Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
Well thanks for not just blowing me off in my frustration.
Fortunately you seem to understand me well enough to know what part
of my note to actually answer to, at least this time. Maybe that is
just luck.

I will try to bear with this and maintain my sense of humor. It will
be easier when a couple days pass.

<snip the LI case and file away for the moment - I do not tend to run
a whole lot of impetuous mounted troops in any of my armies - but
thinking it is something to learn eventually for similar reasons with
all those tiny Byz HC/LC units I like so much>

> The Roman case allows, for example steady roman foot to charge
through other
> HI and get first contact HTW against an LMI 2HCW opponent that
should be
> disordered and therefore shieldless - recoiling it and giving the
replaced roman a
> bound to recover.

Hmmmm... and how do you _plan_ on getting the LMI disordered to set
this up? If you are kicking the snot out of it anyway who needs to
waste another valuable legion unit to do replacement? Especially if
you can "waste" the extra unit by just charging in and polishing the
poor disordered shieldless Irreg foot guy off?

Maybe, since you picked this one as good case to look at, you could
come up with a fully detailed (like my Dacians) version of what
happens in the rules, beginning with the first units' contact and
whatever disorders the LMI and following through to the results of
the replacement charge and subsequent HtH combat?

Then I could look at it and see, or ask Mark or Frank or someone, why
the replacement might be the best tactic to use in that instance.
Assuming I get most of the rules which I hope I am beginning to do
(although I thought so before this too).

> Can I go over every possible instance and combination of when
replacement is
> possible, bad, and/or good? Of course not. Mark or Frank or I
could take an
> example you set up and tell you exactly if it was good or bad.
Note though,
> that I treat rules questions as mandatory, but for me tactics
questions are
> optional. :)

Geesh, Jon, what else do you have to do that's so important? <g>

It is actually the rules I am really after at the moment, tactics are
pointless until then - except now and then when I see how something
works in the rules I go "aaahhh, that is why you would do so and so".

I am really kind of serious when I say I want to know and understand
every single case where this can be used so I can figure out, after
understanding, how to apply it. It seems like something an EIR player
shouldn't leave home without and in any case is certainly part of the
unique attraction of that army. Less, and more in other ways, useful
under my current understanding of the rules than when I started
looking at it.

I play against a lot of really very good Warrior players when I
actually get to play. They really know the game, most of them can
play without a rule book or charts. It's probably why I get thrashed
so often.

I want to be able to do that. If you have that level of understanding
in your head, then you can actually make sound reliable plans over
several moves without being suprised by how the rules pan out. Just
guessing what your opponent will do when you can "see" how the rules
will work is bad enough. Lacking even the rules vision, tactics
beyond a very basic level are meaningless and resemble nothing more
than dogma.

Give me a chance to digest a bit though because we have covered
waaaay too much ground today already. The danger is it will settle
wrong and still be misunderstood but we'll have to take that chance.

> 1. Don't try replacement until you have the Warrior basics down.

I guess I thought I was getting there (rules, not advanced tactics)
but apparently I just didn't realize how very little I know.
Unfortunately the way one finds these things out is invaraibly when
they go South on you.

> 2. Don't try replacing with Romans until you have replacement in
general
> down.

So I have to play with one arm behind my back? No, wait that would be
the replacement case... you mean both arms out in front!

Glibness aside, I gotcha.

> 3. Put a bunch of likely situations out on the table and find out
for
> yourself what is good and bad before you try it in a game.

Excellent idea.

> Replacement is a dangerous business. You have to stack two units
up and that
> means you are missing a unit in your line somewhere. Many times I
find
> players trying so hard to make a replacement work, they don't have
a plan for the
> weakened line it leaves and get beat elsewhere long before the
replacement
> matters. Also, there is a lot of exacting distance and
interpenetration involved.

This is a good thing to keep in mind then. I noticed that when I
started really trying to fill in the details of the Dacian example -
if you set up for replacement with slow-moving CO foot you are really
talking about having to get all the distances and angles just right.
And invariably I kept asking myself why bother instead of just
throwing in against the open elemnts - what Mike Stone was
calling "combined arms" (which means something different to me but
that's okay). Even though I kept with it so as to have a decent rules
example it turned out after the numbers fell out that was a good
instinct!

> Someone trying replacement without having it all down in their
mind how it
> will work can just as easily create a traffic jam as some
advantageous move.

So would you advocate playing EIR competitively at all without fully
grasping replacement? Unfortunately losing seems to be a good
learning mechanism for me. Seems like I learn a lot...

[Todd Schneider]

<<< Hmmmm... and how do you _plan_ on getting the LMI disordered to set
this up? If you are kicking the snot out of it anyway who needs to
waste another valuable legion unit to do replacement? Especially if
you can "waste" the extra unit by just charging in and polishing the
poor disordered shieldless Irreg foot guy off?>>>



Let me know where I made any mistakes.



Run the numbers on the following. The 2HCW guys don’t have to be Irreg,
lets assume they aren’t. They stop 120 away from your 4E Marian Legion.
Lets say they are Thracians, 6E Irr C LMI with 2HCW, JLS, Sh. Behind your 4e
Legion you have a 2 E legion.



For Arguments sake, they line up like this after the charge.



TTT

TTT

LL

LL



LL



The Thracians charge impetuously. On HI they are a 5, charging 6, JLS 7,
impetuous 9, so 6@9 front rank and 3@7 second rank. On average dice, that’s
75 casualties, or 4CPF to that Legion.

The Legion in return is 12@6, which on even dice is 60 casualties, or 3 CPF.

The Legion is now disordered, the Thracians are disordered.

The Legion recoils 40p. For arguments sake, the Thracians don’t expand.



Next bound, the Romans are 1HCW vs. LMI is a 4. Against Shieldless LMI adds
3 to 7. Disordered close is a 5. 12@5 is 48, or 2CPF.

Front Rank, The Thracians are 2HCW following up, 6, JLS is 7. Disordered
loose is back to 6, so 9@6. The back rank is 5@4. On average dice that is
60. The Romans take another 3 CPF, recoil 40p and take a waver for 2nd
cause of disorder. And that’s going to keep happening until the Romans
fail, on average dice. It would be worse if the Thracians expanded to the
other flank, there they would be 12@6...



However, lets say the first part of the combat has happened, the initial
Legion has recoiled 40p and disordered.

The second Legion, the 2E one, charges to interpenetrate and replaces it in
combat.

It would be 8 figs using HTW on first contact is a 5, shieldless LMI is 8,
charging is a 9. 8 @ 9 on average dice, which is 76 casualties.

The Thracians are 2HCW vs. HI 5, using JLS 6, disordered loose is 5, 9@5
(front rank) and 5@3 (back rank), or 49 Casualties on average dice. The
Thracians are now Recoiling Disordered 40p, tired, and taking a waver test
for second cause. The 2E Legion is following up, and the next turn the
legion it replaced can interpenetrate it and hit at 12@9.



At least that’s the theory. But it’s late, and I am about “warriored” out
for the day….I am sure any mistakes in this will be corrected.



Thanks all,

Todd



_____

From: J. Murphy [mailto:jjmurphy@...]
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 1:10 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] part RULES part just tactics



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
Well thanks for not just blowing me off in my frustration.
Fortunately you seem to understand me well enough to know what part
of my note to actually answer to, at least this time. Maybe that is
just luck.

I will try to bear with this and maintain my sense of humor. It will
be easier when a couple days pass.

<snip the LI case and file away for the moment - I do not tend to run
a whole lot of impetuous mounted troops in any of my armies - but
thinking it is something to learn eventually for similar reasons with
all those tiny Byz HC/LC units I like so much>

> The Roman case allows, for example steady roman foot to charge
through other
> HI and get first contact HTW against an LMI 2HCW opponent that
should be
> disordered and therefore shieldless - recoiling it and giving the
replaced roman a
> bound to recover.

Hmmmm... and how do you _plan_ on getting the LMI disordered to set
this up? If you are kicking the snot out of it anyway who needs to
waste another valuable legion unit to do replacement? Especially if
you can "waste" the extra unit by just charging in and polishing the
poor disordered shieldless Irreg foot guy off?

Maybe, since you picked this one as good case to look at, you could
come up with a fully detailed (like my Dacians) version of what
happens in the rules, beginning with the first units' contact and
whatever disorders the LMI and following through to the results of
the replacement charge and subsequent HtH combat?

Then I could look at it and see, or ask Mark or Frank or someone, why
the replacement might be the best tactic to use in that instance.
Assuming I get most of the rules which I hope I am beginning to do
(although I thought so before this too).

> Can I go over every possible instance and combination of when
replacement is
> possible, bad, and/or good? Of course not. Mark or Frank or I
could take an
> example you set up and tell you exactly if it was good or bad.
Note though,
> that I treat rules questions as mandatory, but for me tactics
questions are
> optional. :)

Geesh, Jon, what else do you have to do that's so important? <g>

It is actually the rules I am really after at the moment, tactics are
pointless until then - except now and then when I see how something
works in the rules I go "aaahhh, that is why you would do so and so".

I am really kind of serious when I say I want to know and understand
every single case where this can be used so I can figure out, after
understanding, how to apply it. It seems like something an EIR player
shouldn't leave home without and in any case is certainly part of the
unique attraction of that army. Less, and more in other ways, useful
under my current understanding of the rules than when I started
looking at it.

I play against a lot of really very good Warrior players when I
actually get to play. They really know the game, most of them can
play without a rule book or charts. It's probably why I get thrashed
so often.

I want to be able to do that. If you have that level of understanding
in your head, then you can actually make sound reliable plans over
several moves without being suprised by how the rules pan out. Just
guessing what your opponent will do when you can "see" how the rules
will work is bad enough. Lacking even the rules vision, tactics
beyond a very basic level are meaningless and resemble nothing more
than dogma.

Give me a chance to digest a bit though because we have covered
waaaay too much ground today already. The danger is it will settle
wrong and still be misunderstood but we'll have to take that chance.

> 1. Don't try replacement until you have the Warrior basics down.

I guess I thought I was getting there (rules, not advanced tactics)
but apparently I just didn't realize how very little I know.
Unfortunately the way one finds these things out is invaraibly when
they go South on you.

> 2. Don't try replacing with Romans until you have replacement in
general
> down.

So I have to play with one arm behind my back? No, wait that would be
the replacement case... you mean both arms out in front!

Glibness aside, I gotcha.

> 3. Put a bunch of likely situations out on the table and find out
for
> yourself what is good and bad before you try it in a game.

Excellent idea.

> Replacement is a dangerous business. You have to stack two units
up and that
> means you are missing a unit in your line somewhere. Many times I
find
> players trying so hard to make a replacement work, they don't have
a plan for the
> weakened line it leaves and get beat elsewhere long before the
replacement
> matters. Also, there is a lot of exacting distance and
interpenetration involved.

This is a good thing to keep in mind then. I noticed that when I
started really trying to fill in the details of the Dacian example -
if you set up for replacement with slow-moving CO foot you are really
talking about having to get all the distances and angles just right.
And invariably I kept asking myself why bother instead of just
throwing in against the open elemnts - what Mike Stone was
calling "combined arms" (which means something different to me but
that's okay). Even though I kept with it so as to have a decent rules
example it turned out after the numbers fell out that was a good
instinct!

> Someone trying replacement without having it all down in their
mind how it
> will work can just as easily create a traffic jam as some
advantageous move.

So would you advocate playing EIR competitively at all without fully
grasping replacement? Unfortunately losing seems to be a good
learning mechanism for me. Seems like I learn a lot...







Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



ADVERTISEMENT
HYPERLINK
"http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=1293mjqn7/M=291630.4786521.5933964.1261774/D=groups
/S=1705059080:HM/EXP=1082355019/A=2072414/R=0/SIG=11tc61npd/*http:/www.netfl
ix.com/Default?mqso=60178418&partid=4786521"click here


HYPERLINK
"http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=291630.4786521.5933964.1261774/D=groups/S=
:HM/A=2072414/rand=615421641"



_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
HYPERLINK
"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/W
arriorRules/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HYPERLINK
"mailto:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe"Warrior
Rules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the HYPERLINK
"http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/"Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.658 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 4/9/2004



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.658 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 4/9/2004



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

[John Murphy]

Okay, thanks Todd. I will look at it tonight (after midnite here too)
and get back in the morning to you.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Todd Schneider"
<thresh1642@s...> wrote:

> Run the numbers on the following.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/18/2004 01:12:39 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:
Hmmmm... and how do you _plan_ on getting the LMI disordered to set
this up?>>

A 6E unit of LMI hits a 4E unit of romans with swordsman rule. Since the LMI
charge does not cancel the roman charge, the romans hit at 12 @ 6 - this is
60. This disorders the LMI, even if the LMI win the combat doing 9 @ 9 = 86.

If you are kicking the snot out of it anyway who needs to
waste another valuable legion unit to do replacement? >>

Well, now you are disordered too and recoiling. The replacer will come in 12
(or 6) @ 9 and rout the LMI.

Maybe, since you picked this one as good case to look at, you could
come up with a fully detailed (like my Dacians) version of what
happens in the rules, beginning with the first units' contact and
whatever disorders the LMI and following through to the results of
the replacement charge and subsequent HtH combat?>>

I am sorry John, this is where I have to leave it to someone else. When it
comes to tactics stuff, I have to pick and choose based on time available and I
see a lot more mail to deal with after yours and I have several pages of
stuff to write this morning before my paintball crew shows up...lol


Geesh, Jon, what else do you have to do that's so important? <g>>>

The new rulebook - which I am very excited about.




I play against a lot of really very good Warrior players when I
actually get to play. They really know the game, most of them can
play without a rule book or charts. It's probably why I get thrashed
so often.

I want to be able to do that. If you have that level of understanding
in your head, then you can actually make sound reliable plans over
several moves without being suprised by how the rules pan out.>>

So very well said. I use the time the other guy is figuring out the match
ups to look one or two bounds into the future. Under 7th, the better players,
esp the ones who only played that game and no other, would do this to me all
the time. I have resolved in the last year not to have that done to me in
Warrior any more.


> 3. Put a bunch of likely situations out on the table and find out
for
> yourself what is good and bad before you try it in a game.

Excellent idea.>>

Every player who is better than me does this at least occasionally.




> Someone trying replacement without having it all down in their
mind how it
> will work can just as easily create a traffic jam as some
advantageous move.

So would you advocate playing EIR competitively at all without fully
grasping replacement? Unfortunately losing seems to be a good
learning mechanism for me. Seems like I learn a lot...>>

My first question would be: do you feel EIR is your 'style'? Roman list
rules won't help you one bit if you are a Hun trying to wear close order
clothing....

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/18/2004 04:26:23 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:
ROMANS BEING DISORDERED WRECKS THIS EXAMPLE TOO
It is steadiness, not willingness/eagerness,
that is the determining factor
for usage of circulating combatants
not only the replacers but
"another such body of legionaries" meaning also steady >>

No - such body means EIR, Marian or pre-severan MIR. The replaced body does
not have to be steady and often, as you point out, won't be.

Jon


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

[John Murphy]

Todd / Jon,

Looked this over and applied fine-toothed comb, such as it is

Okay this is a tactically-better example to use from the Roman side
although I still think there are some rules issues here
I fixed everything I found or at least noted to ignore it
Check it out maybe I made it worse
But see if hopefully I am starting at least to grasp how it works

One notewrothy item about this example is the Romans have invested
way more points here than the Thracians have
and I am not sure a smart Thracian wouldn't just skirmish with the JLS
though that is also risky but maybe not against CO foot
all of which makes tactics questions a bit murky

But let's handle the rules issues first
and be sure I understand those now

Standard everything is even random factors approach
A better and more complete analysis
would look at likely up and down results
But let's not worry about that now

TTT
TTT 1x Thracians 6E Irr C LMI 2HCW, JLS, Sh


LL 1x Legionaries 4E Reg C HI HTW, Sh
LL

LL 1x Legionaries 2E Reg C HI HTW, Sh

You like Marians I like EIR, fine
We can have that discussion another time
Here they both function the same.

Bound one approaches wind up with Thracians 100p away from 4E Romans.
Thracians charge impetously
Romans use swordsmen rule to counter-charge.
We will assume for whatever reason you like (A front rank etc)
willing/eager Romans otherwise they do not get this usage

Thracians take 1FP for impetuous charge.

No support shooting occurs
since Thracian JLS charging is not rear rank bow.

Hand-to-Hand:

Thracians front rank
6@+5 (2HCW v HI) +1 (JLS v HI) +1 (charge) +2 (impetuous)
Thracians rear rank
3@+2 (other foot v HI) +1 (JLS v HI) +1 (charge) +2 (impetuous)

6@+9=57 + 3@+6=15 =72 /16=4 CPF

Romans
12@+5 (HTW v LMI) +1 (charge)

12@+6=60 /18=3 CPF

Romans take their first 4 FP
Thracians take 6 more FP for total 7 FP for tired

Both are disordered for 3 CPF
Romans take more casualties so recoil
Thracians follow-up and expand
(hoping for even better things next bound)

ROMANS BEING DISORDERED WRECKS THIS EXAMPLE TOO
It is steadiness, not willingness/eagerness,
that is the determining factor
for usage of circulating combatants
not only the replacers but
"another such body of legionaries" meaning also steady replacees
THIS WAS ALSO YET ANOTHER PROBLEM WITH MY DACIAN EXAMPLE I NOW REALIZE
But let's note that and ignore it to continue
for rules-illustration sake
although tactics-wise if the Romans are not disordered
it may be better for them to stick
and sock it to the unshielded Thracians
BUT FORGET THAT DIGRESSION...

Bound two the rear Romans approach to 75p from the Thracian front
but are still behind the front Romans

Romans charge and interpenetrate their front unit
replacing all four Roman elements of that unit (2 in contact) in HtH
formerly front unit is now disordered (again) by interpenetration
plus moved directly behind replacers
so can't rally this bound
but not combat result so no waver test
Replacing unit is not disordered
by interpenetrating charging nor by interpenetrating thru disordered
both by exceptions due to circulating combatants rule

No charge responses because entire Thracian body counts "in HtH"
and not only pursing broken enemies

No support shooting because entire Thracian body counts "in HtH"
and no bow in rank unable to fight

Thracians still technically impetuous
but not charging so no +1 charge and no +2 impetuous while charging
Totally seperate from the responses and shooting "in HtH"
Thracians get first contact against new chargers
but no overlaps since no Romans are in subsequent bounds
of HtH with them
Thracians still count shielded
because even though not charging they are being charged

Thracians front rank
6@+5 (2HCW v HI) +1 (JLS v HI) +1 (following-up)
-1 (disordered loose) -1 (tired)
Thracians rear rank
3@+2 (other foot v HI) +1 (JLS v HI) +1 (following-up)
-1 (disordered loose) -1 (tired)

6@+5=24 + 3@+2=6 =30 /8=3 CPF

Romans 8@+5 (HTW v LMI) +1 (charge)

8@+6=60 /18=3 CPF

Romans take their first 3 FP
Thracians take 6 more FP for total 13 FP

Romans disordered for 3 CPF
Thracians doubled and 3 CPF so break and rout
taking 2 more FP totalling 15 FP and exhausted
Romans pursue
If Romans catch them, Thracians are removed from game as exhausted
contacted

I believe I now have all the rules for this correct
and this is how it happens and why (ignoring the disorder issue)

That's the "rules" part....

Now for the tactics questions assuming I now have the rules down...

Let's set aside for a moment the obvious mistake
the Thracians have made here
to engage a superior opponent with an impetuous charge
perhpas they only looked at the first bound result
and ignored the better Roman options which we put into play here

Obviously it was bad for the Romans
just to sit and take it the second bound
Obviously the result of the replacement tactic here was successful
against a much weaker opponent than the two combined Roman units

But was there a better option
for how to use the rear unit besides replacement?
Maybe something to produce the same result - can't beat that
but with less negative impact to the Romans
(1 disordered 4 FP unit not rallying until the third bound,
1 disordered 3 FP unit out of position in pursuit or must-rally)

HOWEVER BEFORE WE PROCEED TO A TACTICS DISCUSSION
LETS GO AHEAD AND DO SOMETHING REASONABLE TO FIX THE RULES ISSUES
WITH THIS EXAMPLE (IF THERE ARE ANY)

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/18/2004 11:05:08 Central Daylight Time,
thresh1642@... writes:
I could have the rules wrong myself, but the front rank 2HCW guys only ever
count shielded if they are steady. In this example, when the second legion
charges through, they are disordered, therefore unsteadu, and cannot count
shielded.



Right Jon?>>

Right on. 7.1


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/18/2004 11:40:07 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:
I have not checked further into this morning's stuff yet, but if
there is nothing else on it does that mean the rest of it looked okay
from a rules perspective and I can now say maybe that I understand
the rules for HtH replacement, as least as far as I have taken it yet?>>

John, I am not aware of any remaining rules issues.

J


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

[Todd Schneider]

John,



I could have the rules wrong myself, but the front rank 2HCW guys only ever
count shielded if they are steady. In this example, when the second legion
charges through, they are disordered, therefore unsteadu, and cannot count
shielded.



Right Jon?





Todd





<<<<Thracians still technically impetuous
but not charging so no +1 charge and no +2 impetuous while charging
Totally seperate from the responses and shooting "in HtH"
Thracians get first contact against new chargers
but no overlaps since no Romans are in subsequent bounds
of HtH with them
Thracians still count shielded
because even though not charging they are being charged>>>>



_____

From: J. Murphy [mailto:jjmurphy@...]
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 4:26 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: part RULES part just tactics



Todd / Jon,

Looked this over and applied fine-toothed comb, such as it is

Okay this is a tactically-better example to use from the Roman side
although I still think there are some rules issues here
I fixed everything I found or at least noted to ignore it
Check it out maybe I made it worse
But see if hopefully I am starting at least to grasp how it works

One notewrothy item about this example is the Romans have invested
way more points here than the Thracians have
and I am not sure a smart Thracian wouldn't just skirmish with the JLS
though that is also risky but maybe not against CO foot
all of which makes tactics questions a bit murky

But let's handle the rules issues first
and be sure I understand those now

Standard everything is even random factors approach
A better and more complete analysis
would look at likely up and down results
But let's not worry about that now

TTT
TTT 1x Thracians 6E Irr C LMI 2HCW, JLS, Sh


LL 1x Legionaries 4E Reg C HI HTW, Sh
LL

LL 1x Legionaries 2E Reg C HI HTW, Sh

You like Marians I like EIR, fine
We can have that discussion another time
Here they both function the same.

Bound one approaches wind up with Thracians 100p away from 4E Romans.
Thracians charge impetously
Romans use swordsmen rule to counter-charge.
We will assume for whatever reason you like (A front rank etc)
willing/eager Romans otherwise they do not get this usage

Thracians take 1FP for impetuous charge.

No support shooting occurs
since Thracian JLS charging is not rear rank bow.

Hand-to-Hand:

Thracians front rank
6@+5 (2HCW v HI) +1 (JLS v HI) +1 (charge) +2 (impetuous)
Thracians rear rank
3@+2 (other foot v HI) +1 (JLS v HI) +1 (charge) +2 (impetuous)

6@+9=57 + 3@+6=15 =72 /16=4 CPF

Romans
12@+5 (HTW v LMI) +1 (charge)

12@+6=60 /18=3 CPF

Romans take their first 4 FP
Thracians take 6 more FP for total 7 FP for tired

Both are disordered for 3 CPF
Romans take more casualties so recoil
Thracians follow-up and expand
(hoping for even better things next bound)

ROMANS BEING DISORDERED WRECKS THIS EXAMPLE TOO
It is steadiness, not willingness/eagerness,
that is the determining factor
for usage of circulating combatants
not only the replacers but
"another such body of legionaries" meaning also steady replacees
THIS WAS ALSO YET ANOTHER PROBLEM WITH MY DACIAN EXAMPLE I NOW REALIZE
But let's note that and ignore it to continue
for rules-illustration sake
although tactics-wise if the Romans are not disordered
it may be better for them to stick
and sock it to the unshielded Thracians
BUT FORGET THAT DIGRESSION...

Bound two the rear Romans approach to 75p from the Thracian front
but are still behind the front Romans

Romans charge and interpenetrate their front unit
replacing all four Roman elements of that unit (2 in contact) in HtH
formerly front unit is now disordered (again) by interpenetration
plus moved directly behind replacers
so can't rally this bound
but not combat result so no waver test
Replacing unit is not disordered
by interpenetrating charging nor by interpenetrating thru disordered
both by exceptions due to circulating combatants rule

No charge responses because entire Thracian body counts "in HtH"
and not only pursing broken enemies

No support shooting because entire Thracian body counts "in HtH"
and no bow in rank unable to fight

Thracians still technically impetuous
but not charging so no +1 charge and no +2 impetuous while charging
Totally seperate from the responses and shooting "in HtH"
Thracians get first contact against new chargers
but no overlaps since no Romans are in subsequent bounds
of HtH with them
Thracians still count shielded
because even though not charging they are being charged

Thracians front rank
6@+5 (2HCW v HI) +1 (JLS v HI) +1 (following-up)
-1 (disordered loose) -1 (tired)
Thracians rear rank
3@+2 (other foot v HI) +1 (JLS v HI) +1 (following-up)
-1 (disordered loose) -1 (tired)

6@+5=24 + 3@+2=6 =30 /8=3 CPF

Romans 8@+5 (HTW v LMI) +1 (charge)

8@+6=60 /18=3 CPF

Romans take their first 3 FP
Thracians take 6 more FP for total 13 FP

Romans disordered for 3 CPF
Thracians doubled and 3 CPF so break and rout
taking 2 more FP totalling 15 FP and exhausted
Romans pursue
If Romans catch them, Thracians are removed from game as exhausted
contacted

I believe I now have all the rules for this correct
and this is how it happens and why (ignoring the disorder issue)

That's the "rules" part....

Now for the tactics questions assuming I now have the rules down...

Let's set aside for a moment the obvious mistake
the Thracians have made here
to engage a superior opponent with an impetuous charge
perhpas they only looked at the first bound result
and ignored the better Roman options which we put into play here

Obviously it was bad for the Romans
just to sit and take it the second bound
Obviously the result of the replacement tactic here was successful
against a much weaker opponent than the two combined Roman units

But was there a better option
for how to use the rear unit besides replacement?
Maybe something to produce the same result - can't beat that
but with less negative impact to the Romans
(1 disordered 4 FP unit not rallying until the third bound,
1 disordered 3 FP unit out of position in pursuit or must-rally)

HOWEVER BEFORE WE PROCEED TO A TACTICS DISCUSSION
LETS GO AHEAD AND DO SOMETHING REASONABLE TO FIX THE RULES ISSUES
WITH THIS EXAMPLE (IF THERE ARE ANY)





_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
HYPERLINK
"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/W
arriorRules/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HYPERLINK
"mailto:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe"Warrior
Rules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the HYPERLINK
"http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/"Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.658 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 4/9/2004



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.658 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 4/9/2004



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

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> My first question would be: do you feel EIR is your 'style'? Roman
list
> rules won't help you one bit if you are a Hun trying to wear close
order
> clothing....

Now there is a very good question. I am not sure I have an answer. I
_do_ know the armies I have had the most success with are probably
knight armies with missile troops.

Here is why, I think. When I started actually playing with my own
lead (10 years after I first sat down and played a half dozen games
with Alexander the Great's army) what I picked up, and we are talking
TOG here as opposed to DBM (or Warrior), was Maurikian Byzantines. I
ran them in the worst possible way because it was how I understood
the army to be historically built, wether correct or not. They had 7
12-fig 4E units of half-EHC half-HC all-L/B/Sh which were 3 Reg A's
(1 CinC) and 4 Reg B's (2 subs). Then they had 2 8-fig units of 4E
Hunnic Irr C full-service LC JLS/B/Sh. That's it. No foot and no
irregulars.

Now, stop laughing at the list, yes Craig Scott was my only real
regular opponent and you could hardly call the number of games we
played even that but that was about it. He, of course, beat the
begeebers out of me in every single game we played with his Sassanid
Persians.

Note I did actually finish very well (for me being the top half I
think) in the open at Historicon one year with this army while all
the really experienced players were in the NICT. Except for some
reason in my memory it seems like I played Devon Low's (pardon the
spelling) Incas and even beat him in the final round - amazing what
waver tests will do. But I think it must have been someone else who
for some reason reminds me of him. And we are talking probably almost
ten years ago now it was when 7.6 just started and I suddenly started
gatting rank and a half - at least I think that is about right.

But my point is - you play enough games with an army like that and
you learn a lot of what _not_ to do with lance-armed cavalry, and
being high-morale Regs and expensive EHC in front this is the army to
learn negative lessons with. Having only a few Irreg Huns to screen
and no skirmish ability you can only imagine.

So, when I first starting "experimenting" (well it was for me) with
stuff like infantry <g> I found I had had it drubbed into me by many
poundings what one can not expect to do with lancers. Once I had
actual support troops that could provide a missile screen, and once
my under-powered lancer cavalry became knights, I started doing much
better since I had learned not to just go charging across the board
with anything on hooves.

But all this is only background to the question for which I still
have no answer.

I do not know if EIR is my style. I do not know if I have progressed
to the point where I even have a style.

And that said perhaps I am still enough of a blank slate even after
all this time that I can mold myself into thew style of the army I am
playing.

If I was to pick and choose a style to be stuck with for my playing
days I better start going back and running Byzantines in every game
so that my still favorites (although I hope I manage them better with
a full supporting cast nowdays and Paul G's lists help in that
regard) are the style which takes hold. Because if there is an army I
would _like_ to do well with (as opposed to actually one I _do_ do
well with) that is it hands down.

But then what do I do with the 25mm EIR army I put all those
resources into? And my 25mm HYW/WotR army? And my 25mm Normans? And
my 15mm Patricians, Chinese and Hellenistics/Greco-Bactrians?

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> No - such body means EIR, Marian or pre-severan MIR. The replaced
body does
> not have to be steady and often, as you point out, won't be.

Got it. I would say that is about 75% obvious to me - mainly because
of the obvious intention in stating that the replacers are not
disordered by interpenetrating disordered troops. But store that one
away for clarifications because some will read the sentence in what
they are going to take as the literal meaning, as I did this time
through just to see if that was really the case.

I have not checked further into this morning's stuff yet, but if
there is nothing else on it does that mean the rest of it looked okay
from a rules perspective and I can now say maybe that I understand
the rules for HtH replacement, as least as far as I have taken it yet?

I tried, for that reason, to state the reason why I thought
everything happened under the rules in the example.