Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

Jon,

I'm intrigued by the new chariot runner rule that Scot has posted; it is
certainly going to make those Biblical armies worth a second look. But I'm
confused about how to interpret some of the possibilities here. Consider the
following examples:

This is working off of the New Kingdom Egyptian list. Each of the following
units is 1 element wide and 3 ranks deep. Each is in skirmish formation.

Unit 1: 3 stands of Reg B 2 horse LCh, crew of 1 w/B.
Unit 2: 3 stands of Reg B 2 horse LCh, crew of 1 w/B. The front rank LCh has 2
LI B on the base.
Unit 3: 3 stands of Reg B 2 horse LCh, crew of 1 w/B. The front rank and second
rank LCh have 2 LI B on the base.
Unit 4: 3 stands of Reg B 2 horse LCh, crew of 1 w/B, with LI B on the base of
each chariot.

The question is: how many figures shooting does each unit count as?

Here's what I think the answers are, though I'm not at all sure:

Unit 1: 4 figures, since mounted in skirmish count front rank full and half of
each of the next two ranks, and one crew figure counts as 2 shooters.

Unit 2: 6 figures, since, according to the rule as Scot posted it, this counts
as a foot unit "only for approach precedence and movement". Thus for
shooting/skirmishing purposes it is a mounted unit. So all the front rank (2
for the chariot crew, 2 for the LI) plus half of each of the next two ranks
(1/2 of 2 = 1 for second rank, 1/2 of 2 = 1 for third rank), 2 + 1 +1 = 6.

Note, however, that another possible interpretation is 5 figures. The LI on the
base "shoot as if a second rank", and second rank LI in skirmish fire at half
effect. Then the answer would be 2 (front rank chariot crew) +1 (front rank LI
counting as second rank) +1 (second rank chariot) +1 (third rank chariot).

Unit 3: 7 figures. 4 from the first rank (2 LI + 2 for the crew). 2 from the
second rank (half the LI + half the crew). 1 from the third rank (half the
crew).

Note, however, that another possible interpretation is 5 figures. Following the
logic of the 5 figure interpretation for unit 2, the second rank chariot counts
as second rank, and the LI on the base count as a second rank of it, in other
words a third rank. LI in the third rank do not shoot in skirmish.

I suspect that 7 is the correct answer, however, because the mechanics of
skirmish are such that when that stand shoots, it is considered to be in the
front (and hence the LI are considered to be a second rank). In other words, it
only gets half effect because of the time needed to rotate to the front, not
because it is second rank.

Another possibility would be 6 figures. It could be that the unit moving as foot
means that the third rank (even though it is entirely mounted) isn't eligible
for skirmish. It occurs to me that this might be the intention, but this is
definitely not implied by the way the rule is currently worded. Skirmish is
_not_ an approach precedence or movement distance issue, and hence -- as
currently worded -- the unit is considered mounted for purposes of skirmish.

Unit 4: 7 figures. 4 from the first rank (2 LI + 2 for the crew). 2 from the
second rank (half the LI + half the crew). 1 from the third rank (half the
crew; the LI are not eligible to move to the front and shoot because LI don't
skirmish from a third rank).

There are other possible interpretations, however.

8 figures. All the first rank, half the second rank (both crew and LI), half the
third rank (both crew and LI). 4 + 2 + 2 = 8. Note that this is actually
closest to the literal reading of the way the rule is written now.

5 figures. Same rationale as unit 3.

6 figures. Same rationale as unit 3.

So, what are the correct answers here?


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/9/2004 19:48:23 Central Daylight Time,
mark@... writes:

So, not having heard anything back from Jon yet,>>

Mark, I know I set the standard for quick turn around on rules questions in
this hobby, but you can't both send me a ten part question and expect a fast
answer. I am working on it, and it is behind in the queue the other question
you asked earlier, which we want to take the time to get right. Please be
patient, it has only been a couple of hours....

J




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

[Mark Stone]

So, not having heard anything back from Jon yet, I'll go ahead and throw in my 2
cents worth to my own query.

From a historical/realism point of view I've no idea what the "correct"
interpretation of skirmishing chariot runners on the base with chariots would
be.

From a play balance/game balance point of view, I'd _love_ to see a three deep
column of LCh with LI B on the base count as 8 figures firing when skirmishing.
This would finally give LCh a positive unique capability to make it worth
thinking about playing them in an open tournament format. It also seems to be
coupled with enough negatives (foot approaches, can't roll long in pursuits) to
keep things in balance.


-Mark Stone

[Doug]

>I'm intrigued by the new chariot runner rule that Scot has posted;

Huh? Posted where?

[John Murphy]

I think the issue may be with regard to period opposition. Chariots,
and light chariots in particular, seem to have disappeared (first
becoming heavier and then finally being fully supplanted by cavalry).

Making chariotry too almighty, and heck it already causes unease for
reasons I can not understand, might upset the reasons for which all
that stuff happened (and no I can not say I have the slightest clue
what they are really - though I know one reason posited is that
cavalry became a better mobile missile missile platform therefore
supplanting LCh and finally a better shock platform supplanting even
HCh - not sure I would beleive this at least the latter but perhaps
in the context of a chariot versus cavalry battle).

But anyway there _are_ periods of history that would have their
Warrior representation greatly skewed by doing this incorrectly one
way or the other so there is much greater problem than just open
tourney balance here.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> From a play balance/game balance point of view, I'd _love_ to see
a three deep
> column of LCh with LI B on the base count as 8 figures firing when
skirmishing.
> This would finally give LCh a positive unique capability to make
it worth
> thinking about playing them in an open tournament format. It also
seems to be
> coupled with enough negatives (foot approaches, can't roll long in
pursuits) to
> keep things in balance.

[Mark Stone]

--- On June 9 Jon Cleaves said:---

> Mark, I know I set the standard for quick turn around on rules questions in
> this hobby, but you can't both send me a ten part question and expect a fast
> answer. I am working on it, and it is behind in the queue the other question
> you asked earlier, which we want to take the time to get right. Please be
> patient, it has only been a couple of hours....

No problem, Jon. You know it is one of my vital missions in life to give you
non-simple questions to think about. I wouldn't want you to get bored, now,
would I?


-Mark

[Mark Stone]

--- On June 9 John Murphy said: ---

>
> I think the issue may be with regard to period opposition. Chariots,
> and light chariots in particular, seem to have disappeared (first
> becoming heavier and then finally being fully supplanted by cavalry).
>

Disclaimer: IANBS (I Am Not a Biblical Scholar)

My understanding is that the demise of the chariot was due to reasons of
economics, rather than combat effectiveness. Building a large chariot army was
prohibitively expensive both in raw materials and in training chariot drivers.
It required some training to figure out how to shoot a bow from horseback, but
once that was accomplished everything else about the mounted horseman made him
a cheaper and more efficient warrior.

It is interesting to note that the decline of chariot armies corresponds pretty
closely with the deforestation of Palestine (yes, once upon a time Palestine
was largely wooded). That lends some support to the economic theory.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/10/2004 01:45:49 Central Daylight Time,
mark@... writes:

No problem, Jon. You know it is one of my vital missions in life to give you
non-simple questions to think about. I wouldn't want you to get bored, now,
would I?>>
Nope. Who needs all those new rule products anyway?

J







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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/9/2004 13:20:58 Central Daylight Time,
mark@... writes:

The question is: how many figures shooting does each unit count as?>>

The bottom line is that LI on the base of chariots are foot and cannot shoot
from the third rank when such a body skirmishes. This is official.

Jon


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

[scott holder]

From a historical/realism point of view I've no idea what the "correct"
interpretation of skirmishing chariot runners on the base with chariots would
be.

>Their probably is no "correct" way of reading this since the level of tactical
minutia handed down to us is virtually non-existent.

[scott holder]

Um, lemme add that the chariot runner general concepts is nothing new. It's
been around since the late 80s.

-----Original Message-----
From: John [mailto:jjmurphy@...]
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 9:37 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: chariot questions


I think the issue may be with regard to period opposition. Chariots,
and light chariots in particular, seem to have disappeared (first
becoming heavier and then finally being fully supplanted by cavalry).

Making chariotry too almighty, and heck it already causes unease for
reasons I can not understand, might upset the reasons for which all
that stuff happened (and no I can not say I have the slightest clue
what they are really - though I know one reason posited is that
cavalry became a better mobile missile missile platform therefore
supplanting LCh and finally a better shock platform supplanting even
HCh - not sure I would beleive this at least the latter but perhaps
in the context of a chariot versus cavalry battle).

But anyway there _are_ periods of history that would have their
Warrior representation greatly skewed by doing this incorrectly one
way or the other so there is much greater problem than just open
tourney balance here.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> From a play balance/game balance point of view, I'd _love_ to see
a three deep
> column of LCh with LI B on the base count as 8 figures firing when
skirmishing.
> This would finally give LCh a positive unique capability to make
it worth
> thinking about playing them in an open tournament format. It also
seems to be
> coupled with enough negatives (foot approaches, can't roll long in
pursuits) to
> keep things in balance.






Yahoo! Groups Links

[John Garlic]

Interesting idea, and maybe true for Southwest Asia, but the mobility of the
steppe warriors certainly had an impact in the Far East.

John Garlic

> It is interesting to note that the decline of chariot armies corresponds
pretty
> closely with the deforestation of Palestine (yes, once upon a time Palestine
> was largely wooded). That lends some support to the
> economic theory.

[John Garlic]

Interesting idea, and maybe true for Southwest Asia, but the mobility of the
steppe warriors certainly had an impact in the Far East.

John Garlic

> It is interesting to note that the decline of chariot armies corresponds
pretty
> closely with the deforestation of Palestine (yes, once upon a time Palestine
> was largely wooded). That lends some support to the
> economic theory.

[Mark Stone]

--- On June 10 Jon Cleaves said: ---

>>
>>In a message dated 6/9/2004 13:20:58 Central Daylight Time, mark@d... writes:
>>
>> The question is: how many figures shooting does each unit count as?>>
>
> The bottom line is that LI on the base of chariots are foot and cannot shoot
> from the third rank when such a body skirmishes. This is official.
>

That's fine, Jon, and I can certainly see the logic in that. But that only
answers one part of the (admittedly complex) situation I described. I now know
that the answer is _not_ 8 figures shooting to any of the examples I gave, but
I still don't know how to determine whether the answer is 5, 6, or 7 figures
shooting.

I know, I know... patience. Still, I look forward to the rest of the answer when
you have time. Who knows? It's possible that a lead purchase may hang on the
outcome.


-Mark Stone

[John Murphy]

Hmmm... Just asking because I have not got a clue, did chariotry
fade out in East Asia around the same time as Southwest Asia?

I know when you look at post-Han Northern Chinese "dark age" armies
they are (in my research - it is the only area of Chinese history I
know anything about, largely such as it is from Albert Dien's "The
Stirrup and its Effect on Chinese Military History" which has a
number of gems aside from its perhaps flawed Lynn White premise)
dominated by cavalry derived from Northern "barbarians" like the
Hsien-Pi (or however that translates into the currently popular
transliteration).

But I have no idea what the circumstances or timing was for the
fading away of chariotry in Chinese armies prior to that period.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, jmgarlic@a... wrote:
> Interesting idea, and maybe true for Southwest Asia, but the
mobility of the steppe warriors certainly had an impact in the Far
East.