Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ewan McNay]

Mark Stone wrote:
> We had 14 teams in 25mm Warriors, meaning that between 25mm and 15mm there
were
> roughly 40 people playing Warrior on Saturday; nobody else gaming in our
period
> came close to those numbers.

44, I think: 16 in 15mm and 28 in 25mm.

> 25mm teams was won for the fourth year in a row by Dave Stier and Frank
Gilson,
> playing 100 Year's War English for the second year in a row. They played Tim
> Brown and Ambrose? (sorry Tim, couldn't remember your partner's name for sure)
> who ran Arab Conquest with great effectiveness. The other final game was
> between the Sassanid Persians run by Ewan McNay and Dave Markowitz, and Han
> Chinese run by Jon Cleaves and his partner (sorry Jon, I never did get your
> partner's name).

I eventually left before that last game finished, so didn't know the
outcome. We knew that Frank and Dave could not overtake us on raw score,
but that if they got a 5-point win they would tie us on raw score and win
by virtue of their opponents having scored more (the scores on Sunday
morning were Tim/Ambrose [Coddington] 15, Dave/Frank and Dave/I 13 (having
already played to a 3-3 tie) and Jon/Mike [Turner] 11. So, while we could
get a 5-point win against Jon/Mike, our fate was not in our hands due to
the pairings). Apologies for that run-on sentence!

Anyway, congrats to the HYW. I imagine that we came 2nd, but don't know
for sure.

Also, my thanks to Dave M (if not his dice! - see below) for being willing
to tolerate me and guiding us to our decent finish. I really enjoyed the
team game. Hope Dave did too .

A couple of general comments: we went for a uniform Sassanid highway
system of Road/Open/Open, with the last piece being either open or hill.
Being Dry actually helped, as we fought a lot of Cold armies so were at
home. We also force-marched a line of LI every game, and I'm still
convinced of the utility of this. Combined in some cases with out-scouted
opponents (3 of 4), we got to pick where to fight and with what.

We actually got to face Mark and his son Alex in the first game: their
impressive wall of... well, IrrD MI B, as it turned out. Shang Chinese,
with (I think?) 7 48-man units of such, at 73 points each, plus 20-odd
chariots (some in huge units) and a few supports including some Reg B LMI
B and a bit of LI; there was als a Barbarian Ally with his unit of LMI
[2HCW, JLS, Sh, I believe] and two units of LI. Sassanid SHC are not
close to being a good enemy for the bow blocks, sadly for the Shang,
although our elephants were pretty scared. We caught a lucky break when a
unit of SHC was able to get a charge off on one of the LMI B units without
them being in skirmish, and a bonus when the fact of their being
outscouted caused a traffic jam which left the barbarian general unable to
get out of the rout path. Alex, as the team's designated die-roller, then
proceeded to pass all but one of the ensuing uneasy D-class waver tests,
but that one was one of the big bow blocks, and when that routed on being
charged the gap in the line was too big to overcome. On the other side of
the field, we got one chance to cause a shooting waver with massed LC B at
short range into one of the MI units - but that passed, too, and the
return fire meant that the LC would be only a delaying force thereafter
(which worked fine); combined with the reg D LI JLS, Sh, they were able to
hold off until the game ended with the large foot command going onto
retreat. We were given a surprise in the centre, where the Shang had two
3-chariot units skirmishing. We moved up an elephant unit to disorder
them, intending to charge, but the incoming fire even disordered was
enough to halt the El. Glad we had the SHC around!

That took us to a round 2 matchup against the HYW. Once again we
outscouted our enemy, whose deployment was constricted by the minor water
feature (on our right) complete with marsh protruding into the middle, and
large brush patch on our left. They decided (in line with the general
counter-punch style Frank and Dave prefer) not to force march
significantly, ceding the marsh to our LI and allowing the LC and LI to
sweep through the MWF. In general, the game was one of seeing whether
their line of Reg B LHI LB would ever fail a counter (no, they passed all
14) to avoid being hit by SHC or El, while our light troops took fire.
There were two big events. First, on the right of the open central space
where the battle essentially occurred, our being mostly mounted* allowed
us to get the matchups we preferred: a unit of our El caught an 8-man unit
of evading LHI in the rear, while our SHC went into the brigans who were
forced to be at the halt (because of seeing elephants and facing SHC).
Then.. we were hit by Dave (M)'s dice. It's a tribute to him that he can
win tournaments with dice like these! The El rolled down a lot to avoid
breaking the LHI. The SHC rolled down - although they still pushed the
Brigans back disordered, fine, now we're fighting shieldless disordered MI
next turn. So far, no big deal.

[*OK, truth in advertising. Mostly, the fact that we got lucky and moved
second two bounds in a row. But that doesn't sound so impressive..]

At that stage, both sides thought that things were rapidly going our way.
So, the HYW sent the CinC into the flank of the SHC/EHC following-up the
Brigans, and a disordered dismounted SHK into the flank of the
following-up elephants. That CinC now had his flank 90 paces from our El
and spear blocks, with no support. As I said, so far... on to more dice:
the pursued LHI passed their waver and counter; the CinC rolled +4; the
Brigans rolled +3; and the SHC/EHC rolled -4. Our el against the LHI
rolled -3, and he rolled +3 with the LB and +2 with the SHI. OK then.

[Sidetrack, rules issue. We had pinned that CinC to front with a unit of
LC. Relying on the list discussion, we assumed that because he did not
need to wheel to contact them, he was not allowed to do so, and hence
could not make the 45-degree wheel needed to hit the EHC flank. This was
*not* the ruling we got, with the K being allowed to define their charge
path as they chose. Whatever the real answer is, this needs to be nailed
down. Maybe we should in fact have stood to take the K charge and hoped
either to somehow not break, or to pass the wavers, but we expected the
SHC not to break because of the massive damage they'd be doing to front.
Wrong .]

Exit one command of ours, when we had (all) been anticipating routing
English. Of course, the spears shook on seeing the SHC vanish. one of
the best aspects of the doubles, though, is that at least you have someone
to commiserate with! Anyway, it had gone from looking like a 5-point win
to a loss, and the HYW had at least 400 points in any case to try to catch
up on. Plus, the game had been going very slowly, and now was slowed much
further. So not much time. Fortunately, there were at least some (rather
lucky) options on the other flank, around the large brush: our LC flank
march had just arrived and was able to charge one of the large (D class?)
LB blocks in the rear and hit it without entering the brush, causing a
failed waver; the LC could then burst through into the rear of a knight
unit which had just charged off some LC to the front. In the same bound,
we got a good shooting roll against the knight sub (the K had advanced
ahead of their supporting LB as the latter were slowed by the brush),
forcing him to charge into a disordered must-rally with his protection now
eaten up by the converted LC charge. All of this allowed my HC (who
actually got to play at 2000 points where they don't at 1600) and EHC to
against shoot up the sub and hit him in the flank, and the ensuing wavers
took out that flank of the English while putting a small K command onto
retreat. All of which dragged us back to a 3-3 draw, 446 to 438 or some
such, but it felt like a victory at that point . Frank should get some
credit for in-depth rules knowledge; in particular, preventing us from
moving our CinC to join the LC unit pinning the enemy CinC by noting that
one of the units has to stay stationary that bound, and once again showing
that he knows the uses of the terrain rules better than maybe anyone else.

Game 3, though, we knew we needed a big win to have a chance of playing on
the Sunday. We were drawn against Dan/Matt's Moldavians. Two of the
nicest folk you could ever hope to meet, and I think I would actually have
gone away from the game smiling even had we lost; really fun folk. Their
force was three commands: one of 4x6E good LC (JLS, B, Sh, fighting 1.5
ranks) plus 6 units of IrrA / IrrB HK; a small one of the CinC plus two
units of EHK (who turned out to be regular, as I should have known if I
had looked at the list); and a foot command with two Irr LMI JLS, Sh
units, an Irr LMI B unit, and two units of HI with 2HCT, JLS, Sh (yikes!).
We did not outscout these guys, but we did have both more scouting and
more commands, so still a small advantage. Nonetheless, both sides went
for an extensive redeployment after the initial setup saw all the
Moldavian LC force-marched (a surprise) and a small steep hill dividing
the Moldavian infantry from their K supports (a slightly odd command
sturucture, I thought). So all of our El tried to head over to the right
(against the K) while the K were trying to come over to the left (where
our SHC were headed). Lots of rock-paper-scissors, with the further twist
of K dismounting as IrrA HI JLS, Sh to fight El (which of course our SHC
would love..). The initial lack of K support for the infantry, though,
allowed two mounted charges (downhill, no less!) into the Moldavian LMI
JLS units after the Sassanid LI had once again proven their worth in
seizing the hill against enemy LI B. The Voyniks passed their wavers,
though, and so that was advantage but not game to the Sassanids, with the
central front stabilising. On our right, the enemy LC were actually one
of the few things we had a *specific* army design to beat: the lone El
CinC wandered forward in between two elephant-proof units of LC B againt
the opposing LC, causing disorder before shooting and hence both an
advantage and subsequent waver tests for further disorder. For once,
something worked as planned (with some assistance from the 12-man HC unit,
actualy doing something for a second game; they took out a supporting K
unit unassisted), and the Moldavian LC went down. Dave's dice actually
*helped* here: by rolling down on shooting with our skirmishing LC when
forced to fire at long range, he avoided making the opposing LC recall
until the elephant-disorder could take effect! Game over, as commands
went onto retreat just as the dismounted HI was about to get to fight some El.

[Insert a pet gripe of mine here. Ignore, because I've been over this
with Scott several times , but the soapbox is calling to me: we made the
mistake of giving neither Alex/Mark nor Dan/Matt significant points.
Mistake? Yep. Winning 5-0 againt the Shang, for instance, *cost us* 1.5
score points, because as a 5-point winner we get awarded 50% of all their
score, *INCLUDING* the score against us. Now, I am pretty sure that
Frank/Dave's 5-point win over the then-undefeated Tim/Ambrose made the
thing moot here; but we ended on the same raw score as they did, so
opponent scores became very critical. Just silly to get significantly
more points for winning 5-3 than for 5-0. Anyway, back to the report.]

Sunday morning: see scores at start above. Thanks, greatly, to Jon/Mike
for not only playing when they had essentially no chance of winning the
event, but also starting early to allow Dave M to get to work (!). As
Mark noted, they tried something unusual with a double flank march, but we
were able to demoralise their on-table troops (aided significantly by a
rash of 1s on morale dice from Mike) fast enough that the flank marches
never actually arrived. One did dice to arrive, on the final bound, but
only succeeded in pushing back our smaller flank march on table. The Han
had almost no light troops, and were outscouted which again helped;
further, they were aggressive in deployment, because their two units of
artillery wanted to be in place (I assume) and hence they needed to
force-march the large command to support them. We were further helped by
their not getting a major water feature, stretching their forces that bit
further. On the way to the 5-3 result, though, there was one *really*
scary moment: that 12-man unit of HC thought that their real moment to
shine had come when they got to charge, on bound 2, impetuously into
stationary Irr LMI (front 2HCT, rear JLS). We have 9 at 6, they have (I
think) 6 at 4 and 3 at 3. Sounds good. Well, not when they pass their
waver test and roll +5 while you're rolling -4, or some such. Oops. Exit
one HC unit in rout, causing both a spear unit and an elephant unit to
shake (thankfully, in split commands). As I said, Mike was kind enough to
fail a very similar waver on my flank when some IrrA LMI, this time with
2HCW / JLS were also charged on bound 2 by the regular EHC guys (hence not
even impetuous). Combined with my Irr LI JLS, Sh unit getting off an
impetuous charge against the artillery, that allowed Mike to demonstrate
that his dice contained multiple 1s, and exit the front command before
they could follow-up the HC breakthrough. Whew .

Thanks to lots of folk, in addition to those above. Scott, for his
inimitable umping. Craig Scott, for lending supplementary Sassanids (and
I owe him lots of libations - another utter gentleman, who I gather also
won the 15mm tournament on Sunday, so congrats). Michael Bard for
painting these troops that still make me smile when I use them. Kelly,
for bringing a Seleucid source I'd expressed an interest in and lending
it. Oh, and Jen and Jenny, for allowing Dave and I to go play )). I
*really* had a fun four games. Hope Dave will allow me to ride his
coattails next year, too. But I'm buying him some different dice. It was
great to meet some new folk - Mark, Mike Turner, a couple of new recruits,
and so on. Hell, this year I even shelled out for a hotel room and got to
sleep!

> The Arab-English game, ironically, was one neither team had much control over.
> The English were outscouted, and set up attempting to get a unit of close
order
> Brigans (HI 2HCT,Pa/MI JLS) onto a hill on their side of the table. After the
> Arabs set up it became clear that Bound 2 would involve Arabs and Brigans
> mutually attempting to charge up the hill to seize it. Poor positioning on the
> English part allowed the Brigans to be charged in the flank. Oddly, too many
up
> rolls by Arab Irr As meant that instead of routing, the Brigans simply
vaporized
> on the spot, meaning that instead of numerous English units testing, only one
> knight unit had to waver test (and passed). Further, for destroying all hand
to
> hand opponents, the Arabs -- several of them now tired and/or disordered --
were
> in a must rally situation. The English counter charge with several knight
units
> came in, which wouldn't necessarily have been so bad until Tim Brown rolled 4
> 1s on 5 waver tests with A or B class troops. Game over.

p.s. Tim and Ambrose deserve *huge* credit for close attention to rules
and visualisation of what they actually will translate to on table. I
will simply say 'camels' and leave the rest to them to report. I really
hope that Jon doesn't follow through on the comments about 'writing this
out of the rules' he made after facing them .

I've faced Dave S several times now in final games. One aspect of his
style makes it tough when you know that there is a second table who would
love nothing more than you guys to fight to a 1-1: great unwillingness to
lose, which I think relies maybe a little too much on the opponent not
being willing to risk a 1-0 or 1-1, and hence having to push. Which
should not take away at all from the credit for coming out victorious on
most occasions (including against me). The number of doubles titles
speaks volumes. I certainly think that there was some of this in the
over-impetuousity of four Arab units ganging up on the brigans - as Mark
noted, the flank charge alone was enough, maybe with one other unit to pin
the front. When that occurred, there was maybe an hour left in their
game, and tha had been the only action. I thought that there was a good
chance we would have a shot, as I could see the knights coming in on what
would be the final bound (the game only had 3, maybe 4 bounds?) and it
looked like a 2-1 or some such until the wavers failed. Coulda beena
contenda... yeah, yeah. Next time .

[joncleaves]

<<[Sidetrack, rules issue. We had pinned that CinC to front with a unit of
LC. Relying on the list discussion, we assumed that because he did not
need to wheel to contact them, he was not allowed to do so, and hence
could not make the 45-degree wheel needed to hit the EHC flank. This was
*not* the ruling we got, with the K being allowed to define their charge
path as they chose. >>

This is one of the two outstanding questions I have from before the con. A
charger can wheel up to 45 degrees. The wheel has to be on the corner closest
to the target. The wheel has to be written into the charge declaration. Now,
someone somewhere says that I once ruled that you could *only* wheel just enough
to put a target (barely) in the charge path and could wheel no more. That is
not true. I am taking my time answering the question because I am searching for
this ruling and want to give a considered and well-researched answer. But I
would have to agree with Scott's ruling in this case...


<< Thanks, greatly, to Jon/Mike
for not only playing when they had essentially no chance of winning the
event, but also starting early to allow Dave M to get to work (!).>>

You guys are very welcome. We had great fun and you deserved your shot at the
1st place spot. We also remember what it was like to have to leave early and
were happy to support Dave.

<< On the way to the 5-3 result, though, there was one *really*
scary moment: that 12-man unit of HC thought that their real moment to
shine had come when they got to charge, on bound 2, impetuously into
stationary Irr LMI (front 2HCT, rear JLS). We have 9 at 6, they have (I
think) 6 at 4 and 3 at 3. Sounds good. Well, not when they pass their
waver test and roll +5 while you're rolling -4, or some such. Oops. Exit
one HC unit in rout, causing both a spear unit and an elephant unit to
shake (thankfully, in split commands). >>

I don't want to get into some big round robin about this, but that isn't a fair
representation of what happened and I was suprised at the time that a player
like Dave didn't think twice about that charge. It was not, in my mind the
foregone conclusion it seemed to him. First, he had to risk a waver to retire
the LI in front of the LMI to avoid me being on an impetuous charge when the HC
hit. He passed it. Second, I had to pass a waver now that I was halted, but as
we all knew those were A's and (unlike Mike, lol) I passed it. I also had a
unit of CB able to support shoot (and they rolled down on a shieldless HC flank
and only did 1CPF, but it was enough). With the 2HCT, this made Dave 9 @ 5. He
rolled down 2 (not -4) and recovered one due to being B. I rolled up 1, +2 for
being A. I started at 6 @ 5 due to 2HCT, not 6 @ 4, and 3 @ 3. The up one roll
being A did allow me to break him, but an even roll would have done 32
casualties to him and I would still have won. I certainly was not set to break
on contact as I think Dave assumed. It is a fight I have taken againts
Sassanids a dozen times with good success. The morale and the 2HCT make a big
difference - those were not JLS, C class LMI. But that's just my view. The
numbers, however, are correct.


<<p.s. Tim and Ambrose deserve *huge* credit for close attention to rules
and visualisation of what they actually will translate to on table. I
will simply say 'camels' and leave the rest to them to report. I really
hope that Jon doesn't follow through on the comments about 'writing this
out of the rules' he made after facing them .>>

That is also in need of correction. Loose order foot are not disordered by any
kind of obstacle. 9.5 unfortunately is written so poorly apparently that both
Tim and Scott took the literal meaning of that rule over the terrain and
cohesion rules to mean that 9.5 made them irrelevant and superceded them and
created a whole class of obstacles that now disorder loose and open foot. This
is not and never has been the intent of 9.5 - all that is supposed to say is
*when* disorder occurs with certain obstacles *if* you are the type of troop
that is disordered by them in the first place. Which loose and open foot are
not. And yes, I will be fixing 9.5 to reflect this.
And you want me to, if you think about it....

J


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

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:

> I don't want to get into some big round robin about this, but that
> isn't a fair representation of what happened and I was suprised at the
> time that a player like Dave didn't think twice about that charge. It
> was not, in my mind the foregone conclusion it seemed to him. First,
> he had to risk a waver to retire the LI in front of the LMI to avoid me
> being on an impetuous charge when the HC hit. He passed it. Second, I
> had to pass a waver now that I was halted, but as we all knew those
> were A's and (unlike Mike, lol) I passed it. I also had a unit of CB
> able to support shoot (and they rolled down on a shieldless HC flank
> and only did 1CPF, but it was enough). With the 2HCT, this made Dave 9
> @ 5. He rolled down 2 (not -4) and recovered one due to being B. I
> rolled up 1, +2 for being A. I started at 6 @ 5 due to 2HCT, not 6 @
> 4, and 3 @ 3. The up one roll being A did allow me to break him, but
> an even roll would have done 32 casualties to him and I would still
> have won. ! I certainly was not set to break on contact as I think Dave
> assumed. It is a fight I have taken againts Sassanids a dozen times
> with good success. The morale and the 2HCT make a big difference -
> those were not JLS, C class LMI. But that's just my view. The
> numbers, however, are correct.

Huh. I guess I shared Dave's preconceptions about the fight to cloud my
view of the actual numbers (for which thanks; I wasn't paying close
attention, and only saw the outcome!). The LI waver was not a big deal to
us - fail it, still contract, fine. And of course I grant that we didn't
*expect* a failed waver. That 2HCT does, indeed, make a big difference.

[And for once, no possibility of a round robin - I don't doubt that you
have the better knowledge and recollection of the numbers, nor that I have
shaded my memory with the expectation of a much better outcome!]

> <<p.s. Tim and Ambrose deserve *huge* credit for close attention to
> rules and visualisation of what they actually will translate to on
> table. I will simply say 'camels' and leave the rest to them to
> report. I really hope that Jon doesn't follow through on the comments
> about 'writing this out of the rules' he made after facing them .>>
>
> That is also in need of correction. Loose order foot are not
> disordered by any kind of obstacle. 9.5 unfortunately is written so
> poorly apparently that both Tim and Scott took the literal meaning of
> that rule over the terrain and cohesion rules to mean that 9.5 made
> them irrelevant and superceded them and created a whole class of
> obstacles that now disorder loose and open foot. This is not and never
> has been the intent of 9.5 - all that is supposed to say is *when*
> disorder occurs with certain obstacles *if* you are the type of troop
> that is disordered by them in the first place. Which loose and open
> foot are not. And yes, I will be fixing 9.5 to reflect this. And you
> want me to, if you think about it....

I know that you approve of literal rule-reading, in general. I certainly
thought that it was very clear when I read the stuff after seeing the
initial question, as did those to whom I talked (none of whom, of course,
can telepathically divine intent; which is why the literal reading is the
important thing). And it's not as though there are a million armies with
the ability to camel-mount.

Sure, you can do whatever you want to change 9.5 (or anything else); I
just noted that finding large effects from small rules details encourages
close rule-reading, which I think you would want (!), and that this
particular instance seemed OK to me in terms of gameplay. It doesn't
exactly make Arab Conquest a killer army.

Pshaw. I'm going to go back into happy reverie on the weekend's
camaraderie now .

Oh, one other note, since I think Jon's feeling abused by me again . He
was very quick to point out (to me, and I then recalled at least one other
game) that it's only *steady* 2HCT that fight 1.5 ranks, so that his
disordered or shaken 2HCT units were in even worse shape . Worth
remembering when facing such.

[joncleaves]

<< I know that you approve of literal rule-reading, in general. >>

Oh, I do. It remains our guidance that off in your hometown away from Scott or
I, read lietrally (and if that fails, roll a die and play on...lol). I do try
and make the rules so that a literal reading is best and Scott held to that when
he ruled. I am cool with that. But 9.5 isn't designed to make open/loose foot
disorder on crossing an obstacle, I have just screwed up and allowed it to be
read that way.

<< Sure, you can do whatever you want to change 9.5 (or anything else); I
just noted that finding large effects from small rules details encourages
close rule-reading, which I think you would want (!),>>

I do want that and I want it rewarded.

<< and that this
particular instance seemed OK to me in terms of gameplay.>>

In that, I disagree. As an old obstacle-taker, I can tell you it can *only* be
done by loose order foot. If they were disordred by that charge - well, I do
think that would break gameplay. Note that this alternate reading of 9.5
doesn't wouldn't just apply to tethered camels...

<< It doesn't
exactly make Arab Conquest a killer army.>>

If those camels worked that way, I'd paint them in 25mm. lol I have them in
15mm, partly because those camels are scouting points, allow LMI/MI to march on
4's and disorder cav in addition to being a portable obstacle - for not a lot of
cost. If they disordered all enemy troops, they would be something indeed....

<<Pshaw. I'm going to go back into happy reverie on the weekend's
camaraderie now .>>

Amen. And thanks for the way in which you crafted your post. I appreciate it.

J


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

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...> wrote:
>
> Frank should get some
credit for in-depth rules knowledge; in particular, preventing us from
moving our CinC to join the LC unit pinning the enemy CinC by noting that
one of the units has to stay stationary that bound, and once again showing
that he knows the uses of the terrain rules better than maybe anyone else.

Greetings Ewan,
Frank gets the credit of not letting you join your CiC to your LC:)
Frank and I used to play TOG regularly, and his memory for those rules
was legendary. We had agreed to play a game at a local Uni we both get
there lead in tow but we both forgot our rules! We knew the tables and
the only Rule issue we had Frank had commited to memory.