Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Actually Chris, it was the positive dice that was marked 2-2-3-3-4-5. I agree
with Chris that for the most part the point system is well balanced. Having
played both reg Knights and many Irreg Foot armies, you just need to choose
your
tactics to match the army you are playing. The biggest problem with Reg armies
(especially foot) versus irreg armies is that there is a time limit and their
punch is missing (Reg cav, even if impetuous, have this problem also). I think
regular armies do much better in long drawn out battles that would take longer
then 4 hours (or 3 hours in mini's) were the fatigue of Irr foot armies (and
any
cav army) really sets in. The same could be said for a skrimishing army such
as the Mongals, more time, more of a chance to win. As for the HI/MI (or more
importantly LMI/LHI), you use the example of P,Sh guys. Yeah HI infantry with
P
might not be worth it, but if its loose order guys with a crossbow and no
shield (a lot of later armies don't allow shields) that 2 points seems like
a bargain, especially for the dancing Reg LHI English types. I agree that
there
might be problems with the point system, but given the breadth of periods and
troop types it will be hard to come up with a better balance.
For a quick word on the 1.5 ranks of lance. God bless the person who put it
in
the rules. It allowed many armies that were meat on the table and would just
lose to people they shouldn't (Reg Italian SHK loosing to any cav with wedge
and
a lance, wether it be German HC or Selucid HC, and if you faced Crusader Irr
SHK, just kiss your butt goodbye). It is nice to see other regular knight
armies
besides Burgundians (who could wedge, but were too expensive) and Tuets (who
have those great Irr A Crusaders with minimal Brother knights). It also helps
other lance armed cav (those that can have 2 ranks of lance- though those cost
effective Mongals took it on the chin). Also, those poor irr guys on foot,
only
cost a few points, compared to any lance armed guy which is at least 3 times
the
cost. It is enough to make you cry to see your 118 point Reg B lance armed
SHKs
(assuming a general in line of command charged somewhere so they could be
impetuous)under the 1 rank system not be able to hurt a 30 figure irr C (L)MI
JLS sh unit (115 points) and just get stuck there to be taken down by a 6
figure
irr A unit (50 or so points) the next turn or so. At least now the knights can
(kindof) ride down the peasants.
Being a knight player in general, I think elephants are truely under costed,
and
should cost twice their points since they just kill my expensive knights. But
then those JLS Sh guys should cost more since they eat elephants. Then SHK
(read
almost any lance armed guys) should cost more. It's a vicious cycle. The
winning
tournament armies have a great balance of cheap MI/LMI, elephants, and lance
dudes (read Selucids) or can deal with each of those arms effectivly (read
Sicilian Hoenstafen or Medieval Spanish). To (almost)assure a tourney win, you
need to be off cycle, having knights when everyone brought JLS guys, elephants
when knights came, etc. You also need some luck (in the dice and matchups) to
win. A good army just allows some of the luck to be taken out of it, but bad
luck can still sink a good player (for example, Dave Stiers, one of the best
players (if not the best), having his bombards blow up and kill his general
during last years nationals).
I think Phil Barker got it right when he said, choose an army you love
whether it
wins or looses.
Sean

[Ed Forbes]

Sean,

Am I missing something here?

(snip)
>It is enough to make you cry to see your 118 point Reg B lance
> armed
> SHKs
> (assuming a general in line of command charged somewhere so they
> could be
> impetuous)under the 1 rank system not be able to hurt a 30 figure
> irr C (L)MI
> JLS sh unit (115 points) and just get stuck there to be taken down
> by a 6
> figure
> irr A unit (50 or so points) the next turn or so. At least now the
> knights can
> (kindof) ride down the peasants.
>

A unit of 6 impetous reg B SHK,L ( 18pt x6+10=118) hit a 2 ranks deep
line of 30 Irr C LMI ( 30pt x3+25=115) ( 5 stands x 2 stands, 3 figs per
stand ) that make their waver test being charged.

At even dice: 6 SHK, L at a 7 factor is 36, more and 1 per. Inf is
disordered
6 LMI, jls, sh at a 0 factor is 6 ( no jav + and no second rank
vs SHK )

The SHK can now break through, causing a disordering interpenetration
and another waver test. ( 3 times more than recieved )

There is only 3pt difference in the units and the cav are an odds on
favorite to ruin the inf unit. Odds are this "C" class unit will take a
minimum of 2 waver tests from the first Knight unit and face the same
thing, only as uneasy for the next charge.

I see these types of inf units as meat for SHK / EHK knight armies if in
the open without the rank and a half rule. Are you in favor of
distorting the points more than they already are?

Ed F

[Don Coon]

> A unit of 6 impetous reg B SHK,L ( 18pt x6+10=118) hit a 2 ranks deep
> line of 30 Irr C LMI ( 30pt x3+25=115) ( 5 stands x 2 stands, 3 figs per
> stand ) that make their waver test being charged.
>
> At even dice: 6 SHK, L at a 7 factor is 36, more and 1 per. Inf is
> disordered
> 6 LMI, jls, sh at a 0 factor is 6 ( no jav + and no second rank
> vs SHK )
>
> The SHK can now break through, causing a disordering interpenetration
> and another waver test. ( 3 times more than recieved )

This break through does not cause a waver does does it? Does it count as a
combat cause of disorder? On a similar subject, if I am Cav and do 3 CPF to
my foot opponent (and more HTH casualties) he recoils disordered (from the
Cav and more HTH + 1 CPF), and he is disordered by the 3 CPF itself. Is
this 2 causes of combat disorder causing a waver test?

Don

[joncleaves]

Just one test per cause, Don. All combat disorders are one cause. I'll
check the wording.

I think that the results are,

If the LMI FAILED their waver test for being charged, either the push
back OR the break through will result in a second waver test (foot
already disordered). You get one or the other,(ie push back OR break
through)not both.

If the LMI passed their test for being charged, then the push back or
break through is the FIRST disorder and therefore does not cause a
waver test.

Now if the LMI could have charged impetiously........



--- In WarriorRules@y..., "Donald and Jennifer Coon" <jendon@f...>
wrote:
>
> > A unit of 6 impetous reg B SHK,L ( 18pt x6+10=118) hit a 2 ranks
deep
> > line of 30 Irr C LMI ( 30pt x3+25=115) ( 5 stands x 2 stands, 3
figs per
> > stand ) that make their waver test being charged.
> >
> > At even dice: 6 SHK, L at a 7 factor is 36, more and 1 per. Inf is
> > disordered
> > 6 LMI, jls, sh at a 0 factor is 6 ( no jav + and no
second rank
> > vs SHK )
> >
> > The SHK can now break through, causing a disordering
interpenetration
> > and another waver test. ( 3 times more than recieved )
>
> This break through does not cause a waver does does it? Does it
count as a
> combat cause of disorder? On a similar subject, if I am Cav and do
3 CPF to
> my foot opponent (and more HTH casualties) he recoils disordered
(from the
> Cav and more HTH + 1 CPF), and he is disordered by the 3 CPF itself.
Is
> this 2 causes of combat disorder causing a waver test?
>
> Don

[Ed Forbes]

Steve,

Your interp is different than what I see in the rules.
If the foot suffer more and 1 cpf, the foot are disordered unless mounted
break off or rout.

The fact that the foot lost automatically disorders the foot unless the
above happens.

The cav do not break off or rout and in a later action choose to break
through.
Break through move is another action beyond the action that disorders the
foot from losing to cav.
Break through counts as a disordering interpenetration, causing a waver
test for the foot on this second disorder.

Thanks,
Ed F
>
You get one or the other,(ie push back OR
> break
> through)not both.
>
> If the LMI passed their test for being charged, then the push back
> or
> break through is the FIRST disorder and therefore does not cause a
> waver test.
>
>

Ed,

You could well be right but under 7th, (and I see nothing contrary in
Warrior), the LMI lose the combat and following occur;

1. They lose at twice and 1 cpf so will become disordered and will
recoil. The cav, DUE to winning the combat will follow up ALSO
causing a disorder BUT since the combat and result occurred at the
same time, the LMI are not double disordered.

2. If the cav scored 3 times the H-T-H without the LMI breaking, the
cav can decide to break through but this is done INSTEAD of a recoil
by the foot.

The recoil or the break through move is part of the combat result so
the effects are no cumulative.

There is no "later action" for the cav to do until next bound. A push
back by the cav in the next bound, regardless of cpf inflicted on the
LMI, WILL result in a waver test for the LMI. Same for the break
through.

NOTE: The Warrior rules do not say this (section 11.2) so if my
interp is incorrect, please feel free to correct me. If my interp is
correct, please enter such information in the rules.


Cheers




--- In WarriorRules@y..., Ed C Forbes <eforbes100@j...> wrote:
>
>
> Steve,
>
> Your interp is different than what I see in the rules.
> If the foot suffer more and 1 cpf, the foot are disordered unless
mounted
> break off or rout.
>
> The fact that the foot lost automatically disorders the foot unless
the
> above happens.
>
> The cav do not break off or rout and in a later action choose to
break
> through.
> Break through move is another action beyond the action that
disorders the
> foot from losing to cav.
> Break through counts as a disordering interpenetration, causing a
waver
> test for the foot on this second disorder.
>
> Thanks,
> Ed F
> >
> You get one or the other,(ie push back OR
> > break
> > through)not both.
> >
> > If the LMI passed their test for being charged, then the push back
> > or
> > break through is the FIRST disorder and therefore does not cause a
> > waver test.
> >
> >

[Don Coon]

You did not address my question at all. This has nothing to do with
passing/not passing a being charged by mounted waver test. It has
EVERYTHING to do with how many causes of disorder can happen as a combat
result (note: only COMBAT caused disorder causes a waver test). Read my
question again. The issue is whether or not I have to count every instance
of becomes disordered in 11.2 as a separate "becomes disordered" result.
Example (again) Cav does 2X HTH casualties to a foot unit and 1 CPF. Per
11.2 the foot recoil disordered (bullet 1), also per 11.2 under the "a body
is disordered if" list the foot is disordered for getting 2X HTH and 1 CPF
(bullet 1). Is this 2 "becomes disordered" combat results or one? We have
always played it as one. Also assume now the cav did 3X HTH and 1 CPF and
choose to burst through (nothing in the rules says that bursting through
eliminates the foot having to recoil disordered). This says the burst
through troops have suffered a disordering interpenetration. Is this a
"becomes disordered" combat result? If yes, is it in addition to the recoil
disordered from fighting cav and taking more HTH and 1 CPF? Is it in
addition to the "becomes disordered" from receiving 2X HTH and 1 CPF? You
see it is possible to get 2 or 3 "becomes disordered" cpmbat results. It
seems like overkill to count them as separate instances. We do not EVER do
this. Any one bound of combat can only result in 1 overall cause of
disorder no matter how many times the chart says so. Also we do not feel
bursting through counts as "becomes disordered" combat result anyway.

> I think that the results are,
>
> If the LMI FAILED their waver test for being charged, either the push
> back OR the break through will result in a second waver test (foot
> already disordered). You get one or the other,(ie push back OR break
> through)not both.

> > This break through does not cause a waver does does it? Does it
> count as a
> > combat cause of disorder? On a similar subject, if I am Cav and do
> 3 CPF to
> > my foot opponent (and more HTH casualties) he recoils disordered
> (from the
> > Cav and more HTH + 1 CPF), and he is disordered by the 3 CPF itself.
> Is
> > this 2 causes of combat disorder causing a waver test?
> >
> > Don

[Ed Forbes]

Steve,

> 2. If the cav scored 3 times the H-T-H without the LMI breaking,
> the
> cav can decide to break through but this is done INSTEAD of a recoil
>
> by the foot.

I see nothing in the rules that gives a choice for the inf to recoil
disordered. If they lose, they recoil disordered ( unless cav break off
or rout ).

The cav have the choice, AFTER the inf is disordered, of either follow
up or break through.
The inf is already disordered when this choice by the cav is made.

The only question that I see as might be in contention here is if the
disorder from the break through counts as a combat disorder. As the
disorder was a combat action, I would say yes, it is a combat disorder,
requiring a waver for a second combat disorder ( with a cause of unease
by being behind flank ? )

This does seem to be an area that needs to be clarified in the rules, as
different areas clearly have different interps on this issue.

Thanks,
Ed F

Ed,

I agree with both yourself and with Don. Perhaps an interp from Jon
is needed here. Even if only to prove me wrong. :)

Cheers




--- In WarriorRules@y..., Ed C Forbes <eforbes100@j...> wrote:
> Steve,
>
> > 2. If the cav scored 3 times the H-T-H without the LMI breaking,
> > the
> > cav can decide to break through but this is done INSTEAD of a
recoil
> >
> > by the foot.
>
> I see nothing in the rules that gives a choice for the inf to recoil
> disordered. If they lose, they recoil disordered ( unless cav break
off
> or rout ).
>
> The cav have the choice, AFTER the inf is disordered, of either
follow
> up or break through.
> The inf is already disordered when this choice by the cav is made.
>
> The only question that I see as might be in contention here is if
the
> disorder from the break through counts as a combat disorder. As the
> disorder was a combat action, I would say yes, it is a combat
disorder,
> requiring a waver for a second combat disorder ( with a cause of
unease
> by being behind flank ? )
>
> This does seem to be an area that needs to be clarified in the
rules, as
> different areas clearly have different interps on this issue.
>
> Thanks,
> Ed F

--- In WarriorRules@y..., "Donald and Jennifer Coon" <jendon@f...>
wrote:
>
> > A unit of 6 impetous reg B SHK,L ( 18pt x6+10=118) hit a 2 ranks
deep
> > line of 30 Irr C LMI ( 30pt x3+25=115) ( 5 stands x 2 stands, 3
figs per
> > stand ) that make their waver test being charged.
> >
> > At even dice: 6 SHK, L at a 7 factor is 36, more and 1 per. Inf is
> > disordered
> > 6 LMI, jls, sh at a 0 factor is 6 ( no jav + and no
second rank
> > vs SHK )
> >
> > The SHK can now break through, causing a disordering
interpenetration
> > and another waver test. ( 3 times more than recieved )
>
> This break through does not cause a waver does does it? Does it
count as a
> combat cause of disorder? On a similar subject, if I am Cav and do
3 CPF to
> my foot opponent (and more HTH casualties) he recoils disordered
(from the
> Cav and more HTH + 1 CPF), and he is disordered by the 3 CPF
itself. Is
> this 2 causes of combat disorder causing a waver test?
>
> Don

A breakthrough is a combat disorder, however since both occur at the
same time (during the HTH phase of the turn) they occur at the same
time and you are not disordered before they occur. At least this was
the way under 7th Edition