Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[scott holder]

I'm finally working on Dark Age Warrior lists again. And I'm at a point where
one of the worst goofs in 7th comes to the fore: hand hurled naptha bombs.

The problem arises when you look at the old Arab Empire list (it'll be Arab
Imperial in Dark Age Warrior and have an Early and Late Period to cover the
Umayyad and Abbassid periods) and see the Naffatun dudes. Now, in 6th
edition, if memory serves, you bought these guys at 16 points a pop (which is
wrong in the first place, it should be 17 points a pop for a shieldless
irregular LI with a naptha bomb). That means a unit of 8 LI guys toting
around their naptha pots (although only one rank fires, skirmish them and you
get 6 guys firing). Of course that's a 153 point unit and for what?
Artillery that fires at a 40p range? Okay, sure, it skirmishes which means
it's a nifty mobile artillery platform. But since they're shieldless and Irr
C, they're not exactly potent battlefield killing machines. And at that point
value.

But before the legions of "change the point system" people come charging the
walls of castle Apocolypse, this isn't really about that per se. In 6th
edition, you paid for these guys and that was it. But in 7th edition, it
appears that *at first glance* you pay for them per shot. However, as I stare
at the text, I'm not so sure anymore since Phil did not specify "per shot" for
naptha bombs, he just said "extra to equip figure with fire projector or
naptha bombs". Of course this is "supposed" to happen AFTER the army list is
purchased and it's now being "adjusted". Therein lies the problem and
contradiction with armies like Arab Imperial. What do you do with these guys
after they shoot? Take em away? No, that doesn't seem correct since what
little I can get on the Naffatun dudes is that they hung around flinging
naptha at any target silly enough to get close.

Which, I might add, is how Phil did it in 6th edition, and in coming full
circle, how he's done it in DBM. In the latter rules, Psiloi (X) act as
mobile artillery against most targets but as inferior Psiloi when they
themselves are the target. And they certainly don't cost the bogus amount
they do in 7th/Warrior. (Do they? I don't have the rules in front of me so
can't compare but I don't remember there being some moronic discrepency).

Let me put this in context. The nearest thing to these guys are organ guns,
and that's not all that great a comparison. Organ guns are essentially
"artillery with none of it's advantages" in that it's range is mounted troops
range. That's one reason why we never see organ guns. And the cost of an
element of irregular organ guns is 15 points, that's HALF what the same
element of irr LI with naptha bombs costs. Okay okay, the LI can move, it's
not a sitting duck for people who a) aren't afraid of artillery, and b) know
how to effectively kill artillery. But, the LI only has a 40p range. I sorta
think the positives and negatives, when comparing these two troop types, kinda
cancel each other out. That leaves us with the amazing point discrepancy.

Ignoring that for a minute, in Warrior, if we allow LI in a list to have
naptha bombs, we should make sure that whatever point value we assign to those
troops results in those troops being able to toss naptha bombs hither and yon
(at the 40p range) throughout the game. This way, they can absolutely mangle
a target with artillery factors (most targets anyway). At the same time,
since they're always shieldless LI, they're pretty much dog meat for any other
LI, and that includes shielded JLS LI in skirmish. I mean they're both
shooting at each other at either 1 or 2 (the naptha being one factor better).
But of course the naptha heavers are shieldless so they're always gonna be
down by one. Moreover, they're really dog meat against any well run LI unit
with any "real" missile weapon. Suddenly your regular Cretain archers have
high point value targets of opportunity that, unless you become unlikely or
stupid, can't shoot back at you while you pour arrows into them.

Which brings me around to relative cost for these guys. For starters, I think
we need to take the point cost section of Warrior and make sure those costs
are done by element, not by figure. Second, we need to add something,
somewhere, that states that troops specified in lists as being able to have
naptha bombs, have the same ammount of "ammo" as any other missile-armed unit,
i.e., unlimited, the only limiting factor being fatigue. Third, we need to
repoint these guys into something sensible. Fourth (and this is tangentally
related to this), we should state that only those lists that state as much are
naptha bomb allowed. Moreover, we should also state that any list should be
allowed modifications so that if you want to arm a unit with incendiary JLS,
you can (it's not just limited to Daylami). On the other hand, only Spanish
HTW can be incendiary (that will be a list rule but we have to point cost it
in the basic Warrior set). The same thing, here, applies to corrosive
weapons, rocks, etc. Basically, I've always felt that by allowing just about
anybody to use the "per shot" incendiaries or "rocks on a hill", adds some
spice and tactical flair to the game.

Why, you ask, not just make this a list rule? Because the basic point value
section of Warrior needs to be able to relate, in a generic sense, to every
army we do.

Scott
List Ho again

PS: Next missive: Tactical systems in the late Middle Ages (I'm serious).

[Ed Forbes]

On 22 May 2001 10:06:05 -0400 "Holder, Scott <FHWA>"
<Scott.Holder@...> writes:
> I'm finally working on Dark Age Warrior lists again. And I'm at a
> point where
> one of the worst goofs in 7th comes to the fore: hand hurled naptha
> bombs....

snip

>....In 6th edition, you paid for these guys and that was it. But in
7th
> edition, it appears that *at first glance* you pay for them per shot.
However,
> as I stare
> at the text, I'm not so sure anymore since Phil did not specify "per
> shot" for
> naptha bombs, he just said "extra to equip figure with fire
> projector or
> naptha bombs".
>
> Scott
> List Ho again

Hi Scott,

This is the first I have ever heard that anyone ever read the 7th points
list to only allow for one shot for a fig with fire projector or naptha
bombs ( note plural ) at 10 and 15 points when the next line very
specifically limits incendiary missiles to a single shot at 1pt for reg
and 2 pts for irr. There is clear intent for unlimited use of fire
projector / naptha bombs for the high cost and a weapon is only single
shot if the list directly specified single shot. Fire projector or
naptha bombs are priced at 10 rounds for the reg and about 7-8 rounds for
the irr troops, about the max that could be used in a game if the single
shot costs are factored in.

I have no problem with reducing cost, but would not recommend that it be
cheaper to fire a shot from inf than art or the other listed single shot
cases. I would recommend that if the cost is reduced, that a max number
of shots is then listed so that the cost per rd is in proportion and
equal.

I recommend that the fig with fire projector or naptha bombs be given
the right to purchase their number of shots ( unlimited available to buy
) at the 1 pt for reg and 2 pt for irr single shot list cost. This
lowers the cost of the fig, does the least damage to the price list, and
keeps to the spirt of the existing rule, and will put these troops on the
tabe. Overhaul of the price list is a very different subject.

Later,

Ed Forbes


________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

[Greg Regets]

You can't have this discussion about reducing points without including the
whole point cost issue ... sorry, you just can't do it.

Not three months ago we had this argument and were told that no changes to
the points would effect things enough to mess with ... "we have a deadline",
"the point system has worked for ages" ... etc ...

There are already so many troops that are pointed into ineffectiveness. When
was the last time you saw Varagian Guardsmen (a feared troop type
historically) on a battlefield. I have tried them several times. It isn't
pretty and they cost so much you end up having an army that covers a third
of the table.

I just know you are not really going to tell us you DON'T have a problem
with the cost of Varangian Guardsmen and SHC ... but DO have a problem with
hand held incendiary troops, :-)

Greg

P.S. We have always played these guys with the same ammo restrictions as any
other missile LI.

--- In WarriorRules@y..., "Holder, Scott <FHWA>" <Scott.Holder@f...>
wrote:
> I'm finally working on Dark Age Warrior lists again. And I'm at a
point where
> one of the worst goofs in 7th comes to the fore: hand hurled
naptha bombs. etc etc etc

Scott,

I feel that the LI MUST have the same ammo capability as any other
missile using troop type. Each time any of them fire, they use
up "ammo" in fatigue. Yes, I know you cannot salvage hand grenades
like you can arrows but it's the only fair method.

The "one shot" I think applies to the fire lance type weapon. Used
as a L or LTS normally but it has 1 shot it can use in prep or
support fire. Once that shot is fired, it goes back to being a L or
LTS.


I personally like the idea of being able to use a troop type that,
all be it very expensive, will annoy most opponents and will NOT
course a waver test if they get deaded. Lets see now, prep shooting
would be 6 @ 4 = 18. I assume they could also support shoot??? And
could they prep shoot and support shoot in the same bound??

And seeing as how they would only be able to fire at 40 paces, is
this a good time to bring up the LI waver test at 40 paces before
prep shooting? + 1 on the above = 24 (2 CPF to a 16 man pike unit 1
element wide x 4 deep).

Cheers

--- In WarriorRules@y..., "Holder, Scott <FHWA>" <Scott.Holder@f...>
wrote:
> I'm finally working on Dark Age Warrior lists again. And I'm at a
point where
> one of the worst goofs in 7th comes to the fore: hand hurled
naptha bombs.

<<<< big snip >>>>

> Why, you ask, not just make this a list rule? Because the basic
point value
> section of Warrior needs to be able to relate, in a generic sense,
to every
> army we do.
>
> Scott
> List Ho again
>
> PS: Next missive: Tactical systems in the late Middle Ages (I'm
serious).

Scott,

re-read the posting again. I agree with you that the Warrior costs
should be in element not figures. This overcomes the old 6th lists
problem of having a number of figures that did not make a complete
element. Will also stop the dodge of having one figure upgraded
to "C" to stop an entire unit being "D". This option (if available)
should be applied to a minimum of one element.

While we are on lists...... I have noticed a trend in the 7th lists
to have the C-in-C or sub plus their "element" figures being armed
differently or being a different type from any other troops. Look at
the Tlaxcalin list for an example. Would it be possible to allow a
second "bodyguard" element of the same troop type if the general
wanted to be only 2 elements?


And yes, although the LIST will allow incendiries etc, the basic
points list should include them.

[scott holder]

re-read the posting again. I agree with you that the Warrior costs
should be in element not figures. This overcomes the old 6th lists
problem of having a number of figures that did not make a complete
element. Will also stop the dodge of having one figure upgraded
to "C" to stop an entire unit being "D". This option (if available)
should be applied to a minimum of one element.

>Yunno, everytime you post another "gimmick" pulled down under, I suddenly
look upon my 'Merkin ancients brethren with newfound fondness:) For 10
years now, we've specifically not allowed single figure upgrades in units. If
you upgrade one figure, you don't. You MUST upgrade the entire element. So
we aren't blessed with that particular "dodge". Of course this itself leads
to potential oddities of which I've been known to take advantage of. Case in
point, the old WRG Late Hoplite Greek list. I take Reg B hoplites and
upgrade one element to Reg A. Now the unit is never uneasy! Heh heh,
anything to make Hoplites attractive to anyone except other hoplites:):)

While we are on lists...... I have noticed a trend in the 7th lists
to have the C-in-C or sub plus their "element" figures being armed
differently or being a different type from any other troops. Look at
the Tlaxcalin list for an example. Would it be possible to allow a
second "bodyguard" element of the same troop type if the general
wanted to be only 2 elements?

>Please don't take the "new" WRG lists as any "trend" in terms of what the
List Ho and fellow Ho's will be doing. My opinion of the "new" lists is not
great. Yes, they reflect more recent information but no, they are not put
together well. Your example of CinCs and no other "bodyguard-ish" elements is
a case in point. That won't be the case in Warrior lists.

>I might add that no "new world" lists will ever be published per se. They
don't fit into our booklet scheme of things, therefore, we will make them
available strictly on the internet. Don't ask me for a publication date. My
guess is that I'll probably get around to them after I finish the next three
books (Dark Age, Holy, and Feudal Warrior(s)).

Scott
List Ho