 |
Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules A Four Horsemen Enterprises Rules Set
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
joncleaves Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2002 3:44 am Post subject: Fast Warrior and the so-called wedge (and testudo) |
 |
|
No troop possessed of a rank and a half or two rank weapon (lance, foor JLS)
will ever 'wedge'.
Huns 'wedge' in the old WRG list but not in the Society list and there is a
question about whether the LC did or not. They don't in Fast Warrior. I am not
sure Scott has made a final determination about the main list. We'll talk about
it.
No testudo in Fast Warrior that I am aware of. Trying to keep it fast.....
_________________ Roll Up and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kelly Wilkinson Dictator

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 4172 Location: Raytown, MO
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2002 9:47 am Post subject: Re: Fast Warrior and the so-called wedge (and testudo) |
 |
|
--- JonCleaves@... wrote:
> No troop possessed of a rank and a half or two rank
> weapon (lance, foor JLS) will ever 'wedge'.
>
> Huns 'wedge' in the old WRG list but not in the
> Society list and there is a question about whether
> the LC did or not. They don't in Fast Warrior.
---------->>>> Too bad for the nasty old Huns! Does
anyone know anyone else who wins with this army in
Fast Warrior or Regular Warrior? Just curious.
I
> am not sure Scott has made a final determination
> about the main list. We'll talk about it.
>
> No testudo in Fast Warrior that I am aware of.
> Trying to keep it fast.....
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
_________________ Roll down and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
joncleaves Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2002 1:11 pm Post subject: Re: Fast Warrior and the so-called wedge (and testudo) |
 |
|
Once again - jury is out on Berserks. Play it the way it is written and let us
know.
_________________ Roll Up and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Don Coon Imperator

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2742
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2002 3:16 pm Post subject: Re: Fast Warrior and the so-called wedge (and testudo) |
 |
|
> No troop possessed of a rank and a half or two rank weapon (lance, foor
JLS) will ever 'wedge'.
>
> Huns 'wedge' in the old WRG list but not in the Society list and there is
a question about whether the LC did or not. They don't in Fast Warrior. I
am not sure Scott has made a final determination about the main list. We'll
talk about it.
Sorry. Poorly worded (although I am fairly certain everyone "knew" what I
meant ). I noticed in the fast warrior lists many troops who fought 1.5
ranks do not any more. Examples include the Hun LC, Huscarls, and Berzerks.
Was this intentional?
Don
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
scott holder Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006 Posts: 6077 Location: Bonnots Mill, MO
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2002 3:37 pm Post subject: Re: Fast Warrior and the so-called wedge (and testudo) |
 |
|
Sorry. Poorly worded (although I am fairly certain everyone "knew" what
I
meant ). I noticed in the fast warrior lists many troops who fought
1.5
ranks do not any more. Examples include the Hun LC, Huscarls, and
Berzerks.
Was this intentional?
>Yes. Well, mostly. As per Jon's previous email, stuff like Huns don't
because of the double arming. Stuff like Viking "huscarls" don't
because they have JLS. Stuff like Beserks don't because.......it's
possible I overlooked it. We'll keep a list of such possibilities,
review them over a period of time, and post any clarifications if
needed. In fact, we already have a couple of "historical opponents"
clarifications ready for Fast Warrior which will be on the web site when
it's ready to go.
>Everybody, I'm *very* interested in what we collectively discover about
the Fast Warrior lists via playing. Obviously we couldn't play all 276
lists so anything we find that helps will be a good thing. I was
overwhelmingly concerned about play balance outside of "period" since
much of our playtesting involved matchups between armies and their
"opponents". If we find that 3 armies dominate, then there is plenty of
wiggle room to tweak said armies. But that will only occur if we have
heavy playing experience showing that to be the case.
>The lists, in many cases, simply represent a snapshot of that list and
doesn't attempt to reflect the many historical nuances or variations.
When we add new lists to the mix (and we already have some plans to do
so), we will make sure that a Warrior and Fast Warrior version are
created. If we do go off into some variations of the Fat Warrior lists,
those will be posted on the web site.
>I'm bringing Tibetans in 15mm to play Fast Warrior at Cold Wars. As we
toss what to do at Twistercon back and forth, I'd prefer, fwiw, to play
Warrior there, 1200 points or anything above that is fine with me. If
we play 25mm, I'll bring one of the new Biblical Warrior lists to play
(either #1, Early Dynastic Sumerian, or #29, Late Hebrew). Will most
likely get stomped in either case but I really want to play something
from the new lists. Will bring ancient Spanish if we go with 15mm.
>Now for an update on the next army list books. Dark Age Warrior enters
its last draft period. I'm now reviewing it line by line for point cost
accuracy. You'd think I'd get that right when actually *doing* the
lists but noooooooooo. Once that's done, we settle on cover art, Bill
gets one final whack at it, then it's off to the printers. We won't
have anything ready for something like Twistercon but we are currently
on target for having copies at Cold Wars.
>Holy Warrior is 1/3 finished in it's first draft state. That means 12
lists have been written and I expect the process to actually speed up
with many of the remaining lists. I'm hopeful of having it ready for
Historicon but the real target is Fall In.
Scott
Fast List Ho
_________________ These Rules Suck, Let's Paint! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Patrick Byrne Centurion

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1433
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2002 5:58 pm Post subject: Re: Fast Warrior and the so-called wedge (and testudo) |
 |
|
WOW!
How will the 2SA Viking Berserks cope with this issue?
My Mongols are ecstatic as the Lance armed cav gets stronger. (They have
not run into shield wall yet)
-PB
> From: JonCleaves@...
> Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 00:44:05 EST
> To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Fast Warrior and the so-called wedge (and testudo)
>
> No troop possessed of a rank and a half or two rank weapon (lance, foor JLS)
> will ever 'wedge'.
>
> Huns 'wedge' in the old WRG list but not in the Society list and there is a
> question about whether the LC did or not. They don't in Fast Warrior. I am
> not sure Scott has made a final determination about the main list. We'll talk
> about it.
>
> No testudo in Fast Warrior that I am aware of. Trying to keep it fast.....
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Chris Bump Legate

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1625
|
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2002 1:01 pm Post subject: Re: Fast Warrior and the so-called wedge (and testudo) |
 |
|
In a message dated 02/10/2002 9:45:16 PM Pacific Standard Time,
JonCleaves@... writes:
<< No troop possessed of a rank and a half or two rank weapon (lance, foor
JLS) will ever 'wedge'.
Huns 'wedge' in the old WRG list but not in the Society list and there is a
question about whether the LC did or not. They don't in Fast Warrior. I am
not sure Scott has made a final determination about the main list. We'll
talk about it.
No testudo in Fast Warrior that I am aware of. Trying to keep it fast.....
>>
I would highly encourage you guys to not eliminate the wedge effect. The
playtesting we have done, has had it work well in its current form. Armies
are going to be cripled if this is elimnated. Granted huscarl types can have
Jls in the back rank if desired. But why force the issue. If the commander
wants to use them as all 2HCW and basically fight first rank only after first
contact, why not give him the option? Huns is another thing. They are one
of the few lC who are not given the option of arming. They are all Jls,B, Sh
and cannot arm themselves less so. Essentially, by taking away wedge you
force the back rank to buy weapons that they will never use, short of forming
a single line. Other cav formations that have the option of arming
themselves will be just as effective with 1/2 of the formation Jls,B, Sh and
the other half armed with B only, the obvious difference being the difference
in cost!
Whether there is question or not about various formations or nationalities
using wedge is rather in-material. There is not likely any more data
refuting it than supporting it, and by eliminating what was a very nice fix,
you water down the flavor of the game that much more. All involved love the
game that we have played for so long. The efforts of 4HE to clean up the
mechanics and rules has been supreme. Don't detract from all the effort
thus far by hamstringing armies that are out there and by pulling one more
spice out of the stew. You have been saying all along that if it wasn't
broken you weren't going to change it. So please don't.
Just my .02
Chris
Incidentally, I have no armies who use wedging troops, save 12 huns with a
15mm late roman.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
joncleaves Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447
|
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2002 1:28 pm Post subject: Re: Fast Warrior and the so-called wedge (and testudo) |
 |
|
<< No troop possessed of a rank and a half or two rank weapon (lance, foot JLS)
will ever 'wedge'.>>
Nothing about the above statement has changed or will change. You'll note this
is no big deal as all 'wedging' does in Warrior is give you 1.5 ranks fighting
where you would have none - if you already do, there is no mechanical
difference.
<< I would highly encourage you guys to not eliminate the wedge effect.>>
We are not. Those troops that were demonstrably more effective due to this
'formation' and who do not have a 1.5 rank or 2 rank weapon will get a list
rule.
<<Armies are going to be cripled if this is elimnated.>>
I do not support this view.
<< Granted huscarl types can have Jls in the back rank if desired. But why
force the issue.>>
Beserks and non-JLS Huscarls are still under review. We will decide and we will
let you know.
<<Huns is another thing. They are one
> of the few lC who are not given the option of arming. They are all Jls,B, Sh
> and cannot arm themselves less so. Essentially, by taking away wedge you
> force the back rank to buy weapons that they will never use, short of forming
> a single line.>>
We did not 'take away the wedge' for Huns. The resaerch done on the huns for
the society list did not show any conclusive evidence and so that list, which
has been around for 14 years, does not reflect wedging Huns. This should not be
a shock.
<< Whether there is question or not about various formations or nationalities
> using wedge is rather in-material.>>
You know that we completely disagree on that. It is extremely material.
<<Don't detract from all the effort thus far by hamstringing armies that are
out there and by pulling one more spice out of the stew.>>
Ok, we won't. There has not been and will never be, any 'hanstringing of
armies'. But this is a historical game and the history rules over other
considerations.
<< You have been saying all along that if it wasn't
> broken you weren't going to change it. So please don't.>>
Ok, we won't. But you need to let WRG go, man. We have. This is Warrior. If
there is no evidence that a troop both 'wedged' AND was more effective because
it did so, we aren't going to write a list rule for that army just because it
was that way in some old WRG list or just because some player likes that version
better.
Anyone can play Warrior anyway they want in their basement. But we are going to
write the lists the way we feel is most correct.
Now, if you have some evidence of Hun wedging and being demonstrably more
effective because of that - *that* would be something.
<<Just my $.02>>
And your $.02 is very important to us, disagreement is not disrespect.
Jon
_________________ Roll Up and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
joncleaves Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447
|
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2002 4:46 pm Post subject: Re: Fast Warrior and the so-called wedge (and testudo) |
 |
|
<< I really wish the Four Horsemen would stop saying, "Anyone can play Warrior
> anyway they want in their basement." It is repeated so much, I'm beginning to
take it as an attack on our point of view.>>
It is no attack. I just don't know what to say about the third email asking for
a change to something we have said we are not changing. If you want the same
set of rules played across the gaming audience, why keep after a change we have
looked at hard and rejected?
1.5 and 2 rank weapon units will not get a 'wedge' list rule. Some cases, like
2HCW front, JLS back aren't exactly what we mean by 1.5 ranks as you do not get
2HCW factors in the second rank so are still being reviewed. But, for example,
no L armed troops will EVER get a 'wedge' list rule.
<< Our goal is to play the same Warrior game that the Four Horsemen intended.
> The more differences we implement from the written rules, the more we are
hindered from playing with people from other places or newcomers.>>
Good. I don't like the idea of implementing differnces either. I just can't
stop it if you do.
Part of playing with the rules as written is accepting them.....
By the way, the playtest of warrior is over. We are all aware of that, yes? I
am into clarifying my poor writing and fixing mistakes, but we are not
playtesting the rules any more.
<< And when we meet in Oklahoma City I sure don't want to tell you, "We
modified your rules because we don't like...">>
And I sure don't want to hear it. Nor would I play with such rules,
personally.
<<> As for the wedging/testudo issue:
> From a historical perspective having the unit act more like those in history
> is what I favor. Including buying JLS for back rank LC. I say this because
> as front rank troops die, the rear ranks move up to plug the gaps, they
> should be armed accordingly.>>
They do. Those little figures are several real ranks deep....
<<> From a playability and gaming point of view, I think everything should
> either cost points (Wedge, Testudo, etc) or every army have something
> special that they can do for free.>>
Nope. I am not spending any more time on this one, that is for sure.
J
_________________ Roll Up and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Patrick Byrne Centurion

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1433
|
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2002 7:20 pm Post subject: Re: Fast Warrior and the so-called wedge (and testudo) |
 |
|
I really wish the Four Horsemen would stop saying, "Anyone can play Warrior
anyway they want in their basement." It is repeated so much, I'm beginning
to take it as an attack on our point of view.
Our goal is to play the same Warrior game that the Four Horsemen intended.
The more differences we implement from the written rules, the more we are
hindered from playing with people from other places or newcomers. And when
we meet in Oklahoma City I sure don't want to tell you, "We modified your
rules because we don't like..."
As for the wedging/testudo issue:
From a historical perspective having the unit act more like those in history
is what I favor. Including buying JLS for back rank LC. I say this because
as front rank troops die, the rear ranks move up to plug the gaps, they
should be armed accordingly.
From a playability and gaming point of view, I think everything should
either cost points (Wedge, Testudo, etc) or every army have something
special that they can do for free.
I do think Chris has a point about taking spices out of the soup. I was
shocked not to see Viking wedgers in Fast Warrior (talk about some spice).
I will reserve other comments regarding full army lists until I see the
finished products (BTW I like what I see in Biblical so far).
-PB
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
joncleaves Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447
|
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2002 9:48 pm Post subject: Re: Fast Warrior and the so-called wedge (and testudo) |
 |
|
Don
"1.5 rank" Huns is a potential list rule for a list book that is not even
started yet. Those troops are also not listed as wedging in the primary list in
use by us at this time. There was no direction from us to play your Huns
different from the base LIST as part of the playtest of the base RULES.
We did not, in fact, submit any list rule to anyone for general playtest that I
can remember.
Let's bury this dead horse, please, and move on. Your concern about the main
list Hun's LC is duly noted.
Jon
_________________ Roll Up and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
joncleaves Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447
|
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2002 10:05 pm Post subject: Re: Fast Warrior and the so-called wedge (and testudo) |
 |
|
See other email. Plus:
<<Why do some troops who used to fight 1.5 ranks no longer do so. Not "please
put it back/change it, just why?>>
I assumed in the case of the Huns it was because the same research that
eliminated wedge in the Society Hun list was the research Scott used for the FW
Hun list. If he made an oversight we will fix. Haven't talked to him about it
yet.
<< Seems like you made a change without playtest
input >>
There are several Hun lists out there. I would guess that since many of our
list writers were involved in the Society list project that much of that
research will be the same. For the very last time, FHE did NOT tell anyone
which version of any LIST to use during the playtest of the RULES. The
playtesting of FW lists was handled entirely by select players since we did not
intend to release FW lists for free.
<<(which is certainly within your equine rights).>>
Got that right. We did many, many things in house with a smaller set of
playtesters.
For the future I would prefer it go like this:
Player: I think this is a problem.
FHE: Either "No it isn't" (end of discussion involving us) or "We will look at
it" (end of discussion involving us until we look at it).
For Hun LC we are at "We will look at it."
Jon
_________________ Roll Up and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Chris Bump Legate

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1625
|
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2002 10:22 pm Post subject: Re: Fast Warrior and the so-called wedge (and testudo) |
 |
|
In a message dated 02/12/2002 3:49:22 PM Pacific Standard Time,
JonCleaves@... writes:
<< Don
"1.5 rank" Huns is a potential list rule for a list book that is not even
started yet. Those troops are also not listed as wedging in the primary list
in use by us at this time. There was no direction from us to play your Huns
different from the base LIST as part of the playtest of the base RULES.
We did not, in fact, submit any list rule to anyone for general playtest
that I can remember.
Let's bury this dead horse, please, and move on. Your concern about the
main list Hun's LC is duly noted.
Jon >>
Jon,
What primary list are you talking about? We play tested the idea that any
troop who was listed as wedge capable in an approved list NASAMW/WRG list and
could not normally fight 1.5 ranks would do so at first contact. We did not
play the huns differently! As soon as they appear in Barker book 2, they
wedge! List 70 Early Gothic, they wedge, List 77 Late Roman, they wedge,
list 79 Hunnic, they wedge, List 81 Patrician Roman, they wedge; list 86
Early Byzantine, they wedge. I can't find a list where they are listed and
don't wedge. So I go to the NASAMW list, list 70 has 4 changes none of which
remove wedging huns; list 81 has 17 changes, again none of which changes the
ability of huns to wedge. Lists 77 and 79 do not mention huns fighting in
wedge, but 86 specifically does. One could easily deduce from the time
frames bracketing these various lists that wedging was mistakedly ommited.
The author goes so far as to explain, in list 77, why he removed the 2
scythed chariots (a gimmick at best, that I've only ever seen used once) but
mentions nothing of removing the ability of all troops previously allowed not
specifically be allocated the ability to wedge in list 77 specifically. Only
point being that any one asked, and we use our wives for the dummy test too,
could assume a mistake, particularly when one considers that the NASAMW lists
were written while we were still splitting bases for wedging troops. So
exactly which lists were we supposed to use, that you did not provide
direction for us to play differently?
The question is not about the huns in particular. The question is who else
has been, what appears to the casual observer arbitrarily, changed/
downgraded/ altered from what we play tested.
Chris
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Don Coon Imperator

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2742
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2002 2:51 am Post subject: Re: Fast Warrior and the so-called wedge (and testudo) |
 |
|
> << I really wish the Four Horsemen would stop saying, "Anyone can play
Warrior
> > anyway they want in their basement." It is repeated so much, I'm
beginning to take it as an attack on our point of view.>>
>
> It is no attack. I just don't know what to say about the third email
asking for a change to something we have said we are not changing. If you
want the same set of rules played across the gaming audience, why keep after
a change we have looked at hard and rejected?
> 1.5 and 2 rank weapon units will not get a 'wedge' list rule. Some cases,
like 2HCW front, JLS back aren't exactly what we mean by 1.5 ranks as you do
not get 2HCW factors in the second rank so are still being reviewed. But,
for example, no L armed troops will EVER get a 'wedge' list rule.
Of course they won't. They already fight 1.5 ranks. Our beef is that some
troops that used to fight 1.5 ranks until last Thursday (when I got my new
Warrior rules) do not anymore. This is not us asking you to change
something. It is us asking why YOU changed something. 2 weeks ago Hun LC
(non L armed) faught 1.5 ranks deep. They did the whole time we PLAYTESTED
too. We are not looking at or for a WEDGE list rule. Wedge is, and has
been dead a long time (DFW guys: please stop using this word too). What we
are looking for (not really looking for, just asking actually) is why troops
that faught 1.5 ranks all through playtest, suddenly do not fight 1.5 any
more. If they dont, so be it. We will play by the rules. I could care
less if you do or do not allow it. I only want you to understand MY (I
beleive I started this thread) original question, which was simply: Why do
some troops who used to fight 1.5 ranks no longer do so. Not "please put it
back/change it, just why? Seems like you made a change without playtest
input (which is certainly within your equine rights).
Don
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Don Coon Imperator

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2742
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2002 2:52 am Post subject: Re: Fast Warrior and the so-called wedge (and testudo) |
 |
|
> By the way, the playtest of warrior is over. We are all aware of that,
yes?
Yes. When in playtest did 1.5 rank of hun LC get lost. We sure did not
playtest it that way .
Don
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|