior then, your Elephants could probably be Dragons
:)

BTW Jon, I some of us have some ideas for Fantasy Warrior, is it acceptable
to email you offsite about these ideas? On the way to T-Con, Don, Chris,
and I were talking about cool ideas.
-PB


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Carroll Compuserve" <johncarroll453@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 10:19 AM
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] Assorted queries


> For me, the biggest advantage that 15mm figures have is that with my
> eyesight,you only ever need one army. Thus Orcs can be Bavarian
Grenadiers,
> or peltasts, or the Iron Brigade, or.......
>
> John C
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wanax Andron [mailto:vercengetorix@...]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 7:48 AM
> > To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Assorted queries
> >
> >
> > By the way, for
> > > financial and time reasons I am really glad I didn't
> > > get into 25mm as it
> > > sounds like you guys are having a real problem which
> > > once again demonstrates
> > > the superiority of 15mm.
> > > Excuse me whilst I finish off my bunker, put on my
> > > tin hat and await
> > > incoming 25mm rounds.
> > > Paul
> >
> > Paul,
> > I've always been a 15mm player for time/money reasons.
> > And I personally think 15mm gives you a more
> > entertaining game with manuvers, as 25mm tends to be
> > line em up and move straight into combat. However,
> > now that I'm entering middleage (official term for
> > over 40), I find that I can't really see 15mm figs
> > from more than 2 feet away. 15mm now looks like lumpy
> > little blocks laying on the table. I like looking at
> > the artwork on figs, so I must devolve to 25mm
> >
> > When I reach 60, perhaps I'll move to 54mm ;]
> >
> > boyd
> >
> > =====
> > Wake up and smell the Assyrians
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

[joncleaves]

For now, Pat, you may email me ideas about Fantasy warrior at my email. We are
well down the road on rules writing, but I don't know yet once we start
playtesting formally whether I will let the discussion run here or <gasp> create
another group. We'll see.