Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

> And before Jon points it out, none of this is a big
> secret; if I'm
> preaching to the choir here, someone tell me that
> I'm not being useful
> .
>
I find it all entirely useful. Keep talking everyone.

boyd
on my high elephant


=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Mother's Day is May 12th!
http://shopping.yahoo.com

[scott holder]

Can two impetuous L armed cav beat a non-missile armed roman alone in
the open. Sure.

>This assumes two 6 figure l-armed cav vs 16 HI legionaires, right? A
break on contact assuming no die roll vagaries. Of course now we see
some use for L-armed HC since plowing 2 EHK/SHK knights into said
hapless legionaires reflects another "expensive" way to get rid of
em:) But, see John Meunier's post about doing other things to
mitigate this, aka *tactics*. But to answer John Murphy's original
post, EIR are a challenge to play out of period, much more so than
Burgundian Ordonnance:) Is that a "bad" thing? Are EIR really that
out of whack with regards to cav as some suggest?

>All of the "how well did Roman HI legionaires from the Marian/EIR
period *really* do against cav" discussion is interesting and harkens me
back to an interesting concept NASAMW used in the late 80s which *might*
repeat *might* appear again as a list rule somewhere down the line.

>It's the old "swordsmen" rule whereby such troops get a +1 in HTH after
the first bound in contact. This supposedly reflects all those
counterstabbing HTH skills Roman foot had until the general quality of
troops began to break down (or at least get spotty) during the MIR and
LIR period combined with a different tactical approach (which in itself
was the result of different enemies and changing conditions).

>It does nothing to stop the potential early rout of said Romans should
opposing cav roll up (one unit) but quite frankly, that's the effect
we've always wanted and there was no inclination to change it. However,
there is a *small* argument that could be made that Romans in this
discussion potentially remain at a longer term disadvantage vis a vis
cavalry but..........

>I haven't reviewed the material relating to this in years but I'm still
dubious when I get hit with a "enemy cav was afraid to charge
legionaires" statement. Again, I've not taken the time to carefully
review the historical record but it reminds me of all the pre-DAW
comments I got regarding how great Vikings were. Well.......a careful
review of the Viking on-field win/loss record showed that the Vikings
were great at ransacking undefended monastaries and such but when they
fielded armies the size of "field armies", their record was no better
(or worse) than most of their contemporaries and when the fought armored
cav opponents (as they did in Spain) they generally got spanked, hard.
But, that's the impact of "word of mouth" performance over the
years:) Therefore, when working on the Vikings, I was careful to
take that into account. As it is, they are more flexible than they once
were (being able to mix close and loose order foot in the same army).
But I digress, we're talking about Romans here. My point is that I
often hear statements regarding the ability of a particular ancient
military system that doesn't really hold up under scrutiny.

>Nonetheless, I am sensitive to both the Marian and EIR lists as they
relate to their historical opponents, many of whom fielded lance armed
loose order cavalry. An indication of one possible approach to tweaking
this was the "sword and buckler" rule for FW list 223. One reason I
didn't expand this derivative of the old "swordsman" rule to Romans is
precisely because I'm still unsure of just what the historical record
suggests. That isn't to say that once the time comes, something along
these lines *might*, repeat *might* be added but it's waaaaaay too early
to tell since my focus right now is on Holy Warrior.

Scott
List Ho

[joncleaves]

<<Now that we have settled that, back to the point - what can a newbie EIR
player learn to do about it without making a special anti-lancer list version
(or say in FW vs Sarmatians)? Or is it truly hopeless without resorting to
that?>>

It is not hopeless. I have an EIR army myself, which I very much enjoy playing.
The issue is the classic one of 'even points' in a competition game and how to
get the match ups you want how you want them.

For example, I played EIR vs Armenians in the Fast Warrior tourney held this
past weekend. On paper, it looked bleak. I had the first crack with the EIR
and we were all humming the mission impossible theme. He had tons of troops and
those evil Irr SHC, L.
But matchups are about fixing, supporting and terrain. You use some of your
troops to fix the part of his army you don't want to fight - at least right
away. He might have a lot of light cav and a light infantry unit but neither
can do a thing to a Roman auxilia unit. I pressed these units back against his
camp so that his attention and forces had to be diverted.
I kept my legionaires back and supported by friends to the flank. Even breaking
one legionaire on an up roll, legionaires in support can turn to the flank and
finish off the SHC while the CINC (who moved the PA forward to make everyone
around eager from a position where he supported the legionaire next to the one
who was the target of the SHC charge) got the now out of contact legionaire unit
back into the fight.
Sure on paper the legionaire next to the target of the charge is going to be an
uneasy B for the waver. But the CINC took care of that. Sure, on paper any
legionaire turning 'inward' to fight the SHC after they charge is exposing his
flank to the enemy. But what enemy? LC and LI driven off by the auxilia?
And Warrior is about armies, not navies - terrain matters. I have committed the
great sin of ignoring that - taking just four open spaces to away cons to make
it easy on myself and have paid dearly time and again. Just like real generals
seek to fight on ground of their choosing, Warrior generals need to also. EIR
vs. L armies need to select the right terrain to fight on, - taking into account
that the L-armed general is seeking to force you onto to clear ground.

I'll have to dig out my EIR list and post it.
J

[joncleaves]

<<I find it all entirely useful. Keep talking everyone.>>

Indeed, Boyd. This is some of the best stuff I've seen on the list.

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@y..., Ewan <ewan.mcnay@y...> wrote:
> All of this is true.
> Possible solutions hence have to ensure not getting to this
situation in
> the first place.

Bingo. Thanks. How, exactly, is of course the crux of the issue. And
thank you for attempting to provide an answer to that below. Please
excuse a few tentative rebuttals from someone who simply hasn't tried
it yet.

> * shooting in advance, either with auxilia (difficult) or equites
> (easier but not as effective). Or with LI skirmishers, which is
> effective and easier; you'll lose the LI but the lancers will have
to
> use their impetuous charge ability, in all likelihood.

This requires having LI skirmishers which I do not currently. The EIR
list - unless you take an Armenian or Asiatic client ally which is a
huge change to the list - only allows 10 Spanish slingers and 15 stone
throwing peasants. So for a sizeable investment of points akin to an
entire legion or auxilia unit I can get 2 speed bumps that are easily
disposed of by the Sarmatian (or whoever) LC. I think that is one of
the circumstances where LC may charge. I must admit to being unable to
find that section right off the bat so I am going off a failing memory
here.

What about keeping the LC away with the troops at hand so as not to
spoil the whole thing? I guess this is a back and forth that just has
to be tried and perfected (and re-perfected). But I still have the
problem of not having any LI right now and I hope there is a better
way.

> * preventing impetuosity: get behind a flank being the most likely,
> although against IrrB lancers this may be close to impossible

A good point I hadn't thought of as a beginner (you know "oh,
Irregulars, they can always go impetuous"). As you stated though it
only works against "C" class or lower, which do not seem that common
as front-rankers. Even then it is not easy to do since the question
has to be asked "behind their flank with what" and what to do to
prevent <that> unit from being overrun! Perhaps this is where
judicious terrain placement and those Auxilia in the rough/difficult
come in handy. Still the problem with "B" class though.

> * attacking C&C: likely that few of the lancers will be on their
first
> charge opportunity, so will need prompting; if you arrange for
several
> matchups to occur on the same turn, it is unlikely that there will
be
> sufficient prompt minuts - prompting irregulars is expensive

Hmmm. In my limited experience running Byzantine EHC/HC I would have
to say that in fact cav is pretty darn good at getting that initial
charge off exactly where they want unless some obstruction is
provided - which everyone else except me seems to do just fine of
course. Except for the speed bump LI I don't see what that obstuction
is.

> * in combination with this, most likely, use of judicious
counters. If
> the cav are at 160p, you can get out of charge; if they're within
80,
> then unless they get prompted you charge *them*.

This sounds interesting. I guess the first point is straight-forward
(or rather straight-rearward, until you run out of room). The second
still relies on the lancers having blown their first charge
opportunity and might combine with what you said above.

> But having said all that, sure, it's a losing battle.

Yeah, but you've given at least a couple thoughts on how not lose it
as quickly - and perhaps something else will turn up.

I still wonder about the bolt shooters mixed in with the legions.
Wouldn't they tear up little cav units? One shot from the 4 Art (16 @
4) is 48 casualties up to 160p away. That gives 2 CPF spread around 4x
2E cav units which saves the foot. Better yet shooting them at extreme
range can still make 2 units test waver since they are out of charge
range.

Given you have a set up like...

^
4E HI 2E ART 4E HI 2E ART 4E HI

4E HI 4E HI 4E HI


I haven't used artillery, ever, ever, before. Am I missing something
totally obvious here?

> And before Jon points it out, none of this is a big secret; if I'm
> preaching to the choir here, someone tell me that I'm not being
useful

It's useful. While not exactly new to me, some of it is at least
something I might not have thought of over the board - and I am the
fool who brought up the subject after all. Sorry for eating up the
bandwidth. I'll wait until I have a better question to ask next time
but I hope you don't mind if I press on trying to work this one out as
best I can before I slide quietly into lurkerdom. Being off three days
in the middle of the week does this to you.

[scott holder]

I still wonder about the bolt shooters mixed in with the legions.
Wouldn't they tear up little cav units? One shot from the 4 Art (16 @
4) is 48 casualties up to 160p away. That gives 2 CPF spread around 4x
2E cav units which saves the foot. Better yet shooting them at extreme
range can still make 2 units test waver since they are out of charge
range.

>If on carts, they're a great equalizer because of their firing arc.
Now let those weenie 6 fig HC lancers move into charging (and EFFECTIVE)
shooting range of the artillery. Now the cav unit hits tired (assuming
it takes one shot from a 2 fig artillery LBS doubled because of
effective). Also assuming it has a fresh body on the other side of it
(relative to the LBS), the HI is no longer automatically broken upon
contact AND the opponent has used up 2 HC lancer units. fwiw.

[Patrick Byrne]

I believe that your question more to the point is, "what tactics can be used
to overcome numerical or unit to unit superiority?"

That I can not answer very well. But I'll give it a shot.

First though, I'd like to say that making a special anti-lancer list version
WILL ONLY LEAD TO FRUSTRATION. This is because your opponent will probably
evolve before your very eyes and find a way to beat your anti-lance list.
(Evolve being the key word here). And this is what I like most about the
Warrior. It takes good generalship to know how to fight the battle before
the battle is fought. It is very equivalent to the Football Head Coaches
job in coming up with the game plan.

After-all sometimes you have to think outside the box and march your
elephants and infantry all the way around the Mediterranean Sea!


Idea #1
A person once told me that one should practice with your troops by setting
up the troops in the center of the board like how you would want to see the
fighting and supporting each other. Then use reverse moving and marching to
get them to back to the set-up position so that your battle intentions are
disguised.

Now obviously in play, the opposing player can and just might: 1) disrupt
your plan by doing something unexpected, or 2) might setup differently so
that you will see something you'd like to take advantage of. Regardless of
which one it is, since you have practiced with your troops, you will know
what you can and can not do, and will you will know how altering from your
plan will effect your lines.

Hope this helps
-PB



> Now that we have settled that, back to the point - what can a newbie
> EIR player learn to do about it without making a special anti-lancer
> list version (or say in FW vs Sarmatians)? Or is it truly hopeless
> without resorting to that?
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

[John Murphy]

Scott,
I really wouldn't worry about it. It <is> a reasonable historical
result as it stands in my opinion. The Romans were just real good at
figuring out how not to let it happen that way is all.
And if my amateur history 2 cents may help at Magnesia-by-Sypolis
190 BC the Seleucid cataphracts more or less broke the Polybian
legions to their front but lost the battle on the other flank and by
coming up tired and disordered against the Roman force which had been
guarding the camp.


--- In WarriorRules@y..., "Holder, Scott <FHWA>" <Scott.Holder@f...>
wrote:
> >All of the "how well did Roman HI legionaires from the Marian/EIR
> period *really* do against cav" discussion is interesting and
harkens me
> back to an interesting concept NASAMW used in the late 80s which
*might*
> repeat *might* appear again as a list rule somewhere down the line.
>
> >It's the old "swordsmen" rule whereby such troops get a +1 in HTH
after
> the first bound in contact. This supposedly reflects all those
> counterstabbing HTH skills Roman foot had until the general quality
of
> troops began to break down (or at least get spotty) during the MIR
and
> LIR period combined with a different tactical approach (which in
itself
> was the result of different enemies and changing conditions).
>
> >It does nothing to stop the potential early rout of said Romans
should
> opposing cav roll up (one unit) but quite frankly, that's the effect
> we've always wanted and there was no inclination to change it.
However,
> there is a *small* argument that could be made that Romans in this
> discussion potentially remain at a longer term disadvantage vis a
vis
> cavalry but..........
>
> >I haven't reviewed the material relating to this in years but I'm
still
> dubious when I get hit with a "enemy cav was afraid to charge
> legionaires" statement. Again, I've not taken the time to carefully
> review the historical record but it reminds me of all the pre-DAW
> comments I got regarding how great Vikings were. Well.......a
careful
> review of the Viking on-field win/loss record showed that the
Vikings
> were great at ransacking undefended monastaries and such but when
they
> fielded armies the size of "field armies", their record was no
better
> (or worse) than most of their contemporaries and when the fought
armored
> cav opponents (as they did in Spain) they generally got spanked,
hard.
> But, that's the impact of "word of mouth" performance over the
> years:) Therefore, when working on the Vikings, I was careful
to
> take that into account. As it is, they are more flexible than they
once
> were (being able to mix close and loose order foot in the same
army).
> But I digress, we're talking about Romans here. My point is that I
> often hear statements regarding the ability of a particular ancient
> military system that doesn't really hold up under scrutiny.
>
> >Nonetheless, I am sensitive to both the Marian and EIR lists as
they
> relate to their historical opponents, many of whom fielded lance
armed
> loose order cavalry. An indication of one possible approach to
tweaking
> this was the "sword and buckler" rule for FW list 223. One reason I
> didn't expand this derivative of the old "swordsman" rule to Romans
is
> precisely because I'm still unsure of just what the historical
record
> suggests. That isn't to say that once the time comes, something
along
> these lines *might*, repeat *might* be added but it's waaaaaay too
early
> to tell since my focus right now is on Holy Warrior.
>
> Scott
> List Ho

[Ewan McNay]

rollsup3 wrote:
> --- In WarriorRules@y..., Ewan <ewan.mcnay@y...> wrote:
> > * shooting in advance, either with auxilia (difficult) or equites
> > (easier but not as effective). Or with LI skirmishers, which is
> > effective and easier; you'll lose the LI but the lancers will have
> to
> > use their impetuous charge ability, in all likelihood.
>
> This requires having LI skirmishers which I do not currently. The EIR
> list - unless you take an Armenian or Asiatic client ally which is a
> huge change to the list - only allows 10 Spanish slingers and 15 stone
> throwing peasants. So for a sizeable investment of points akin to an
> entire legion or auxilia unit I can get 2 speed bumps that are easily
> disposed of by the Sarmatian (or whoever) LC. I think that is one of
> the circumstances where LC may charge. I must admit to being unable to
> find that section right off the bat so I am going off a failing memory
> here.

Yes, opposing LC can (relatively) easily deal with LI. But, and
assuming that i understand the pursuit rules which I have frequently
not...

Sarmatian LC is Irregular. Hence, when in contact with your LI, even if
it managed to rout the LI (not certain at all) and in any case if it
went impetuous, it is now a sitting duck for being charged by *your*
cav. And while your troops don't care about your LI routing - and it
will in any case come back when out of contact with the LC, because it
is about to pass by close friends - the oppo HC will have to waver for
seeing their LC rout.

I confess to *not* knowing the EIR list. But more LI sound like a good
thing .

> What about keeping the LC away with the troops at hand so as not to
> spoil the whole thing?

Yep. Auxilia are perfect for this role.

> > * attacking C&C: likely that few of the lancers will be on their
> first
> > charge opportunity, so will need prompting; if you arrange for
> several
> > matchups to occur on the same turn, it is unlikely that there will
> be
> > sufficient prompt minuts - prompting irregulars is expensive
>
> Hmmm. In my limited experience running Byzantine EHC/HC I would have
> to say that in fact cav is pretty darn good at getting that initial
> charge off exactly where they want unless some obstruction is
> provided - which everyone else except me seems to do just fine of
> course. Except for the speed bump LI I don't see what that obstuction
> is.

Byzantines are a very different kettle of fish. They're regular. As
well as being more expensive, that means that they need a general
charging to go impetuous - and if there's a general, they're even more
expensive, and you can afford to play a counter-punch game against
them. Sarmatians - or similar - will be irregular, who are hugely
expensive to prompt (+3 prompt points per unit). And getting into
their charge range to soak up initial eligibility is a good use for LI,
LC, your HC (in skirmish), auxilia even (ditto). If the opposing HC are
concentrated, in order to be able to take out legion in e.g. 2x2
formation, then one such obstructing unit will take away several charge
eligibilites at once.


> > * in combination with this, most likely, use of judicious
> counters. If
> > the cav are at 160p, you can get out of charge; if they're within
> 80,
> > then unless they get prompted you charge *them*.
>
> This sounds interesting. I guess the first point is straight-forward
> (or rather straight-rearward, until you run out of room). The second
> still relies on the lancers having blown their first charge
> opportunity and might combine with what you said above.

I noted that .

> > But having said all that, sure, it's a losing battle.
>
> Yeah, but you've given at least a couple thoughts on how not lose it
> as quickly - and perhaps something else will turn up.

Oh, there are lots more ways:
* any kind of terrain with your auxilia in it, protecting and
threatening a flank
* legionary archers (or is this another non-EIR thing?)
* if I were running Romans, lots of reg 4-man LC units are great for
exactly this type of battle - they can drive irregular opponents batty
* caltrops? really? If true, this is tremendous :)

too many to list, but lots of possibilities to play with :)

> I still wonder about the bolt shooters mixed in with the legions.
> Wouldn't they tear up little cav units? One shot from the 4 Art (16 @
> 4) is 48 casualties up to 160p away. That gives 2 CPF spread around 4x
> 2E cav units which saves the foot. Better yet shooting them at extreme
> range can still make 2 units test waver since they are out of charge
> range.

Or even better, shoot a couple of units to disorder, then charge them
with your cav while they're rallying .

I never use artillery either. But it is, generally, effective at
creating a no-man's land. That assumes that you have a plan to win the
battle elsewhere, though: you've now tied up a *lot* of points in a
defensive formation, and if the other guy decides not to fight there
then where he *does* fight he will be strongly outnumbering you.

> It's useful. While not exactly new to me, some of it is at least
> something I might not have thought of over the board - and I am the
> fool who brought up the subject after all. Sorry for eating up the
> bandwidth. I'll wait until I have a better question to ask next time
> but I hope you don't mind if I press on trying to work this one out as
> best I can before I slide quietly into lurkerdom. Being off three days
> in the middle of the week does this to you.

No, no. I'm glad to play the 'flaming egotist' provided that someone
actually wishes to listen .

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@y..., Ewan <ewan.mcnay@y...> wrote:
> I confess to *not* knowing the EIR list. But more LI sound like a
good
> thing .

Probably. I just don't have them.

> Byzantines are a very different kettle of fish. They're regular.
As
> well as being more expensive, that means that they need a general
> charging to go impetuous - and if there's a general, they're even
more
> expensive, and you can afford to play a counter-punch game against
> them. Sarmatians - or similar - will be irregular, who are hugely
> expensive to prompt (+3 prompt points per unit). And getting into
> their charge range to soak up initial eligibility is a good use for
LI,
> LC, your HC (in skirmish), auxilia even (ditto). If the opposing HC
are
> concentrated, in order to be able to take out legion in e.g. 2x2
> formation, then one such obstructing unit will take away several
charge
> eligibilites at once.

Can Auxilia in skirmish get away? They are the same cost as
legionaries so the same concern over using them as speed bumps
applies.

I hadn't thought of the HC in skirmish but that sounds to me like a
good idea to soak up the initial free charge opportunity. How safe are
these?

> Oh, there are lots more ways:
> * any kind of terrain with your auxilia in it, protecting and
> threatening a flank

Someone mentioned, not against "B" class (unless the "threat" is real
as opposed to simply a cause of unease)

> * legionary archers (or is this another non-EIR thing?)

Yep, another non-EIR thing.

> * if I were running Romans, lots of reg 4-man LC units are great for
> exactly this type of battle - they can drive irregular opponents
batty

also none available to EIR without allies

> * caltrops? really? If true, this is tremendous :)

ditto, not available, but ditch or palisade are which is similar

> Or even better, shoot a couple of units to disorder, then charge
them
> with your cav while they're rallying .

that, of course, is an appealing idea - so obvious for me not to have
thought of it before

> I never use artillery either. But it is, generally, effective at
> creating a no-man's land. That assumes that you have a plan to win
the
> battle elsewhere, though: you've now tied up a *lot* of points in a
> defensive formation, and if the other guy decides not to fight there
> then where he *does* fight he will be strongly outnumbering you.

This is a good point but I guess if one can use field defenses,
terrain and artillery to take away most of the board one can find a
way to beat a cavalry army.

The 2x 2E artillery is actually by far the cheapest units in my army
list as it stands (54 AP - artillery speed bumps? - nah, too weird). I
am just hoping it can provide some protection against lancers - and it
should be useful anyway somewhere. It will, however, be a learning
experience trying to plan out fields of fire etcetera.

[John Murphy]

> Can Auxilia in skirmish get away?
> HC in skirmish How safe
are
> these?

Errr... never mind. I see now. "Set the range" to just barely force a
charge opportunity (if approaching second, if approaching first
attempt to stay 160p move + 160p base charge - 160 own base evade +
80p enemy max add + 40p own max subtract = 280p away for HC, 320p for
LHI, and wait for another chance to aproach second next turn) but
don't even get close to toss javelins or anything. Then all the stuff
everyone has said about prompting irregulars applies. Obvious to most
here except me.

Although looking at it another way 2E HC JLS skirmishing JLS tossers
only need the slightest luck to really give HC a bad hair day rather
than vice versa - if they need to take the chance.

Embarassingly dumb question on my part - but then hey what the heck
it's my turn for that today. And it _has_ been a couple years since I
played THE OTHER RULES ("7.6").

[Patrick Byrne]

I do hate to say this, but the Romans evolved from the HI HTW, to the MI
HTW,D,JLS in real life. Maybe they started running into to much L armed
cav.

But if you choose MIR, they had evolved to into LIR. One big circle of
evolution. Next thing you know, we've got steath fighters and missles that
can be launched from miles away and they evolve by not fighting as armies
all together, go figure.

But I'll leave that for the historians to debate.
-PB

> Scott,
> I really wouldn't worry about it. It <is> a reasonable historical
> result as it stands in my opinion. The Romans were just real good at
> figuring out how not to let it happen that way is all.
> And if my amateur history 2 cents may help at Magnesia-by-Sypolis
> 190 BC the Seleucid cataphracts more or less broke the Polybian
> legions to their front but lost the battle on the other flank and by
> coming up tired and disordered against the Roman force which had been
> guarding the camp.

[Don Coon]

> Which begs the question why your Romans are not in a 2x2 element unit?

They all are now . Took me about 6 months of routing to figure that one
out.

Don

[scott holder]

I do hate to say this, but the Romans evolved from the HI HTW, to the MI
HTW,D,JLS in real life. Maybe they started running into to much L armed
cav.

>I pulled some material last night. I suggest everybody read Arrian's
Array. What you find out is that Romans in the EIR period weren't
actually fighting cav armies in a HTH environment they liked (hacking
away with swords). Instead, the formed up into tight ranks that is
something like a cross between testudo and orb, planting pilum in the
grounds much like grounding long spears. Moreover, modern historians
debate if this was a one-off deal or if it reflected Rome's reaction to
getting run over too many times by lance-armed cav.

>I *like* the current vulnerability to a 16 man HI HTW unit from 2
impetuous HC Lancers. I feel it's an accurate reflection of what such
troops faced. That isn't to say there isn't something "list rule" that
might enable us to completely simulate what Roman commanders did in the
face of such stuff.

>Everybody look at the NASAMW EIR list. 8 LBS on carts:) Let cav
try to wade into that assuming they're next to a hapless legionaiire
unit.

>More on this as it develops. I really can't afford to spend much time
on this currently but will squeeze in what I can. Gotta do Syrians
tonight.

scott
list ho

[Tom McMillan]

In a message dated 5/14/02 4:19:12 PM, WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com writes:

<< What about the L* in the EIR NASAMW list? Is this no longer valid in

Warrior for tournament play? Is there no longer any L* at all in

Warrior? >>

if Goths get L , Normans better not get L* !