Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Frank Gilson]

I will be attending Historicon to play both in the NICT and in the
Theme event.

Sadly, neither Mark Stone nor Dave Stier will be on hand...so my
usual "lead borrowing" friends can't help me.

I've put out a request to Bill Low and his resources, but don't want
to burden him as the sole source of assistance.

So, anybody got any lead? ...let me narrow things down.

Theme, I'd play in either scale, and would be happy using any of:
Early, Middle, Late Roman, Parthian, Bosporan, Commagene, Later
Judean, Sassanid Persian, Gepid, Palmyran, Later Visigothic, Romano-
British, Early Lombard. Primary choices (not that I get that luxury)
being Early Roman, Late Roman, Commagene, and Sassanid.

NICT is only 25mm, of course:
100 Years War English, Early Burgundian, Feudal French, Feudal
German, Ghaznavid, Italian Condotta, Knight of St. John, Later
Polish, Medieval French, Medieval Spanish, Sassanid Persian,
Seluecid, Sultanate of Delhi, Swiss

Frank Gilson

[Ewan McNay]

Jon alert: rules Qs at end of post.
***
Not that I can help.

But I thought the NICT part of this was a fascinating precis of
what armies one person thinks are viable in such a context.

Frank Gilson wrote:
> Sadly, neither Mark Stone nor Dave Stier will be on hand...so my
> usual "lead borrowing" friends can't help me.

...and the quality of competition will be diminished a bit. Too bad.

> NICT is only 25mm, of course:
> 100 Years War English, Early Burgundian, Feudal French, Feudal
> German, Ghaznavid, Italian Condotta, Knight of St. John, Later
> Polish, Medieval French, Medieval Spanish, Sassanid Persian,
> Seluecid, Sultanate of Delhi, Swiss

I vote for someone giving him Swiss. Not for any reason about
army quality, but just because I'd like to see someone run it .

**
From the weekend and recent list perusal:

(1) When a mounted staff element joins a foot unit, his element
is placed behind rear rank (and has been ruled to be not a rank
of itself).

(a) can it be expanded out to one side?
(b) if an elephant, does it make the unit 'elephants' for
purposes of target priorities?
(c) does it alter the criteria by which the foot unit considers
itself to be supported?

(2) a 2E unit, front rank SHC rear rank EHC, recoils a hth
opponent. Are the EHC permitted to expand out in the follow-up?
[I would have thought 'yes' but the rules say "troops who are
loose or open," and 'troops' is short for 'body of troops'; this
is not a loose or open body of troops. So we ruled no.]

(3) a mixed unit of reg longbowmen, front rank LHI 2HCW, Sh, is
recoiled (disordered) by mounted. Next bound, the cav get to
fight the LMI, fine. The rules say "count the shields of the
front rank". Now, the front rank have shields but count as
shieldless b/c of 2HCW. The rear rank would not count shieldless
if they posessed a shield (!). So, it was argued that the rear
rank are LMI with the benefit of a shield (because the front rank
has one) but no reason to be counted as shieldless. We assumed
again, that this is wrong, but can see the logic to this
argument. Is our assumption correct?

I think that's all that came up.

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Frank,

In all the years that you've been playing, I've noticed that you seem to
always put out a call for lead. Do you just hate painting? Do you own any of the
lead that you game with? Just humor me. . . :)

kelly



Frank Gilson <franktrevorgilson@...> wrote:
I will be attending Historicon to play both in the NICT and in the
Theme event.

Sadly, neither Mark Stone nor Dave Stier will be on hand...so my
usual "lead borrowing" friends can't help me.

I've put out a request to Bill Low and his resources, but don't want
to burden him as the sole source of assistance.

So, anybody got any lead? ...let me narrow things down.

Theme, I'd play in either scale, and would be happy using any of:
Early, Middle, Late Roman, Parthian, Bosporan, Commagene, Later
Judean, Sassanid Persian, Gepid, Palmyran, Later Visigothic, Romano-
British, Early Lombard. Primary choices (not that I get that luxury)
being Early Roman, Late Roman, Commagene, and Sassanid.

NICT is only 25mm, of course:
100 Years War English, Early Burgundian, Feudal French, Feudal
German, Ghaznavid, Italian Condotta, Knight of St. John, Later
Polish, Medieval French, Medieval Spanish, Sassanid Persian,
Seluecid, Sultanate of Delhi, Swiss

Frank Gilson


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

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

Frank,

I have some lead that I would be happy to loan. I do not know if my Arabs
R Us figures would give you what you want. Let me know if you are interested
and I will send you a list of what I have.

Jamie
James Gentry
Outrider 6


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

[Frank Gilson]

Note that my NICT army choice list is my personal preference, based
on years of experience with particular armies...I have mostly used
knight+shooter armies over the years, with forays into Sultanate of
Delhi on occasion.

Frank

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:
> Jon alert: rules Qs at end of post.
> ***
> Not that I can help.
>
> But I thought the NICT part of this was a fascinating precis of
> what armies one person thinks are viable in such a context.
>
> Frank Gilson wrote:
> > Sadly, neither Mark Stone nor Dave Stier will be on hand...so my
> > usual "lead borrowing" friends can't help me.
>
> ...and the quality of competition will be diminished a bit. Too
bad.
>
> > NICT is only 25mm, of course:
> > 100 Years War English, Early Burgundian, Feudal French, Feudal
> > German, Ghaznavid, Italian Condotta, Knight of St. John, Later
> > Polish, Medieval French, Medieval Spanish, Sassanid Persian,
> > Seluecid, Sultanate of Delhi, Swiss

[Frank Gilson]

Do I own the lead I game with? Usually no ...The big issue is that
I own NO 25mm lead, it's expensive, I'm a terrible painter (and lack
the time), etc. etc.

Also, various individuals have been kind enough to loan me entire
armies! Sometimes piecemealed from various sources...

I do have a few remaining 15mm armies...but the events I compete in
are almost all 25mm, and on the east coast...whereas I'm on the west.

Frank

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> Frank,
>
> In all the years that you've been playing, I've noticed that
you seem to always put out a call for lead. Do you just hate
painting? Do you own any of the lead that you game with? Just humor
me. . .
>
> kelly
>
>
>
> Frank Gilson <franktrevorgilson@h...> wrote:
> I will be attending Historicon to play both in the NICT and in the
> Theme event.
>
> Sadly, neither Mark Stone nor Dave Stier will be on hand...so my
> usual "lead borrowing" friends can't help me.
>
> I've put out a request to Bill Low and his resources, but don't
want
> to burden him as the sole source of assistance.
>
> So, anybody got any lead? ...let me narrow things down.
>
> Theme, I'd play in either scale, and would be happy using any of:
> Early, Middle, Late Roman, Parthian, Bosporan, Commagene, Later
> Judean, Sassanid Persian, Gepid, Palmyran, Later Visigothic,
Romano-
> British, Early Lombard. Primary choices (not that I get that
luxury)
> being Early Roman, Late Roman, Commagene, and Sassanid.
>
> NICT is only 25mm, of course:
> 100 Years War English, Early Burgundian, Feudal French, Feudal
> German, Ghaznavid, Italian Condotta, Knight of St. John, Later
> Polish, Medieval French, Medieval Spanish, Sassanid Persian,
> Seluecid, Sultanate of Delhi, Swiss
>
> Frank Gilson
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Frank,

I totally understand. I too am deficient in the 25mm armies that I enjoy
playing with the exception of one but I'm working on that issue by painting. I'm
slow but getting there.

kelly

Frank Gilson <franktrevorgilson@...> wrote:
Do I own the lead I game with? Usually no ...The big issue is that
I own NO 25mm lead, it's expensive, I'm a terrible painter (and lack
the time), etc. etc.

Also, various individuals have been kind enough to loan me entire
armies! Sometimes piecemealed from various sources...

I do have a few remaining 15mm armies...but the events I compete in
are almost all 25mm, and on the east coast...whereas I'm on the west.

Frank

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> Frank,
>
> In all the years that you've been playing, I've noticed that
you seem to always put out a call for lead. Do you just hate
painting? Do you own any of the lead that you game with? Just humor
me. . .
>
> kelly
>
>
>
> Frank Gilson <franktrevorgilson@h...> wrote:
> I will be attending Historicon to play both in the NICT and in the
> Theme event.
>
> Sadly, neither Mark Stone nor Dave Stier will be on hand...so my
> usual "lead borrowing" friends can't help me.
>
> I've put out a request to Bill Low and his resources, but don't
want
> to burden him as the sole source of assistance.
>
> So, anybody got any lead? ...let me narrow things down.
>
> Theme, I'd play in either scale, and would be happy using any of:
> Early, Middle, Late Roman, Parthian, Bosporan, Commagene, Later
> Judean, Sassanid Persian, Gepid, Palmyran, Later Visigothic,
Romano-
> British, Early Lombard. Primary choices (not that I get that
luxury)
> being Early Roman, Late Roman, Commagene, and Sassanid.
>
> NICT is only 25mm, of course:
> 100 Years War English, Early Burgundian, Feudal French, Feudal
> German, Ghaznavid, Italian Condotta, Knight of St. John, Later
> Polish, Medieval French, Medieval Spanish, Sassanid Persian,
> Seluecid, Sultanate of Delhi, Swiss
>
> Frank Gilson
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

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

[Jake Kovel]

Frank,
I can do later Polish, middle period only, if you are interested.
Jacob

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I see how you are NOW! . . .

Eaglewars@... wrote:Frank,
I can do later Polish, middle period only, if you are interested.
Jacob


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/1/2004 12:33:34 Central Daylight Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

<<From the weekend and recent list perusal:

(1) When a mounted staff element joins a foot unit, his element
is placed behind rear rank (and has been ruled to be not a rank
of itself).

(a) can it be expanded out to one side?>>
[
[
No.


<<(b) if an elephant, does it make the unit 'elephants' for
purposes of target priorities?>>
[
[
Yes.


<<(c) does it alter the criteria by which the foot unit considers
itself to be supported?>>
[
[
The criteria? No.



<<(2) a 2E unit, front rank SHC rear rank EHC, recoils a hth
opponent. Are the EHC permitted to expand out in the follow-up?
[I would have thought 'yes' but the rules say "troops who are
loose or open," and 'troops' is short for 'body of troops'; this
is not a loose or open body of troops. So we ruled no.]>>
[
[
You did the right thing and followed our guidance and interpreted literally.
However, this is a typo and we need to fix it. I will add this to the next
clarifications. The intent is for the answer to be yes.



<<(3) a mixed unit of reg longbowmen, front rank LHI 2HCW, Sh, is
recoiled (disordered) by mounted. Next bound, the cav get to
fight the LMI, fine. The rules say "count the shields of the
front rank". Now, the front rank have shields but count as
shieldless b/c of 2HCW. The rear rank would not count shieldless
if they posessed a shield (!). So, it was argued that the rear
rank are LMI with the benefit of a shield (because the front rank
has one) but no reason to be counted as shieldless. We assumed
again, that this is wrong, but can see the logic to this
argument. Is our assumption correct?>>
The Cav would be fighting shieldless LMI.
Jon


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

[Chris Bump]

<<(3) a mixed unit of reg longbowmen, front rank LHI 2HCW, Sh, is
recoiled (disordered) by mounted. Next bound, the cav get to
fight the LMI, fine. The rules say "count the shields of the
front rank". Now, the front rank have shields but count as
shieldless b/c of 2HCW. The rear rank would not count shieldless
if they possessed a shield (!). So, it was argued that the rear
rank are LMI with the benefit of a shield (because the front rank
has one) but no reason to be counted as shieldless. We assumed
again, that this is wrong, but can see the logic to this
argument. Is our assumption correct?>>
The Cav would be fighting shieldless LMI.
Jon
[
[
This brings up an interesting question. Propose a body of HI 2hcw,sh in the
front rank and MI Jls, sh in the second rank is fighting an enemy to its front.
Subsequent bounds the HI are shieldless. Based on what you wrote above I assume
that if the body were disordered then the opponent would be allowed to fight
against the MI and still count them shieldless. Did I interpret your comments
correctly?

So the question, If that same body is embroiled in subsequent bounds of hth so
that the HI count shieldless, they are not disordered, but are struck in the
left flank by an new opponent. Would the new opponent fight the MI as
shieldless or as shielded? Would it make a difference if the body in question
was disordered?
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: JonCleaves@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Harrythe5@...
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Historicon, Lead, etc.


In a message dated 6/1/2004 12:33:34 Central Daylight Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

<<From the weekend and recent list perusal:

(1) When a mounted staff element joins a foot unit, his element
is placed behind rear rank (and has been ruled to be not a rank
of itself).

(a) can it be expanded out to one side?>>
[
[
No.


<<(b) if an elephant, does it make the unit 'elephants' for
purposes of target priorities?>>
[
[
Yes.


<<(c) does it alter the criteria by which the foot unit considers
itself to be supported?>>
[
[
The criteria? No.



<<(2) a 2E unit, front rank SHC rear rank EHC, recoils a hth
opponent. Are the EHC permitted to expand out in the follow-up?
[I would have thought 'yes' but the rules say "troops who are
loose or open," and 'troops' is short for 'body of troops'; this
is not a loose or open body of troops. So we ruled no.]>>
[
[
You did the right thing and followed our guidance and interpreted literally.
However, this is a typo and we need to fix it. I will add this to the next
clarifications. The intent is for the answer to be yes.



<<(3) a mixed unit of reg longbowmen, front rank LHI 2HCW, Sh, is
recoiled (disordered) by mounted. Next bound, the cav get to
fight the LMI, fine. The rules say "count the shields of the
front rank". Now, the front rank have shields but count as
shieldless b/c of 2HCW. The rear rank would not count shieldless
if they posessed a shield (!). So, it was argued that the rear
rank are LMI with the benefit of a shield (because the front rank
has one) but no reason to be counted as shieldless. We assumed
again, that this is wrong, but can see the logic to this
argument. Is our assumption correct?>>
The Cav would be fighting shieldless LMI.
Jon


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


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

[Ewan McNay]

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 JonCleaves@... wrote:
> <<(3) a mixed unit of reg longbowmen, front rank LHI 2HCW, Sh, is
> recoiled (disordered) by mounted. Next bound, the cav get to
> fight the LMI, fine. The rules say "count the shields of the
> front rank". Now, the front rank have shields but count as
> shieldless b/c of 2HCW. The rear rank would not count shieldless
> if they posessed a shield (!). So, it was argued that the rear
> rank are LMI with the benefit of a shield (because the front rank
> has one) but no reason to be counted as shieldless. We assumed
> again, that this is wrong, but can see the logic to this
> argument. Is our assumption correct?>>
> The Cav would be fighting shieldless LMI.

Then I would suggest rewording. Perhaps "counting as shieldless if the
front rank would do so" or some such.

When you have a moment, I would be interested in the process followed to
get to the answers on an elephant general causing elephant status for e.g.
target priority, but not for, e.g., support. I think it might be helpful
if there is some algorithm to follow for future questions. I'm completely
fine with the answers themselves (and would have been equally so with
their opposite, hence the algorithm curiosity).

E

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/2/2004 11:53:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

> When you have a moment, I would be interested in the process followed to
> get to the answers on an elephant general causing elephant status for e.g.
> target priority, but not for, e.g., support. I think it might be helpful
> if there is some algorithm to follow for future questions. I'm completely
> fine with the answers themselves (and would have been
> equally so with
> their opposite, hence the algorithm curiosity).
>
> E>>

Nothing about 4.13 changes the fact that the elephant is an elephant for
shooting priorities. Nothing about 4.13 changes the fact that the unit is
non-open foot for support.

Jon

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/2/2004 11:51:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
cncbump@... writes:

> This brings up an interesting question. Propose a body of HI 2hcw,sh in the
front rank and MI Jls, sh in the second rank is fighting an enemy to its front.
Subsequent bounds the HI are shieldless. Based on what you wrote above I assume
that if the body were disordered then the opponent would be allowed to fight
against the MI and still count them shieldless. Did I interpret your comments
correctly?>>
[
[
That is correct.
>
<<> So the question, If that same body is embroiled in subsequent bounds of hth
so that the HI count shieldless, they are not disordered, but are struck in the
left flank by an new opponent. Would the new opponent fight the MI as
shieldless or as shielded?>>

Shieldless, given that the enemy element was contacting the shieldless flank of
the MI.

<< Would it make a difference if the body in
> question was disordered?>>
[
[
Not in this case.
> Chris

[Chris Bump]

Shieldless, given that the enemy element was contacting the shieldless flank of
the MI.

This is where my confusion comes from. We all know that the right flank is the
shieldless flank of the MI, so by hitting the left flank (shielded for the MI as
they are jls, sh) do they count as if fighting shieldless HI or shieldless MI?
In essence do they get both the benefit of a higher factor for fighting the MI
(would expect this as they are hitting the unit in the flank) but also the bonus
of fighting shieldless troops? And since the only shieldless troops are the HI
should the plus be a +2 for shieldless HI or should it be a +3 for shieldless
MI?
Chris
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: JonCleaves@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 11:30 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Historicon, Lead, etc.


In a message dated 6/2/2004 11:51:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
cncbump@... writes:

> This brings up an interesting question. Propose a body of HI 2hcw,sh in the
front rank and MI Jls, sh in the second rank is fighting an enemy to its front.
Subsequent bounds the HI are shieldless. Based on what you wrote above I assume
that if the body were disordered then the opponent would be allowed to fight
against the MI and still count them shieldless. Did I interpret your comments
correctly?>>
[
[
That is correct.
>
<<> So the question, If that same body is embroiled in subsequent bounds of
hth so that the HI count shieldless, they are not disordered, but are struck in
the left flank by an new opponent. Would the new opponent fight the MI as
shieldless or as shielded?>>

Shieldless, given that the enemy element was contacting the shieldless flank
of the MI.

<< Would it make a difference if the body in
> question was disordered?>>
[
[
Not in this case.
> Chris

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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