Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 26/10/2005 17:28:36 GMT Standard Time,
shahadet_99@... writes:

suggested change #2 (only get incendiaries if your opponent
buys any kind of TF).



if a vote is being done on this mine is on this.

except for list rules of course - chinese etc.

mark mallard


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

Dear list,

A little history is a dangerous thing.

I couldn't help but note that in the exchange on incendiaries, a
number of people reached into the history box, and made several blanket
statements about the battlefield use of fire.

At least the Scythians, Byzantines, and Mongols, repeatedly, as a
matter of doctrine, used fire on the battlefield. All of them used fire
in large amounts, as a grand tactical effect--for instance, a Scythian
army would spend a day, or days, getting upwind of an opponent and then
light fire to the grass to panic horses. This is a tried and true
hunting technique--I've seen it done in Africa by tribal people.

Both Scythians and Mongols (as Greg pointed out yesterday) used
fire arrows. Etc, etc. I think the battlefield use of fire was more
widespread than the list thinks. I'm limiting my comments here to the
armies whose research is readily available to me (and I mean primary
source, etyc.)

However, I really want to take issue with all the "logic" about
"case 2" for fire arrow use--that incendiaries only be available to the
opponent of a player who purchased TFs. Further arguements were made
that this should only apply to flammable TFs.

Folks, this is not a correct historical arguement. Fire was not
used against TFs--it was used against what lay beyond the TFs. As one
example of many available, the Scythians storming an outpost in D.
Siculus used fire arrows--against earthworks (no wood, no pallisade, no
flammables). Why? Well, on the one hand, they probably did it to cause
terror. On the other, the fire arrows are NOT EVER to burn the TF
(stockades, etc.) They are to burn what's behind it--the roofs of the
town, tents of the camps, baggage, etc. Just as a thought experiment,
try putting a couple of dowels into a palisade (like your neighbors
snazzy cedar fence) (hey, use 100 dowels if you like), light them on
fire, and call me when this sets fire to the pallisade. But the baggage
behind the pallisade...

Just to get a logic check, if TFs that are flammable can be
destroyed by incendiaries, what about ditched pallisade? Does it get
destroyed, or become "ditch?"

What about transport? Do you get to take incendiaries if your
opponent has transport? Fire was used against boats and against
wagons... wait, everyone has required transport--we call it baggage...

Turning again to the Scythians (or the Byzantines--the cases are
identical) it is a matter of archaeological record that they
constructed earthworks (on a titanic scale) as well as ditched
pallisades (all Scythian towns, many Byzantine) dry stone walls (every
Khurgan had a surrounding dry stone wall, as did most Byzantine farms),
wagon laager (probably the largest in the ancient world, sometimes
extending for kilometers for Scythians, a whole armies worth of baggage
wagons for Byzantines) and yet of all this, only 240 paces of wagon
laager is available on the Scythian list--Byzantine lists vary. That's
not a list gripe--that's a note to players on the reality of list
writing and play. The lists were NOT written with a serious difference
between flammable and inflammable TFs in mind.

On another note, the army I just completed painting has a very
expensive wagon laager. The lead cost about $110.00, and then the
painting--just so I could fortify my baggage--really, just to look
cool. But amendment 2 would mean that by taking my 20 point baggage, I
would invite my opponent to rain fire on me, and I WOULD NOT HAVE THE
SAME OPTION IN RETURN. Daft. I protest.

Finally, let's be clear on the difference between historical play,
tournament play, and cherished assumption. The statement that
"incendiaries were not used on the battlefield" is more of an assumption
than a fact.

Let me make a digression on another assumption, and then relate it
to incediaries. Rules are often made and used to balance
situations--otherwise, camels and elephants would not disorder horses.
(Just for fun, go find 5 primary references to horses being freaked out
by elephants or camels. Ask a vet, if you like. This cherished
assumption of the warrior universe is based on a non-military classical
historian (Livy?) and not much else. It may have happened--on a few
occaisions--or may in fact never have been a factor. I watched a police
horse in Toronto amble past a camel without concern a year ago and
thought--wow. Then I did a little reading.)
On the other hand, the presence of an army entirely mounted on
mares (Fatimids) fighting an army entirely mounted on Stallions (Early
Crusader) would have a very disordering effect...but we ignore that.
The game mechanism assumes that this ALWAYS happens to ALL armies so
that Camels get a break, and "work."

But then some lists get to camel proof their horses. The situation
is analogous to incendiaries, because in reality, EVERYONE had the
ability to camel-proof their horses (if such a thing was ever
neccessary). In fact, dozens of lists that do not allow camel proofing
represent armies that had baggage camels... list writiers are NOT to
blame here--as it is a very grey area of understanding. At what point
do armies become "camel proof"?

The camel/elephant digression has a point. I'm annoyed very time
my Byzantines are disordered by camels. It's not a historical
problem...my Emperor has hundreds of camels and a dozen elephants in his
managerie, and if he wanted the Tagmata to prepare for war in camel
country, he had the finest horse trainers and zoo-keepers in the world
at his beck and call. Instead, it's a "gimmick." [Okay, outside this
rant, I don't actually think that anything that is in the rules is a
gimmick].

This is the situation I'd like to avoid with incendiaries, where a
few armies stand to benefit enormously if only they are allowed
something, and where, since the subject was of minimum importance, list
writers have probably not done the research to really know who used what...

I say 1) leave it as it is--for everyone. Or 2--eliminate all
incendiaries, period (Chinese as well) until the Four Horsemen can spend
the time to think it all through and make a balanced rule that covers
all the history--and makes for fair tourny interactions, too.

That was more than 2 cents--maybe a nickle.

Have fun,
Christian


>
>


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

[joncleaves]

<< Fire was not
used against TFs--it was used against what lay beyond the TFs. >>

Indeed quite true. Our read on that is the same as yours, Chris. And hence the
reason for tying its use to TFs and not just wooden TFs.

As for the rest of the post, I apologize if I was not clear. I did ask for
historical examples of multiple armies using flaming arrows in open battles as a
matter of routine. I meant the source reference, not word of mouth. Sorry
about that.

I also did not mean fire in general - as in lighting terrain features on fire.
We are aware this was done - and more than once. However, we want Warrior to be
a battle game, not a strategem game and certainly not a contest in terrain
feature scorching. I will write the rule so that folks can use it, but it won't
be a core rule.

If someone wants to write a rule for terrain feature lighting that would not
slow the game down significantly or change its basic nature, I would certainly
consider it.

I do think Chris makes a very strong argument for leaving things as is ('option
1'). One thing I am very sensitive to as a gamer is a change in tourney format
negating bought and lovingly painted elements of an army.

Jon


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

[Frank Gilson]

I am also casting my vote for 'leave it as it currently is', with
regard to incendiary missile purchase.

I think we're fine...and I actually have an example .

In the Team 25mm event, Cold Wars '05, Dave Stier and I faced an
Arab infantry army with many bowmen, almost all of whom had a shot
of incendiary arrows....more fire arrows that I've ever seen.

We took care to avoid exposing the wrong troops at the wrong times
to such fire, and given the restricted range of incendiary Bow, that
wasn't hard.

It made us stop and think, and consider what to do, but we overcame
the challenge and emerged victorious.

I actually like little 'gimmicks' and 'stratagems', because they
make games different from one another.

All we need are clear rules for their function, proper balance
(which is there for incendiary missiles already), and everything
being clear up front (which of your units have such missiles, etc.)

Frank Gilson

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
>
> << Fire was not
> used against TFs--it was used against what lay beyond the TFs. >>
>
> Indeed quite true. Our read on that is the same as yours, Chris.
And hence the reason for tying its use to TFs and not just wooden
TFs.
>
> As for the rest of the post, I apologize if I was not clear. I
did ask for historical examples of multiple armies using flaming
arrows in open battles as a matter of routine. I meant the source
reference, not word of mouth. Sorry about that.
>
> I also did not mean fire in general - as in lighting terrain
features on fire. We are aware this was done - and more than once.
However, we want Warrior to be a battle game, not a strategem game
and certainly not a contest in terrain feature scorching. I will
write the rule so that folks can use it, but it won't be a core rule.
>
> If someone wants to write a rule for terrain feature lighting that
would not slow the game down significantly or change its basic
nature, I would certainly consider it.
>
> I do think Chris makes a very strong argument for leaving things
as is ('option 1'). One thing I am very sensitive to as a gamer is
a change in tourney format negating bought and lovingly painted
elements of an army.
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

> I do think Chris makes a very strong argument for leaving things
as is ('option 1'). One thing I am very sensitive to as a gamer is
a change in tourney format negating bought and lovingly painted
elements of an army.
>
> Jon

I agree with you here Jon - it would be bad for Chris to not be
able to use his wagon laager.

However, we are at that place NOW.

If he buys that Wagon Laager for his camp, I get to buy flaming
missiles, as indicated in 14.46.

The difference? He can buy flaming missiles as well under the
current incarnation.

Which some people may consider as fair - until you consider the
impact of "offensive TFs" again.

Suppose I play, oh I don't know, Koryo Korean. This is a
predominately foot army, close order, very Regular, with lots of
lovely LTS, B, 1/2 Pa, 1/2 Sh guys.

In a tournament game, the way 14.46 is NOW, it is completely
irrelevant if Chris brings his Wagon Laager or not - I'll just buy a
10pt ditch, and then get enough flaming missiles to send his
predominately mounted Skythian army running for the hills.

And if he fires incendiaries back at me?

Whoop-dee-do.

Incendiary on MI is a 4, cover for a Pavise makes that 2. You've
got some number of LC and HC with Bow, firing at my 32 or 48 figure
unit. Assuming rolling even, he needs to bring at least 24 figures
of bow armed cav within 80paces of me just to do ONE LOUSY CPF.

He's better off goading me into shooting at him and using regular
arrows! (B is a 2 on MI, shieldess is a 5, cover brings it back to 3)

Heck, I WANT him to buy incendiaries in that situation - I take
less casualties!

Granted, if he rolls up 2, I get 2CPF and have to waver test with
D's, but it isn't very hard to see which direction the herd of
horsies is running and adjust my line accordingly.

Meanwhile, my use of incendiaries could be devastating in the
right circumstance - I just need to get 3CPF on him once, and then
when he recalls back, I fire with half as many figures (because of
long range), but WAIT! - I break out the incendiaries, and now I
only need 1 CPF for that 2nd cause of disorder for waver tests.

If he's bringing that many figures of Cav into close proximity to
me, I'm going to shake some units - end of story.

And I didn't even mention the Kwanggun infantry (HI front rank)
that is supporting my big blocks of MI - I set them up to milk off
some shooting and do NOT fire back with them - those guys are at a
-1 to be shot with bow if they hide behind their pavises.

At least, in the Tourney environment, where people have driven
long distances and paid good money for Con fees, hotel rooms, gas,
tolls, etc..., you have the chance to not worry about incendiaries
with suggested change #2 (only get incendiaries if your opponent
buys any kind of TF).

Chris could always make a Gentleman's agreement with an opponent
at the start of a match:

"Hey, I've got this beautiful model, I'm only going to put it right
in front of my camp, do you mind not using that as an excuse to buy
incendiaries?" "You're not buying any other TFs?" "Nope, just this
one 6 element section for my camp".

Personally, I think most of us are good enough sports that this
kind of thing would likely fly, even in a cut throat tourney.

And if Chris is playing against a Chinese list that can get
incendiaries as a list rule, he's toast anyways.....

Chris makes a good argument, but the projection of how offensive
TF can be used, especially for predominately foot armies, does not
bode well, especially for mounted armies.

</begin joking>
But on the plus side, you may convince lots of people that
Knights and Elephants are just screwed now, and I might be able to
pick some up at cut rate prices. I take it back - leave 14.46 the
way it is!!! Please!!!!
</end joking>

Regards,
Asif Chaudhry

[Doug]

>As for the rest of the post, I apologize if I was not clear. I did
>ask for historical examples of multiple armies using flaming arrows
>in open battles as a matter of routine. I meant the source
>reference, not word of mouth. Sorry about that.
>Jon

Are you truly convinced that the rules for the combat factors and
effects of fire do not make it more powerful than it was historically?

Even if there are "gaming strategies" which can be used to negate the
effects of fire, are they historically justifiable? If not, then it
should not be necessary to use such strategies to negate the use of
incendiaries.

Are there _any_ accounts which say that the battle was won or lost
because of incendiary missiles raining down upon troops in the open?
--
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then,
that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress
shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every
other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an
American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of
either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it
will ever remain, in the hands of the People."- Tench Coxe, 1788.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm

This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains
information that may be privileged, confidential or copyrighted under
applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-mail,
in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender
by return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. Unless
explicitly and conspicuously designated as "E-Contract Intended",
this e-mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment,
or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-mail does not constitute
a consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing
purposes or for transfers of data to third parties.

[Frank Gilson]

This isn't exactly a fair case.

Primarily mounted armies can't frontally oppose LTS + B even WITHOUT
incendiary missiles.

At least if you buy a substantial amount of such, you will have one
or two fewer foot units...and by using clearing terrain (Road, Open)
the mounted army can hope to force an open flank...and combine that
with a small flank march.

You're not sending the Skythians 'running for the hills' any more
than you otherwise would.

The only real arbiter of incendiary missile effectiveness is
playtesting.

Where incendiary missiles have their greatest effect is in exchanges
against infantry at close range. Mounted opponents have the ability
to avoid your incendiary troops, outflank them, etc.

Frank

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "shahadet_99"
<shahadet_99@y...> wrote:
>
> > I do think Chris makes a very strong argument for leaving things
> as is ('option 1'). One thing I am very sensitive to as a gamer
is
> a change in tourney format negating bought and lovingly painted
> elements of an army.
> >
> > Jon
>
> I agree with you here Jon - it would be bad for Chris to not be
> able to use his wagon laager.
>
> However, we are at that place NOW.
>
> If he buys that Wagon Laager for his camp, I get to buy flaming
> missiles, as indicated in 14.46.
>
> The difference? He can buy flaming missiles as well under the
> current incarnation.
>
> Which some people may consider as fair - until you consider the
> impact of "offensive TFs" again.
>
> Suppose I play, oh I don't know, Koryo Korean. This is a
> predominately foot army, close order, very Regular, with lots of
> lovely LTS, B, 1/2 Pa, 1/2 Sh guys.
>
> In a tournament game, the way 14.46 is NOW, it is completely
> irrelevant if Chris brings his Wagon Laager or not - I'll just buy
a
> 10pt ditch, and then get enough flaming missiles to send his
> predominately mounted Skythian army running for the hills.
>
> And if he fires incendiaries back at me?
>
> Whoop-dee-do.
>
> Incendiary on MI is a 4, cover for a Pavise makes that 2.
You've
> got some number of LC and HC with Bow, firing at my 32 or 48
figure
> unit. Assuming rolling even, he needs to bring at least 24
figures
> of bow armed cav within 80paces of me just to do ONE LOUSY CPF.
>
> He's better off goading me into shooting at him and using
regular
> arrows! (B is a 2 on MI, shieldess is a 5, cover brings it back to
3)
>
> Heck, I WANT him to buy incendiaries in that situation - I take
> less casualties!
>
> Granted, if he rolls up 2, I get 2CPF and have to waver test
with
> D's, but it isn't very hard to see which direction the herd of
> horsies is running and adjust my line accordingly.
>
> Meanwhile, my use of incendiaries could be devastating in the
> right circumstance - I just need to get 3CPF on him once, and then
> when he recalls back, I fire with half as many figures (because of
> long range), but WAIT! - I break out the incendiaries, and now I
> only need 1 CPF for that 2nd cause of disorder for waver tests.
>
> If he's bringing that many figures of Cav into close proximity
to
> me, I'm going to shake some units - end of story.
>
> And I didn't even mention the Kwanggun infantry (HI front rank)
> that is supporting my big blocks of MI - I set them up to milk off
> some shooting and do NOT fire back with them - those guys are at a
> -1 to be shot with bow if they hide behind their pavises.
>
> At least, in the Tourney environment, where people have driven
> long distances and paid good money for Con fees, hotel rooms, gas,
> tolls, etc..., you have the chance to not worry about incendiaries
> with suggested change #2 (only get incendiaries if your opponent
> buys any kind of TF).
>
> Chris could always make a Gentleman's agreement with an
opponent
> at the start of a match:
>
> "Hey, I've got this beautiful model, I'm only going to put it
right
> in front of my camp, do you mind not using that as an excuse to
buy
> incendiaries?" "You're not buying any other TFs?" "Nope, just
this
> one 6 element section for my camp".
>
> Personally, I think most of us are good enough sports that this
> kind of thing would likely fly, even in a cut throat tourney.
>
> And if Chris is playing against a Chinese list that can get
> incendiaries as a list rule, he's toast anyways.....
>
> Chris makes a good argument, but the projection of how
offensive
> TF can be used, especially for predominately foot armies, does not
> bode well, especially for mounted armies.
>
> </begin joking>
> But on the plus side, you may convince lots of people that
> Knights and Elephants are just screwed now, and I might be able to
> pick some up at cut rate prices. I take it back - leave 14.46 the
> way it is!!! Please!!!!
> </end joking>
>
> Regards,
> Asif Chaudhry
>

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Gilson"
<franktrevorgilson@h...> wrote:
>
> This isn't exactly a fair case.

Lots of historical match ups are not fair, Frank.

> At least if you buy a substantial amount of such, you will have one
> or two fewer foot units...and by using clearing terrain (Road,
Open)
> the mounted army can hope to force an open flank...and combine that
> with a small flank march.

Perhaps. Of course, I can use terrain as well (rocky hills,
woods, marsh, major water feature) to narrow the frontage as well.

The fact remains that foot armies (or armies with a substanial
foot bow contingent) get a considerable boost against mounted foes
through the use of incendiaries.

> You're not sending the Skythians 'running for the hills' any more
> than you otherwise would.

True - I'm thinking more of Ewan's SHC, normally a -1 with bow
turning into a +4 with incendiary. Makes for a nice touch.

> The only real arbiter of incendiary missile effectiveness is
> playtesting.

You can say that about ANYTHING Frank - "the proof is in the
doing, not the talking."

That said, one can look at the factors and typical conditions,
review past experience, and then make some general statements like

"mounted cannot hope to frontally oppose foot with LTS + B"

Personally, I think SHC, supported with missile fire of their own
to disorder the foot, could make quite a mess of LTS + B - but I
would have to play test that to find out.

> Where incendiary missiles have their greatest effect is in
exchanges
> against infantry at close range.

Most infantry don't care - if they know incendiaries are coming,
they just put up their shields and then stand halted instead of waver
testing - Jon has already stated that "shields offer no help" is
different from "shieldless".

> Mounted opponents have the ability
> to avoid your incendiary troops, outflank them, etc.

The board is only so big Frank, and I just need to get a couple of
routs going to start causing your line issues. Most experienced
Warrior players can look at the board and see what their opponent is
going to probably do before they put minis down.

Sure - mounted have the mobility advantage. But assuming the
player isn't stalling, there is only so long before you press them
back.

Regards,
Asif Chaudhry

[Todd Schneider]

As a Player whose Army is almost entirely armed with a
Missle weapon (B or JLS), and the kitchen sink of HtH
Weapons, I've never bought or considered buying
incindiaries. Mostly because I feel I need the points
for something else, and because I am not sure the
bonus is worth the penalty I pay in terms of losing a
unit(s).

Todd

--- Frank Gilson <franktrevorgilson@...>
wrote:

> This isn't exactly a fair case.
>
> Primarily mounted armies can't frontally oppose LTS
> + B even WITHOUT
> incendiary missiles.
>
> At least if you buy a substantial amount of such,
> you will have one
> or two fewer foot units...and by using clearing
> terrain (Road, Open)
> the mounted army can hope to force an open
> flank...and combine that
> with a small flank march.
>
> You're not sending the Skythians 'running for the
> hills' any more
> than you otherwise would.
>
> The only real arbiter of incendiary missile
> effectiveness is
> playtesting.
>
> Where incendiary missiles have their greatest effect
> is in exchanges
> against infantry at close range. Mounted opponents
> have the ability
> to avoid your incendiary troops, outflank them, etc.
>
> Frank
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "shahadet_99"
> <shahadet_99@y...> wrote:
> >
> > > I do think Chris makes a very strong argument
> for leaving things
> > as is ('option 1'). One thing I am very sensitive
> to as a gamer
> is
> > a change in tourney format negating bought and
> lovingly painted
> > elements of an army.
> > >
> > > Jon
> >
> > I agree with you here Jon - it would be bad for
> Chris to not be
> > able to use his wagon laager.
> >
> > However, we are at that place NOW.
> >
> > If he buys that Wagon Laager for his camp, I
> get to buy flaming
> > missiles, as indicated in 14.46.
> >
> > The difference? He can buy flaming missiles as
> well under the
> > current incarnation.
> >
> > Which some people may consider as fair - until
> you consider the
> > impact of "offensive TFs" again.
> >
> > Suppose I play, oh I don't know, Koryo Korean.
> This is a
> > predominately foot army, close order, very
> Regular, with lots of
> > lovely LTS, B, 1/2 Pa, 1/2 Sh guys.
> >
> > In a tournament game, the way 14.46 is NOW, it
> is completely
> > irrelevant if Chris brings his Wagon Laager or not
> - I'll just buy
> a
> > 10pt ditch, and then get enough flaming missiles
> to send his
> > predominately mounted Skythian army running for
> the hills.
> >
> > And if he fires incendiaries back at me?
> >
> > Whoop-dee-do.
> >
> > Incendiary on MI is a 4, cover for a Pavise
> makes that 2.
> You've
> > got some number of LC and HC with Bow, firing at
> my 32 or 48
> figure
> > unit. Assuming rolling even, he needs to bring at
> least 24
> figures
> > of bow armed cav within 80paces of me just to do
> ONE LOUSY CPF.
> >
> > He's better off goading me into shooting at him
> and using
> regular
> > arrows! (B is a 2 on MI, shieldess is a 5, cover
> brings it back to
> 3)
> >
> > Heck, I WANT him to buy incendiaries in that
> situation - I take
> > less casualties!
> >
> > Granted, if he rolls up 2, I get 2CPF and have
> to waver test
> with
> > D's, but it isn't very hard to see which direction
> the herd of
> > horsies is running and adjust my line accordingly.
> >
> > Meanwhile, my use of incendiaries could be
> devastating in the
> > right circumstance - I just need to get 3CPF on
> him once, and then
> > when he recalls back, I fire with half as many
> figures (because of
> > long range), but WAIT! - I break out the
> incendiaries, and now I
> > only need 1 CPF for that 2nd cause of disorder for
> waver tests.
> >
> > If he's bringing that many figures of Cav into
> close proximity
> to
> > me, I'm going to shake some units - end of story.
> >
> > And I didn't even mention the Kwanggun infantry
> (HI front rank)
> > that is supporting my big blocks of MI - I set
> them up to milk off
> > some shooting and do NOT fire back with them -
> those guys are at a
> > -1 to be shot with bow if they hide behind their
> pavises.
> >
> > At least, in the Tourney environment, where
> people have driven
> > long distances and paid good money for Con fees,
> hotel rooms, gas,
> > tolls, etc..., you have the chance to not worry
> about incendiaries
> > with suggested change #2 (only get incendiaries if
> your opponent
> > buys any kind of TF).
> >
> > Chris could always make a Gentleman's agreement
> with an
> opponent
> > at the start of a match:
> >
> > "Hey, I've got this beautiful model, I'm only
> going to put it
> right
> > in front of my camp, do you mind not using that as
> an excuse to
> buy
> > incendiaries?" "You're not buying any other TFs?"
> "Nope, just
> this
> > one 6 element section for my camp".
> >
> > Personally, I think most of us are good enough
> sports that this
> > kind of thing would likely fly, even in a cut
> throat tourney.
> >
> > And if Chris is playing against a Chinese list
> that can get
> > incendiaries as a list rule, he's toast
> anyways.....
> >
> > Chris makes a good argument, but the projection
> of how
> offensive
> > TF can be used, especially for predominately foot
> armies, does not
> > bode well, especially for mounted armies.
> >
> > </begin joking>
> > But on the plus side, you may convince lots of
> people that
> > Knights and Elephants are just screwed now, and I
> might be able to
> > pick some up at cut rate prices. I take it back -
> leave 14.46 the
> > way it is!!! Please!!!!
> > </end joking>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Asif Chaudhry
> >
>
>
>
>
>

[Todd Schneider]

My primary foot unit is Reg C MI LTS, B Sh, usually
run in 6E units.

1 Unit of SHC on average dice won't do 1CPF to me
unless he rolls up in the combat, as I'd be 6@3 (if
the SHC was Impetuous) and the SHC would be 6@4. The
SHC has to roll up to do 1CPF to push me back,
otherwise it becomes a dice struggle, and not in the
SHC's favor from looking at the chart.

Todd



--- shahadet_99 <shahadet_99@...> wrote:

> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Gilson"
> <franktrevorgilson@h...> wrote:
> >
> > This isn't exactly a fair case.
>
> Lots of historical match ups are not fair, Frank.
>
> > At least if you buy a substantial amount of such,
> you will have one
> > or two fewer foot units...and by using clearing
> terrain (Road,
> Open)
> > the mounted army can hope to force an open
> flank...and combine that
> > with a small flank march.
>
> Perhaps. Of course, I can use terrain as well
> (rocky hills,
> woods, marsh, major water feature) to narrow the
> frontage as well.
>
> The fact remains that foot armies (or armies with
> a substanial
> foot bow contingent) get a considerable boost
> against mounted foes
> through the use of incendiaries.
>
> > You're not sending the Skythians 'running for the
> hills' any more
> > than you otherwise would.
>
> True - I'm thinking more of Ewan's SHC, normally
> a -1 with bow
> turning into a +4 with incendiary. Makes for a nice
> touch.
>
> > The only real arbiter of incendiary missile
> effectiveness is
> > playtesting.
>
> You can say that about ANYTHING Frank - "the
> proof is in the
> doing, not the talking."
>
> That said, one can look at the factors and typical
> conditions,
> review past experience, and then make some general
> statements like
>
> "mounted cannot hope to frontally oppose foot with
> LTS + B"
>
> Personally, I think SHC, supported with missile
> fire of their own
> to disorder the foot, could make quite a mess of LTS
> + B - but I
> would have to play test that to find out.
>
> > Where incendiary missiles have their greatest
> effect is in
> exchanges
> > against infantry at close range.
>
> Most infantry don't care - if they know
> incendiaries are coming,
> they just put up their shields and then stand halted
> instead of waver
> testing - Jon has already stated that "shields offer
> no help" is
> different from "shieldless".
>
> > Mounted opponents have the ability
> > to avoid your incendiary troops, outflank them,
> etc.
>
> The board is only so big Frank, and I just need
> to get a couple of
> routs going to start causing your line issues. Most
> experienced
> Warrior players can look at the board and see what
> their opponent is
> going to probably do before they put minis down.
>
> Sure - mounted have the mobility advantage. But
> assuming the
> player isn't stalling, there is only so long before
> you press them
> back.
>
> Regards,
> Asif Chaudhry
>
>
>
>

[Frank Gilson]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "shahadet_99"
<shahadet_99@y...> wrote:

>
> > At least if you buy a substantial amount of such, you will have
one
> > or two fewer foot units...and by using clearing terrain (Road,
> Open)
> > the mounted army can hope to force an open flank...and combine
that
> > with a small flank march.
>
> Perhaps. Of course, I can use terrain as well (rocky hills,
> woods, marsh, major water feature) to narrow the frontage as well.
>
> The fact remains that foot armies (or armies with a substanial
> foot bow contingent) get a considerable boost against mounted foes
> through the use of incendiaries.

Somewhat, but if you want to counter the movement advantage of the
mounted army, you must take incendiary missiles across the majority
of the frontage of your foot army, spending upwards of 200+ points,
losing around two units of missile troops.

That 'requires' you to get your frontage narrowing terrain. Then,
when you try to push forward you will hit a limit, the lip of that
terrain, beyond which you cannot push farther without exposing a
flank.

Sure, you could support that flank with troops in the woods (or up
the steep hill), but only for so far, and perhaps the army has some
decent bad terrain troops to fight you with, etc.

If not, if you have a locked down fortress of frontage, I guess you
just earned yourself a drawn game as you've made it impossible for
the cavalry to fight.

> > You're not sending the Skythians 'running for the hills' any
more
> > than you otherwise would.
>
> True - I'm thinking more of Ewan's SHC, normally a -1 with bow
> turning into a +4 with incendiary. Makes for a nice touch.

Yes, vs. SHC the incendiary factor difference is at its biggest.

> > The only real arbiter of incendiary missile effectiveness is
> > playtesting.
>
> You can say that about ANYTHING Frank - "the proof is in the
> doing, not the talking."
>
> That said, one can look at the factors and typical conditions,
> review past experience, and then make some general statements like
>
> "mounted cannot hope to frontally oppose foot with LTS + B"
>
> Personally, I think SHC, supported with missile fire of their
own
> to disorder the foot, could make quite a mess of LTS + B - but I
> would have to play test that to find out.

In isolation, if the SHC player is able to get at least 2 such units
to combine against one foot unit, that could work. However, if
opposed by substantial missile fire, the foot unit simply holds up
shields, and it would be near impossible for it to be disordered.
Therefore, the SHC are hitting ordered spearmen, not their favorite
pursuit.

If you didn't buy incendiary missiles for all your bowmen, then the
SHC will try to position to hit a unit without such. If you did buy
them for all, then the SHC will need to find a non-spear armed
target, if that isn't possible...drawn game again...presuming your
fortress of units plus terrain and the cavalry player's inability to
get sufficient Opens plus Road.

> > Where incendiary missiles have their greatest effect is in
> exchanges
> > against infantry at close range.
>
> Most infantry don't care - if they know incendiaries are
coming,
> they just put up their shields and then stand halted instead of
waver
> testing - Jon has already stated that "shields offer no help" is
> different from "shieldless".

Quite true, but halting an enemy infantry unit means it isn't
formation changing or advancing in the future, and isn't charging or
countercharging this bound...useful, but at the cost of what you
paid for your incendiary missiles.

> > Mounted opponents have the ability
> > to avoid your incendiary troops, outflank them, etc.
>
> The board is only so big Frank, and I just need to get a couple
of
> routs going to start causing your line issues. Most experienced
> Warrior players can look at the board and see what their opponent
is
> going to probably do before they put minis down.
>
> Sure - mounted have the mobility advantage. But assuming the
> player isn't stalling, there is only so long before you press them
> back.

I believe Mark Stone has posted some data that it is just barely
possible to push an enemy back with a close order foot line given a
normal number of bounds. However, this requires you don't end up
with holes in your line due to terrain or other factors. As I stated
above, if you have multiply armed infantry, and you get terrain to
narrow the frontage, and you have purchased incendiary missiles for
everyone...you likely have a drawn game against a cavalry opponent,
bad for you and him.

You might now state that being permitted to do this is a bad thing,
but I don't think so.

Frank