Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[John Murphy]

Please warn me if this would be considered to far off-topic to stay
on-list.

It ain't gonna happen this weekend, but give me a bit of time to
ramp on this one and do it carefully.

Since this would be the proper mechanism for something of this sort
I vonunteer in absence of someone more suitable (for whom I would
happily step aside, ahem, Mr. Stone?) to craft these two "X-rules"...

(1) Prohibiting loose order from skirmishing (unless permitted by a
list rule but that goes without saying for the entire rulebook).
This would have to include a likely list of candidates in the X-rule
as obviously the lists are not and will not be written to support
this.

(2) Changing the charge move of CO foot to 120p.

That way those interested could use them and experiment and collect
data on their impact without anyone worrying about changes to the
core system. I do actually think experienced good Warrior players
trying these out creatively with an open mind over many games
especially Mark's idea summarized in the first one, would be of
benefit to the Warrior community.

It is my expectation, actually, that (2) will be made unnecessary by
(1) for the following reasons. First, you can already counter-charge
enemy originating outside your own charge reach. Second, if loose
foot can no longer evade (or skirmish counter away) from you then
close foot can eventually close this gap without any addition to
their charge reach unless the loose foot actually are prompted to
retire.

The remaining issues of impetuous loose foot cancelling non-
impetuous close foot charges have more to do with the impetuosity
rules and most people are actually happy with this except in cases
like Romans or hoplites (?) where it seems suitable to make list
rules to change it. And given the Swiss list rules and possibility
of more of that ilk where suitable I would keep the X-rule impact,
already huge, to a 'relative' minimum.

I could use the following assistance in this from those more
knowledgeable:

- What rules sections are impacted by this, not just the main
section but where is such repeated elsewhere (including examples)?

- More to the point, what would the candidate types be for exception
list rules permitting loose order evades?

I would probably nominate several Byzantine bow-armed HC/MC as a
starting point but _possibly_ this is framed by own gaming
experience more than historical fact. After all this behavior could
also be handled by promted retirement. That is how I used to have to
try to deal with it when I ran EHC/HC with B all those years ago.

> >deny evades to loose order troops unless specifically permitted by
> >list. I suppose that's water under the bridge now
> >------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> >I beleive this likely falls into the same category as 120p CO foot
> >charge moves and certain other items which are probably good
> >simulation ideas deemed to be too major of a change to the
> >interactions in the entire game system to correct.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Doug <rockd@p...> wrote:
> Hear Hear. I 'd like to see these two items included as X-rules.
> Unfortunately, I think that the only people who have enough
> experience with the rules engine to write them are tournament
players
> who just don't have any interest in doing so.

[joncleaves]

John, I'd be happy to craft those two x-rules for you. What you'd need
someone else for is the list of loose order types someone (besides FHE...lol)
thinks skirmishing should be limited to.
Jon


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/29/2004 21:59:21 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

Deal. Thanks, better than I could have hoped for actually.>>
X6.11. Change the tactical move distance of fresh, steady HI and MI to
120p. Note this change on any play aid movement chart in use as well.
Jon


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

[John Murphy]

Deal. Thanks, better than I could have hoped for actually.

I will see if I can drudge up a start at such from better persons
than myself over the next couple weeks.

Meantime anyone desiring to make an input into this just for messing
around and taking data on game effects (the point of X-rules) please
post something.

Also, if your thought is simply "no LO should skirmish period under
this X-rule" that would also be helpful to gauge.

And let it be said that LMI/LHI longbowmen and Byzantine HC bow-
armed are probably two of my staple tournament troops - though _my_
level of success is not such as to constitute throwing years of
progress out the window! But this still interests me to see what
kind of effects it has as an X-rule.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> John, I'd be happy to craft those two x-rules for you. What
you'd need someone else for is the list of loose order types
someone thinks skirmishing should be limited to.

[Doug]

>X6.11. Change the tactical move distance of fresh, steady HI and MI to
>120p. Note this change on any play aid movement chart in use as well.
>Jon

Now that's an interesting detail-- tired or unsteady drop back to 80p?

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/29/2004 22:49:08 Central Daylight Time,
rockd@... writes:

Now that's an interesting detail-- tired or unsteady drop back to 80p?>>
That would be the x-rule I would create, yes. Of course anyone can make an
x-rule anyway they like.
Jon


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

[Ewan McNay]

John wrote:
> (1) Prohibiting loose order from skirmishing (unless permitted by a
> list rule but that goes without saying for the entire rulebook).
> This would have to include a likely list of candidates in the X-rule
> as obviously the lists are not and will not be written to support
> this.
>
> (2) Changing the charge move of CO foot to 120p.

[snip]

> It is my expectation, actually, that (2) will be made unnecessary by
> (1) for the following reasons. First, you can already counter-charge
> enemy originating outside your own charge reach. Second, if loose
> foot can no longer evade (or skirmish counter away) from you then
> close foot can eventually close this gap without any addition to
> their charge reach unless the loose foot actually are prompted to
> retire.

Agreed. To clarify, is it your intent to prevent loose *mounted*
from skirmishing also?

[It seems that in history terms, this would be the way to go,
assuming the validity of the general 'non-lights did not evade,'
but I think that there may be a game-balance distinction worth
drawing.]

> I could use the following assistance in this:
>
> - What rules sections are impacted by this, not just the main
> section but where is such repeated elsewhere (including examples)?
>
> - More to the point, what would the candidate types be for exception
> list rules permitting loose order evades?

OK. I'll see what time I can find....

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:
> Agreed. To clarify, is it your intent to prevent loose *mounted*
> from skirmishing also?
>
> [It seems that in history terms, this would be the way to go,
> assuming the validity of the general 'non-lights did not evade,'
> but I think that there may be a game-balance distinction worth
> drawing.]

If I understand correctly this was the idea first put forth, yes.

I believe from the orginal post which put the case forward that the
intent is to deny skirmish to both mounted and foot loose order.

While the prospect of meaning anything is not good, I would
certainly volunteer to playtest it.