Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

<< After carefully reading through the posted Warrior rules, I am found that
they now definitively state that Regular units must have an equal number of
elements in each rank.>>

True.

<< This is different from the last published version of 7th Edition, which
implied that an equal number of elements for ranks past the first was not
required for any unit.>>

Not true. Page 18, para 1.

<<So, my question is, if all regular units must have an equal number of elements
in each rank, is this going to be replicated in the Army Lists?>>

Yep. WRG lists written for 7th (as opposed to those written for 6th) already do
this.

<< Specifically, this will affect the Late Imperial Roman army, both in its
cavalry, and its LMI Palatinate infantry. It will force these units to be over
strength. Is this consideration not a problem in the grand scope of things?>>

It is not.

After carefully reading through the posted Warrior rules, I am found
that they now definitively state that Regular units must have an
equal number of elements in each rank. This is different from the
last published version of 7th Edition, which implied that an equal
number of elements for ranks past the first was not required for any
unit.

So, my question is, if all regular units must have an equal number of
elements in each rank, is this going to be replicated in the Army
Lists? Specifically, this will affect the Late Imperial Roman army,
both in its cavalry, and its LMI Palatinate infantry. It will force
these units to be over strength. Is this consideration not a problem
in the grand scope of things?



--
Scott Turner
+++++++++++++++
Nullus Anxietas

[scott holder]

After carefully reading through the posted Warrior rules, I am found
that they now definitively state that Regular units must have an
equal number of elements in each rank. This is different from the
last published version of 7th Edition, which implied that an equal
number of elements for ranks past the first was not required for any
unit.

>The last published version of 7th edition did not imply that. It very
succinctly states that regular units MUST have even number of elements in all
ranks EXCEPT when following up (when expansion moves can result in uneven
numbers of elements in rear ranks).

So, my question is, if all regular units must have an equal number of
elements in each rank, is this going to be replicated in the Army
Lists?

>Yes.

Specifically, this will affect the Late Imperial Roman army,
both in its cavalry, and its LMI Palatinate infantry. It will force
these units to be over strength. Is this consideration not a problem
in the grand scope of things?

>I can't really answer that question until I get to the LIR army list. If you
want a hint of what that list will roughly, let me repeat roughly, look like,
pull the old NASAMW revisions to the LIR list.

Scott
List Ho

Maybe we are referring to different versions. August 1992, page
9:

"Organisation into Elements, Units and Commands
Troops are combined into elements of several figures of the same
type and class and/or one or two models usually fixed to a single
base. Since casualties are not removed, part-elements on split bases
are needed only in special cases, such as bodies fighting in wedge or
rhomboid, OR THAT HAVE AN ODD NUMBER OF ELEMENTS BUT NEED TWO EVEN
RANKS."

Capitalization of the last sentence is mine, to highlight the
rule I am speaking of. Add to that the Suggenst Unit Sizes on page
47, which specifically lists Auxilium with three elements, one
variation lists a split element base.

Scott Turner

After carefully reading through the
posted Warrior rules, I am found
that they now definitively state that Regular units must have an
equal number of elements in each rank. This is different from the
last published version of 7th Edition, which implied that an equal
number of elements for ranks past the first was not required for
any
unit.

>The last published version of 7th edition did not imply
that.  It very
succinctly states that regular units MUST have even number of
elements in all
ranks EXCEPT when following up (when expansion moves can result in
uneven
numbers of elements in rear ranks).

So, my question is, if all regular units must have an equal number
of
elements in each rank, is this going to be replicated in the Army
Lists?

>Yes.

Specifically, this will affect the Late Imperial Roman army,
both in its cavalry, and its LMI Palatinate infantry. It will
force
these units to be over strength. Is this consideration not a
problem
in the grand scope of things?

>I can't really answer that question until I get to the LIR army
list.  If you
want a hint of what that list will roughly, let me repeat roughly,
look like,
pull the old NASAMW revisions to the LIR list.

Scott
List Ho
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                   

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



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

[joncleaves]

Ok, Scott, I'll do the history thing. Be aware that we are kind of mixing
apples (WRG 7.5) and oranges (Warrior) to some extent. We have even ranks
for regulars in Warrior and want it that way. It is ALSO true that WRG 7.5
had them that way. The society did away with 'part elements' a long time
ago, but even if they had not, for what purpose do you need the sentence on
page 9 of 7.5 that says:

"or that have an odd number of elements but need two even ranks"

unless there are some types of bodies that DO need even ranks. And what
bodies would those be? Why regular ones, of course. I will quote you the
relevant parts of the paragraph I already cited as the rule from 7.5:

"...an equal number of elements in each rank. This may be modified
to....give irregulars an aesthetically uneven rear rank."

There are other reasons cited why you can have uneven ranks, but you will
note that none of them is "be a regular body." Paragraph 1, page 18, WRG 7.5.

Of course that is all a history lesson and really moot. Regulars in Warrior
must be in even ranks of elements unless one of the exceptions cited in the
Warrior rulebook applies. The FH have been all over that one in great detail
and it ain't changin'

Jon

[Greg Regets]

Ok ... I will piggy back on this post to open up another pet issue ... that
of unit sizes and how it relates to army lists.

So many of the armies represented by the lists have "units" that are
somewhat sketchy as far as actual strength. I'm sure we all agree that
historically, a units size in most instances would vary. I'm also sure that
we would all agree that many armies didn't have actual "units", but were
"The Men From That Village" right next to "The Lads From Over That Hill".

I guess the point I am making is, that I always thought it would be great if
the list were flexible enough to allow a commander to use a unit size that
he preferred, rather than the unit size preferred by the writer of the list.
Perhaps when Scott does the list, he might consider something like;

REG C MI P Sh ..... 24 - 64 or One Unit

This would allow the player that likes to play pikes in 16's to do what is
intended, have a unit of required pikemen, without forcing him to conform to
unit size because the list author prefers 32's.

I think this would go a little ways towards removing the dreaded "KILLER"
army from the game. True, there are armies that just have lots of great
stuff, but there are other armies that are just so inconvenient to buy, that
you are playing a hundred points short the second you start the game.

Thanks ... Greg

P.S. Jon - logos - very soon!

Jon,

Ok, no problem. I think that my biggest problem at the moment is
changing gears from WRG 7th (as written Aug 1992) and Warrior. It
will come in time. With the obvious loss of the Wedge formation, the
need for part elements goes away.

I think that a regular organized army should be indicated in the
Army lists much as Greg Regrets suggested. Even the more casually
organized armies should have an indication of probably unit size in
elements. In the Army Lists, the only army that I can think of that
actually had something like a modern TO & E (Table of Organization
and Equipment) would be the Roman army, and probably the Imperial
Roman army to be more specific.

The only reason I mention this is that according to even the less
than rigorous research I have done, indicates that the Late Imperial
Roman Auxilia were small, and probably equate very nicely into 3
element units, as do the cavalry units. If the convention is even
number of elements in Regular units, then Ok, we just accept a
certain level of fudging in the unit size. Probably won't even be
statistically significant. Since all Regulars will follow the general
rule. Irregulars won't be adversely affected since they are variable
by nature. It will, in some instances, make certain units much
stronger. Since I have a Late Imperial Roman Army I won't object if
my cavalry units increase by 25%. Their staying power and combat
power will be very welcome.

Scott Turner



>Ok, Scott, I'll do the history thing. Be aware that we are kind of mixing
>apples (WRG 7.5) and oranges (Warrior) to some extent. We have even ranks
>for regulars in Warrior and want it that way. It is ALSO true that WRG 7.5
>had them that way. The society did away with 'part elements' a long time
>ago, but even if they had not, for what purpose do you need the sentence on
>page 9 of 7.5 that says:
>
>"or that have an odd number of elements but need two even ranks"
>
>unless there are some types of bodies that DO need even ranks. And what
>bodies would those be? Why regular ones, of course. I will quote you the
>relevant parts of the paragraph I already cited as the rule from 7.5:
>
>"...an equal number of elements in each rank. This may be modified
>to....give irregulars an aesthetically uneven rear rank."
>
>There are other reasons cited why you can have uneven ranks, but you will
>note that none of them is "be a regular body." Paragraph 1, page 18, WRG 7.5.
>
>Of course that is all a history lesson and really moot. Regulars in Warrior
>must be in even ranks of elements unless one of the exceptions cited in the
>Warrior rulebook applies. The FH have been all over that one in great detail
>and it ain't changin'
>
>Jon

[Todd Kaeser]

4 Horseman,
With regards to even ranks for Regulars remember there exists a problem
with the Swiss units. If the lists remain the same than the Swiss player is
forced to use 16 MI 2HCT and 32 Pike in order to be able to expand out to 3
ranks (2 P, 1 2HCT) Usually the Swiss units will have 40 w/ 8 2HCT. Any
thoughts?

Todd K
----- Original Message -----
From: "Holder, Scott <FHWA>" <Scott.Holder@...>
To: "IPM Return requested (Receipt notification requested)"
<WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Number of elements in a Unit


> After carefully reading through the posted Warrior rules, I am found
> that they now definitively state that Regular units must have an
> equal number of elements in each rank. This is different from the
> last published version of 7th Edition, which implied that an equal
> number of elements for ranks past the first was not required for any
> unit.
>
> >The last published version of 7th edition did not imply that. It very
> succinctly states that regular units MUST have even number of elements in
all
> ranks EXCEPT when following up (when expansion moves can result in uneven
> numbers of elements in rear ranks).
>
> So, my question is, if all regular units must have an equal number of
> elements in each rank, is this going to be replicated in the Army
> Lists?
>
> >Yes.
>
> Specifically, this will affect the Late Imperial Roman army,
> both in its cavalry, and its LMI Palatinate infantry. It will force
> these units to be over strength. Is this consideration not a problem
> in the grand scope of things?
>
> >I can't really answer that question until I get to the LIR army list. If
you
> want a hint of what that list will roughly, let me repeat roughly, look
like,
> pull the old NASAMW revisions to the LIR list.
>
> Scott
> List Ho
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>