Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Cold Wars AAR

Great con. Besides the great games and seeing and playing against many old
friends and some new, we released Classical Warrior – the start of a new era
for us….

Warrior Stuff

1. Terrain traveled well – Styrofoam painted/flocked hills wrapped in the
ground cloth. The flexible Worldmaker stuff I use for my water feature and
rough areas has simply no replacement in terms of looks and travelability. It
is pricey due to being made in Australia, but worth every penny. We had a mix
of the good the bad and the ugly with respect to terrain on our tables. The
good news is, people were talking about it and discussing solutions.

2. I do want to replace my status markers (olive drab painted letters: D, S, B,
etc.) with casualty and other figures and models. Mike and I have been inspired
by the game marker article in a recent Black Gobbo magazine (GW home page). I
am NOT into my opponent marking my troops with his markers, I think that is the
very height of discourtesy. It’s way worse when he is not being conscientious
about his own. It would not have been a big deal, but it happened with more
than one person. I plan to speak to Scott about making clear this isn’t
something players ought to be doing.

3. I still have difficulty making Artillery work in a close competition – the
quality of opponents is such that they know how to handle them. Light bolt
shooters do not put out enough to really hurt anything that a player who knows
what he is doing will put in front of it. The one thing I might keep in the kit
bag is the 3-crew heavy bolt shooters, which march on 2s, staying back and not
forced marching and showing up later in the fight – something akin to what I
do with the Spanish wheeled guns in my Tlax list.

4. The revised rules will make as clear as they can make it what has to be
announced to your opponent. Pretty much everything but morale grade and a
couple of the stratagems will be known. I still have to work through what to
say about multi-armed figures. You can tell your opponent ten times that those
archers also have shields, but he will still forget. It is not the fault of the
player who gets at least one of the weapons right, although I still plan to go
back and give every element the right equipment. But this isn’t practical for
many players and is a lot harder in 15mm than in 25mm. We just have to work
through it and I’d love any and all ideas.

5. As many know, I do a lot of experimenting at the doubles (which sometimes
drives Mike crazy, but he is a good joe about it…lol). One experiment that
continues to work well was a command deployment structure where one command
deploys behind the other and interleaves as approaches are made. I am sure many
players know this method, but it never hurts to talk about these things for the
newer guys. It does contain risk in that if things go south on a specific part
of the board, two commands could be in danger – but more often than not it
permits mixing in the right set of troops and prevents one command from taking
all the heat of a major exchange.

6. One part of the initial exchange we did not get as right as often as I would
have liked was preventing impetuous charges by the enemy’s light infantry. If
you have an unease cause, this is fairly simple as you just make sure bound
one’s movement ends with your unease cause within 240p of the LI – if they
are not A/Irr B then that is that. We did indeed have an unease cause (LCh),
but too often were using them to guide arty shots and that was too often a
waste. No longer! If you don’t have an unease cause, you need to get
something behind the LI flank – which given the ‘back ups’ from opposed
forced marches typically means forced marching LC.

7. As this is the year of the crossbow for me, I continue to be pleased with
their performance. You don’t get the factors on many things B or LB get, but
you shoot full at 120p (not 1.5 ranks) and it is mathematically better to have
more figs at X than a few less at X+1 or 2. You also shoot the crap out of SHC.
CB are even better with a unit having B nearby, if you can manage such… one
for the SHC and the other for the El – but then it is all about matchups,
isn’t it? J

8. I still have to learn to just mass and not be tempted by what seems like a
quick shot with a good one-one matchup. Even dice is expected value, but they
only happen 10/36th of the time, less than 1/3. I need to stick to my guns,
screen one part of the enemy and truly pile on the one part I want to kill
reliably.

9. I don’t think I have ever seen fewer knight armies in a tourney at that
level. So much for the great trend…lol. Too bad, too, because that is what
we most wanted to fight. Along with elephants… We fought three elephant
armies and went 2-1. I think the same is true for Mike, but I do not remember a
single successful Elephant charge against me. True, I leaned on high-morale
wavers, but then, I paid for them also. In any case the real point is, for
those of you considering armies that you are interested in and do not have K or
El, I think you should drive on – they are not invincible. Matt and Alex’s
Shang Chinese are an example to us all – I do think that if they had had more
time to work on the army’s tactics they would have been downright scary. On
that note, I am still convinced that for me at least, the way to go is to pick
an army and play it in every type event and every chance I get all year long (in
my case I also have the luxury of doing so in both scales). I don’t think one
can come to CW/Hcon with an army they have not worked with extensively – even
if just sorting things out mentally/on the tabletop – and do well over time.
I started later this year than last and it showed. I have some catching up to
do between now and July, but I do have the drop on next year – for the first
time ever, most of the figs have already been bought with 15 months lead
time….huzzah!

Con Notes

I had gotten used to coming in the day before and leaving the day after, with
our obligatory Red Lobster victory dinner and movie. To try and save our now
precious vacation days we came in late Thursday and left Sunday pm. Way too
rushed for my taste. The biggest issue is that I did not get the chance to
socialize with friends to the extent I would like, nor did I have the
opportunity to talk face to face with people I only know by internet. I hope
to have more chance to talk to folks at Hcon. Please, if you are there say hi
and don’t be a stranger.


Remember that NASAMW runs our events at Lancaster through HMGS. Scott is the
NASAMW Warrior rules coordinator and also secures and arranges for our table
space. None of us agrees with every aspect of how that all goes and it is a
committee solution at best. There should, I think, be more focus on the
positive – like he takes all our crap without being paid, gets us premium
table location despite what some in HMGS would like to see happen, and Eric gets
us plaques for all the events. The negative should be passed along offline to
Eric or Scott and/or discussed on the NASAMWList. Like everyone else, I have a
laundry list of things I’d like to see changed. But I would prefer this forum
not be used for that purpose if at all possible. The way to get change is to
build up a groundswell of support for an issue. For example, as everyone knows,
I hate the four-hour round at 1600. But as long as that is a minority opinion,
it isn’t going to change. Same with other stuff. Yes, I know, it is a
strange situation to have a non-profit running a game company’s events
(although the long-time ancients guys may not have experience with any other
way), but there are many advantages that we cannot ignore. And as it is a
volunteer organization – don’t hesitate to vote with your actions and take
over some NASAMW duty to affect change directly.

Jon


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

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
> 1. Terrain traveled well – Styrofoam painted/flocked hills wrapped in
> the ground cloth. The flexible Worldmaker stuff I use for my water
> feature and rough areas has simply no replacement in terms of looks and
> travelability. It is pricey due to being made in Australia, but worth
> every penny. We had a mix of the good the bad and the ugly with
> respect to terrain on our tables. The good news is, people were
> talking about it and discussing solutions.

I meant to ask about your road. Is that more of this 'Worldmaker'? In
which case, no kidding on cost - $40 for a single 25mm road.

> 3. I still have difficulty making Artillery work in a close
> competition – the quality of opponents is such that they know how to
> handle them. Light bolt shooters do not put out enough to really hurt
> anything that a player who knows what he is doing will put in front of
> it. The one thing I might keep in the kit bag is the 3-crew heavy bolt
> shooters, which march on 2s, staying back and not forced marching and
> showing up later in the fight – something akin to what I do with the
> Spanish wheeled guns in my Tlax list.

I think this is certainly more likely to be effective; but given the
glacial pace of some games (4 bounds total), it may well never actually do
anything.

> 5. As many know, I do a lot of experimenting at the doubles (which
> sometimes drives Mike crazy, but he is a good joe about it…lol). One
> experiment that continues to work well was a command deployment
> structure where one command deploys behind the other and interleaves as
> approaches are made. I am sure many players know this method, but it
> never hurts to talk about these things for the newer guys. It does
> contain risk in that if things go south on a specific part of the
> board, two commands could be in danger – but more often than not it
> permits mixing in the right set of troops and prevents one command from
> taking all the heat of a major exchange.

All true. Tends to make prompting harder, because commands are more
spread out, but we fought several opponents using this setup.

> 6. One part of the initial exchange we did not get as right as often
> as I would have liked was preventing impetuous charges by the enemy’s
> light infantry. If you have an unease cause, this is fairly simple as
> you just make sure bound one’s movement ends with your unease cause
> within 240p of the LI – if they are not A/Irr B then that is that. We
> did indeed have an unease cause (LCh), but too often were using them to
> guide arty shots and that was too often a waste. No longer! If you
> don’t have an unease cause, you need to get something behind the LI
> flank – which given the ‘back ups’ from opposed forced marches
> typically means forced marching LC.

Even then, if the LI is eager because of a PA marching to 240, impetuosity
is still good. We used one unit of Irr LI JLS, Sh, and the big LI B unit
was also Irr - both went impetuous many times (and this links to the
artillery Q, because LI JLS, Sh are the ultimate anti-art weapon).

Armies with good LI are well-known to be high on my list of criteria.

> 9. I don’t think I have ever seen fewer knight armies in a tourney at
> that level. So much for the great trend…lol. Too bad, too, because
> that is what we most wanted to fight. Along with elephants… We fought
> three elephant armies and went 2-1. I think the same is true for Mike,
> but I do not remember a single successful Elephant charge against me.

Well, our El managed to be brave enough to pick on some of your shaken MI
. We fought two knight armies and two Chinese.

[joncleaves]

<< I meant to ask about your road. Is that more of this 'Worldmaker'? In
which case, no kidding on cost - $40 for a single 25mm road.>>

No, the road was a bargain I found in the dealer area and not Worldmaker. It
was $2 for a foot long section... those deals are out there, but I think that
guy just made some and then stopped.

<< The one thing I might keep in the kit bag is the 3-crew heavy bolt
> shooters, which march on 2s, staying back and not forced marching and
> showing up later in the fight – something akin to what I do with the
> Spanish wheeled guns in my Tlax list.

I think this is certainly more likely to be effective; but given the
glacial pace of some games (4 bounds total), it may well never actually do
anything.>>

Amen, brother. I have to make sure I transition from how we play in KC to the
incredibly slow pace in Lancaster - and the force has to change with that
transition as well.

<<> 5. As many know, I do a lot of experimenting at the doubles (which
> sometimes drives Mike crazy, but he is a good joe about it…lol). One
> experiment that continues to work well was a command deployment
> structure where one command deploys behind the other and interleaves as
> approaches are made. ....

All true. Tends to make prompting harder, because commands are more
spread out, but we fought several opponents using this setup.>>

The Chinese LCh generals make this easier. One thing I do NOT have a problem
with is getting folks prompted who need to be - but not everyone has access to
these general types. And now that they have been permanently released from the
artillery command experiment.......


<<Even then, if the LI is eager because of a PA marching to 240, impetuosity
is still good. We used one unit of Irr LI JLS, Sh, and the big LI B unit
was also Irr - both went impetuous many times (and this links to the
artillery Q, because LI JLS, Sh are the ultimate anti-art weapon).

Armies with good LI are well-known to be high on my list of criteria.>>

As good LI slayers are on mine.... And, no, I am not talking about our
doubles list...

<<> 9. I don’t think I have ever seen fewer knight armies in a tourney at
> that level. So much for the great trend…lol. Too bad, too, because
> that is what we most wanted to fight. Along with elephants… We fought
> three elephant armies and went 2-1. I think the same is true for Mike,
> but I do not remember a single successful Elephant charge against me.

Well, our El managed to be brave enough to pick on some of your shaken MI
. We fought two knight armies and two Chinese.>>

Indeed, crazy double flank march aside, the big comment Mike and I took away was
that we were fighting our own little battles and not stepping back and looking
at the big picture - something we normally do very well.

Jon


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

[Doug]

> One experiment that continues to work well was a command
>deployment structure where one command deploys behind the other and
>interleaves as approaches are made. I am sure many players know
>this method, but it never hurts to talk about these things for the
>newer guys. It does contain risk in that if things go south on a
>specific part of the board, two commands could be in danger - but
>more often than not it permits mixing in the right set of troops and
>prevents one command from taking all the heat of a major exchange.

And you're an officer in the REAL military ?! ? !?! G*d help us... ;)

This is an aspect of Helicopter Omniscience that sure does work in
most game systems, but it would be more historical if it did not.

Simple change would be to allow support only from bodies of the same Command.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/16/2005 08:09:29 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

Jon, were your LBS cart-mounted?>>

No...lol Cart-mounted Han artillery?....even I couldn't handle the comments
that would generate on here..

<< To me, that brings a whole other
dimension to dealing with the LBS as they can not be assaulted
directly (usually behind other troops) do not have to deal with
shooting priorities (can't be shot at, and often have a general
assigned) and can be moved faster to where they need to go. >>

Hmmm. No, actually. The cart does two things for bolt shooters - moves
them at 120p/3 march segments vice 40p/1 or 80p/2 and gives them an all around
fire arc. It does not permit them special line of sight properties. It does
not change shooting priorities in any way.

Generals telling arty where to shoot can be fun but in the Han army, keeps
the very useful general from doing more important tasks. It does not
supercede 'shooters directly to front' either, so if there is an LI, B unit in
front
of the arty, the general is totally wasted.

The bottom line - in competition at the Lancaster level - everyone I need to
beat to rise higher than second place knows how to take advantage of any
arty I'd use in the Han the way I want to play them. I will experiment again
next year....
J




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

[John Murphy]

Jon, were your LBS cart-mounted? To me, that brings a whole other
dimension to dealing with the LBS as they can not be assaulted
directly (usually behind other troops) do not have to deal with
shooting priorities (can't be shot at, and often have a general
assigned) and can be moved faster to where they need to go. Only
thing left is for certain sensitive units to avoid them which
basically, if the cart-LBS are not committed too quickly, involves
taking them out of the battle. Sure, they do not do much to 24-man
foot units but nothing says they have to shoot at those or be
marched to an area where that is what they are facing.

But I would be interested in your take on all this given your
statement below.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> 3. I still have difficulty making Artillery work in a close
competition â€" the quality of opponents is such that they know how
to handle them. Light bolt shooters do not put out enough to really
hurt anything that a player who knows what he is doing will put in
front of it. The one thing I might keep in the kit bag is the 3-
crew heavy bolt shooters, which march on 2s, staying back and not
forced marching and showing up later in the fight â€" something akin
to what I do with the Spanish wheeled guns in my Tlax list.

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> << usually behind other troops (can't be shot at

> gives them an all around fire arc.
> does not permit them special line of sight properties.
> does not change shooting priorities in any way.

Okay. In general.

However, two of the main targets of interest elephants and generals
are valid targets from behind an intervening screen of troops. That
intervening screen makes any "shooters to front" 'not' since they
can't shoot the LBS so, if a general is attached, the full field of
fire is available if a standard or elephant is anywhere nearby.
_That_ is indeed a 'special line of sight property', and a way to
defeat shooting priorities, if somewhat restricted.

I don't think I am missing aything here, right? And this is how I
have seen them played and can't figure any reason why not.

Obviously certain other targets like small mounted units (or small
foot relying on their armor and shields) are going to require the
assistance of terrain or a braver use of the LBS (or simply a nimble
enough screen that it can get in/out of the way easily and/or
obstruct the shooters to front without obstructing the target).

I generally hope anything that is making my opponent respond to a
threat and keeping him reactive and defensive is opening up
opportunities for me to do something else - usually I am the one
reacting! However as you point out the point costs involved are an
issue - cart-LBS are actually pretty cheap but the 1E generals are
not unless they are the type that can be useful for rallying or else
there is another troop type in the army they can usefully be
attached to if plans change (or else, like Roman HC, there really
isn't much better to do with them anyhow).

> Generals telling arty where to shoot ... does not
> supercede 'shooters directly to front'

No, but 'shooters directly to front' only applies if the LBS can be
shot at which most troops can not over a screen, right? I have tried
this against cart-LBS and it worked for a bound or two until the LBS
got someone in front then I couldn't shoot it anymore and my IrrA HK
general nearby was shortly hosed! But then that likely comes under
the category of not being the type of thing done by the folks you
need to beat to finish higher than 2nd at Lancaster!

But how do the Tlax Spanish wheeled guns have anything over cart-LBS
this way?

[joncleaves]

<<In a message dated 4/16/2005 10:25:58 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

However, two of the main targets of interest elephants and generals
are valid targets from behind an intervening screen of troops. That
intervening screen makes any "shooters to front" 'not' since they
can't shoot the LBS so, if a general is attached, the full field of
fire is available if a standard or elephant is anywhere nearby.
_That_ is indeed a 'special line of sight property', and a way to
defeat shooting priorities, if somewhat restricted.

I don't think I am missing aything here, right? And this is how I
have seen them played and can't figure any reason why not.>>


You can shoot at an elephant over enemy troops as long as you meet
priorities - but that has nothing to do with being on a cart. No LBS, cart or
otherwise, can ever shoot anything over friendly troops.

<<> Generals telling arty where to shoot ... does not
> supercede 'shooters directly to front'

No, but 'shooters directly to front' only applies if the LBS can be
shot at which most troops can not over a screen, right?>>

Again, no blot shooter, cart-mounted or otherwise, can ever shoot over
friendlies.

<<But how do the Tlax Spanish wheeled guns have anything over cart-LBS
this way?>>


Well, the guns are A and have four crew. The LBS have 2 crew, can shoot all
around due to carts and are faster due to carts. Take your choice.
But I wasn't comparing wheeled guns to cart LBS, I was comparing them to Han
LBS and the guns are better in every category.

J

J











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