Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Hi everyone,

I've pondered a question dealing with mixed order Cataphracts
since they've become more common in Warrior Rules (more so than WRG
7th since only the Tibetans had it then). For those of you who are
not sure what I'm talking about, I'm referring to the use of SHC in
the front of (usually) EHC. My question is one of mechanics and
common sense (this is not always common!). Basically the loose order
part of this kind of cavalry strike force gets a +2 for impetuosity
whereas the front rankers only receive a +1 because they are not
charging as hard presumably because of their heavier armor.
Considering the latter, where the front rank is charging slower,
wouldn't this carry over to the rear rank and keep them from having
the impetus that a normal loose or open order unit would have? It
seems to me that such a mixed body would have the impetuous bonus of
the front rankers to maintain the line ie: keep the EHC behind the
SHC. So since the new and improved rules are still being fine tuned,
I thought I'd bring this up for discussion to the group. I'd really
like to hear from Mark Stone and get his perspective on this in
addition to that of Jon's opinion. Please feel free to put in your 2
cents regardless of who you are and help me make some sense of this
mechanic.

respectfully,

Kelly Wilkinson

Greetings Kelly,
In 7th this would have been an easy one since only the front rank
fought it would be close order imp. In Warrior, with 1.5 ranks
fighting, I would think you would do it by fighting figure. In a 4E
unit you would get 8@+1 and 3@+2. I am basing this on the fact we do
seperate out different factors for shooting by element.

I would have no issue with it only be +1 for the whole unit as the
actual folks doing the fighting were all on the SHC's E. This refers
back to the historical note section of 9.22
"The ranks of figures allowed to fight is to encourage the use of
historical depths, rather than reflect weapon lenght. Of the 4 ranks
represented by the first rank of figurs, the ffirst two at most fought
in real life. Those behind comtributed by their momentum or inertia,
missiles, or relief of tired or wounded men.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "jwilkinson62"
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've pondered a question dealing with mixed order Cataphracts
> since they've become more common in Warrior Rules (more so than WRG
> 7th since only the Tibetans had it then). For those of you who are
> not sure what I'm talking about, I'm referring to the use of SHC in
> the front of (usually) EHC. My question is one of mechanics and
> common sense (this is not always common!). Basically the loose order
> part of this kind of cavalry strike force gets a +2 for impetuosity
> whereas the front rankers only receive a +1 because they are not
> charging as hard presumably because of their heavier armor.
> Considering the latter, where the front rank is charging slower,
> wouldn't this carry over to the rear rank and keep them from having
> the impetus that a normal loose or open order unit would have? It
> seems to me that such a mixed body would have the impetuous bonus of
> the front rankers to maintain the line ie: keep the EHC behind the
> SHC. So since the new and improved rules are still being fine tuned,
> I thought I'd bring this up for discussion to the group. I'd really
> like to hear from Mark Stone and get his perspective on this in
> addition to that of Jon's opinion. Please feel free to put in your 2
> cents regardless of who you are and help me make some sense of this
> mechanic.
>
> respectfully,
>
> Kelly Wilkinson

[Mark Stone]

--- On June 11 Kelly said: ---

> I'm referring to the use of SHC in
> the front of (usually) EHC. My question is one of mechanics and
> common sense (this is not always common!). Basically the loose order
> part of this kind of cavalry strike force gets a +2 for impetuosity
> whereas the front rankers only receive a +1 because they are not
> charging as hard presumably because of their heavier armor.
> Considering the latter, where the front rank is charging slower,
> wouldn't this carry over to the rear rank and keep them from having
> the impetus that a normal loose or open order unit would have?

So, I think this is absolutely the wrong way to think about the situation, and
to think about rules. Warrior is not a simulation, at least not in the sense
you describe here. Think about a different example:

On the table, the fourth rank of pikemen is 60 paces back from the front rank.
Of course this doesn't mean we think anyone is carrying around a pike 60 paces
long. The rules allow that fourth rank to fight at half effect when moving
forward to encourage the use of historical formations.

The SHC/EHC situation is exactly the same. Stop thinking about the interactions
literally, and think about them functionally. Historically these units _did_
fight with more heavily armored cav in front of less heavily armored cav. The
challenge of the rules system is to incent players to use that unit
configuration.

That's really what makes Warrior so distinctive, in my opinion: we get a
functional representation of how units act and interact. The "language" in
which this is expressed involves a vocabulary of arms, armor, training, and
troop type. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the resulting composition
is or should be a literal simulation of how troops were armed or how they moved
on the field of battle. The important element to get right, which Warrior does
so well, is to get unit function and unit behavior to properly represent what
happened historically.

On a side note: the value of +2 vs. +1 in the second rank is nice, but it isn't
the main advantage to putting EHC/HC/MC in the second rank. The main advantage
is being able to expand in a follow-up since your second rank is loose order
rather than close order.


-Mark Stone

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Mark,

Thank you for responding to my query. I agree that having the second rank
as a loose order element is wonderful as it's main grab for me is to be able to
follow up and expand. My point is that the inertia of the second rank should be
no more powerful than that of the front rank. No matter what, the front rank
will be slower which will also slow the charge of the loose order rank. I would
think this would be obvious since the unit moves 120 paces instead of 160 paces.
Moving at the slowest element's speed. Considering this, it would seem the unit
as a whole would charge impetuous at the same factor. At Pensic wars for
example, no matter how fast you are going in a charge, you still must slow down
if the guys in front of you are slower and in heavier armor. I'm just saying
that when a unit hits, it's impetuosity is governed by who's in front and the
impetuous bonus mechanic should be the same for the guys in back as those in the
front. Certainly the guys pushing the guys forward
in a scrum is important, but I'm talking about the initial push when everyone
is going the same speed. If they weren't then the EHC would be intermixed with
the SHC fouling things up like unit integrity. I always find your writing adds
to my perspective and your article concerning 6 element foot units has made an
impression here, you can ask around--"I'm a firm believer because of your
excellent points!"

kelly

Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
--- On June 11 Kelly said: ---

> I'm referring to the use of SHC in
> the front of (usually) EHC. My question is one of mechanics and
> common sense (this is not always common!). Basically the loose order
> part of this kind of cavalry strike force gets a +2 for impetuosity
> whereas the front rankers only receive a +1 because they are not
> charging as hard presumably because of their heavier armor.
> Considering the latter, where the front rank is charging slower,
> wouldn't this carry over to the rear rank and keep them from having
> the impetus that a normal loose or open order unit would have?

So, I think this is absolutely the wrong way to think about the situation, and
to think about rules. Warrior is not a simulation, at least not in the sense
you describe here. Think about a different example:

On the table, the fourth rank of pikemen is 60 paces back from the front rank.
Of course this doesn't mean we think anyone is carrying around a pike 60 paces
long. The rules allow that fourth rank to fight at half effect when moving
forward to encourage the use of historical formations.

The SHC/EHC situation is exactly the same. Stop thinking about the interactions
literally, and think about them functionally. Historically these units _did_
fight with more heavily armored cav in front of less heavily armored cav. The
challenge of the rules system is to incent players to use that unit
configuration.

That's really what makes Warrior so distinctive, in my opinion: we get a
functional representation of how units act and interact. The "language" in
which this is expressed involves a vocabulary of arms, armor, training, and
troop type. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the resulting composition
is or should be a literal simulation of how troops were armed or how they moved
on the field of battle. The important element to get right, which Warrior does
so well, is to get unit function and unit behavior to properly represent what
happened historically.

On a side note: the value of +2 vs. +1 in the second rank is nice, but it isn't
the main advantage to putting EHC/HC/MC in the second rank. The main advantage
is being able to expand in a follow-up since your second rank is loose order
rather than close order.


-Mark Stone


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Terry,
I agree that the second rank helped supply inertia, but they can only go as
fast as the front rankers without becoming intermingled with them. If this were
the case, then the unit would become disordered and your opponent would be
fighting EHC. In Warrior, the armor class is based on the front rank if the unit
is not disordered. Therefore we must assume that the rear rankers are
maintaining themselves in the rear and moving at the same speed as their slower
and heavier armored buddies - - hence moving at the same speed which would
equate to the same impetus. Your thoughts?

kelly

Terry Dix <notalent@...> wrote:
Greetings Kelly,
In 7th this would have been an easy one since only the front rank
fought it would be close order imp. In Warrior, with 1.5 ranks
fighting, I would think you would do it by fighting figure. In a 4E
unit you would get 8@+1 and 3@+2. I am basing this on the fact we do
seperate out different factors for shooting by element.

I would have no issue with it only be +1 for the whole unit as the
actual folks doing the fighting were all on the SHC's E. This refers
back to the historical note section of 9.22
"The ranks of figures allowed to fight is to encourage the use of
historical depths, rather than reflect weapon lenght. Of the 4 ranks
represented by the first rank of figurs, the ffirst two at most fought
in real life. Those behind comtributed by their momentum or inertia,
missiles, or relief of tired or wounded men.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "jwilkinson62"
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've pondered a question dealing with mixed order Cataphracts
> since they've become more common in Warrior Rules (more so than WRG
> 7th since only the Tibetans had it then). For those of you who are
> not sure what I'm talking about, I'm referring to the use of SHC in
> the front of (usually) EHC. My question is one of mechanics and
> common sense (this is not always common!). Basically the loose order
> part of this kind of cavalry strike force gets a +2 for impetuosity
> whereas the front rankers only receive a +1 because they are not
> charging as hard presumably because of their heavier armor.
> Considering the latter, where the front rank is charging slower,
> wouldn't this carry over to the rear rank and keep them from having
> the impetus that a normal loose or open order unit would have? It
> seems to me that such a mixed body would have the impetuous bonus of
> the front rankers to maintain the line ie: keep the EHC behind the
> SHC. So since the new and improved rules are still being fine tuned,
> I thought I'd bring this up for discussion to the group. I'd really
> like to hear from Mark Stone and get his perspective on this in
> addition to that of Jon's opinion. Please feel free to put in your 2
> cents regardless of who you are and help me make some sense of this
> mechanic.
>
> respectfully,
>
> Kelly Wilkinson




---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page

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

[Doug]

>Moving at the slowest element's speed. Considering this, it would
>seem the unit as a whole would charge impetuous at the same factor.
>
> I'm just saying that when a unit hits, it's impetuosity is governed
>by who's in front and the impetuous bonus mechanic should be the
>same for the guys in back as those in the front.

Try thinking of it this way - Cataphracts know that their job is to
charge formed infantry. Cavalry don't do that. The Cavalry guys in
the back are getting an extra +1 because of the protection and morale
boost they get from having the Cataphracts in front of them.

[Craig Scott]

I agree and as you know I run a Sassanian Army (o:

Craig

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Doug <rockd@p...> wrote:
> >Moving at the slowest element's speed. Considering this, it would
> >seem the unit as a whole would charge impetuous at the same factor.
> >
> > I'm just saying that when a unit hits, it's impetuosity is
governed
> >by who's in front and the impetuous bonus mechanic should be the
> >same for the guys in back as those in the front.
>
> Try thinking of it this way - Cataphracts know that their job is to
> charge formed infantry. Cavalry don't do that. The Cavalry guys in
> the back are getting an extra +1 because of the protection and morale
> boost they get from having the Cataphracts in front of them.