Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Tom McMillan]

I picked up Warrior and Biblical Warrior at the Havoc convention, and was
very impressed with the professional presentation. Fast Warrior seems to be
very cool indeed, and we will soon be giving it a try at the club.

Perhaps its just a pet peeve that doesn't bother anyone else, but one
problem that seemed to come up a lot in my games was the old 'you can't get
there from here' bugaboo, and please correct me where I am wrong on this.
Often a simple, obvious, even absolutely necessary move is impossible
because it does not fit into Approach, Counter, or Retirement parameters.
Example- your unit has 2 enemy units to contend with- one 150 paces off its
left front, one 200 paces off its right front. The one on the left is covered
by a friendly unit preparing to charge, so you want to deal with the one on
your right.
Well you can't.
You can't approach, as you are moving away from the closest enemy, you cant
retire, as you are moving closer to enemy within 240. You cant counter, as
you are not threatened.
The obvious solution is 'If it ain't an approach, and it ain't a
retirement, then its a counter." This represents a unit commander realising
that there is something other to be done than advance on the nearest enemy,
while in the tactical zone, so he chooses to use initiative. He doesn't need
to feel threatened to do this. ( Historical example, the Roman mid-level
commander who saved the day at Cynoschepahale by peeling off his unit to
intervene on the other flank.)
Otherwise, you run into silliness like people purposely placing their unit
beyond supporting distance, so the unease will allow them to counter.

[joncleaves]

It is typically counter (haha) to my philosophy to get into 'designer's
ntoes' discussion on the group because from a purely optimization standpoint
it doesn't appear to be the best use of my time. That is, the rules aren't
going to change in any fundamental way and we spent two years already going
over the 'why' of the rules, so what theoretical 'good' does it do to
'explain' a rule at this point.

Especially when we are about to go through all of that again with Campaign,
Siege and Fleet Warrior. At least in Fantasy Warrior, I can just say:
because I said so. :)

Anyway, I have a few minutes, so what the hell. But realize that I cannot
afford a long debate on this or any other similar subject myself. As always,
you guys can beat it to death as much as you like.

> Often a simple, obvious, even absolutely necessary move is
> impossible
> because it does not fit into Approach, Counter, or Retirement parameters.
> Example- your unit has 2 enemy units to contend with- one 150 paces off its
>
> left front, one 200 paces off its right front. The one on the left is
> covered
> by a friendly unit preparing to charge, so you want to deal with the one on
>
> your right.
> Well you can't.
> You can't approach, as you are moving away from the closest enemy, you
> cant
> retire, as you are moving closer to enemy within 240. You cant counter, as
> you are not threatened. >>

That is essentially true. Now, I can't 'see' all the parts of this given
situation, but the basic philosophy of Warrior is that the fundamental
ancient battle is a lining up of opposing battle lines and a direct clash
between them. The more a Warrior general deviates from the simplicity of
that plan, the more problems he is presented and the less 'control' he has.

> <<The obvious solution is 'If it ain't an approach, and it ain't a
> retirement, then its a counter.">>

We are not going to change the rules to allow that, and it is not true from
our standpoint.

<< This represents a unit commander realising
> that there is something other to be done than advance on the nearest enemy,
> while in the tactical zone, so he chooses to use initiative. He doesn't
> need
> to feel threatened to do this. ( Historical example, the Roman mid-level
> commander who saved the day at Cynoschepahale by peeling off his unit to
> intervene on the other flank.)>>


This 'peeling off' is entirely possible, of course. But in Warrior, that
'mid level commander' is going to have to retire out of 240p and then get
back in. That is our interpretation of what happened in that battle.

> << Otherwise, you run into silliness like people purposely placing their
> unit
> beyond supporting distance, so the unease will allow them to counter. >>

Silly and extremely ill-advised. I'd worry more about such sick behavior if
there wasn't already a number of ways for the game to police itself on this
issue. Like the other player punishing the guy for handing him uneasy units.
Similar to an unearned run or kicking it into your own goal.

If a player insists on having unit by unit control, he is going to have to
work for it. That means it is on *him* to not have a unit within 200p of the
unit he wants to fight, but within 150p of another unit he has no need to.
That is his fault, and we are not changing the rules to help him get out of
that situation. Note also that this unit 200p away apparently can't charge
him or shoot him and isn't an elephant or chariot and is not behind his
flank. So what is the hurry? He also apparently can't approach keeping
some part of the unit within 150p of the close guy but 'setting up' for a
future move against the guy at 200p.

What is really happening (especially on attack orders) is that that part of
the battle line is advancing abreast into the enemy line. If there is an
'unaddressed unit' in the enemy line, the general involved had better
reposition reserves to fix things because on the ground at the front of the
line it all looks like things are fine to the centurion. If the centurion
(or tribune or whatever) is going to stop advancing and head in another
direction, it would be because *that* guy perceives a threat and if there
isn't any, off he goes just like the big general told him to.

As always, disagreements with the way the rules are written are best dealt
with at this point by submitting an x-rule (along with that elusive
historical support).

Not able to debate this one, as it is a rule we are talking about here, but I
had a couple minutes and thought I'd at least prove that I do read all these.
:)

Jon



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

[Bill Low]

Something like that came up this weekend at Pointcon ... where a unit in a
command that was in retreat, but which was not immediately threatened by
anyone, was unable to "retire," as the move would have brought the body
closer to enemy within 240 paces. We assumed it would move by the "safest"
route toward the edge of the board, and let it do so.

At 09:35 PM 4/7/2002 -0400, Quahog25@... wrote:
> I picked up Warrior and Biblical Warrior at the Havoc convention, and
>was
> very impressed with the professional presentation. Fast Warrior seems to be
> very cool indeed, and we will soon be giving it a try at the club.
>
> Perhaps its just a pet peeve that doesn't bother anyone else, but one
> old 'you can't get
> on this.
> Often a simple, obvious, even absolutely necessary move is impossible
> does not fit into Approach, Counter, or Retirement parameters.
> Example- your unit has 2 enemy units to contend with- one 150 paces off its
> left front, one 200 paces off its right front. The one on the left is
covered
> by a friendly unit preparing to charge, so you want to deal with the one on
> your right.
> Well you can't.
> You can't approach, as you are moving away from the closest enemy, you
cant
> retire, as you are moving closer to enemy within 240. You cant counter, as
> you are not threatened.
> The obvious solution is 'If it ain't an approach, and it ain't a
>" This represents a unit commander realising
> that there is something other to be done than advance on the nearest enemy,
> while in the tactical zone, so he chooses to use initiative. He doesn't
need
> to feel threatened to do this. ( Historical example, the Roman mid-level
> commander who saved the day at Cynoschepahale by peeling off his unit to
> intervene on the other flank.)
> Otherwise, you run into silliness like people purposely placing their unit
> beyond supporting distance, so the unease will allow them to counter.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
-----------------------------------------------------
From Harold William Low

[joncleaves]

First, let me apologize to Tom M if my tone seemed harsh. I tried using
those to point out I was messing with him to some extent in a light
hearted way. Upon reflection, my words might have been misconstrued.

Let me just sum up without the editorial.

1. The Warrior rulebook is final from a basic mechanical viewpoint. We may
clarify our intent in places where my writing skill (or lack thereof) did not
get the point across well, but the structure is not changing.

2. The approach/counter/retire rules are not broken. They do exactly what
they are supposed to do. They may NOT do what you want them to do, but that
is not the same thing.


3. The design philosophy for Warrior is that individual unit manipulation is
hard. There will definitely be times when you cannot do a move you want to
do with an individual unit, whether due to its orders or position relative to
the enemy or both.

Now, let me ask your collective advice on something:
None of the Four Horsemen has this as a full-time job. I have to pick and
choose carefully what I spend my Warrior time on. If I spend it debating a
rule that isn't changing, I am not writing Campaign Warrior, which slows down
the process. It is a zero sum game. I AM looking for advice on how to
handle this better than I did in my reply to Tom. Should I just ignore such
a debate? I am concerned about that because I want us to be responsive to
our players. Should I just say "from the rules author: this rule isn't
changing but feel free to submit an x-rule" or some such? That seemed curt
to me. But apparently I screwed it up anyway. Let me know your thoughts.

Here's a reply to the next mail in the counter/retire/approach thread.

<<> Something like that came up this weekend at Pointcon ... where a unit in a
> command that was in retreat, but which was not immediately threatened by
> anyone, was unable to "retire," as the move would have brought the body
> closer to enemy within 240 paces. We assumed it would move by the "safest"
> route toward the edge of the board, and let it do so.>>

That assumption is incorrect. The retreat rule (4.51) says a body must TRY
to retreat off table. It does not say that a body must get off table even by
making illgeal moves. It may be that a demoralized body is 'stuck' in place,
especially if surrounded by enemy within 240p. Demoralized does not equal
routing, but it is easy to turn one into the other..... :)

Jon






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

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 04/07/2002 8:37:39 PM Central Daylight Time,
Quahog25@... writes:

<< I picked up Warrior and Biblical Warrior at the Havoc convention, and was
very impressed with the professional presentation. Fast Warrior seems to be
very cool indeed, and we will soon be giving it a try at the club.

Perhaps its just a pet peeve that doesn't bother anyone else, but one
problem that seemed to come up a lot in my games was the old 'you can't get
there from here' bugaboo, and please correct me where I am wrong on this.
Often a simple, obvious, even absolutely necessary move is impossible
because it does not fit into Approach, Counter, or Retirement parameters.
Example- your unit has 2 enemy units to contend with- one 150 paces off its
left front, one 200 paces off its right front. The one on the left is
covered
by a friendly unit preparing to charge, so you want to deal with the one on
your right.
Well you can't.
You can't approach, as you are moving away from the closest enemy, you
cant
retire, as you are moving closer to enemy within 240. You cant counter, as
you are not threatened.
The obvious solution is 'If it ain't an approach, and it ain't a
retirement, then its a counter." This represents a unit commander realising
that there is something other to be done than advance on the nearest enemy,
while in the tactical zone, so he chooses to use initiative. He doesn't need
to feel threatened to do this. ( Historical example, the Roman mid-level
commander who saved the day at Cynoschepahale by peeling off his unit to
intervene on the other flank.)
Otherwise, you run into silliness like people purposely placing their unit
beyond supporting distance, so the unease will allow them to counter.
>>
I disagree with this. One of the weaknesses with any miniatures game is the
helicopter view afforded the army commander and the unit commander. For
every example of a unit commander performing a stellar maneuver to save the
day, there are probably 10 fold examples of unit commanders doing nothing or
the wrong thing, effecting the batte negatively. Additionally we play on a
football field with hills. At 200 paces that opposing unit may not be seen
by your unit desirous of approaching. I like the rules that in some small
way handcuff our actions. We cannot simulate fog of war, so things like this
make command of your army a little more difficult. I say good! This is not
chess and I think is sometimes confused as such. An art P once told me that
a knowledge of history is not the same as a study of it.
Chris

Oh hell, you didn't just ask for advise from wargamers
did you :)

My advise Jon is to free up debate on this list.

1. continue writing C Warrior and army lists.
2. Let open/free debate on rules amongst list members
proceed.
3. Do not concern yourself with correcting/answering
information directly, as a forum like a listserve is
not a deliberative body. Therefore, what is said
here, unless insanely contrary to the good of the
whole, should be viewed with detachment.
4. If members really have a bug up there shorts and
"must speak to the management", then let them email
you directly.

Jon, people who are on this list seem dedicated to
making Warrior work as their gaming system, so you
have no fear of loosing gamers by not responding to
every whim. Take my queries of last week for example;
you didn't need to answer those, as any gamer better
than myself could and did answer them to my
satisfaction. I, like many, don't need the gosple of
Jon on every question, just a gentle push in the right
direction by any deciple. By being the "voice of
Saroun" and controlling list debate for content, you
burn your time, not ours. I say all of this, because
free debate cost you nothing, and something may
actually come out of it. It empowers list members to
grumble, make ideas, and generally focus on playing
the game mechanics; this, rather than being an oracle
list, would allow you and the other horsemen to focus
on product, which in turn is being responsive to the
gamers needs more than enguaging in endless debate.
Nothing said would be a reflectioin upon you, Scot or
the other horsemen, as it would be a postulation of
opinions, not fact. Point is, you have some active
minds here--as opposed to active mouths on another
list--so let them enguage, while you observe, and
perhaps jump in when feeling froggy, but generally
remain concerned with product not debate. You build
it, we'll play and talk about it.

Just my opinion, which I will now whipe and flush

boyd

> Now, let me ask your collective advice on something:
> None of the Four Horsemen has this as a full-time
> job. I AM looking
> for advice on how to
> handle this better than I did in my reply to Tom.
> Should I just ignore such
> a debate? I am concerned about that because I want
> us to be responsive to
> our players. Should I just say "from the rules
> author: this rule isn't
> changing but feel free to submit an x-rule" or some
> such? That seemed curt
> to me. But apparently I screwed it up anyway. Let
> me know your thoughts.


=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

[scott holder]

My advise Jon is to free up debate on this list.
1. continue writing C Warrior and army lists.

>Jon doesn't write army lists, I do, hence, I *never* answer questions
in here:):)

>An aside, remember that Dark Age Warrior will be available at Cold Wars
so keep enough money for that purchase. I'm now working on Holy Warrior
list #14, Konmenan Byzantine. We're still on track for publishing Holy
Warrior by Fall In.

>An earlier question about the Fast Warior army list relationship to
Warrior lists. If you have a FW army, all of the troops will be in it's
equivalent version. Some of the mins and maxes might be a bit different
but nothing as radical as what was described in the other email. I too,
have lived and rebased things from 5-6-7 and work hard to avoid that
trap.

Scott
List Ho

> >Jon doesn't write army lists, I do, hence, I *never* answer
questions
> in here:)
>
Hyah! Hyah! <sound of whip cracking> stop talking and get to 1st
crusaders' list by June! Hyah! :)

I too,
> have lived and rebased things from 5-6-7 and work hard to avoid that
> trap.

At one point I just started laying extra figs on Irr LMI to make them
regular. I still have some 15mm MI with a second LMI based glued
under the MI base. Glad to avoid it with you ;]
boyd


>
> Scott
> List Ho

[scott holder]

Hyah! Hyah! <sound of whip cracking> stop talking and get to 1st
crusaders' list by June! Hyah! :)

>What the "public" sees is an all or nothing deal. Two crusader lists
are completed in first draft form, 1st Crusade and Early Crusader (they
are different).

Scott
List Ho

--- In WarriorRules@y..., "Holder, Scott <FHWA>" <Scott.Holder@f...>
wrote:
> Hyah! Hyah! <sound of whip cracking> stop talking and get to 1st
> crusaders' list by June! Hyah!
>
> >What the "public" sees is an all or nothing deal. Two crusader
lists
> are completed in first draft form, 1st Crusade and Early Crusader
(they
> are different).

Excellent, I like variety. Looking forward to both. You say by Fall-
in, right? Good enough
boyd

>
> Scott
> List Ho

We cannot simulate fog of war, so things like this
> make command of your army a little more difficult. I say good!

As far as counters/retirements go, I'm probably the worst. I've
always prefered safety armies like Maurikian Byzantines, simply
because I always get myself stuck in a position in which my forces
cannot contort sufficiently to strike the overwehlming blow I can see
from my zepplin. I used to play Normans alot, but after a couple of
years of having my kniggits sweep all before them only to be blown in
place while rallying forward, I've learned patience in attack is
key. Afterall, an inherently rash army doesn't need a rash general
such as myself sending them where no counter will suffice.

Along with that, IMHO:
I will add that one of the things that brings me back to "warrior"
is that units can't just fight all day reliably. In a different game
system which I am familiar with--and admittedly is fun to play--
troops not killed remain fresh. As an infantry grunt, I know the
reality of exhaustion on many levels. I still hate keeping records,
but I also don't want to see ranks of mounted charging repeatedly
without tiring horses, bands of archer firing from endless quivers,
and ranks of HI fighting HTH without pause for synthetic hours on
end.

Fatigue = 1/3 Fog of War. Along with command confusion and delay,
and the willpower and training of the forces at hand, fatigue
constitutes a major factor in combat.


All of that being said, remember what the wiseman(Tom Thomas) said:
If you roll a "1", just suck it up and stop rolling ones :^D

boyd

[Bill Low]

I take the point, and accept the correction. It is not too hard to imagine
the local unit commander, maybe a little bewildered and demoralized
himself, surrounded by enemies ... wanting only to get his guys away, but
not seeing any safe (read, "correct") way in which to do so ... and just
hunkering down.

Warrior (like WRG before it) simulates an Ancient battle on many different
levels, and the player (in effect) plays different roles in different
situations. He (or she) is not always the CinC, and in a counter (the
classic case!) he is acting as a local unit commander with limited
information and orders to follow.

To put it another way, sometimes you really "can't get there from here" ...
which is precisely the way it should be.

Thanks, Jon, for the clarification on theory ... the rules didn't need any!

At 08:20 AM 4/8/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> I tried using
> those to point out I was messing with him to some extent in a light
> Upon reflection, my words might have been misconstrued.
>
> Let me just sum up without the editorial.
>
> We may
> clarify our intent in places where my writing skill (or lack thereof) did
not
> get the point across well, but the structure is not changing.
>
> They do exactly what
> They may NOT do what you want them to do, but that
> is not the same thing.
>
>
> The design philosophy for Warrior is that individual unit manipulation is
> There will definitely be times when you cannot do a move you want to
> do with an individual unit, whether due to its orders or position
relative to
> the enemy or both.
>
> Now, let me ask your collective advice on something:
> I have to pick and
> If I spend it debating a
> rule that isn't changing, I am not writing Campaign Warrior, which slows
down
> I AM looking for advice on how to
> Should I just ignore such
> I am concerned about that because I want us to be responsive to
> "from the rules author: this rule isn't
>" That seemed curt
> Let me know your thoughts.
>
> Here's a reply to the next mail in the counter/retire/approach thread.
>
><<> Something like that came up this weekend at Pointcon ... where a unit
in a
>> command that was in retreat, but which was not immediately threatened by
>>"" as the move would have brought the body
>> ""
>>>>
>
> The retreat rule (4.51) says a body must TRY
> It does not say that a body must get off table even by
> It may be that a demoralized body is 'stuck' in place,
> Demoralized does not equal
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
-----------------------------------------------------
From Harold William Low

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Thanks Scott,

Kelly

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/