Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Mike

W.P. classmates?

I have been talking with Jon Becker in Des Moines as he is about the
nearest person who plays Warrior in or around Iowa. I live in a
black hole area as far as Warrior goes. John is like 3 hours away
from me. He plays in the tournaments in your area.

What scale are the tournaments Down there 15mm or 25mm?

I have almost 23 years in Active Duty and National Guard combined.

John S.


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "turner1118" <Turnerm@...>
wrote:
>
> The infamous COWFEX, well remembered.
>
> While I was there, the YMCA was still the wargamer focal point,
but
> the popular systems were Johnny Reb, then transitioned to
Napolean's
> Battles.
>
> I retired 1 1/2 years ago and work on Ft Leavenworth, Jon Cleaves
> and I were W.P. classmates, and have gamed for years, he uses me
as
> a Warrior tackling dummy. (as revenge for victories in other
> systems!) LOL
>
> Mike Turner
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "seventhidsoldier"
> <john_steil@> wrote:
> >
> > 7th ID 2-32 Inf Buccaneer Battalion which converted to the 3-27
> Inf
> > Wolfhounds. I was there from 1983 to 1987. That is where I got
> > hooked on ancient miniatures 7th Edition Rules by I think Paul
> > Jordan at the Armed Forces YMCA. I gamed with Dave Laureman and
> Dale
> > Shanek out there. I am trying to get back into the addiction
after
> a
> > 18 year hiatus.
> >
> > You know it is a small world, my daughters best friend's father
> was
> > stationed there with the 2-9th Inf Manchu's at the same time
that
> I
> > was there. I was an evaluator for his unit when they had a
> battalion
> > live fire at Ft. Hunter-Ligget that killed 72 head of cattle in
> 1985.
> >
> > Where are you at now Mike?
> >
> > John Steil
> >
> >
> > --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "turner1118" <Turnerm@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 7th ID, When were you in the Division?
> > >
> > > 9th Regt, and 1-9 IN, 1989-1991
> > >
> > > Mike Turner
> > >
> > > --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "seventhidsoldier"
> > > <john_steil@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It would only be fair for Reg A troops to get a +1 in
combat.
> > Irr A
> > > > get a +2 just for rolling up.
> > > >
> > > > First class Regular troops (Reg A) throughout history rarely
> > lost
> > > in
> > > > unit to unit combat. (aka the Silver shields in the
Successor
> > Wars
> > > > after Alexanders death.
> > > >
> > > > It makes a lot of sense to me to improve the fighting
ability
> of
> > > Reg A
> > > > troops considering the their extra cost.
> > > >
> > > > The rule could be a +1 in combat for an all Reg A units.
> > > >
> > > > John S.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
> > > > <jwilkinson62@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark,
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps something along this line might allow us to
> see
> > > Reg A
> > > > Varangians and their ilk more on the table top. Good idea
with
> > the
> > > +1
> > > > in combat.
> > > > >
> > > > > kw
> > > > >
> > > > > markmallard7@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > ** Interesting stuff. I think some other Regular A foot
> could
> > be
> > > > upgraded to
> > > > > fighting in two ranks or being able to go impetuous or
even
> > > given an
> > > > extra
> > > > > +1 in combat. Especially in lists where they are supposedly
> > > > bodyguard or elite
> > > > > units that currently get trounced on the table by more
> > mundane
> > > units.
> > > > > The easiest solution would be a simple modification to
> combat
> > > mods
> > > > +1 for
> > > > > regular elite foot.
> > > > > So lists would just need the word elite added to
> descriptions.
> > > > >
> > > > > mark mallard
> > > > > **
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In a message dated 01/02/2006 16:47:29 GMT Standard Time,
> > > > > greg.regets@ writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Regular knights should be able to be impetuous, even
> when
> > > > > dismounted. The simulation of regulars vs. irregulars in
> > > Warrior
> > > > > works well for all troop types, other than knights. This
> > would
> > > > > address one of the worst historical matchups currently in
> the
> > > game,
> > > > > that of dismounted regular knights, vs. dismounted
> > irregulars.
> > > Use
> > > > > Later Crusader as an example, the least impetuous
> dismounted
> > > knights
> > > > > are the military order knights. This is historically
> > backwards.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. There should be no movement based fatigue for
dismounted
> > > SHI. This
> > > > > is a no-brainer ... start looking at articulated combat
> > armor,
> > > and
> > > > > stop looking at specialized jousting armor.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. Units comprized of SHK/EHK in front with HC sergeants
in
> > > back,
> > > > > should be drastically limited. I sort of remember when
this
> > > happened,
> > > > > way back in early 6th and it was done strictly as a
points
> > > thing. Not
> > > > > very many armies did this historically, and this should
be
> > > limited to
> > > > > only those armies.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. More EHK's should be allowed to dismount with 2HCW, and
> > the
> > > > > standard weapon for dismounted EHK's should be 1HCW. The
JLS
> > > > > dismount, or "broken lance" dismount should be limited to
> > > historical
> > > > > examples of this. A case could even be made for some SHK,
> > EHK,
> > > HK,
> > > > > being able to dismount with LTS.
> > > > >
> > > > > 5. Regular A knights, should fight with two full ranks
> while
> > > mounted.
> > > > > This would make these units "special" over other knight
> > units.
> > > Think
> > > > > this through before knee-jerking. It would be a very
> limited
> > > thing.
> > > > > The vast majority of knight units, would be bodyguard A
in
> > the
> > > front,
> > > > > with lesser B's or C's in the back. These wouldn't get to
> > take
> > > > > advantage of two full rank combat. Only those very elite
> units
> > > spoken
> > > > > of in legend would be allowed to do this ... knight units
> that
> > > were
> > > > > able to field entire Regular A units. When you think it
> over,
> > > it's
> > > > > not that different than irregular A, that gets a pretty
big
> > > bump over
> > > > > irregular B. Lets make Regular A's a little more stout.
> > > > >
> > > > > 6. Dismounted regular knights armed with 2HCW fight with
> 1.5
> > > ranks.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > > Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty
viruses!
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I think Greg's on to a good thing here. I'd just like to fire off my 2
cents on squires and Reg. A.

Squire is a dangerous word. Hollywood and Ms. Finfrock in 6th grade
gave us a muddy ideas of kids trying to learn to be knights, and, of
course, at some level, that is what a squire ought to be. But
feudalism, ideas of chivalry, etc, don't actually carry over from period
to period or even place to place, and therein lies the danger.
At Poitiers or Najera, for instance, English Squires are likely to
be big hulking lads of 40 years in a lot of armor (ie, Knights). Why?
Because various assizes of arms and ordinance equivalents had made
distraint of knighthood expensive and annoying, and lots of men who
owned horses and fought as "Knights" avoided the income tax equivalent
by remaining squires. And that's just the tip of the iceberg--because
successful professional soldiers could make themselves "squires" or be
made into "squires" rather in the manner of a later battlefield comission.
I don't know for sure, but I suspect that England, France, Germany,
and Italy all had seperate notions of what constituted a knight or a
squire or a "chivalric man" or even a "Gens D'arms" (a term coined to
avoid calling all the armored guys "knights.") By 1450, there were
places where knights were the LAST people you'd see on the
battlefield--the "knights" tended to be in courts (civil and foppish)
while hard handed professionals exchanged blows. The professionals at
least claimed to be in the "gentle" class, but by the time of the French
Ordinance list, for example, only the Captains of companies were "knights."
I think Mark Stone's take on the rules implications are dead on,
and I think Greg's notion of research is great. I think it's going to
be easier to define in some cases than in others--and perhaps there
should be an "accepted norm" and then some deviation for nationality and
period. Rather like Greg's KofSt. J example, I suspect I can find on my
wall some accounts of Italian bankers holding armor for the bigger
condottas--all first quality armor. Those are armies that could afford
the best. (I've never really understood why they were Reg C, unless
various list writers just don't like Italians). On the other hand,
research might show that there were places (Scotland leaps to mind)
where a handful of great nobles had the full panoply, but otherwise,
there weren't enough guys with full harness to make 1E of SHK on the
whole list...
And just for completeness, I'd love to see Reg. A's get a +1 in
combat. Mark Stone might recall that that's how we ran them in the Alba
campaign 1985-88. It made those expensive bodyguards worthwhile, and I
have very fond memories of my Scots Archer Guard in French
Ordinance--when they got the +1 in combat.

Christian

[Ewan McNay]

Less - that would be no - historical support here. But, in game terms, I
do think that this +1 for all-Reg A bodies has enough prima facie support
to be worthwhile; there are too few Reg A troops taken in competition,
when one would expect such uber-elites to be worth their cost. And, even
more to the point, one would *like* to see these guys on the field.
Varangian guard getting a +1? Oh, yes. Teutons? Sure. The Swiss might
even fit - paying for all those pikemen as Reg A is going to get damn
expensive, but they'll go through *anything*.

So, count me in the camp of thinking this worthwhile.

On Sat, 4 Feb 2006, Christian and Sarah wrote:

> I think Greg's on to a good thing here. I'd just like to fire off my 2
> cents on squires and Reg. A.
>
> Squire is a dangerous word. Hollywood and Ms. Finfrock in 6th grade
> gave us a muddy ideas of kids trying to learn to be knights, and, of
> course, at some level, that is what a squire ought to be. But
> feudalism, ideas of chivalry, etc, don't actually carry over from period
> to period or even place to place, and therein lies the danger.
> At Poitiers or Najera, for instance, English Squires are likely to
> be big hulking lads of 40 years in a lot of armor (ie, Knights). Why?
> Because various assizes of arms and ordinance equivalents had made
> distraint of knighthood expensive and annoying, and lots of men who
> owned horses and fought as "Knights" avoided the income tax equivalent
> by remaining squires. And that's just the tip of the iceberg--because
> successful professional soldiers could make themselves "squires" or be
> made into "squires" rather in the manner of a later battlefield comission.
> I don't know for sure, but I suspect that England, France, Germany,
> and Italy all had seperate notions of what constituted a knight or a
> squire or a "chivalric man" or even a "Gens D'arms" (a term coined to
> avoid calling all the armored guys "knights.") By 1450, there were
> places where knights were the LAST people you'd see on the
> battlefield--the "knights" tended to be in courts (civil and foppish)
> while hard handed professionals exchanged blows. The professionals at
> least claimed to be in the "gentle" class, but by the time of the French
> Ordinance list, for example, only the Captains of companies were "knights."
> I think Mark Stone's take on the rules implications are dead on,
> and I think Greg's notion of research is great. I think it's going to
> be easier to define in some cases than in others--and perhaps there
> should be an "accepted norm" and then some deviation for nationality and
> period. Rather like Greg's KofSt. J example, I suspect I can find on my
> wall some accounts of Italian bankers holding armor for the bigger
> condottas--all first quality armor. Those are armies that could afford
> the best. (I've never really understood why they were Reg C, unless
> various list writers just don't like Italians). On the other hand,
> research might show that there were places (Scotland leaps to mind)
> where a handful of great nobles had the full panoply, but otherwise,
> there weren't enough guys with full harness to make 1E of SHK on the
> whole list...
> And just for completeness, I'd love to see Reg. A's get a +1 in
> combat. Mark Stone might recall that that's how we ran them in the Alba
> campaign 1985-88. It made those expensive bodyguards worthwhile, and I
> have very fond memories of my Scots Archer Guard in French
> Ordinance--when they got the +1 in combat.
>
> Christian
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Mark Stone]

--- On February 4 Christian said: ---

> And just for completeness, I'd love to see Reg. A's get a +1 in
> combat. Mark Stone might recall that that's how we ran them in the Alba
> campaign 1985-88. It made those expensive bodyguards worthwhile, and I
> have very fond memories of my Scots Archer Guard in French
> Ordinance--when they got the +1 in combat.

On of the troop types I find most intriguing in the Feudal Warrior-Holy Warrior
books is the Agulani on the Seljuq Turk list. They always get a +1, and fight
in a rank and a half. This is nominally to represent the distinctive mace they
were armed with and trained in, but seems to represent a kind of mounted 1HCW
(one handed cutting/crushing weapon).

This seems like a useful precedent to extend to certain other troop types,
specifically Reg A HK/EHK/SHK. Were I to propose a list rule/X-rule around this
idea, it would be something like:
"Mounted 1HCW is used in place of other cavalry weapons or circumstances;
It has the same factor as other cavalry weapons or circumstances +1;
It counts one and a half ranks for number of figures fighting."

Note that this would _not_ add a +1 to the lance factor. That actually strikes
me as correct. If you can get a bunch of armored lance-armed guys on horseback
going impetuously in the first place, then: (a) I don't see that there would be
a big difference in impact between A/B class and C class, as the main effects
are mass of impact and most importantly psychological impact, and (b) whatever
difference there is is captured by die roll adjustments that As/Bs get and Cs
do not.

Where training and prowess at arms really makes a difference is in the resultant
general melee once combat has been closed. This is what makes the Agulani so
cool: as SHC, they are fairly tough to do damage to, and that relentless extra
+1 they get can eventually turn the tide in a multi-bound hand-to-hand combat.
We have every reason to think that the very best trained knights were at least
as skilled with mace and sword as the Agulani, and it would be interesting, and
probably realistic, to see A-class knights get a +1 in non-lance-armed bounds of
combat.

Just another opinion for the discussion. I suspect there are probably some
first-hand accounts that could back up this approach. I have some recollection
of a description of the Knights of Saint John in combat (against Timurids at
Smyrna, maybe?) that provides vivid evidence of their sword prowess in close
combat, and I believe there's some description of the military orders during
the 3rd Crusade at the Battle of Arsuf that would lend supporting evidence as
well. I'll have to see if I can dig up some specific sources; it's been a while
since I've looked at this stuff.


-Mark Stone

[Mark Stone]

--- On February 4 Ewan said: ---

> But, in game terms, I
> do think that this +1 for all-Reg A bodies has enough prima facie support
> to be worthwhile; there are too few Reg A troops taken in competition,
> when one would expect such uber-elites to be worth their cost. And, even
> more to the point, one would *like* to see these guys on the field.

I'm a bit reluctant to endorse an across the board +1 for Reg As, even as an
X-rule. I _do_ think that Reg As deserve some pumping up that makes them more
worthwhile, more historical, and more likely to be on the field. I really agree
with the latter point: just as we want to encourage certain armies to showcase
our period, we should also want to encourage certain troop types to be well
worth taking because they showcase our rules set and our period well.

To me the cavalry case seems easier to deal with. The device used for Companions
of letting them make impetuous charges is one way to go, and may be appropriate
in some cases besides just Companions. An Agulani-style side arm that gives a
+1 in non-lance cases seems like another good alternative. I'd advise against
combining these for any one troop type: no regs should get both impetuousity
and a +1 benefit.

Foot is harder. I can see a +1 for Varangians, but then I thought that was part
of why they get both 2HCW and JLS. Making them just 2HCW but giving them 1 1/2
ranks and a +1 is perhaps a "cleaner" way of modeling them, but not very
different from what we have now.

I don't like the idea of the Swiss Reg As getting a +1. I'd have to think about
it further and crunch some numbers, but that seems a bit over the top at first
blush.

There are some other troop types that need something like a +1 boost. Who ever
takes the Scots Guard when playing the French, and yet these guys _ought_ to be
well worth taking. Likewise the Reg A longbowmen on 100YWE.

But there are too many places where it seems like an automatic +1 would tip the
balance. This would turn Han Chinese into one heck of a killing machine, and
this is already a very powerful army. The Han should be top class in period,
and currently they are, but I don't think they need _more_.

In any case, I don't think we're talking about any of these ideas seeing the
light of day for some time to come. I would like to see Reg As ultimately get
some help. My sense is we need to think it through a bit more carefully,
though.


-Mark Stone

Mark

If a +1 all the time is too much.

Than how about a +2 when they roll down (similar to what Irr A
troops get +2 for rolling up) to a maximum of 0. That way Reg A
troops with a general would never have a negative die roll. That
would give them an advantage in combat over the long run. Which
might be a more accurate way to represent Elite/Guard troops.

John S.




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
>
> --- On February 4 Ewan said: ---
>
> > But, in game terms, I
> > do think that this +1 for all-Reg A bodies has enough prima
facie support
> > to be worthwhile; there are too few Reg A troops taken in
competition,
> > when one would expect such uber-elites to be worth their cost.
And, even
> > more to the point, one would *like* to see these guys on the
field.
>
> I'm a bit reluctant to endorse an across the board +1 for Reg As,
even as an
> X-rule. I _do_ think that Reg As deserve some pumping up that
makes them more
> worthwhile, more historical, and more likely to be on the field. I
really agree
> with the latter point: just as we want to encourage certain armies
to showcase
> our period, we should also want to encourage certain troop types
to be well
> worth taking because they showcase our rules set and our period
well.
>
> To me the cavalry case seems easier to deal with. The device used
for Companions
> of letting them make impetuous charges is one way to go, and may
be appropriate
> in some cases besides just Companions. An Agulani-style side arm
that gives a
> +1 in non-lance cases seems like another good alternative. I'd
advise against
> combining these for any one troop type: no regs should get both
impetuousity
> and a +1 benefit.
>
> Foot is harder. I can see a +1 for Varangians, but then I thought
that was part
> of why they get both 2HCW and JLS. Making them just 2HCW but
giving them 1 1/2
> ranks and a +1 is perhaps a "cleaner" way of modeling them, but
not very
> different from what we have now.
>
> I don't like the idea of the Swiss Reg As getting a +1. I'd have
to think about
> it further and crunch some numbers, but that seems a bit over the
top at first
> blush.
>
> There are some other troop types that need something like a +1
boost. Who ever
> takes the Scots Guard when playing the French, and yet these guys
_ought_ to be
> well worth taking. Likewise the Reg A longbowmen on 100YWE.
>
> But there are too many places where it seems like an automatic +1
would tip the
> balance. This would turn Han Chinese into one heck of a killing
machine, and
> this is already a very powerful army. The Han should be top class
in period,
> and currently they are, but I don't think they need _more_.
>
> In any case, I don't think we're talking about any of these ideas
seeing the
> light of day for some time to come. I would like to see Reg As
ultimately get
> some help. My sense is we need to think it through a bit more
carefully,
> though.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>

[Mark Mallard]

Another less powerful option would be to give reg A troops +1 when ever they
roll evens.

I certainly favour some sort of accross the board modification to encourage
the selection of these elite troops.

mark mallard


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

[Greg Regets]

I'm with Mark on this, as I'm also reluctant to endorse a +1 for all
Regular A troops.

I think we would be better served were we to handle this on a case by
case basis with X-Rules that historically bolstered those that needed
bolstering. This would also give us more variety, which seems to be
what FHE strives for in lists (and rightfully so, in my opinion).

Maybe Varangians need a +1, or maybe they need 1.5 ranks for the
regulars ... but whatever the chioce, let's do it by matching them up
against historical opponents and see what gives the best result ...
rather than giving a blanket +1, and having it end up applying to
troops that don't historically need it to get a historical result.

To use an example, most Praetorians were Regular A, and most of the
Legions were Regular B ... and yet in many instances the Praetorians
were not the troops that the Legions were. Giving Praetorians this
blanket +1 would be historically inaccurate, in my opinion.

The "case by case" system would take more time, but the presentation
of this by the playership would give FHE a better measuring stick
with which to make these decision. The results presented, would
either get the results we are looking for, or they don't ... on a
case by case basis.

Thanks ... g

Whoops, my bad--I thought we were only talking case by case Reg As,
specifically bodyguard troops with historical supriority (like the Scots
Bodyguard of the French Kings) vice all figs who are Reg A (Praetorians).

Must learn to say what I mean sometime.

Chris C.

>
>

[Mike Turner]

Most are 15mm, we did a Fast Warrior and a 1200 pt in 25mm, but most
are still working toward 1600 in 25mm. All of us have 1 or 2 15mm
armies.

I think our next big tournament will be a round robin of
historically matched armies in 15mm. The organizer was gathering
info on who owned what and set up the tables. We did this before
with all matched Fast Warrior armies out of one period book (Dark
Age or Feudal?) and it was a blast.

Mike

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "seventhidsoldier"
<john_steil@...> wrote:
>
> Mike
>
> W.P. classmates?
>
> I have been talking with Jon Becker in Des Moines as he is about
the
> nearest person who plays Warrior in or around Iowa. I live in a
> black hole area as far as Warrior goes. John is like 3 hours away
> from me. He plays in the tournaments in your area.
>
> What scale are the tournaments Down there 15mm or 25mm?
>
> I have almost 23 years in Active Duty and National Guard combined.
>
> John S.
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "turner1118" <Turnerm@>
> wrote:
> >
> > The infamous COWFEX, well remembered.
> >
> > While I was there, the YMCA was still the wargamer focal point,
> but
> > the popular systems were Johnny Reb, then transitioned to
> Napolean's
> > Battles.
> >
> > I retired 1 1/2 years ago and work on Ft Leavenworth, Jon
Cleaves
> > and I were W.P. classmates, and have gamed for years, he uses me
> as
> > a Warrior tackling dummy. (as revenge for victories in other
> > systems!) LOL
> >
> > Mike Turner
> >
> > --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "seventhidsoldier"
> > <john_steil@> wrote:
> > >
> > > 7th ID 2-32 Inf Buccaneer Battalion which converted to the 3-
27
> > Inf
> > > Wolfhounds. I was there from 1983 to 1987. That is where I got
> > > hooked on ancient miniatures 7th Edition Rules by I think Paul
> > > Jordan at the Armed Forces YMCA. I gamed with Dave Laureman
and
> > Dale
> > > Shanek out there. I am trying to get back into the addiction
> after
> > a
> > > 18 year hiatus.
> > >
> > > You know it is a small world, my daughters best friend's
father
> > was
> > > stationed there with the 2-9th Inf Manchu's at the same time
> that
> > I
> > > was there. I was an evaluator for his unit when they had a
> > battalion
> > > live fire at Ft. Hunter-Ligget that killed 72 head of cattle
in
> > 1985.
> > >
> > > Where are you at now Mike?
> > >
> > > John Steil
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "turner1118" <Turnerm@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 7th ID, When were you in the Division?
> > > >
> > > > 9th Regt, and 1-9 IN, 1989-1991
> > > >
> > > > Mike Turner
> > > >
> > > > --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "seventhidsoldier"
> > > > <john_steil@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It would only be fair for Reg A troops to get a +1 in
> combat.
> > > Irr A
> > > > > get a +2 just for rolling up.
> > > > >
> > > > > First class Regular troops (Reg A) throughout history
rarely
> > > lost
> > > > in
> > > > > unit to unit combat. (aka the Silver shields in the
> Successor
> > > Wars
> > > > > after Alexanders death.
> > > > >
> > > > > It makes a lot of sense to me to improve the fighting
> ability
> > of
> > > > Reg A
> > > > > troops considering the their extra cost.
> > > > >
> > > > > The rule could be a +1 in combat for an all Reg A units.
> > > > >
> > > > > John S.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
> > > > > <jwilkinson62@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mark,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perhaps something along this line might allow us
to
> > see
> > > > Reg A
> > > > > Varangians and their ilk more on the table top. Good idea
> with
> > > the
> > > > +1
> > > > > in combat.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > kw
> > > > > >
> > > > > > markmallard7@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ** Interesting stuff. I think some other Regular A foot
> > could
> > > be
> > > > > upgraded to
> > > > > > fighting in two ranks or being able to go impetuous or
> even
> > > > given an
> > > > > extra
> > > > > > +1 in combat. Especially in lists where they are
supposedly
> > > > > bodyguard or elite
> > > > > > units that currently get trounced on the table by more
> > > mundane
> > > > units.
> > > > > > The easiest solution would be a simple modification to
> > combat
> > > > mods
> > > > > +1 for
> > > > > > regular elite foot.
> > > > > > So lists would just need the word elite added to
> > descriptions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > mark mallard
> > > > > > **
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In a message dated 01/02/2006 16:47:29 GMT Standard
Time,
> > > > > > greg.regets@ writes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Regular knights should be able to be impetuous, even
> > when
> > > > > > dismounted. The simulation of regulars vs. irregulars
in
> > > > Warrior
> > > > > > works well for all troop types, other than knights.
This
> > > would
> > > > > > address one of the worst historical matchups currently
in
> > the
> > > > game,
> > > > > > that of dismounted regular knights, vs. dismounted
> > > irregulars.
> > > > Use
> > > > > > Later Crusader as an example, the least impetuous
> > dismounted
> > > > knights
> > > > > > are the military order knights. This is historically
> > > backwards.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. There should be no movement based fatigue for
> dismounted
> > > > SHI. This
> > > > > > is a no-brainer ... start looking at articulated combat
> > > armor,
> > > > and
> > > > > > stop looking at specialized jousting armor.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. Units comprized of SHK/EHK in front with HC
sergeants
> in
> > > > back,
> > > > > > should be drastically limited. I sort of remember when
> this
> > > > happened,
> > > > > > way back in early 6th and it was done strictly as a
> points
> > > > thing. Not
> > > > > > very many armies did this historically, and this should
> be
> > > > limited to
> > > > > > only those armies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4. More EHK's should be allowed to dismount with 2HCW,
and
> > > the
> > > > > > standard weapon for dismounted EHK's should be 1HCW. The
> JLS
> > > > > > dismount, or "broken lance" dismount should be limited
to
> > > > historical
> > > > > > examples of this. A case could even be made for some
SHK,
> > > EHK,
> > > > HK,
> > > > > > being able to dismount with LTS.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 5. Regular A knights, should fight with two full ranks
> > while
> > > > mounted.
> > > > > > This would make these units "special" over other knight
> > > units.
> > > > Think
> > > > > > this through before knee-jerking. It would be a very
> > limited
> > > > thing.
> > > > > > The vast majority of knight units, would be bodyguard A
> in
> > > the
> > > > front,
> > > > > > with lesser B's or C's in the back. These wouldn't get
to
> > > take
> > > > > > advantage of two full rank combat. Only those very elite
> > units
> > > > spoken
> > > > > > of in legend would be allowed to do this ... knight
units
> > that
> > > > were
> > > > > > able to field entire Regular A units. When you think it
> > over,
> > > > it's
> > > > > > not that different than irregular A, that gets a pretty
> big
> > > > bump over
> > > > > > irregular B. Lets make Regular A's a little more stout.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 6. Dismounted regular knights armed with 2HCW fight
with
> > 1.5
> > > > ranks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > > > Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty
> viruses!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[Derek Downs]

Does anyone have an old Minifig catolog they could look something uo for me?

Derek

darnd022263@...


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

Mike

What does W.P. Classmates stand for?

What historical match is the organizer looking at and when? I have
4-15mm armies in various stages of completion (Marian Roman, Gallic,
Early German, and Indian). And in 25mm an Indian and any
Macedonian/Successor armies again invarious stages of completion. I
need help deciding what army to work on first to get ready the
tournements around K.C. Your help would be appreciated. Thanks.

John S.

P.S. I do have Quite a few 25mm Knight figures.


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "turner1118" <Turnerm@...> wrote:
>
> Most are 15mm, we did a Fast Warrior and a 1200 pt in 25mm, but most
> are still working toward 1600 in 25mm. All of us have 1 or 2 15mm
> armies.
>
> I think our next big tournament will be a round robin of
> historically matched armies in 15mm. The organizer was gathering
> info on who owned what and set up the tables. We did this before
> with all matched Fast Warrior armies out of one period book (Dark
> Age or Feudal?) and it was a blast.
>
> Mike

[Mike Turner]

West Point Classmate ('84)

We will be doing it in 15mm, and I'll check with the guy running it
for dates and needs,

Mike

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "seventhidsoldier"
<john_steil@...> wrote:
>
> Mike
>
> What does W.P. Classmates stand for?
>
> What historical match is the organizer looking at and when? I have
> 4-15mm armies in various stages of completion (Marian Roman,
Gallic,
> Early German, and Indian). And in 25mm an Indian and any
> Macedonian/Successor armies again invarious stages of completion. I
> need help deciding what army to work on first to get ready the
> tournements around K.C. Your help would be appreciated. Thanks.
>
> John S.
>
> P.S. I do have Quite a few 25mm Knight figures.
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "turner1118" <Turnerm@> wrote:
> >
> > Most are 15mm, we did a Fast Warrior and a 1200 pt in 25mm, but
most
> > are still working toward 1600 in 25mm. All of us have 1 or 2
15mm
> > armies.
> >
> > I think our next big tournament will be a round robin of
> > historically matched armies in 15mm. The organizer was
gathering
> > info on who owned what and set up the tables. We did this
before
> > with all matched Fast Warrior armies out of one period book
(Dark
> > Age or Feudal?) and it was a blast.
> >
> > Mike
>

[Greg Regets]

Yes ... what are you looking for?

Might be better to take this offline.

greg.regets@...




-- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, darnd022263@... wrote:

>
> Does anyone have an old Minifig catolog they could look something
uo for me?
>
> Derek
>
> darnd022263@...
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I have two comments.

> To me the cavalry case seems easier to deal with. The device used
for Companions
> of letting them make impetuous charges is one way to go, and may be
appropriate
> in some cases besides just Companions.

I really like this one... the impetuous charges for Reg A's that is.
I play Alexandrian Macedonian mostly, and I love this list rule. Those
enemy irregular's aren't so scary anymore. For shieldess lancers with
no missile weapons they are suprisingly as valuable to me as they were
perhaps, to Alexander.


> Foot is harder.

I agree.
Reg A foot might be "better" because they stick together, stay in
formation and fret less than their B and C counterparts. That "never
uneasy" rule just doesn't seem to help them hold on long enough to be
worth it. Supported B's will do the same job for less.

I'd like to be able to put down a unit of Reg A's and be sure that
whatever they faced (frontally) was going to have a hell of a time
breaking through no matter what weapons they carry. "Sire, the
Persians darken the sky with their arrows", "All the better, we shall
fight in the shade!"

What about making combat caused disorder harder to inflict on them?
Say 4CPF, or 3 times casualties ...perhaps ignore the first disorder
result or something like that? Maybe no follow-up bonus against them?
Something to keep them in the fight (undisordered).

The +1 for combat just tells us that Reg A's are better at killing
people. That may or may not be accurate, but I'm pretty sure that's
not what makes Reg A foot "great" in most historical cases.

Good luck with that.
Noel.