Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Welcome, Marty (do I have the name right?)

I'm Jon, Warrior author.

Warrior's 'start point' is what is known as WRG 7.6. 7.6 is the
Barker-approved set of changes to WRG 7.5 in use in the US in 97-99 or so.
7.6 had L fighting 1.5 ranks when charging/counter-charging/pursuing.

This means that we had many, many playtest and 'real' games with this rule
LONG before Warrior hit the streets. So, to long-time US players of our
predecessor game engine, this is not a 'change', though it must seem so to
you.

This rule existed in 7.6 because none of us thought L-armed cav had the
impact we believed realistic. There were many options open to us at the time
to get the effect right and this was one of many playtested. I kept this in
the Warrior engine because it works.

As far as 'wedge' goes, I do not feel WRG 7.5 and lower had this formation
right at all, nor do i believe German knights superior to French no matter
what supposed formation they were in. Replicating the 'formation' on the
table mechanically caused far more problems than its lukewarm effect on
history could justify and the simple measure of making charging L 1.5 ranks
solved this and a host of other problems simultaneously.

A Warrior weapon affecting combat from one or more elements behind the first
does NOT replicate men 5-16 deep directly influencing their enemies from
those positions. Rather, it is the effect of the FUNCTION and FORMATION of
the unit we are replicating. L-armed cav is shock cav; that is its function.
There are unit types and sizes and formations it is designed to defeat and
the 1.5 rank mechanic has that cav beating the opponents it should. In the
same manner, HTW armed troops fight 1.5 ranks after first contact, even
though they are swordsmen at that point, because this is the effect that best
replicates the capabilities of a formation of such troops.

Remember also that Warrior is first and foremost an historical simulation.
L-armed companions are designed to defeat who they beat and L-armed knights
are designed to defeat someone else. How they match up against each other is
far less important so long as we got the historical matchups the way we
wanted. 5 figs of L-armed HC aren't going to beat steady LTS or P any more
than 3 would have.

As a WRG player from 1985 to 1997, I was somewhat skeptical myself of the 1.5
rank L as a solution when we first started using it. I put it in my rules
because it works.

Jon


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

Having only recently read the "warrior" rules but having been a long
time player of 7th edition I was very pleased with the change in
format. In general i was also impressed by the actual changes to the
rules (or rather the lack there of). One change, however, struck me
as being out of character with the rest in that it is a major shift
in the balance of the game. Namely allowing lancers to fight in 1 1/2
ranks. I'm curious about why this was done. Most justifications i've
heard centre aroung doing away with the wedge formation and the
inequities it caused. Surely it would have just been easier to do
away with wedge. Such a huge increase in fighting power might perhaps
be justified in the medieval period but when applied to ancient
armies fortunate enough to have lancers (ie macedonian companions,
cataphracts, etc, etc) their cavalry seem to gain an impact out of
all proportion to what is generally reported in the battles of the
period (ie cavalry seem to have been wasting their time charging
formed infantry frontally). Surely this change also encourages
cavalry players to adopt unrealistic formations with their lance
armed troops who you would expect to perform at their best in some
sort of line rather than a column. If this column is intended to
represent some sort of wedge it is still much more powerful than the
old one as you dont have to change formation to adopt it and you
aren't disordered in a second round of combat. I would be pleased to
hear what other people think about this.

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Marty,
I think it goes without saying that the lance in the Macedonian/Persian
Wars(Alexandrian) a big reason why the Companions are as effective as they were.
Darius or perhaps one of is Commanders recognized this and began re-arming the
Persian Guard Cavalry to put Persia on a more even footing. I'm sure that others
can think of instances where lancer cavalry defeated foot in the open and I
remember one such event at the battle of magnesia where Antiochus III's Agema
frontally charged a Roman/Itallian legion and broke it!
My opinion is that the lance and a half rule makes more armies plausable
for tournament games that would otherwise sit on the shelf. Further this makes
for a wider range of armies I would see at a tournament as opposed to the 3
Teutonic Knight armies I faced at Tacticon in Denver when the Nict was held
there.

Kelly Wilkinson



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/18/2002 15:36:37 Central Standard Time,
martymagnificent@... writes:

> This change to the rules suggest these cavalry (properly used) are able to
> obliterate anything on foot without a big stick or a missile weapon as a
> matter of routine.

This is not true. Hundreds of games show no balance issue with 1.5 rank
lance.

I accept this change will vary the cavalry armies used in competition ( I
can relate
> to your point about Teutonics as i once played 3 in a 6 round comp). I also
> think it will have the opposite effect on infantry armies. Barbarian foot
> armies are already a fairly unpopular choice (unless youve got long spear
> armed Russ or something similiar) now they will become virtually extinct.
> Are my Vikings to never have a chance again!!??

Patrician romans last year won the NICT with a lot of reliance on Franks...

Looking over the lists from Cold Wars and Historicon shows no big sway to
L-based armies, nor has it in the 6 years of play with 1.5 L. It simply
isn't a problem.

<<Given its such a huge leap in lancer power should it cost more points??>>

You may debate whether it 'should' but it certainly will not.




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

kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@...> wrote:


Hi kelly

I agree that there are examples in the ancient world of this happening but they
are generally the exception rather than the rule. After all the Romans had no
trouble defeating alexanders asiatic successors overall despite little or no
lancer cavalry and an opponent with a plentiful supply.This change to the rules
suggest these cavalry (properly used) are able to obliterate anything on foot
without a big stick or a missile weapon as a matter of routine. I accept this
change will vary the cavalry armies used in competition ( I can relate to your
point about Teutonics as i once played 3 in a 6 round comp). I also think it
will have the opposite effect on infantry armies. Barbarian foot armies are
already a fairly unpopular choice (unless youve got long spear armed Russ or
something similiar) now they will become virtually extinct. Are my Vikings to
never have a chance again!!?? Given its such a huge leap in lancer power should
it cost more points??



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Greetings
- Send your seasons greetings online this year!

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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/18/2002 20:40:36 Central Standard Time,
martymagnificent@... writes:

> I would have to wonder why the change was made if it has no effect on game
> balance. On an element frontage most cavalry used to fight with three
> figures now they fight with five. At no extra points cost and no need to
> adopt a special formation. This MUST affect game balance

I'm sorry, it does not affect game balance *negatively*.

>
> Given this one would have to wonder why the rules have maintained the extra
> points cost for 2hct

Because the points cost is based as much on training requirements as
tournament 'value'.

<<(something we got rid of in the land of AUS years ago)>>

People are free to do what they wish with the rules, as long as no copyright
is viloated.

Surely the new "super" > lance is a more effective weapon than the relatively
> rarely seen halberd.

Surely not. Claiming it so does not make it so. The fact is that the 'old'
L rule made L way too weak for what formations armed with it should be able
to accomplish. Mechanically, 3-fig L attacks did not work. The only viable
L-armed cav units were in the 'old' wedge. That is all a thing of the past
and L works just like it should in Warrior.

I'm also still not satisfied that a rule encouraging cavalry to fight in a
column as the
> most effective formation is a terribly accurate thing.

What would satisfy you? Many examples of the difficulty of control in a
cavalry 'line' pre 1700?

Im glad to hear what anyone has to say on this issue and would like to say i

> consider this the only glitch in what is otherwise a magnificently presented
> and thought out set of rules I hope will become the standard over here.
>
>

Our wish also. And if that is the only glitch you perceive, I have some
friends on this list I would like you to talk to...lol

The bigger issue is that you are joining this discussion late and it is
difficult to sum up the energy to go over in detail why a decision was made 5
years ago that has long since proven itself a very good one and is written in
stone as far as the rules go. I know the human race has this unquenchable
thirst to understand things, but there is only so much we can afford to do at
this point. I also hope that someone from this list can devote some time to
this discussion. It might also be worth it from your standpoint to search
the archive for messages related to the L 1.5 rule, but even those would be
summary as the change in 7th was nailed down almost two years before i began
writing Warrior.

I'l sign off of this one and let others join in with you.

But again - welcome!!

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

Welcome to you to Adrian.

I am not going to go into 2HCT (or any other) point cost as all that has been
done too many times for my energy level and time available. But I did want
you to know, as other 'chime in' that you had at least been heard by someone
from the company.

I will tell you this. While we have no problem with rule 17.0 in Warrior, we
*do* feel that 2HCT isn't working properly in many armies. As we develop
Feudal and Oriental Warrior, we are looking at some list rule solutions on a
case-by-case basis.

I do hope that some others can devote the time to discuss with you the
rationale behind the Warrior point system or you can find the related
messages in the archive. There are plenty of folks with opinions here to
share.

The company's position is that the point system works just fine with a couple
of areas we are looking at for specific list fixes, but 2HCT cost isn't
something that is going to change no matter where a 'debate' on the issue
might go here. The claim that we took it straight from 7th is mostly (but
not entirely) true - the claim that we did so without looking at each point
value in turn and only staying with it if we agreed with it on its own
historical merits is false.
Same, by the way, for:
-the cost of elephants
-the cost of command factors
-the cost of standards
-etc.

Have at it.

Jon


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

JonCleaves@... wrote

"This is not true. Hundreds of games show no balance issue with 1.5 rank
lance."

I would have to wonder why the change was made if it has no effect on game
balance. On an element frontage most cavalry used to fight with three figures
now they fight with five. At no extra points cost and no need to adopt a special
formation. This MUST affect game balance

"Patrician romans last year won the NICT with a lot of reliance on Franks..."

Im not sure I would consider Patrician Roman a Barbarian foot army. Even if you
by the maximum number of Frankish infantry Allowed (in the old 6th edition
lists) they still only make up less than a third of the points of a 1500 point
army (im sorry i dont know if you use different lists for this) You've stil got
plenty of points to by the Roman lancers and various support troops. Im
considering more the plight of your genuine barbarian foot army (ie one that has
very little other than MI,LMI and LI)

"You may debate whether it 'should' but it certainly will not."

Given this one would have to wonder why the rules have maintained the extra
points cost for 2hct (something we got rid of in the land of AUS years
ago)Surely the new "super" lance is a more effective weapon than the relatively
rarely seen halberd. I'm also still not satisfied that a rule encouraging
cavalry to fight in a column as the most effective formation is a terribly
accurate thing. Im glad to hear what anyone has to say on this issue and would
like to say i consider this the only glitch in what is otherwise a magnificently
presented and thought out set of rules I hope will become the standard over
here.




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


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.




---------------------------------
Yahoo! Greetings
- Send your seasons greetings online this year!

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

Dear List,

I am Marty Magnificent's brother. I too have played 7th since I was
about 12 (1988). This is a topic of some discussion here. I have
certainly never seen the WRG 7.6 mentioned which allowed lancers to
fight 1.5.

I think that it is one of the best changes from 7th to warrior for
the following reasons:

1) It does move the balance a little from infantry to cavalry, while
leaving the balanced armies as usually the best options. 7th was too
pro-infantry.

2) Cavalry still have to be cautious in charging spear armed or large
units of infantry.

3) People will use mediaeval armies apart from Teutonic Knights.

4) The ridiculous disctinction between those who could wedge and
those who couldn't is removed.

5) People will now fear Sarmations and Byzantines (a little at
least) - two of my favourite armies and which I always thought were
serious underperformers in 7th.

I would appreciate some discussion of the other point that Martin
raised, namely that the extra point cost for the 2HCT is unjustified,
conceptually and in a supply and demand aspect.

A 2HCT is no more worth the cost of two weapons than any other weapon
that reduces the capacity of the enemy (P or LTS). Some weapons are
generally more useful than others, this is clear, though they all
have their moments, yet it is only 2HCT that has to pay the point
extra points.

In Australia the SEPA (Seventh Edition Players Association) long ago
got rid of the extra point for halberdiers.

I am curious as to the points rationale for Warrior - nothing appears
to have changed from 7th. I think that this is an opportunity lost -
the points system could have been rewritten either on the concept of
efficacy of weapons/troops or on a supply and demand basis.

I would love to hear some other gamers thoughts on these issues.

Adrian "Vince Gair" Williams

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, martin williams
<martymagnificent@y...> wrote:
>
>
> JonCleaves@a... wrote
>
> "This is not true. Hundreds of games show no balance issue with
1.5 rank lance."
>
> I would have to wonder why the change was made if it has no effect
on game balance. On an element frontage most cavalry used to fight
with three figures now they fight with five. At no extra points cost
and no need to adopt a special formation. This MUST affect game
balance
>
> "Patrician romans last year won the NICT with a lot of reliance on
Franks..."
>
> Im not sure I would consider Patrician Roman a Barbarian foot army.
Even if you by the maximum number of Frankish infantry Allowed (in
the old 6th edition lists) they still only make up less than a third
of the points of a 1500 point army (im sorry i dont know if you use
different lists for this) You've stil got plenty of points to by the
Roman lancers and various support troops. Im considering more the
plight of your genuine barbarian foot army (ie one that has very
little other than MI,LMI and LI)
>
> "You may debate whether it 'should' but it certainly will not."
>
> Given this one would have to wonder why the rules have maintained
the extra points cost for 2hct (something we got rid of in the land
of AUS years ago)Surely the new "super" lance is a more effective
weapon than the relatively rarely seen halberd. I'm also still not
satisfied that a rule encouraging cavalry to fight in a column as the
most effective formation is a terribly accurate thing. Im glad to
hear what anyone has to say on this issue and would like to say i
consider this the only glitch in what is otherwise a magnificently
presented and thought out set of rules I hope will become the
standard over here.
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Greetings
> - Send your seasons greetings online this year!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Martin,
All one has to do is note the success that Chris Damour has with his 25mm
Vikings(I can attest to being one of his victims!)! Ofcourse, one seldom hears
of 15mm vikings winning tournaments(chris uses 25mm and is feared for his
SAVAGERY!) I believe that it is up to the player to support infantry with units
that can counter cavalry armed in this fashion. If you have an all foot army and
you are met by a lancer cav army, "them's the chances you take! After all,
Wasn't it supposedly the Huns that were driving all of those mainly barbarian
foot army nations (goths, vandals, and friends) out of Asia and into the Roman
Empire? I suggest that if you like Barbarian Foot armies, you should stick with
25mm. The table size to element size is such that it is difficult to get around
on a flank of an all foot army and thus these tend to do better in open
competition. Well, that's about it for that.
In regard to Rome's victories over Alexander's successors in the east, Much
of that was due in part to politics. After the Seleucid loss at Magnesia, Much
of it's empire went into rebellion in asia minor majorly weakening any type of
united front they might have been able to pose. Further, the Parthians rebelled
along with the Jews! Additionally, Antiochus (according to Bar-Kochva) realized
he had to face the Romans in battle soon or much of his support would have
evaporated. The Romans as usual, chose their terrain well and were able to have
secure flanks being insinuated in the fork of a river. Had this battle been in
the open, the battle most likely have been different. Further, it was the
Seleucids own scythed chariots that caused their left flank to crumble. On the
right, where the King and his Bodyguard Agema were lined up, the Seleucids won
the head to head fight.
Last but not least. The Romans all the way to Marcus Aeurulius (pardon my
spelling) feared lancer cavalry as is noted when Auerulian faced off with
Palmyra prior to their first meeting.
Remember, much of this can be fixed by good generalship and this challenge
is what makes Warrior so fun for me! I somehow think that a person like yourself
that has put this much thought into this could easily come up with solutions to
this rock, paper, scissors sitution.
Good Gaming!
Kelly



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

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

[scott holder]

I will tell you this. While we have no problem with rule 17.0 in Warrior, we

*do* feel that 2HCT isn't working properly in many armies. As we develop
Feudal and Oriental Warrior, we are looking at some list rule solutions on a
case-by-case basis.
The company's position is that the point system works just fine with a couple

of areas we are looking at for specific list fixes, but 2HCT cost isn't
something that is going to change no matter where a 'debate' on the issue
might go here. The claim that we took it straight from 7th is mostly (but
not entirely) true - the claim that we did so without looking at each point
value in turn and only staying with it if we agreed with it on its own
historical merits is false.

>I'll weigh in here to provide a little more background for our newcomers. Th
e point system, pro and con, was discussed at exceedingly great length during
the lead up to actual publication. Generally, people were all over the map wh
en it came to what they thought "worked" and what they thought was out of whac
k. Key word here is "thought". When all was said and done, you were left wit
h essentially the point system we use. We were certainly open to any signific
ant change in structure but none were forthcoming and none could be playtested
in time should they have been forthcoming. Given all of that and the opinion
of the four of us that at its basics, the point system used works just fine,
we produced what you see.

>The call for an "extra point for lance armed cav" is one I've heard since, oh
, when TOG came out. It's never flown here in North America because it never
makes a *real* difference in a tournament. One year, I did that as an experim
ent and it didn't change much. Think about it, let's say a person brings 5 mo
unted "wedges" of loose order mounted. That's 35 points "extra". Players sim
ply found it didn't impact things much.

>Barbarian armies. Heh heh, just ask Chris Damour and Ewan McNay about how cr
uddy the H&C Spanish list plays at 2000 points or, I think players like Dave M
and Todd K have run some of the old book III scottish lists with some success
in recent years. For that matter, just ask Chris about barbarian trash armie
s in general, he's been the main player with them for as long as I've known hi
m. I think that such armies don't simply appeal to a certain playing style th
at tends to dominate this game. The major weakness with the barbarian trash a
rmies from my perspective was list construction, hence, we've started changing
that. Yes, barbarian trash armies don't always have the glamourous "punch" t
roops that let's say some of the knight or elephant armies do but, with 50% de
moralization levels, barbarian trash armies can, if properly played, have an e
dge if they hit early, hard, and overwhelm an opponent.

Scott
List Ho