Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 10/24/2005 17:13:30 Central Standard Time,
franktrevorgilson@... writes:

I think the current connection of Incendiary missile purchase to TF
potential is just fine.



We are looking at only the opponent of a player who actually took a TF being
eligible to adjust for flaming B, LB missiles.

What do folks think?

J


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 10/24/2005 18:04:07 Central Standard Time,
mark@... writes:

The intent might be to let people take incendiaries
as a way of dealing with a TF. In fact, people will take incendiaries and
frequently (almost always?) avoid the TF and simply dump incendiary fire on
some other hapless target.



Oh, I know - that is exactly the issue. My personal solution would be (and
has always been) to not have them be part of a competition battle at all and
save them for Siege Warrior only. The reason we are having this conversation
is the belief that the majority of players want them in competitions
*somehow* so that the base conditions of 14.0 should allow them.

However, we still want an historical game and these things just did not
appear in open battles.

Therefore we are soliciting opinions to a solution. Believe me, this isn't
a case of me just doing whatever I want...lol If I just did whatever I
wanted, there wouldn't be any flaming arrows in baseline Warrior.. :)

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 10/24/2005 18:10:27 Central Standard Time,
franktrevorgilson@... writes:

A few chinese lists allow incendiaries whenever, anyway.



Yes. We have records of their use commonly in open fights and an armory
with 200k fire lances in it. Quite a different issue...

Jon


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

[Frank Gilson]

I don't see significant problems with being able to have some
Incendiary Missiles in regular games.

Why?

1) They don't cause waver tests in circumstances other than normal
fire.

2) You have to pay 1 point per figure so equipped PER SHOT, quite
expensive.

3) Range of fire is significantly shorter than the base weapon.

They have only two benefits, that they fire using HG/Art factors,
and that if they contribute to a CPF or more against a target with
animals the result is disorder.

So the real question is when we can get them...and the intention is
to have a connection of availability to history.

I think the current connection of Incendiary missile purchase to TF
potential is just fine.

Frank

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 10/23/2005 14:14:51 Central Standard Time,
> rockd@p... writes:
>
> Are you trying to say that the opportunity to buy incindiaries
due to
> the enemy having TF was meant to allow them to assault the TF
with
> fire, but people instead use them against other things in a
generally
> non-historical manner?
>
>
>
> Yes, I am still not satisfied that we have that right. I don't
want flaming
> missiles at all in standard competitions, but it seems I am in
the minority.
> So, we tried to craft a permission tied to TFs. But no matter
what we do,
> it gets abused - which is why I would prefer to disallow them
entirely.
> I haven't finalized 14 in the new book yet, so I am still in the
hunt for a
> good way to handle this.
>
> Of course, you could all write Scott and tell him that you would
prefer they
> weren't in comp games at all....
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[Mark Stone]

--- On October 24 Jon Cleaves said: ---

> We are looking at only the opponent of a player who actually took a TF being
> eligible to adjust for flaming B, LB missiles.
>
> What do folks think?

I'm of two minds about this. On the positive side:
Sure, this sounds like the right approach Jon, though I'd add the further caveat
that it has to be a TF that can actually be affected by incendiaries. If my
opponent has a ditch or a stone wall, my flaming arrows aren't going to help
much.

On the negative side:
This will become yet another rule used as a pretext for doing something other
than what you (Jon) intend. Consider skirmish formation, one of my favorite pet
peeves that was mentioned earlier in this discussion. The rules state that
skirmish is a "shooting formation", hence the require to have a target or the
possibility of having a target before entering skirmish. In fact, we all know
damned well that skirmish seldom makes shooting better, typically makes
shooting worse, and is most often adopted as a formation for its defensive
benefits, not as a shooting formation.

This will be the same thing. The intent might be to let people take incendiaries
as a way of dealing with a TF. In fact, people will take incendiaries and
frequently (almost always?) avoid the TF and simply dump incendiary fire on
some other hapless target.

And if that's what people are really going to do, then maybe it's more honest to
just say anybody can use incendiaries. Frank is right: they have a cost, and
they have some limitations. Let people use them whenver. And who knows? There
might even be a good historical justification for that, if you look at who
really used fire arrows, when, and why.


-Mark

[Frank Gilson]

I think 'sometimes' being able to take my own incendiaries for my
list's reasons is actually good.

A few chinese lists allow incendiaries whenever, anyway.

So, my opinion, leave the rules as the 'currently' are, either side
can adjust if either side has a TF.

Frank

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 10/24/2005 17:13:30 Central Standard Time,
> franktrevorgilson@h... writes:
>
> I think the current connection of Incendiary missile purchase to
TF
> potential is just fine.
>
>
>
> We are looking at only the opponent of a player who actually took
a TF being
> eligible to adjust for flaming B, LB missiles.
>
> What do folks think?
>
> J
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

>
> However, we still want an historical game and these things just did not 
> appear in open battles.
>

That to me would be all the justification needed to only allow them to armies
that historically used them and leave the rest to Seige Warrior.

Steve Rawls




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

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 25/10/2005 00:04:07 GMT Standard Time,
mark@... writes:

The rules state that
skirmish is a "shooting formation", hence the require to have a target or the
possibility of having a target before entering skirmish. In fact, we all know
damned well that skirmish seldom makes shooting better, typically makes
shooting worse, and is most often adopted as a formation for its defensive
benefits, not as a shooting formation.



*** hmm -

i have always seen skirmish as a defensive shooting formation - not a
formation to maximise firepower - a block will always beat it on that front and
so
it should.

for those lucky enough to own slingshot magazine from the 1980s - they will
find my article - which made suggestions regarding skirmishing in WRG 6th (
there was more than one type in those days ) - ultimately my suggestions became
the basis for the current skirmish rules.

mark mallard


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

Jon and list,
lots of armies (I won't bore you with a list) had access to
strategem technologies that affected archery--fire, poison, noises,
etc. Lots of ink could be spilt on their effect--whether animals shied
from noise arrows, whether widespread use of poison intended to cause
pain (vice death) actually disordered animals or men--but I'll leave
that for another, longer e-mail.
It seems to me that a great many ancient armies did this sort of
thing--some limited, some ubiquitous, some only in seiges, some on the
battlefield. The intention was, I think to cause terror, rather than to
achieve a quantifiable tactical result--but that's another arguement too.
So my short opinion is that incendiaries should remain just exactly
as they are--they have limitations, they cost points, they offer some
players an answer to some otherwise insoluable tactical problems, they
fail to help others at all, and all players have various remedies to
prevent them from ruling the battlefield.
My only addition (tee-hee) is that I'd like to see them able to set
fire to terrain features in certain weather conditions. : )

Seriously--up here in Canada, many new players immediately started
to experiment with incendiaries (and even try to exploit them) virtually
as soon as the rules were clarified. They have a certain effect in
action, but not against players who know what to expect, and not any
greater than any other tactic.

If we were to start debating the history/authenticity/utilization
of them, I'd wonder if the user shouldn't have to shoot them as his
FIRST shot with that unit. Maybe, maybe not.

As usual, just my two cents.

Yours,
Christian

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Hello everyone,

Another consideration for incendiaries as I recall from 6th edition is to light
a woods or built up area afire. Imagine the fun that the Sassanid player will
have in a dry battlefield, burning those sneaky Byzantines out of their hiding
place. If incendiaries are limited, this seemingly common sense tactic won't
ever get to be an option when Seige Warrior comes out will it?

Pyro Kelly

Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
--- On October 24 Jon Cleaves said: ---

> We are looking at only the opponent of a player who actually took a TF being
> eligible to adjust for flaming B, LB missiles.
>
> What do folks think?

I'm of two minds about this. On the positive side:
Sure, this sounds like the right approach Jon, though I'd add the further caveat
that it has to be a TF that can actually be affected by incendiaries. If my
opponent has a ditch or a stone wall, my flaming arrows aren't going to help
much.

On the negative side:
This will become yet another rule used as a pretext for doing something other
than what you (Jon) intend. Consider skirmish formation, one of my favorite pet
peeves that was mentioned earlier in this discussion. The rules state that
skirmish is a "shooting formation", hence the require to have a target or the
possibility of having a target before entering skirmish. In fact, we all know
damned well that skirmish seldom makes shooting better, typically makes
shooting worse, and is most often adopted as a formation for its defensive
benefits, not as a shooting formation.

This will be the same thing. The intent might be to let people take incendiaries
as a way of dealing with a TF. In fact, people will take incendiaries and
frequently (almost always?) avoid the TF and simply dump incendiary fire on
some other hapless target.

And if that's what people are really going to do, then maybe it's more honest to
just say anybody can use incendiaries. Frank is right: they have a cost, and
they have some limitations. Let people use them whenver. And who knows? There
might even be a good historical justification for that, if you look at who
really used fire arrows, when, and why.


-Mark


SPONSORED LINKS
Miniature wargaming Wargaming Four horsemen Warrior

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

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.


---------------------------------




---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

JC said:
However, we still want an historical game and these things just did not
appear in open battles.



Actually many of Marius' battles occured because he was digging a ditch to
encicle his opponents which prompted them to attack before they wanted to in
hopes of avoiding being trapped. I still agree that for the most part you are
correct JC, but it's all the options that Warrior affords that makes it so
attractive to play.



Pyro boy




---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

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

[joncleaves]

There are other choices than these, but here's the three we are considering.

1. leave it the way it is. If either player chooses to place TFs, either
player may take flaming arrows for B or LB.

2. make it so only the opponent of a player who actually took TFs can have
them.

3. allow anyone to buy them.



From my perspective, I don't like any of those. I don't find the historical
justification for any army to take them any time it wants in an open field
battle. If the TF restriction is relaxed, we will see them in every game....
But this isn't about me.

Of the three above, the problem with the way it is now (number 1) is that a guy
can take a ditch and use that to justify taking flaming arrows, whether his
opponent chooses to or not. This is what is meant by 'offensive incendiaries'.

In number 2, at least there is a limiter and it has some historical basis in
that 90%+ of all battles with flaming missiles added to the army (as opposed to
part of standard doctrine as with some oriental armies, etc.) had TFs involved
and were set-piece.

Thoughts?

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Christian and Sarah <cgc.sjw@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:17:58 -0400
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Incendiary missiles



Jon and list,
lots of armies (I won't bore you with a list) had access to
strategem technologies that affected archery--fire, poison, noises,
etc. Lots of ink could be spilt on their effect--whether animals shied
from noise arrows, whether widespread use of poison intended to cause
pain (vice death) actually disordered animals or men--but I'll leave
that for another, longer e-mail.
It seems to me that a great many ancient armies did this sort of
thing--some limited, some ubiquitous, some only in seiges, some on the
battlefield. The intention was, I think to cause terror, rather than to
achieve a quantifiable tactical result--but that's another arguement too.
So my short opinion is that incendiaries should remain just exactly
as they are--they have limitations, they cost points, they offer some
players an answer to some otherwise insoluable tactical problems, they
fail to help others at all, and all players have various remedies to
prevent them from ruling the battlefield.
My only addition (tee-hee) is that I'd like to see them able to set
fire to terrain features in certain weather conditions. : )

Seriously--up here in Canada, many new players immediately started
to experiment with incendiaries (and even try to exploit them) virtually
as soon as the rules were clarified. They have a certain effect in
action, but not against players who know what to expect, and not any
greater than any other tactic.

If we were to start debating the history/authenticity/utilization
of them, I'd wonder if the user shouldn't have to shoot them as his
FIRST shot with that unit. Maybe, maybe not.

As usual, just my two cents.

Yours,
Christian






Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Ewan McNay]

Of those 3? It'll be a unanimous vote* for option 2.

[*there is a long and glorious history of bridge bidding competitions for
predictions of 'unanimous votes'...]

JonCleaves@... wrote:

> There are other choices than these, but here's the three we are considering.
>
> 1. leave it the way it is. If either player chooses to place TFs, either
player may take flaming arrows for B or LB.
>
> 2. make it so only the opponent of a player who actually took TFs can have
them.
>
> 3. allow anyone to buy them.
>
>
>
> From my perspective, I don't like any of those. I don't find the historical
justification for any army to take them any time it wants in an open field
battle. If the TF restriction is relaxed, we will see them in every game....
> But this isn't about me.
>
> Of the three above, the problem with the way it is now (number 1) is that a
guy can take a ditch and use that to justify taking flaming arrows, whether his
opponent chooses to or not. This is what is meant by 'offensive incendiaries'.
>
> In number 2, at least there is a limiter and it has some historical basis in
that 90%+ of all battles with flaming missiles added to the army (as opposed to
part of standard doctrine as with some oriental armies, etc.) had TFs involved
and were set-piece.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian and Sarah <cgc.sjw@...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:17:58 -0400
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Incendiary missiles
>
>
>
> Jon and list,
> lots of armies (I won't bore you with a list) had access to
> strategem technologies that affected archery--fire, poison, noises,
> etc. Lots of ink could be spilt on their effect--whether animals shied
> from noise arrows, whether widespread use of poison intended to cause
> pain (vice death) actually disordered animals or men--but I'll leave
> that for another, longer e-mail.
> It seems to me that a great many ancient armies did this sort of
> thing--some limited, some ubiquitous, some only in seiges, some on the
> battlefield. The intention was, I think to cause terror, rather than to
> achieve a quantifiable tactical result--but that's another arguement too.
> So my short opinion is that incendiaries should remain just exactly
> as they are--they have limitations, they cost points, they offer some
> players an answer to some otherwise insoluable tactical problems, they
> fail to help others at all, and all players have various remedies to
> prevent them from ruling the battlefield.
> My only addition (tee-hee) is that I'd like to see them able to set
> fire to terrain features in certain weather conditions. : )
>
> Seriously--up here in Canada, many new players immediately started
> to experiment with incendiaries (and even try to exploit them) virtually
> as soon as the rules were clarified. They have a certain effect in
> action, but not against players who know what to expect, and not any
> greater than any other tactic.
>
> If we were to start debating the history/authenticity/utilization
> of them, I'd wonder if the user shouldn't have to shoot them as his
> FIRST shot with that unit. Maybe, maybe not.
>
> As usual, just my two cents.
>
> Yours,
> Christian
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

[joncleaves]

Bridge aside - is that your preference?

J

-----Original Message-----
From: Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:53:55 -0400
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Incendiary missiles


Of those 3? It'll be a unanimous vote* for option 2.

[*there is a long and glorious history of bridge bidding competitions for
predictions of 'unanimous votes'...]

JonCleaves@... wrote:

> There are other choices than these, but here's the three we are considering.
>
> 1. leave it the way it is. If either player chooses to place TFs, either
player may take flaming arrows for B or LB.
>
> 2. make it so only the opponent of a player who actually took TFs can have
them.
>
> 3. allow anyone to buy them.
>
>
>
> From my perspective, I don't like any of those. I don't find the historical
justification for any army to take them any time it wants in an open field
battle. If the TF restriction is relaxed, we will see them in every game....
> But this isn't about me.
>
> Of the three above, the problem with the way it is now (number 1) is that a
guy can take a ditch and use that to justify taking flaming arrows, whether his
opponent chooses to or not. This is what is meant by 'offensive incendiaries'.
>
> In number 2, at least there is a limiter and it has some historical basis in
that 90%+ of all battles with flaming missiles added to the army (as opposed to
part of standard doctrine as with some oriental armies, etc.) had TFs involved
and were set-piece.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian and Sarah <cgc.sjw@...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:17:58 -0400
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Incendiary missiles
>
>
>
> Jon and list,
> lots of armies (I won't bore you with a list) had access to
> strategem technologies that affected archery--fire, poison, noises,
> etc. Lots of ink could be spilt on their effect--whether animals shied
> from noise arrows, whether widespread use of poison intended to cause
> pain (vice death) actually disordered animals or men--but I'll leave
> that for another, longer e-mail.
> It seems to me that a great many ancient armies did this sort of
> thing--some limited, some ubiquitous, some only in seiges, some on the
> battlefield. The intention was, I think to cause terror, rather than to
> achieve a quantifiable tactical result--but that's another arguement too.
> So my short opinion is that incendiaries should remain just exactly
> as they are--they have limitations, they cost points, they offer some
> players an answer to some otherwise insoluable tactical problems, they
> fail to help others at all, and all players have various remedies to
> prevent them from ruling the battlefield.
> My only addition (tee-hee) is that I'd like to see them able to set
> fire to terrain features in certain weather conditions. : )
>
> Seriously--up here in Canada, many new players immediately started
> to experiment with incendiaries (and even try to exploit them) virtually
> as soon as the rules were clarified. They have a certain effect in
> action, but not against players who know what to expect, and not any
> greater than any other tactic.
>
> If we were to start debating the history/authenticity/utilization
> of them, I'd wonder if the user shouldn't have to shoot them as his
> FIRST shot with that unit. Maybe, maybe not.
>
> As usual, just my two cents.
>
> Yours,
> Christian
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>





Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Tim Grimmett]

My thought.

Not every aspect of ancient warfare must be addressed by a rule in Warrior.

X-rule the category.

As you've pointed out before; tournament masters can ultimately decide what to
do in any event other than the NICT.

Tim

JonCleaves@... wrote:
There are other choices than these, but here's the three we are considering.

1. leave it the way it is. If either player chooses to place TFs, either
player may take flaming arrows for B or LB.

2. make it so only the opponent of a player who actually took TFs can have
them.

3. allow anyone to buy them.



From my perspective, I don't like any of those. I don't find the historical
justification for any army to take them any time it wants in an open field
battle. If the TF restriction is relaxed, we will see them in every game....
But this isn't about me.

Of the three above, the problem with the way it is now (number 1) is that a guy
can take a ditch and use that to justify taking flaming arrows, whether his
opponent chooses to or not. This is what is meant by 'offensive incendiaries'.

In number 2, at least there is a limiter and it has some historical basis in
that 90%+ of all battles with flaming missiles added to the army (as opposed to
part of standard doctrine as with some oriental armies, etc.) had TFs involved
and were set-piece.

Thoughts?

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Christian and Sarah <cgc.sjw@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:17:58 -0400
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Incendiary missiles



Jon and list,
lots of armies (I won't bore you with a list) had access to
strategem technologies that affected archery--fire, poison, noises,
etc. Lots of ink could be spilt on their effect--whether animals shied
from noise arrows, whether widespread use of poison intended to cause
pain (vice death) actually disordered animals or men--but I'll leave
that for another, longer e-mail.
It seems to me that a great many ancient armies did this sort of
thing--some limited, some ubiquitous, some only in seiges, some on the
battlefield. The intention was, I think to cause terror, rather than to
achieve a quantifiable tactical result--but that's another arguement too.
So my short opinion is that incendiaries should remain just exactly
as they are--they have limitations, they cost points, they offer some
players an answer to some otherwise insoluable tactical problems, they
fail to help others at all, and all players have various remedies to
prevent them from ruling the battlefield.
My only addition (tee-hee) is that I'd like to see them able to set
fire to terrain features in certain weather conditions. : )

Seriously--up here in Canada, many new players immediately started
to experiment with incendiaries (and even try to exploit them) virtually
as soon as the rules were clarified. They have a certain effect in
action, but not against players who know what to expect, and not any
greater than any other tactic.

If we were to start debating the history/authenticity/utilization
of them, I'd wonder if the user shouldn't have to shoot them as his
FIRST shot with that unit. Maybe, maybe not.

As usual, just my two cents.

Yours,
Christian






Yahoo! Groups Links






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



SPONSORED LINKS
Miniature wargaming Wargaming Four horsemen Warrior

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

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.


---------------------------------




---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

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