Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

The 1.5 rank L is not going anywhere. It has been proven conclusively to do
exactly what it is supposed to be doing.
I have been a playtester for five other game companies for 18 years.
Statements like: "this X does not work" have NO (repeat no) value unless
supported by analysis, said analysis generally having little value unles it
takes place inside actual games. Not one word of the discussion of 1.5 rank
L in the past two days has contained any such analysis. But these
unsupported claims are being pitted against literally hundreds of games with
dozens of armies without evidence of it being anything other than what we
intended.
Back up what you say or prepare for deaf ears. I WILL NOT change a single
thing based on one or more unsubstantiated assertions.
And you don't want me to.

Now if some byzantine troop type is armed or armored incorrectly in current
lists, this is the time to show cause WITH EVIDENCE that it is not.
Unsubstantiated claims that they should be this or that armor type or this or
that weapon mix may make you feel better, but no change will come of such
claims.
And you would not want any to.
Jon

[Ed Forbes]

Yea, a light in the wilderness !!

Ed F

On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 18:09:42 EST cncbump@... writes:
> Jon,
>
> I find myself starting to lean in the same direction. The rationale
> for rank
> and a half lance as I understood it dealt with the performance of
> French
> Knights vs German in
> WRG and how they should have borne out historically. The rank and
> half have
> made all lancers the equal of the Teutonic Knights and hobbled the
> highly
> effective Byzantine Cav which did basically re-conquer the old Roman
> empire.
> I wonder if rank and half for lancers should not be reserved for
> list
> modifications rather than a universal rule, rather akin to the
> ability to
> fight with 1.5 ranks given to those troop types allowed to wedge in
> the older
> rule set.
>
> It just seems as we try to simplify the rules, we are losing some of
> the
> historical flavor the various armies used to have.
>
> Chris
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> 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/
>
>

I feel we are beyond the point of rewriting the rule on the
lance ,rank and half. It is part of the rules. However, maybe there
can be a list rule for the byzantines,(boy , do I feel selfish--sorry
Scott). Either way, as I said before, I am like Warrior and fully
support the four horsemen.







--- In WarriorRules@y..., Ed C Forbes <eforbes100@j...> wrote:
> Yea, a light in the wilderness !!
>
> Ed F
>
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 18:09:42 EST cncbump@a... writes:
> > Jon,
> >
> > I find myself starting to lean in the same direction. The
rationale
> > for rank
> > and a half lance as I understood it dealt with the performance of
> > French
> > Knights vs German in
> > WRG and how they should have borne out historically. The rank
and
> > half have
> > made all lancers the equal of the Teutonic Knights and hobbled
the
> > highly
> > effective Byzantine Cav which did basically re-conquer the old
Roman
> > empire.
> > I wonder if rank and half for lancers should not be reserved for
> > list
> > modifications rather than a universal rule, rather akin to the
> > ability to
> > fight with 1.5 ranks given to those troop types allowed to wedge
in
> > the older
> > rule set.
> >
> > It just seems as we try to simplify the rules, we are losing some
of
> > the
> > historical flavor the various armies used to have.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >

[Chris Bump]

Jon,

The Byzantine lists seem to mandate (at least in the WRG lists books) that
the kataphraktoi be 1/2 HC, B, by unit, as opposed to troops on the board.
In 7th this was not a problem because all of the historical opponents they
faced only fought front rank lancers aswell. Now with the 1.5 rule the
Byzantine Katraphraktoi is emasculated against even MC with Lance. I am
confident that this was not your intention. I believe this to be the source
of the consternation we are hearing now. I do not play any Byzantine list.
I rarely face Byzantine lists. I do believe that one of the foundations you
stand upon as you embark on creation of Warrior is the historical performance
of troop types and armies (Swiss rules, which I happen to like). The 1.5
rule on lances greatly reduces the effectiveness of one of the great Cavalry
arms of history.

I do not propose the changing of the rule, so much as I find my self swayed
by the calls for redress. Should the average Italian or Feudal English
knight be as impactful on the battlefield as the Teutonics or even German or
French Knights? Perhaps mounted troops armed with lance who once Wedged
could get two full ranks vs the rank and a half of everyone else. And
perhaps list exceptions or rules could be considered to address those troops
who could once use African or who in fact used darts while riding into the
charge or who historically performed far better than they can now being armed
with only front rank L.

Chris

[joncleaves]

Don, Don, Don....

<< I agree as well. Patricks Mongols got a huge kick of power when the
rank and a half rule was added. Now he gets 1.5 ranks of L, plus rear
rank bows when charging. So he now hits with 5 lancers, plus 3 bows
shooting in support. It just does not seem to me that that was the
intent of the 1.5 rank rule. Rear rank B also using L seems wrong.>>

The actual rear rank of the real-life unit (as opposed to the figures behind
the front rank in the game) did not get their lances into the initial
contact. That is not a single soldier deftly and simultaneously employing
both a L and a B, it is a mechanic designed to give units the correct amount
of relative combat power with respect to one another. Let's all get that
locked in! In a P unit four elements deep, we are not reflecting a reality
where pikes are 48 feet long. In a unit with L and B that hits in
hand-to-hand and support shoots, we are not reflecting a reality where anyone
is riding a horse, shooting a bow and using a lance all at the same time.

The question is, what mix of weapons amongst this unit's representative
figures best reflects its performance in real life. If half L and half B
does not allow the unit to perform as it did in real life, we will change it
no matter what Spankaticus' frescoe appears to tell us about the proportion.

Jon

[joncleaves]

Chris
I think my two other posts this morning address what you said. In addition,
we will ALWAYS consider a list rule if we can't make the arming work for us
by itself.
Jon

[joncleaves]

<< That has never been in question. Never have I EVER thought that my 2
ranks of FIGURES represented the ACTUAL two front ranks of fighting men
historically.>>

I stand properly chastised.

However, we all must remember that there are, as of this moment, NO Warrior
army lists. It has not been finally decided what will be in the Mongol,
Feudal English, Byzantine or any other list.
Now is the time to make your case (and I mean that literally) for what such
troops should be armed and armored as.
Now is NOT the time to debate the 1.5 L rule because of how armies perform in
lists that were not only not written for Warrior they were, in many cases not
even written for WRG 7th. I'm sorry too that we have to live with the old
lists for a while. But we are going to write the new lists to the rules and
not the rules to the old lists.

You don't think a troop type in a current list works as it should with the
1.5 rule? Ok, fine, tell us what it should be AND WHY! If no historically
supportable combination of weapons/armor gets it done, we will write a list
rule for that troop, but we will NOT rewrite base rules at this (or any)
point.

Remember, we are no longer in the game design phase with the core rulebook.
We are in the development phase, and that is something entirely different.

Jon

[Greg Regets]

Hello Jon ...

Well, I never said anything about the lance and a half rule ... I fully
support that rule and think it has finally given cavalry its due!

I was only asking about the Byzantine lists that have cavalry that this rule
has greatly hurt against their historical counterparts.

I see several "list" solutions, such as allowing the HC, B, back rank to
fight half with other cavalry weapons, allowing the list purchaser to buy
these troops at 2/3 lance to 1/3 bow with the bow in detachments (perhaps),
or even cutting back the required numbers of these troops on some lists. I
tend to like the second option as it fits the historical prototype of these
troops ... i.e. ... the guys that fight get a lance and the guys that don't
get a bow.

As far as historical evidence goes (and this is not your doing obviously)
the removal of the dart from Byzantine cavalry flies directly in the face of
several historical accounts. I know some information was given as to why it
was removed, but like a fundamentalist religion, I feel the list authors
were reading what they wanted to read and ignoring what contradicted this
point of view.

Sorry if this caused any problems or excessive argument. I just hate to see
what was historically a formidable army, degenerate any further. Right now,
if you exclude the Early Byzantines, the best of the Byzantine armies
historically are the worst on the table, and the worst of the Byzantine
armies historically are the best on the table. Not part of "Monty's" plan at
all, :-)

Greg

P.S. PLEASE don't change any rules concerning the balance of infantry to
cavalry. I think you have the balance just right. As a matter of fact,
Warrior is about the most balanced set I have ever played ... and that's
quite a few!

[joncleaves]

<< peace.

Don >>

Don, that was not my upset email tone. I just forgot my !

Jon

[Phil Gardocki]

Thematic Byzantine.
      Theme Reg C HC, 1/2 L, 1/2 B Sh.  Option for 1/2 EHC.  

      Figure for figure this cavalry will lose to any non-impetetous, Irreg C, HC,L,SH,  only equipped cavalry 97% of the time.  a +3 to even.
      Surly you must perceive this is a problem?

Please, please, please exactly how are they 'hobbled'?  Exactly.  Not claims that they now suck, blow, are crappy, hobbled, spanked, whacked or lame.  A point by point on what Byz cav we are talking about, what they are armed with now, what they should be armed with and how 1.5 ranks of L is involved.

[Phil Gardocki]

Anyone who believes the Byzantine lists are not hamstrung, need only look at the abundance of Byzantine armies played at tournaments.  What lists that are run often are mercenary armies with a Byzantine General.

If the purpose of the Lance and a half rule was to give value to a realistic depth of cavalry units, Then the Byzantine should have comparable firepower to the front if they are maintaining the same depth as 100% lance armed cavalry.  Since this is not the case, and they are hamstrung.


You're right that Scott is the man for this, but my $.02:

1.  I do not think it cripples the list.
2.  Even if it did, if that is what they were in real life, that is what they will be in the list.

[joncleaves]

<< JonCleaves@..., >>

Name's Jon, Ed. It ain't rocket science...

<< My argument is that under current rules Norman charging with
crouched lance are no better than "other Syrian or Kurdish cav " of the
same weapon and armor types ( both of book 3 army lists) .>>

My argument is that under current RULES you have no idea how Normans do vs
Syrians since there are no WARRIOR lists. I am terribly sorry we all have to
suffer with the transition period, but everyone has to understand that you
are judging Warrior rules by WRG 7th (in some cases 6th!) lists. What you
should be doing, Ed, is giving us the benefit of the research you have done
that shows HC Normans beating other lancers. When, where, how often, under
what conditions? (There is no need for anyone to spend time at this point
comparing one troop to any non-chronological counterpart, by the way.)

Again, for the 1000th time, do not worry yourself about how a 6th/7th list
fights in Warrior. Worry about how you think the WARRIOR list should fight
in Warrior, and tell us why.

<< I very much remember the discussions on this when the rule was first
proposed and it had everything to do with wedge. The consensus then ( and I
still contend
that it is wrong ) was that as there was no real differences in
historical troops and only the weapon and morale mattered, all lance
armed cav should get it..>>

If you thought that was the full consensus behind the 1.5 rule, it is no
wonder we are talking past each other. There is a HUGE mechanical problem
with the sheer numerical fact of three figures fighting and typical unit
sizes. We had the choice of advocating a reworking of the combat system or
this. We playtested this and it worked MECHANICALLY. Now we need to make it
work LIST-WISE. No one in FHE is claiming it works list-wise with all the
current 6th/7th lists, least of all me. All I care about now is that the
mechanics work. THEN I will get involved in tweaking those few lists that
need it. Could you offer us your informed opinion on which lists those are
and leave the 1.5 rule and the 'wedge' alone? That would be helpful.

<< The rank and a half was to give the effect of wedge and get rid
of the cumbersome game mechanics of actually moving the formation on the
table. >>

It does have that side effect for those troops it applies to. Not the main
point.

<>

I do not find it amusing. I find it unhelpful. The time I have spent
explaining the difference between mechanics and lists is time not spent on
the rules.

JonCleaves@...

[joncleaves]

<< Thematic Byzantine.
Theme Reg C HC, 1/2 L, 1/2 B Sh. Option for 1/2 EHC.

Figure for figure this cavalry will lose to any non-impetetous, Irreg
C, HC,L,SH, only equipped cavalry 97% of the time. a +3 to even.
Surly you must perceive this is a problem? >>


THAT is a problem. You are the first to define it here. Before this I could
only guess that this was what we were talking about as there was a lot of
RULES discussion mixed in.

See my other posts. The arming of Byzantine cav figures and any list rules
the Byzantines might have is FAR from decided. Again, we welcome input into
what it might be. Such input has an infinitely better chance of having an
impact if it comes with historical evidence.

Thanks again, Phil.
Jon

[Don Coon]

cncbump@... wrote:
>
> Jon,
>
> I find myself starting to lean in the same direction. The rationale for rank
> and a half lance as I understood it dealt with the performance of French
> Knights vs German in
> WRG and how they should have borne out historically. The rank and half have
> made all lancers the equal of the Teutonic Knights

I agree as well. Patricks Mongols got a huge kick of power when the
rank and a half rule was added. Now he gets 1.5 ranks of L, plus rear
rank bows when charging. So he now hits with 5 lancers, plus 3 bows
shooting in support. It just does not seem to me that that was the
intent of the 1.5 rank rule. Rear rank B also using L seems wrong.

Don

[Phil Gardocki]

   It looked like you were on to it before my reply, but I elucidated one example anyway.  I think the detractors of the 1.5 lance theory (myself included) and the lets beef up the Byzantine group (myself included) thought you understood this issue intuitively.  

Phil

      

<< Thematic Byzantine.
       Theme Erg C HC, 1/2 L, 1/2 B Sh.  Option for 1/2 EHC.  

       Figure for figure this cavalry will lose to any non-impetetous, Irreg C, HC,L,SH,  only equipped cavalry 97% of the time.  a +3 to even.
       Surly you must perceive this is a problem? >>


THAT is a problem.  You are the first to define it here.  Before this I could only guess that this was what we were talking about as there was a lot of RULES discussion mixed in.

See my other posts.  The arming of Byzantine cav figures and any list rules the Byzantines might have is FAR from decided.  Again, we welcome input into what it might be.  Such input has an infinitely better chance of having an impact if it comes with historical evidence.

Thanks again, Phil.
Jon