Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> Short answer: these guys (Irr B LC) are there to draw fire away
from the knights
> as they ride along side them towards targets of opportunity for
the knights.
> The best way for them to draw fire is to be "shooters directly to
front" and
> the best way for them to achieve that status is by having bows.

I'll have to think on a response to this one.

> 1. Assume you have equal frontage (say, 2 6 stand units) of LI
B,Sh and LC
> JLS,Sh, that the did not take 2 CPF in prep, that the LC charge
the LI in the
> open, and the LI pass their waver test and choose to take the
charge at the
> halt.

So we are already talking about only a 1/2-2/3 probability right
there. Less if you can make the LI uneasy. But okay.

And of course, we are also talking about a frontal charge permitting
a support shot, and the LI move first.

> 2. Either the LC was impetuous or not. If it was impetuous, it
will likely rout
> the LI, but then is vulnerable to getting charged by support
troops behind the
> LI without any ability to evade. The likely result is that next
bound the LC
> will be routed. So one player has a routing LI unit that costs
less than the LC
> and that no one waver tests for, and one player has a routing LC
unit that
> costs more and that everyone waver tests for. Thanks, but I'll
take the LI in
> that situation.

Okay I grant all this. Impetuosity is not the way go if there is an
enemy in support without a friend for the LC to step up and take
them out instead. Although still can't the much faster LC break
through or something so as not to still be in contact?

> 3. If the LC was not impetuous, then it will likely _not_ rout the
LI (do the
> math; don't forget support shooting by the LI). Then the LC is
merely following
> up, rather than pursuing. Since it is merely following up, 6.166
does not
> apply, and when the LI's support troops charge through, again the
LC has no
> response other than to sit there and get routed. Now one player is
trading a
> disordered LI unit for a routed LC unit. Again, I'll take the LI
in that
> situation.

Alright I'll do the math. Off the top of my head (see if I am
getting the tables memorized now) on a 2-rank/6E battle:

LC no support shot with JLS
LI support shot with 12 B @ +3 (B vs. LC) -2 (contact) = 18 = 1 cpf

LC fight 6 JLS @ +3 (other cav vs. LI) +1 (charge) -1 (support) = 18
= 1 cpf
LI fight 6 other @ +1 (other foot vs. LC) = 9 = 0 cpf

LI recoil disordered, maybe (depending if I got the factors even
close?) taking a waver for a second cause.

All assuming even dice, easier for the LC as B class than for the LI
in most cases. Coupled with the passed waver, possibly by uneasy
troops no higher than C class and often worse, we are getting
perilously close to the edge here. And this assumes everyone runs
their LI with shields which is not the case - but okay you have to
have a way to deal with crafty opponents and bad luck.

NOW, however, I believe the LC also have an option, not being
impetuous, to break off in which case they certainly are not going
to be caught by the LI who can not roll "up" in pursuit if they
wanted to.

Is this not so, mounted against opponents who do not break have this
option?

For that matter, okay the other guy is replacing in combat. Well,
guess what, my LC (or my SHK) can do that trick too! I can charge
with another unit the next bound. Now whatever unit is trying to
clean up on an engaged LC unit is going to be looking at SHK (well,
disordered HK after the interpenetration but still...)

I admit to playing footloose and fancy free with the rules here, but
give me a break sitting here without a book.

And the amazing thing is I am trying to hold my own in a tactical
arguement with Mark Stone. Surely I will go down to blazing defeat,
but let's take to the conclusion and be sure I follow you here.

I wouldn't dispute this, just buy the stinkin bows (yeah, I'd like
to have them in a perfect world), except that being tight on points
that is going to force some major changes to an army I am very happy
to play. So I want to fully buy into the entire justification. Hope
you understand why.

[Ewan McNay]

On Wed, 5 May 2004, J. Murphy wrote:
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> > First, I think that taking lots of knight units with Irr C in the
> back rank,
> > particularly units with generals, is a _huge_ mistake. Given the
> intended
> > strategy, you're going to be taking waver tests as some of your
> knight charges
> > pan out and others don't. Doubling your chance of failing a waver
> doesn't seem
> > like a good idea.

Hey, I disagree with Mark! Had to happen some time . I actually buy
your reasoning, John, and would run them as C class - I ran Imperialists
with almost every knight unit as C class and 9-10 of them.

> To me, the back-rank HK (like HYWE) is a bigger hurt than the back-
> rank C class, because of getting shot while disordered which sucks
> with these. Can't have everything.

Right. And the better dismount is a plus.

On the LC being B-armed or not, one of us must be doing the math wrong -
the LC (assuming 3E frontage) come in with 6@ 4 +2 (JLS) +1 (charge) -1
(shot) is 30, plus support shot of 6@1 = 9, for total of 39. The
difference between 30 and 39 is a rout or not for a 6E LI unit - which of
course is an argument for that not necessarily being the right LI unit
size .

On the other hand, for the LI to be standing the LC likely started within
80p (otherwise they probably evade and get away), so there was a prep shot
of 12@ 3 or 4, for at least 2 cpf - so now the LC arrive tired, and
there's no rout in any case, and I think the whole thing is getting a
little abstract again.

Net, I suspect you may both be right (and this is going to sound brutish,
John, sorry): if you assume ability to set things up very well - e.g. here
soak off some/all of the LI prep shot - then the rear rank of B may be
critical. Otherwise, it may well not be, so you may want to just go with
gut (at least to start - you can always revert if you are finding that it
hurts).

So, in the end: play one way and see what you think.

[Ewan McNay]

On Wed, 5 May 2004, J. Murphy wrote:
> Why struggle to get into skirmish? The factors are the same wether
> you are shieldess skirmishers shooting bows or non-skirmish shielded
> JLS. And you can evade wether in skirmish or not - in fact not being
> in skirmish actually gives you a choice you do not otherwise have.

No - skirmishing shieldless LC are shot at a 2 (3 +1 -2) vs. a 3 for
shielded non-skirmish. And one may charge out of skirmish. However,
given irreg LC, getting into skirmish at the right range is not trivial in
the first place.

> In fact, to elaborate further, is there a rule of some kind that
> missile troops (i.e. JLS,B-armed vs just-JLS) have to be prompted to
> charge under attack? Something like that anyway?

There is, but probably not often a problem as the K will charge
self-prompted.

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, ewan.mcnay@y... wrote:
> Hey, I disagree with Mark! Had to happen some time . I actually
buy
> your reasoning, John, and would run them as C class - I ran
Imperialists
> with almost every knight unit as C class and 9-10 of them.

Dang, how about that! Well, good because that one I am not going to
back off on. I think it is more a matter of personal taste. And, hey
Mark may be right (like _that_ never happens) I may roll 12 "2"'s on
waver tests in my next game. But it is just my preference to take
that risk.

> On the LC being B-armed or not, one of us must be doing the math
wrong -

If the following is the only mistake I made that _is_ quite an
improvement in terms of learning the tables.

> the LC (assuming 3E frontage) come in with 6@ 4 +2 (JLS) +1
(charge) -1
> (shot) is 30, plus support shot of 6@1 = 9, for total of 39. The
> difference between 30 and 39 is a rout or not for a 6E LI unit -
which of
> course is an argument for that not necessarily being the right LI
unit
> size .

So, on even dice, the LC get 30 or 39 against (now I can look it up)
the LI getting 6 @ +2 = 12.

A blown waver by possibly uneasy C or D class LI, or an up-roll by B
class LC, will break the LI even without bows. Or the LI can roll
down 2 on support shot (if they roll up 1 then even with bows the LI
can not not be broken).

In short I see a lot of things here that break or save the LI and the
presence of bows is only a factor in one case.

> On the other hand, for the LI to be standing the LC likely started
within
> 80p (otherwise they probably evade and get away), so there was a
prep shot
> of 12@ 3 or 4, for at least 2 cpf - so now the LC arrive tired, and
> there's no rout in any case, and I think the whole thing is getting
a
> little abstract again.

The 2 cpf on even dice mean the LC is wavering or recalling. No
charge without a waver, bows or not. If the LC have bows and use them
then the LC are disordered by the prep shot.

That assumes the LC are not skirmishing. If they are then the bows
are shieldless, the JLS are not. But both get a -2 for skirmish and
the JLS are only 1 cpf while the bows are 2 cpf and still recalling.
Bows still sound so hot?

However the LC also shoot, if they have JLS they do so while shielded
(that's the kick with bows is you do not get to shoot JLS anymore).
That shot, same as for bows, does 23 or a cheesy only 1 cpf.

> Net, I suspect you may both be right (and this is going to sound
brutish,
> John, sorry): if you assume ability to set things up very well -
e.g. here
> soak off some/all of the LI prep shot - then the rear rank of B may
be
> critical.

Not sure why I should consider this "brutish". And no need to
apologize even if it is. I've certainly suffered worse!

> Otherwise, it may well not be, so you may want to just go with
> gut (at least to start - you can always revert if you are finding
that it
> hurts).
> So, in the end: play one way and see what you think.

Well, that is a good way to look at it in the end.

>No - skirmishing shieldless LC are shot at a 2 (3 +1 -2) vs. a 3 for
shielded non-skirmish. And one may charge out of skirmish. However,
given irreg LC, getting into skirmish at the right range is not
trivial in
the first place.

Okay, I had the factors wrong from memory. So used to the +2's for
unsheilded.

But I think if you move first it is easy to get into skirmish, that
takes care of half of the cases right off. In other cases, where you
need skirmish most is when you get to effective range, and if you
move second you can basically avoid this if you like anyway.

A much bigger problem than bows or no is being Irregs and only moving
40p while entering skirmish. Note once you are already there from a
previous bound this problem disappears.

There is, again, a very narrow range of circumstances where it really
makes a difference.

>> In fact, to elaborate further, is there a rule of some kind that
> missile troops (i.e. JLS,B-armed vs just-JLS) have to be prompted to
> charge under attack? Something like that anyway?

>There is, but probably not often a problem as the K will charge
self-prompted.

But I am talking about the LC with/without bows. Under attack orders
LC with JLS-only can charge unprompted at their their first legal
target. LC with B can not. If you get a flank charge or a disordered
enemy, the most likely cases for LC action besides cleaning up enemy
lights, it is moot. But for a frontal case like the one we were
discussing the final problem with JLS,B LC is that they also need to
be prompted as Irregs to make the charge in the first place. LC JLS
no-B do not require this if it is the first charge under attack
orders.

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> these guys (Irr B LC) are there to draw fire away from the knights
> as they ride along side them towards targets of opportunity for the
knights.
> The best way for them to draw fire is to be "shooters directly to
front" and
> the best way for them to achieve that status is by having bows.

Well, I've had time to digest this part of the question.

Okay, I have to grant in this case, assuming you do not want to - or
are unable to - advance possibly in skirmish to within 40p, bows are
good to have.

I can't really see a way to disagree with you here Mark.

But for 36 points (thank goodness they are Irregs at least for this)
I am also not sure I would go with your method of reducing elsewhere
to ge them. I will think on it though.

I still do not think you really need the bows to chase other lights
around but I can see, if not absolute necessity (and maybe, against
some enemies even that), at least some ease of use in their more
important role of stripping fire from the knights.

So even after all the you-do-this-I-do-that I will take a look,
still, at this.

Maybe someone could elaborate on how you see the difference between
the large units of Irreg LC and the small units of Reg LC playing out
in support of the SHK.

Having done the list with something like that planned, I am not sure
I have quite stuck the whole tactics concept in my mind yet amidst
all the list to and fro. The part where you say, I declare 12
charges, all impetuous, that part I understand with this list!
Obviously there is much more to it!

I _think_ this is something of interest to more than just me. Maybe
this is one of those threads that has worn out its use though. It
happens.

btw besides Essex the only other maker of a 15mm Later Polish
(Medieval) range I can find out there is Falcon/Quartermaster.
Between these Essex has some that sound better and Falcon has others
that sound better. Anyone know if these mix? Any ideas on these at
all?

Completely disregarding all the nuance stuff, the reason you want to
Lithuanians to have bows is very very simple: firepower.

Running 6E of IrgB LC J/B/sh 3E wide.

Start at 240p and in approach, go into skirmish 2E wide and move
forward 40p to a distance of 200p (shooting range for mounted B) and
be shooters to front with 8@

Same but remain 3E wide and become shooters to front with 9@

SHK can move to within 40p as long as they do not block the enemy
element's fire the LC will draw the fire.


With JLS only, the LC will do as above and not be a shooter in or out
of skirmish at 200p, or they do not go into skirmish and get ripped
apart by the LI at 40p away.

Bottom line is without the bow, it takes an extra full turn to get
skirmishing JLS/sh close enough to provide deflection for the SHK.
That turn will be the difference between bowling over a portion of
the enemy line and letting him reenforce your point of attack.

Wanax

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/6/2004 8:57:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
spocksleftball@... writes:

> Start at 240p and in approach, go into skirmish 2E wide and move
> forward 40p to a distance of 200p (shooting range for
> mounted B)>>

Shooting range for mounted B is 160p.

J

Crap! I knew it sounded like I knew what I was talking about.
Should have been suspicious right then
boyd

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 5/6/2004 8:57:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
spocksleftball@y... writes:
>
> > Start at 240p and in approach, go into skirmish 2E wide and move
> > forward 40p to a distance of 200p (shooting range for
> > mounted B)>>
>
> Shooting range for mounted B is 160p.
>
> J

[John Murphy]

Okay, let's look at the factors.

LC JLS,B,Sh skirmishing @ +2 / @ +1 / @ +1
LC JLS,Sh non-skirmishing @ +3 / @ +2 / @ +2

Question is, how many shooters to cause 2 CPF or 3 CPF
in prep shooting on a 1E frontage?

skirm-no-Sh Sh-no-skirm
2cpf 3cpf 2cpf 3cpf
vs.JLS,D,B 4 @ 6 @ 3 @ 5 @
vs.S,SS,LB 6 @ 8 @ 4 @ 6 @
vs.CB 6 @ 8 @ 4 @ 6 @

So, it makes a difference against
Irreg Loose with JLS, D or B or any Open with JLS or D
Pretty much any S, SS, LB or CB (hey, I admit, that covers a lot!)

It is basically no difference against
Reg Loose with JLS, D or B or any Open with B

Alright, I had no idea it was that signifigant.

BUT, from 240p away, with JLS, you move to 40p first turn and do get
to shoot and be shooters to front against LI archers. With JLS,B on
the other hand if you move to get into shooting range you can not get
into skirmish so are both unshielded and not in skirmish which is 1
factor worse than the JLS-only.

But where I admit the bows have an advantage here is they can shoot,
rather ineffectively, from 121p while the knights move in and still
draw fire away to the LC.

One can also do this with a single (rear) rank of bows (remaining
shielded if firing bows from the rear rank only).

I think that solution may be the best of both worlds, and half the
points. Doesn't help once you skirmish though but it is no worse than
all-B in that way.

Another question, though - what the heck are those Reg D LC B doing
while all this is going on?

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Wanax Andron"
<spocksleftball@y...> wrote:
> Running 6E of IrgB LC J/B/sh 3E wide.
> With JLS only, the LC will do as above and not be a shooter in or
out
> of skirmish at 200p, or they do not go into skirmish and get ripped
> apart by the LI at 40p away.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "J. Murphy" <jjmurphy@s...>
wrote:
> Okay, let's look at the factors.
>
> LC JLS,B,Sh skirmishing @ +2 / @ +1 / @ +1
> LC JLS,Sh non-skirmishing @ +3 / @ +2 / @ +2
>
> Question is, how many shooters to cause 2 CPF or 3 CPF
> in prep shooting on a 1E frontage?
>
> skirm-no-Sh Sh-no-skirm
> 2cpf 3cpf 2cpf 3cpf
> vs.JLS,D,B 4 @ 6 @ 3 @ 5 @
> vs.S,SS,LB 6 @ 8 @ 4 @ 6 @
> vs.CB 6 @ 8 @ 4 @ 6 @

After coming to my senses (drinking some coffee), I have rethought
some of this.

First, ignore CB factors as something most people are not using.

Now looking strickly at B, the best factors on LC, considering the 1E
frontage at long range. 2@3=5, 2@4=9 and 2@2=4 for shielded non-
skirmish, unsheilded non-skirmish, and skirmish. A 6E B armed LI
unit not in skirmish will inflict6@2=12 or 1 CPF at long range on a
6E LC unit in skirmish and the LC will return 6@3=15 or 1 CPF.

At close range the LI shoot 12@2=24 or 4 Cpf while the LC return with
9@3 for 23 or 1 CPF.

If you can get the LC to 40p in skirmish, then the LI inflict only
12@1. So yes the best possible scenario is to get your LC in
skirmish at 40p with JLS. The problem is the timing, so more than
likely you will have to use the RegD LC to move up and skirmish as a
screen for your screening Lithuanians. This is allow you the
opportunity to exicute your plan by giving another bound to get the
Lithuanians close. HOwever, if you plan on playing this way, might I
suggest that you still buy the L rather than the B. IrgB LC L/J/sh
will route the LI on contact, charge out of skirmish, and fight 1/5
ranks on the L factors. Per element frontage 3@5 +1+2 -support
shot. The best the LI will do is 2@2. I call this a rout on
contact :)

Now in order to work this on a broader sense, you will need to
rethink a bit about the tarter regD LC. They can have B, fine, but
they now will need to be in 2E blocks in order to take advantage of
the only strength they have: manuverability. In the "pod" concept,
use 1 2E RegD LC B unit to move up and skirmish the LI from 80p,
while 2 SHK move up and remain 240p behind it. The 1 6E IRgB LC, now
enter skirmish in 2E wide and move forward 40p since there is a
possible enemy threat to them. The reg LC expand to cover 2E
frontage of the 6E LI unit which will leave the shooting threat to
the lithuanians and thus the legal skirmish outside of shooting
range. The LI shoot, the reg LC go back between the SHK units. Next
bound the Irg LC move to 40p and 1 SHK unit moves up to counter any
flank threat to the LC and to act as follow on in third bound. LI
shoot 12@1, LC return fire 8@3, if the LI roll up the LC go backwards
and you restart with the reg LC next bound. If the LI roll even or
down, the Irg LC charge the LI and rout them with L. Next bound the
reg LC move forward to screen one side of the Lithuanians while the
SHK move into the vacated gap looking for solid targets. And so it
goes in theory.

Wanax
:)

[Ewan McNay]

Wanax Andron wrote:
> Now in order to work this on a broader sense, you will need to
> rethink a bit about the tarter regD LC. They can have B, fine, but
> they now will need to be in 2E blocks in order to take advantage of
> the only strength they have: manuverability. In the "pod" concept,
> use 1 2E RegD LC B unit to move up and skirmish the LI from 80p,
> while 2 SHK move up and remain 240p behind it. The 1 6E IRgB LC, now
> enter skirmish in 2E wide and move forward 40p since there is a
> possible enemy threat to them.

Except: the LC JLS can only go into skirmish if there is a chance
that they will be able to shoot - not if they will only be shot at.

Which gets you back to having a B..

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:
>
>
> Wanax Andron wrote:
> > Now in order to work this on a broader sense, you will need to
> > rethink a bit about the tarter regD LC. They can have B, fine,
but
> > they now will need to be in 2E blocks in order to take advantage
of
> > the only strength they have: manuverability. In the "pod"
concept,
> > use 1 2E RegD LC B unit to move up and skirmish the LI from 80p,
> > while 2 SHK move up and remain 240p behind it. The 1 6E IRgB LC,
now
> > enter skirmish in 2E wide and move forward 40p since there is a
> > possible enemy threat to them.
>
> Except: the LC JLS can only go into skirmish if there is a chance
> that they will be able to shoot - not if they will only be shot at.
>
> Which gets you back to having a B..

But...this is the timing part. Potentially the LC can shoot here.
If the enemy movement is first, then the LC will have to move up to
80p to one side of the reg LC so as to move to 40p in skirmish next
bound. Just a matter of order. However, if the LC move first, then
they go into skirmish and move forward to 40p in preparation for
being or having the enemy move to within range. :)

Wanax

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Wanax Andron"
<spocksleftball@y...> wrote:
> buy the L rather than the B. IrgB LC L/J/sh
> will route the LI on contact, charge out of skirmish, and fight 1/5
> ranks on the L factors. Per element frontage 3@5 +1+2 -support
> shot. The best the LI will do is 2@2. I call this a rout on
> contact :)

Now this I had not considered for some reason. Yes, the 1.5 ranks is
much better, the factors are one worse against lights but having 150%
more figures beats that any time. And you still get the JLS+ on
subsequent non-L bounds (which is, however, what you want to avoid).

Now the only problem would be facing 1.5-rank JLS light cav but this
way you are only 1 factor down even in that matchup.

And it has the advantage of being a quirky thing most people are not
used to facing.

Well, I had just re-worked the list but giving the Lithuanians lance
changes it to the following...

Later Polish, Middle Period 1387-1453
127 figures (20 foot + 108 mounted)
18 units @ 1,604 points, 95 scouting points

1x CinC/Retainers 2E Irr B/C SHK/HK L,Sh (PA std) @ 181
1x Sub/Retainers 2E Irr B/C SHK/HK L,Sh (P std) @ 121
6x Knights/Retainers 2E Irr B/C SHK/HK L,Sh @ 109
1x Mounted Crossbowmen 2E Irr C LC CB @ 41
1x Archers 10E Irr C LI B,Sh @ 85
2x Tartars 2E Reg C LC B,Sh/B @ 38
2x Tartars 2E Reg D LC B @ 30
2x Lithuanians 4E Irr B LC L,JLS,Sh @ 89
1x Cumans 6E Irr C LC JLS,B,Sh/B @ 91
1x Wallachs or Moldaves 6E Irr C LC JLS,B,Sh @ 109

What about the Tartars? I have upped some to C and given them a front
rank of shields. Should they have JLS instead of shields? Should I
just leave them as bow-only, or even D-class bow-only (if D-class
they must be B-only no Sh)?

Are the Tartars in this list basically degenerated Mongols, so Mongol
figures would be appropriate? Yeah, in 15mm especially nobody will
notice but I'd like to have it right.

Was it better to have 3 6E units of L,JLS,Sh Lithuanians, even at the
cost of a 75 point staff element? How big an LI unit can I break on
contact with the 4E Liths versus 6E?

Interestingly, on closer examination in the later period I can change
just the 2 generals' units to Reg A. Unfortunately the "0-1/2" for
the LI to Reg D and mounted crossbowmen to Reg just is not going to
work, so I do not have the points.

[John Murphy]

Actually 1,596 points. Sorry.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "J. Murphy" <jjmurphy@s...>
wrote:
> Later Polish, Middle Period 1387-1453
> 18 units @ 1,604 points, 95 scouting points

[Steve Hollowell]

I am trying to find some research on the Later Polish army. I have checked the
internet and Osprey and haven't found any sort of authority on that particular
time period or army. Any help would be greatly appreciated.



Steven


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

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