Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Doug]

I'm ready to start basing 25mm Dixon Samurai. Before Warrior I only
had to figure out how to fudge them to work with DBM and DBR, so
30mm w/3 figs per base would be fine; maybe 4/base for the blades
depending on how many figures I actually have.

Any hints on Warrior Samurai are needed now; these guys have been
lying in tissue too long.

I was wondering if I created 40mm sabot bases with two figures at the
rear, I could put this base under a 30mm, 3 fig base and wind up with
5 figs on a 40mm DBE that I could designate as two ranks of 4/base.
Don't know if they would really fit yet; but the general question is
whether DBEs have too many disadvantages in Warrior.
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at
present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come
in it's turn, but it will be at a remote period." James Madison, 15
March 1798 (_Papers of J.M._ vol 12, p.14; LC call no. JK.111.M24)

[scott holder]

Any hints on Warrior Samurai are needed now; these guys have been
lying in tissue too long.

I was wondering if I created 40mm sabot bases with two figures at the
rear, I could put this base under a 30mm, 3 fig base and wind up with
5 figs on a 40mm DBE that I could designate as two ranks of 4/base.
Don't know if they would really fit yet; but the general question is
whether DBEs have too many disadvantages in Warrior.

>I really wish I could give you some type of "preview" of Japanese but I
just can't at this stage--they are so far down the line. You could
always build to Fast Warrior and take it from there.

>I don't see how DBEs would be useful to someone tactically in Warrior
with an army like Japanese. It's really only good for things like pike
where you're almost always at least two ranks deep. Any "thinner" and
that means you've expanded to cover your hanging flanks:):)

Scott

It's really only good
> for things like pike
> where you're almost always at least two ranks deep.
> Any "thinner" and
> that means you've expanded to cover your hanging
> flanks:):)

LOL! Holy Shite, I remember doing this a time or two
in 7th with Alex Imperial One 48 man block of HI
P/sh one rank deep covering an entire flank to keep LC
from running loose :)

Ah the good old dayz

boyd


=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/

[Don Coon]

> LOL! Holy Shite, I remember doing this a time or two
> in 7th with Alex Imperial One 48 man block of HI
> P/sh one rank deep covering an entire flank to keep LC
> from running loose
>
> Ah the good old dayz

The sad thing is, is that the only way to get into that 1X12 formation is to
start that way. Once in a 1X12 there is no way to get out of it. At least
not with Pikemen (reg).

Don

[Ewan McNay]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Wanax Andron wrote:
> It's really only good
> > for things like pike
> > where you're almost always at least two ranks deep.
> > Any "thinner" and
> > that means you've expanded to cover your hanging
> > flanks:)
>
> LOL! Holy Shite, I remember doing this a time or two
> in 7th with Alex Imperial One 48 man block of HI
> P/sh one rank deep covering an entire flank to keep LC
> from running loose :)

Hell, I have done it with Syrian.... some Eastern theme where basically
everyone else was running LC, and I took the Syrians to get the 48 IrrD MI
LTS, Sh (I think) and equally huge amounts (96??) of Irr D MI B. The LTS
guys were placed into the CinCs command, who was defined as rash and diced
until on rush orders to alow the LTS boys to charge everyturn without
prompting; they started every game on the half-way line andusually
expanded to cover their full 12 elements' width while hurtling toward the
opposing baseline .

Ewan. Who really needs to actually play more rather than just
reminiscing.

[Ewan McNay]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 jjendon@... wrote:
> The sad thing is, is that the only way to get into that 1X12 formation is to
> start that way. Once in a 1X12 there is no way to get out of it. At least
> not with Pikemen (reg).

You're right about not being able to get into it with regulars. But
getting out is easy - just turn to flank (puts you in a 12x1) then back to
front (now either 4x3 or 6x2).

I used to run a lot of 8-element pike blocks with Seleucids. The double
expansion - going from one wide to 4-wide - covereds a lot of ground, and
could frequently catch people off-guard who thought that they were out of
range. Doing it with 10-element blocks is even better, but somehow
unwieldy.

Ewan

Well I say 48 man, but now that I visualize it was 8
elements, so 32 man block. I can only remember
hazily, as I've not seen those troops in over 15
years. :)

48 sounds impressive though. I'm considering running
my entire 1st crusader army with minimal mounted and
max MI J/sh. All in 48 man blocks. What an idiot :)

boyd

--- jjendon@... wrote:
>
> > LOL! Holy Shite, I remember doing this a time or
> two
> > in 7th with Alex Imperial One 48 man block of
> HI
> > P/sh one rank deep covering an entire flank to
> keep LC
> > from running loose
> >
> > Ah the good old dayz
>
> The sad thing is, is that the only way to get into
> that 1X12 formation is to
> start that way. Once in a 1X12 there is no way to
> get out of it. At least
> not with Pikemen (reg).
>
> Don
>
>


=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/

[Ewan McNay]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 jjendon@... wrote:
> I do not think I follow the double expansion. How did you go from 1 wide to
> 4 wide in one bound?

Regulars can either (i) make one manouvre and move full, or (ii) make two
manouvres and move 1". If both of those two manouvres are expansions, one
can go from one- to five-elements wide in one move (and stil advance an
inch, either before or after expanding; particularly sneaky is to wheel an
inch first, as once one then expands, the end of the new 5-wide unit has
effectively wheeled 5"; not bad for a pike block!)

Ewan

There used to be a guy named Brett Stiffle (sp) who
played 7th in 15mm. He was a perennial champion and
very tough. He and I had one game where he was
Carolingian Franks vs My Anglo-NOrmans. the lesson I
learned is that even in deep 2 element wide column, a
48 man block can absorb many many casualties without
worry. I distinctly remember ramming a 24 man block
of impetuous Irrg B HI front rank 2HCW second rank JLS
into the front of his Frankish MI JLS/sh. I pushed
him back, and stuck. Next bound my boys when recoiled
disordered from tired and shieldless, then next bound
exhausted as they then were sheildless and rear rank
MI. Learned the lesson then, remember it today.
don't do stupid things to large masses of infantry in
deep column!

I tried runing Syracusan in 25mm thinking to push
everyone off the board one year. Problem is, Irrg D
MI LTS suck and die off like no tomorrow Sold the
Syracusans after one tournament.
boyd

--- ewan.mcnay@... wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Wanax Andron wrote:
> > 48 sounds impressive though. I'm considering
> running
> > my entire 1st crusader army with minimal mounted
> and
> > max MI J/sh. All in 48 man blocks. What an idiot
>
>
> Well....
>
> ...in a similar Theme (NASAMW Crusades, maybe '97?)
> we had been having a
> list discussion about whether close foot could ever
> win against cav
> armies. So, I took (I think) the NASAMW County of
> Odessa list, with
> either 6 or 8 blocks of 24 H/MI, and tried to close
> down the rest of the
> table with rough hills. Worked very well - of
> course, these were LTS
> guys, not JLS. One unit of IrrA HC, 12-strong, did
> make it into one of my
> shieldless MI CB blocks; I think both units pretty
> much evaporated on
> contact, after they were *really* shot up before
> charging but then rolled
> up 5 in combat..
>
> ..a different battle, same event, saw one of my
> 4-man LC units pursuing a
> 12-man LC unit of Chris Damour's Ottoman Turks that
> he had injudiciously
> placed in the front lines. His LC interpenetrated
> some LI, into which my
> LC charged; we routed them, and ran back into the LC
> in the pursuit... but
> eventually they rolled long and my LC rolled short,
> and there they were
> about 12" behind the enemy lines! Sure, the battle
> was pretty much over
> by then, as verything else in Chris' army was
> contracting into column to
> get out of the way of this LC unit and his IrrA
> Ghazis managed *not*
> to roll up against my MI CB - poor unit, seemed to
> do all the actual
> fighting...
>
> E
>
>


=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/

[Don Coon]

> On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 jjendon@... wrote:
> > I do not think I follow the double expansion. How did you go from 1
wide to
> > 4 wide in one bound?
>
> Regulars can either (i) make one manouvre and move full, or (ii) make two
> manouvres and move 1". If both of those two manouvres are expansions, one
> can go from one- to five-elements wide in one move (and stil advance an
> inch, either before or after expanding; particularly sneaky is to wheel an
> inch first, as once one then expands, the end of the new 5-wide unit has
> effectively wheeled 5"; not bad for a pike block!)
>
> Ewan

Yes but at the end of each manuever the body must be in a legal formation.
In your above example the body must be either 5 elements or 10 elements in
order to end 5 wide. If it is 5 elements the 1 expansion from 1X5 to a 3
wide front is illegal, because there are only 2 elements in the back rank.
If it is 10 elements, the first expansion is also illegal as the body winds
up 4 deep (3 wide in the front 3 ranks, and 1 element left over in the
fourth). We have never allowed a body be in an illegal formation during its
move, even if the intent was to wind up in one at the end. I feel you are
violating the rules with this move. i would not allow it at a tourny I was
referee at.

Don

[Ewan McNay]

jjendon@... wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 jjendon@... wrote:
> > > I do not think I follow the double expansion. How did you go from 1
> wide to
> > > 4 wide in one bound?
> >
> > Regulars can either (i) make one manouvre and move full, or (ii) make two
> > manouvres and move 1". If both of those two manouvres are expansions, one
> > can go from one- to five-elements wide in one move (and stil advance an
> > inch, either before or after expanding; particularly sneaky is to wheel an
> > inch first, as once one then expands, the end of the new 5-wide unit has
> > effectively wheeled 5"; not bad for a pike block!)
> >
> > Ewan
>
> Yes but at the end of each manuever the body must be in a legal formation.
> In your above example the body must be either 5 elements or 10 elements in
> order to end 5 wide. If it is 5 elements the 1 expansion from 1X5 to a 3
> wide front is illegal, because there are only 2 elements in the back rank.
> If it is 10 elements, the first expansion is also illegal as the body winds
> up 4 deep (3 wide in the front 3 ranks, and 1 element left over in the
> fourth). We have never allowed a body be in an illegal formation during its
> move, even if the intent was to wind up in one at the end. I feel you are
> violating the rules with this move. i would not allow it at a tourny I was
> referee at.

Warning: the next comment is based on 7th..... ;)

It is/was legal for a regular body to have one uneven rank after the
second. And of course this doesn't pose a problem for the 1- to 4-wide
manouvre, where the intermediate stage could be a 2-wide block.

[If the rule on no uneven ranks is absolute, one gets silly situations
where e.g. Swiss - 4 ranks pike, 1 rank halberd detachment - can never
expand from column . There are other such examples. I haven't seen
anyone use half elements for a long time, but they were around when 7th
started because of lists that had minima/maxima not divisible by a
multiple of 4 elements for regular units, and such; this was felt to be
a bad thing for an element-based game ]

[Chris Bump]

It's really only good
> for things like pike
> where you're almost always at least two ranks deep.
> Any "thinner" and
> that means you've expanded to cover your hanging
> flanks:):)

LOL! Holy Shite, I remember doing this a time or two
in 7th with Alex Imperial One 48 man block of HI
P/sh one rank deep covering an entire flank to keep LC
from running loose :)

Ah the good old dayz

boyd


Today, if that 48 man pike block did not start in a single element line, he
could never get there. The unfortunate restrictions on regular unit formations
make very large formations very difficult to change to a desired formation other
than that which they start the game in. IF for example the 48 man block you
describe started the game in a 3 across by 4 element deep formation he could
expand to a 4x3 formation and then in the following turn expand to a 6x2
formation. He would then be unable to further expand at all.
So those days you remember of the very long line of pike to hold a flank against
LC or rapid sweeps are probably gone.
Chris

What are the other examples of Irreg maneuvering better than Regs?

JM


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/22/2002 17:38:46 Central Daylight Time,
eforbes100@... writes:


> yet one more instance of Irr forces maneuvering better than Reg forces
> because of something that was transferred from 7th with no discussion.
>
> Ed
>

Ed, I can't stop you from doing stuff like this. But I would if I could. We
all know you hate the regulars in even ranks rule. That does not at all make
any part of what you said above true, and I wish you wouldn't say such things
because it confuses new players.
Jon


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

[Ed Forbes]

yet one more instance of Irr forces maneuvering better than Reg forces
because of something that was transferred from 7th with no discussion.

Ed

>
> Yes but at the end of each manuever the body must be in a legal
> formation.
> In your above example the body must be either 5 elements or 10
> elements in
> order to end 5 wide. If it is 5 elements the 1 expansion from 1X5
> to a 3
> wide front is illegal, because there are only 2 elements in the back
> rank.
> If it is 10 elements, the first expansion is also illegal as the
> body winds
> up 4 deep (3 wide in the front 3 ranks, and 1 element left over in
> the
> fourth). We have never allowed a body be in an illegal formation
> during its
> move, even if the intent was to wind up in one at the end. I feel
> you are
> violating the rules with this move. i would not allow it at a
> tourny I was
> referee at.
>
> Don
>
>

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.