Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Phil,

You said you used LC to disrupt enemy firing priorities and hit fresh with
the lancers.

I have an idea how you did that, but could you explain?

I may just have to pry all my DBM Byzantines off their double bases and
remount for Warrior now. (I know, Jon. You already told me I don't have to do
that.)

If I can just figure out what figures they actually belong to. I bought the
army whole from another player as a DBM Nikephorian list. But I'm not sure
that is what they really are.

Better by those reference books I never bothered with before. :)

John Meunier


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

Phil,

You said you used LC to disrupt enemy firing priorities and hit fresh with
the lancers.

I have an idea how you did that, but could you explain?

I may just have to pry all my DBM Byzantines off their double bases and
remount for Warrior now. (I know, Jon. You already told me I don't have to do
that.)

If I can just figure out what figures they actually belong to. I bought the
army whole from another player as a DBM Nikephorian list. But I'm not sure
that is what they really are.

Better by those reference books I never bothered with before. :)

John Meunier


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

[Phil Gardocki]

<<You said you used LC to disrupt enemy firing priorities and hit fresh with
the lancers>>

Run the LC detached, and along side your lancers.
This allows them to behave independently, and automatically provides a gap
for them to flee through.

When I approached an enemy bow unit, Send the LC forward to straddle the
enemy unit elements. As shooters to front, it becomes highest priority to be
shot at.
At the same time approach the lancer unit for a corner shot. If you do it
right the most the bow unit will muster is 6 shots at long range on the
lancers. The LC will take a hammering, I took 13 cpf on the opening bound,
but they opt to rally back, the lancers charge, then you bring up a second
unit to finish the job.

With Cavalry, particularly irregulars, the LC is used to tempt the "first
charge" out of them. They are unlikely to be caught by enemy lancers. This,
of course means enemy lancers will be tired on their second charge. They can
still be impetuous on the second charge, but tired. Not the best solution,
but a workable one.

Phil



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

[Mark Stone]

John,

I'm sure Jon will correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think you have the
rules quite right in this example:

> The Frankish knights fight HtH.
> 5@+5 (L v LC) +1 (charge) +2 (impetuous)
> -2 (support shot CPF) -1 (disordered loose) -1 (tired)
> 5@+4=12 /8=1 CPF
>
> The Byzantine Kavallarioi Archers fight back.
> 2@+1 (other cav v HK)
> 2@+1=3 +12/6=2 CPF
>
> The Frankish knights take 2 more FP for a total of 9 FP.
> The Byzantine Kavallarioi Archers take their first 1 FP.
>
> Since the Byzantine Kavallarioi Archers took 1 CPF and double HtH
> they are disordered.
>
> The Frankish knights received more casualties (HtH plus support
> shooting) and 1 CPF so must either break off or recoil.

You never combine HtH and support shooting when determining casualty RATIOs. You
only combine them for determining total casualties taken, and any consequent
effects based on total casualties. So the knights did not receive more; they
did, as you noted above, in fact put out twice as many HtH casualties as
received.

The operative rule is 11.212, "Winning and Losing". It says "A body that
receives more hand to hand casualties than it inflicted and at least 1 CPF...."
No mention is made here of support shooting.

Now, if you read on in 11.212 you'll note that the Kavallarioi Archers are
"other light troops" who have lost, and thus must break off. You'll also note,
based on the positioning you described, that you haven't left room for them to
break off, and while the Lancers can interpenetrate the LC, the reverse is not
true. They will thus halt in front of your Lancers, be caught by the pursuing
Frankish knights, and, as breakers-off caught, they are considered routed and
having just completed their first rout move. They take an additional 2 CPF for
the rout move, and your Lancers (and anyone else within 120p) take a waver
test.


-Mark Stone

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> having just completed their first rout move. They take an
additional 2 CPF for
> the rout move, and your Lancers (and anyone else within 120p) take
a waver

So... hopefully this illustrates very well why it is impossible to
actually visualize and carry through an actual plan when you do not
have a grasp of the ground rules. Over the table this would have been
disastrous, huh!

I only have so much room in my brain. Simple things like Quantum
Physics and Spread Spectrum Communications I can grasp, but Warrior
is so very much more complicated!

Luckily, the example provided was so very limited and unique as to
never come up in just that way. Change any of the slightest things
and it doesn't work anyhow - even if that slightest thing is applying
the correct rules.

Not only that, I have since realized it is ridiculously more simple
just to evade, let the impetuous knights chase their target to the
max as they must, still tired and disordered, then while they get
stuck rallying disordered dance the cheapo lancers around their flank
and charge them at a standstill from outside their prospective
counter-charge path. That's what the heck regulars are for after all,
and it has the virtue of saving the LC for another task. All without
any bells and whistles or gimmicks.

But I really wonder if I shouldn't stick to games for dull 8-year-
olds because there are soooo many little things that make such a huge
difference like what you reminded of me of here which I learn and
then forget from lack of playing opportunities as I try to cram more
info about the rules into my head.

Unfortunately it is all those complexities, because they feel
mechanically so much more like the details of what I envision in the
process is happening (wether results always agree or no), which is
the very thing that I admit draws me to Warrior like a moth to the
candle.

I just can't seem to get to the level of chess-move calculations
where I have any reasonable knowledge of the results of my moves
within the scope of the rules. So I continue to play by my misguided
sense of history and hope my opponent can explain to me why under the
rules I beat him - would it were so!

Very frustrating but oh well. Hey, at least I tried my best.