Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

<< Not to beat a dead horse, but it wouldn't KILL you guys to grandfather the
old list long enough for a player to get their army in order.>>

Please, please, PLEASE realize that what lists are or are not available to be
used in a tournament has NOTHING to do with FHE or Warrior. That is solely the
decision of the tourney director.

As far as FHE is concerned, you may use any list you like. The ones we will
publish will be exactly compatible with the rules and will be the most complete
in terms of consolidated research. HOWEVER, you could also:
-continue to use WRG or NASAMW lists, with modifications to make them Warrior
compatible
-convert lists published for some other game system
-make up your own

Scott Holder, one of the Four Horsemen, is also the current chief umpire of the
North American Society of Ancient and Medieval Wargamers and he and that body's
Executive Committee (and members) will decide which lists may be used in NASAMW
tourneys. NOT, I repeat NOT, FHE.

Similarly, any other gaming organization, however formally or informally
organized, will be the final arbiter of which army lists it uses in any Warrior
tourney. We would not even consider trying to dictate that to anyone.

Certainly FHE would recommend the sole use of the lists we write, but that is a
recommendation and nothing more. That recommendation also does nothing for
folks during the period before all of our lists are published.

How any given organization handles the transition is up to them. I am, as a
NASAMW member, recommending to Scott that NASAMW continue to allow WRG and
NASAMW lists be available for those armies that are not covered by a Warrior
list, but that once a Warrior list is published that it supercedes (for NASAMW
tourney purposes) any other lists. As our lists are being written with the full
knowledge of what research has gone before, I think the cases where a troop type
simply no longer appears in a given list will be very few, if there are any at
all. As a partner in FHE, I will see every proposed list and will be VERY
closely scrutinizing any troop type scheduled to leave (or be added to!) a list.
In 99% of cases, I will be recommending that the player be given the option of
which way to intrepret controversial troop types (LHI vs HI viking, etc.) rather
than having FHE choose and disallow the other.

I have no problem with NASAMW issues related to Warrior being discussed here, as
long as everyone understands what is an FHE 'decision' and what is the
perogative of a tourney director or equivalent.

Jon

[Greg Regets]

Sorry Jon .... These topics change so fast, we don't know what lists we are
positing on, :-)


***********
As a partner in FHE, I will see every proposed list and will be VERY closely
scrutinizing any troop type scheduled to leave (or be added to!) a list. In
99% of cases, I will be recommending that the player be given the option of
which way to intrepret controversial troop types (LHI vs HI viking, etc.)
rather than having FHE choose and disallow the other.
***********

This has to be the most intelligent (and common sense) point of view about
army lists I have ever heard in all the years I have been wargaming. How may
lists don't have ANY terrain troops, in spite of being based in parts of the
world where terrain abounds .... like Indians for example .... I really
don't care what "historical" evidence someone might have, NOBODY fighting in
India would have NO loose order foot. Can someone actually find something
that says, "such in such infantry fought X number of feet apart". Its a case
of making history fit the game not the game fit history.

Not long ago we had a discussion about the point system and pretty much
decided it was good enough to use without modification. Having said that,
whats the big deal if someone buys some of his IRR,C,MI,JLS,Sh as
IRR,C,LMI,JLS,Sh. As long as everyone could do it, it would be fair. And
before anyone goes on a diatribe about "historical accuracy", I have yet to
see any wooden horses, golden fleeces or six-headed hydra added to any Greek
army lists!

G

[Ewan McNay]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Greg Regets wrote:
> Not long ago we had a discussion about the point system and pretty much
> decided it was good enough to use without modification. Having said that,
> whats the big deal if someone buys some of his IRR,C,MI,JLS,Sh as
> IRR,C,LMI,JLS,Sh. As long as everyone could do it, it would be fair. And

I think it depends on the extent to which you are willing to stop having
any simulation aspect. I *have* organised comps with no army lists -
"here are 1600 points, spend them anyhow you like" - but it does get
silly. [62 scythed chariots comes to mind] I think that even as an
arbitrary method of preventing such absurd optimisation, the army lists
work well. That is, regardless of 'fairness' (which I think is a fish of
scarlet hue), the limitations work.

Ewan

--
Dr. Ewan McNay - Behavioral Neuroscience, Yale University.
(203) 432-7005

[Greg Regets]

-----Original Message-----
From: Ewan Mcnay [mailto:ewan@...]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 2:48 PM
To: 'WarriorRules@egroups.com'
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Lists, Grandfathering, etc. (Important!)


On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Greg Regets wrote:
> Not long ago we had a discussion about the point system and pretty much
> decided it was good enough to use without modification. Having said that,
> whats the big deal if someone buys some of his IRR,C,MI,JLS,Sh as
> IRR,C,LMI,JLS,Sh. As long as everyone could do it, it would be fair. And

I think it depends on the extent to which you are willing to stop having
any simulation aspect. I *have* organised comps with no army lists -
"here are 1600 points, spend them anyhow you like" - but it does get
silly. [62 scythed chariots comes to mind] I think that even as an
arbitrary method of preventing such absurd optimisation, the army lists
work well. That is, regardless of 'fairness' (which I think is a fish of
scarlet hue), the limitations work.

>>>>GREG>>>> I think you are taking my point far into left field. Nobody is
talking about abandoning a simulation aspect, but rather removing the list
authors prejudice as a player from the creation of the lists. A good example
are lists that give minimum's and maximums based on the list authors view of
what size units should be, ie ... 16 LC as a minimum. I happen to like 12's
so the list author forces me to buy two units because he prefers 16's. I
have long felt that a player should be allowed to adjust minimums and
maximium by something like 25% to accomidate his preference in unit size.
The close/loose argument is another issue all together. Some of these armies
have NO loose foot, and one wonders how they would fight without it. Perhaps
had the historical commanders known that they would have been playing WRG
7th Edition some day, they would have organized it into their army .... ;-)




Ewan

--
Dr. Ewan McNay - Behavioral Neuroscience, Yale University.
(203) 432-7005


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Savings + service + convenience = beMANY!
http://click.egroups.com/1/4116/2/_/_/_/961530486/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com

[Ewan McNay]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Greg Regets wrote:
> The close/loose argument is another issue all together. Some of these armies
> have NO loose foot, and one wonders how they would fight without it. Perhaps
> had the historical commanders known that they would have been playing WRG
> 7th Edition some day, they would have organized it into their army .... ;-)

No: if you don't have rough-terrain troops, then don't fight in rough
terrain (a la Mongols, for one extreme). If the *game* forces you to do
so, then it's a game issue - not a problem in history - no? [I suspect
that we are talking past one another: I don't see a problem either in
history (where some armies may plausibly not have had a need for any
number of rough troops) nor in the game (where different armies offer a
range of troop options) - so what am I missing?]

e

--
Dr. Ewan McNay - Behavioral Neuroscience, Yale University.
(203) 432-7005

[Greg Regets]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Greg Regets wrote:
> The close/loose argument is another issue all together. Some of these
armies
> have NO loose foot, and one wonders how they would fight without it.
Perhaps
> had the historical commanders known that they would have been playing WRG
> 7th Edition some day, they would have organized it into their army ....
;-)

No: if you don't have rough-terrain troops, then don't fight in rough
terrain (a la Mongols, for one extreme).

>>>GREG>>>> But of course, the Mongols fought in a place where there was
very little terrain.

If the *game* forces you to do so, then it's a game issue - not a problem in
history - no? [I suspect that we are talking past one another: I don't see
a problem either in history (where some armies may plausibly not have had a
need for any number of rough troops) nor in the game (where different armies
offer a range of troop options) - so what am I missing?]

>>>>GREG>>>> I do think we are technically in agreement, but going back to
my original argument .... nobody would ever convince me that Indian armies
did not contain troops optimized for heavy terrain, and yet the list does
not allow you to buy them for whatever reason. This conclusion does not come
from reading a historical account of one ancient battle, but rather because
I have actually been to India. There comes a point where common sense makes
more sense than an ancient text written buy someone that may have been
telling this story fourth hand ..... you know?

[joncleaves]

<< I would really like to argue these points in more detail. But essays don't
seem to work as e-mail messages.

Paul Szuscikiewicz >>

Paul, as the list moderator, its ok with me.

This list is about ancient and medieval military history as well as (indeed
as part of) Warrior rules development issues.

I think the only thing that's been really contentious was a brief spell of
some old WRGers bringing up (should I say dredging up) old settled issues and
portraying them as new to the new guys and anyone who disagreed as not smart
enough to understand. Seems to have ended. Drive on!
Jon

Some comments made by Greg Regets:

>
>How may
>lists don't have ANY terrain troops, in spite of being based in parts of the
>world where terrain abounds .... like Indians for example .... I really
>don't care what "historical" evidence someone might have, NOBODY fighting in
>India would have NO loose order foot.

>Can someone actually find something
>that says, "such in such infantry fought X number of feet apart".
>
>whats the big deal if someone buys some of his IRR,C,MI,JLS,Sh as
>IRR,C,LMI,JLS,Sh. As long as everyone could do it, it would be fair. And
>before anyone goes on a diatribe about "historical accuracy", I have yet to
>see any wooden horses, golden fleeces or six-headed hydra added to any Greek
>army lists!
>
>A good example
>are lists that give minimum's and maximums based on the list authors view of
>what size units should be, ie ... 16 LC as a minimum. I happen to like 12's
>so the list author forces me to buy two units because he prefers 16's. I
>have long felt that a player should be allowed to adjust minimums and
>maximium by something like 25% to accomidate his preference in unit size.

This all strikes me as controversial stuff. And my experience of e-lists
over the last year makes me think they are not the best forum for
discussing controversial things.

To throw out some main points:

1) If Indian armies avoided fighting across rough terrain, then that would
mean their generals wouldn't see the need for rough terrain troops. I think
Duncan Head's Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars has something to say
about the stylized nature of Indian warfare. I don't claim to any knowledge
about this, but just because the rough terrain is there doesn't mean it was
used; and just because rough terrain troops are useful on a wargames table
doesn't mean all armies are historically entitled to them.

2) It's not a good idea to "not care" about historical evidence. Take that
idea to its logical extreme and you may as well be playing with free
selection that brings scythed chariots, elephants, knights, pikes and
longbows all in one army. Historical miniatures is a different thing from
miniatures, and part of the fun of the hobby is researching the history.

3) The swapping LMI for MI example given highlights a fundamental problem
with the structured troop types of WRG rules. There are troops who might be
better considered as "soldiers" who fight in whatever formation and style
suits the demands of the job. Medieval knights are the best example.
Hypaspists are another example. Viking infantry a third. Note that the
latter two are traditionally controversial, and the first has a rule
governing dismounting written into the game specifically for them.

4) I don't think wooden horses, hydras et al are in the lists. Or have I
missed something? I'd certainly be tempted to field a hydra to deal with
those pesky light infantry.

5) Minima/maxima derive from the day when one figure equalled twenty
soldiers. Then there was some tampering with this both at the list level
and then in the rules. But notionally they are there to represent a
limitation that players have to cope with, as part of that list. If you
like 12 figure units, you HAVE to have two of them in that example. That
was the point of the lists in the first place. Making them flexible needs
careful thought.

6) And yes, one can find a source that says people fought X feet apart. But
I don't know of one for Indians. (See caveat in point 1 above).

I would really like to argue these points in more detail. But essays don't
seem to work as e-mail messages.

Paul Szuscikiewicz

[Phil Gardocki]

Like Burma? Dismounted? In the jungle? Facing LI and Elephants?
Philip Gardocki

(610) 495-7923 (answering machine)
(610) 495 8937
When the avalanche falls, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.

>No: if you don't have rough-terrain troops, then don't fight in rough
>terrain (a la Mongols, for one extreme).
>
>>>>GREG>>>> But of course, the Mongols fought in a place where there was
>very little terrain.
>

Attachment: vcard [not shown]

[Phil Gardocki]

Actually whether or not essays work depends on the writer. Please, do go
on.
Philip Gardocki

(610) 495-7923 (answering machine)
(610) 495 8937
When the avalanche falls, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.
-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... <JonCleaves@...>
To: WarriorRules@egroups.com <WarriorRules@egroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Lists, Grandfathering, etc. (Important!)


><< I would really like to argue these points in more detail. But essays
don't
> seem to work as e-mail messages.
>
> Paul Szuscikiewicz >>
>

Attachment: vcard [not shown]