Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Dear everyone,

first, my sympathies to Jon Cleaves, Writer of Rules and First Line of
Defence.

I hear you, Jon, that core rules cannot be changed at this late stage
of the game. I've since kept quiet, because I want Warrior to become
available. I'm excited and supportive of getting it out there. But
you Four Horsemen (not just Jon alone) need to be AWARE of the issues
that concern your target market. ESPECIALLY AS YOU DON'T WANT TO
ISSUE "WARRIOR 1.1a,b,...zzz (with WWW amendments)" RULES.

[And this is not to say that the unwashed masses know better than the
Late Imperial Romans, but, hellfire, I washed two moons ago, and I
sure smelt good! Even after a SHC scythed chariot ran a red light and
hit me in the shieldless flank! How about ruling that irregular units
that fail a wavering test automatically produce a BOG (Rough going)
where they stand? I say this to illustrate how personal rulings can
be. And also to say that, as my first army was Ancient British, I
never bothered to go to 7th Ed tournaments. Especially as the "I
Phoned Phil Last Night" attitude still pisses me off. I feel better
now. Thanks.]

From all the postings, I can see that the Issue of "lance and a half"
has touched a raw nerve. I would like to declare myself as FIRST:
never been Byzantine; nor SECOND: having Byzantine enemies. And
THIRDLY, having no academic credentials for those eras.

BIG QUESTION: If you needed to make Lance more effective GENERALLY
(something I generally agree with, especially against foot), then why
not just boost the tactical factor instead? Then all these messy
arguments (especially Mongol all 2 ranks L,B charging) might be easier
to resolve. OK, so players may revert to single lines of cavalry in
some circumstances - but CPF kicks in to compensate. Somewhat. And I
(maybe mistakenly) believe that Lance only formed up in very few lines
(though maybe this is beyond the Warrior period.)

Furthermore, with a better weapon tactical factor, wedge suddenly
becomes more effective (again! - I agree with penalties for wedge: if
there are no penalties, then make troops capable of wedge to be more
expensive to reflect their increased effectiveness - but this I
believe ultimately rests upon the philosophy behind costing troops -
including Ally generals and Romans capable of Testudo!) It then
becomes a matter of historical accuracy as to the efficiency of the
much-vaunted and much-cursed wedge formation.

PS: have I missed references to missile firing in wedge?

I have no historical antecedents to quote, nor masses of wargame stats
to fall back on. Sorry, Jon, but maybe you can fill in these gaps.

For one bright moment I recalled a rule that ranks eligible for H2H
could not support shoot, but discovered it only applied to troops
already in H2H. Those charging had no such restriction. :(

Maybe you can work from this rule. My own example is:

"Non-front rank figures that support shoot in a charge cannot fight
hand-to-hand."

One Problem: generals will want to CHOOSE between: using a 2nd rank to
shoot OR: to fight half-lance. This gets away from the "General
commands" perspective of 7th Ed [which I lovingly support] to a
"Captain decides what his Unit will do" (which smacks of telepathy,
which I despise).

Second problem: what of those non-lance troops? (since I am only
looking at Lance, and you FOUR HORSEMEN must look at overall play
balance and realism.)

Therefore I INSTEAD recommend you define what "they" can do in a
charge, IN THEIR ARMY LIST, thus making it someone else's problem,
Jon, and maybe even reflecting historical effectiveness. As for
non-historical match-ups, who can tell?

Late as it is, it seems to me that the Four Horsemen have to get the
balance right, and that perhaps, shunting over to army list rules, the
relative differences in various knights (and EHC!) is going to be
either too complex or too patchwork to be a satisfactory solution. On
the other hand, it could be your only salvation.

Terry

[joncleaves]

Mathematically, Terry, one more figure is a +1 tactical factor for most of
the table. 1.5 rank lance is effectively a +2. For those ends of the table
where it is not exact, the differences are statistically minor.
Which means, in essence, that not only do I agree with you, I have already
put a solution like yours into place.

[Don Coon]

> Maybe you can work from this rule. My own example is:
>
> "Non-front rank figures that support shoot in a charge cannot fight
> hand-to-hand."
>
> One Problem: generals will want to CHOOSE between: using a 2nd rank to
> shoot OR: to fight half-lance. This gets away from the "General
> commands" perspective of 7th Ed [which I lovingly support] to a
> "Captain decides what his Unit will do" (which smacks of telepathy,
> which I despise).


This is really what I have wanted too. It solves my discomfort with the
Mongols newfound power rather nicely (Jon - I know we are using an old
list with a new game, but right now its all we have).

Don

[Phil Gardocki]

I can think of no example where I would shoot from a 2nd rank rather than use a lance.  If there is one it must be a very uncommon occurrence and therefor a meaningless change.

Phil G.

> Maybe you can work from this rule. My own example is:
> > "Non-front rank figures that support shoot in a charge cannot fight
> hand-to-hand."
> > One Problem: generals will want to CHOOSE between: using a 2nd rank to
> shoot OR: to fight half-lance. This gets away from the "General
> commands" perspective of 7th Ed [which I lovingly support] to a
> "Captain decides what his Unit will do" (which smacks of telepathy,
> which I despise).