Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Derek Downs]

Maybe a different approach. Let all lists with RA cav have the same rules.
They are after all RA and must be great horsemen.

Also let units of entirely RA foot get the Phalangite rules and the
hypaspists rules.

I will play test these at Siege of Augusta and the next two Derekcon's and
get back to you.

Alexander would still get his goodies and it would help the way cost heavy
RA's. Who knows, it may cause people to run them.

Also "Historically" didn't Big Al and his Companios all run around together
in a large group and not 6 little units all over the battlefield?

Derekcus


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

[Greg Regets]

Derek, etc ...

I happen to completely agree with you that no army should get
something for nothing. List rules should be paid for. Armies
shouldn't be allowed to buy the bulk of their troops without shields
in the back rank ... the savings there can be huge. The SHC/EHC troop
mix should be reserved for troops where absolute undisputed evidence
can be shown that this mix existed. 1HCW should be applied to more
troop types, especially Medieval types that historically carried very
high quality swords, and knew how to use them. Armies shouldn't be
allowed to spend 1500 of their available 1600 points, on elephants.

That said, we have been over this so many times, its just another old
topic. I also know Jon has been over this many, many, many times
offline.

I think we just have to live with the idea that things are what they
are, and aren't going to change. I coach football, and there are a
few teams we play every year that get mad love from the officials. It
sucks, but at some point your job becomes less worrying about it, and
more beating them even with some tough calls.

Or, you could move to South Texas, where our spirit of fair play
keeps people from ever playing armies like this. (insert
shameless plug for my local gaming group).

Peace ... g

[joncleaves]

Hey guys - I need your help. I know several of you have sent in completely
worked out and comprehensive alternate point systems for Warrior. For some
reason, however, I just can't find a single one on my computer. I am sure I
screwed up somehow and accidently deleted the folder they were all in. Many
players have been asking to have this all changed and since there is no way I
could do that in less than a year, the only way to do it soon - and satisfy the
continued call on the group for such - would be to get some help from the
outside. Also, by finding these alternatives, I can show those calling for
change the tremendous amount of work you have done - so it can be appreciated as
well as getting the authors the recognition they deserve for being proactive and
helping out instead of complaining.

Could you please resend? Thanks.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Regets <greg.regets@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:29:40 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Payng For Things You Get, etc ...


Derek, etc ...

I happen to completely agree with you that no army should get
something for nothing. List rules should be paid for. Armies
shouldn't be allowed to buy the bulk of their troops without shields
in the back rank ... the savings there can be huge. The SHC/EHC troop
mix should be reserved for troops where absolute undisputed evidence
can be shown that this mix existed. 1HCW should be applied to more
troop types, especially Medieval types that historically carried very
high quality swords, and knew how to use them. Armies shouldn't be
allowed to spend 1500 of their available 1600 points, on elephants.

That said, we have been over this so many times, its just another old
topic. I also know Jon has been over this many, many, many times
offline.

I think we just have to live with the idea that things are what they
are, and aren't going to change. I coach football, and there are a
few teams we play every year that get mad love from the officials. It
sucks, but at some point your job becomes less worrying about it, and
more beating them even with some tough calls.

Or, you could move to South Texas, where our spirit of fair play
keeps people from ever playing armies like this. (insert
shameless plug for my local gaming group).

Peace ... g







Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Ewan McNay]

I'm sorry, Jon.

After I sent you the three complete systems, as well as their support from
play-testing, I assumed you would back it up, so I deleted it from the
system here as I only have 400GB or so spare on my hard drive.

How could you be so careless?

JonCleaves@... wrote:

> Hey guys - I need your help. I know several of you have sent in
> completely worked out and comprehensive alternate point systems for
> Warrior. For some reason, however, I just can't find a single one on
> my computer. I am sure I screwed up somehow and accidently deleted the
> folder they were all in. Many players have been asking to have this
> all changed and since there is no way I could do that in less than a
> year, the only way to do it soon - and satisfy the continued call on
> the group for such - would be to get some help from the outside. Also,
> by finding these alternatives, I can show those calling for change the
> tremendous amount of work you have done - so it can be appreciated as
> well as getting the authors the recognition they deserve for being
> proactive and helping out instead of complaining.
>
> Could you please resend? Thanks.
>
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Greg Regets
> <greg.regets@...> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed,
> 09 Nov 2005 15:29:40 -0000 Subject: [WarriorRules] Payng For Things You
> Get, etc ...
>
>
> Derek, etc ...
>
> I happen to completely agree with you that no army should get something
> for nothing. List rules should be paid for. Armies shouldn't be allowed
> to buy the bulk of their troops without shields in the back rank ...
> the savings there can be huge. The SHC/EHC troop mix should be reserved
> for troops where absolute undisputed evidence can be shown that this
> mix existed. 1HCW should be applied to more troop types, especially
> Medieval types that historically carried very high quality swords, and
> knew how to use them. Armies shouldn't be allowed to spend 1500 of
> their available 1600 points, on elephants.
>
> That said, we have been over this so many times, its just another old
> topic. I also know Jon has been over this many, many, many times
> offline.
>
> I think we just have to live with the idea that things are what they
> are, and aren't going to change. I coach football, and there are a few
> teams we play every year that get mad love from the officials. It
> sucks, but at some point your job becomes less worrying about it, and
> more beating them even with some tough calls.
>
> Or, you could move to South Texas, where our spirit of fair play keeps
> people from ever playing armies like this. (insert shameless plug
> for my local gaming group).
>
> Peace ... g
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[joncleaves]

<<I'm sorry, Jon.

After I sent you the three complete systems, as well as their support from
play-testing, I assumed you would back it up, so I deleted it from the
system here as I only have 400GB or so spare on my hard drive.

How could you be so careless?>>

Hey, no sweat. Since we all know it takes no time at all to come up with such,
just knock it out again and send!

Thanks for getting it.

Jon


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

[Greg Regets]

I don't think you need to rework the entire point system Jon.

How about something very simple like:

1 Point Per Element
This would be for very basic singular list rules, like light cavalry
fighting 1.5 ranks when not otherwise allowed to do so.

1 Point Per Figure
This would be for more advanced list rules where you get a bunch of
additional things that a troop type can do. Simply put, if you need
half a page at the front of the army list book devoted to just
you ... then you pay one point per figure for it.

20 Point Per Element
Generals with special qualities.

I don't think this would be overly complicated and I don't think you
need to redo the army list books to put a simple system like that in
place. A page on the website with list rules listed, and the cost
upgrade for each, should do the trick. Players could update as easily
as they fix something that was a typo.

Thanks ... g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> <<I'm sorry, Jon.
>
> After I sent you the three complete systems, as well as their
support from
> play-testing, I assumed you would back it up, so I deleted it from
the
> system here as I only have 400GB or so spare on my hard drive.
>
> How could you be so careless?>>
>
> Hey, no sweat. Since we all know it takes no time at all to come
up with such, just knock it out again and send!
>
> Thanks for getting it.
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[joncleaves]

<<1 Point Per Element
This would be for very basic singular list rules, like light cavalry
fighting 1.5 ranks when not otherwise allowed to do so.>>

Why one point? Is this ability better or worse than having another weapon or
a morale upgrade? On what do you base your answer?


<<1 Point Per Figure
This would be for more advanced list rules where you get a bunch of
additional things that a troop type can do.>>

Why? Who decides? On what basis? Are all list rules created equal from an
open tourney standpoint?

Man, just when I was thinking it was good to have you back, I have to call the
vet to get this lifeless equine out of here....lol

Oh - peace :)

Jon


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

[Todd Kaeser]

One thought,

Unless we go back to actually fight the battles w/ the actually armies it is
impossible to replicate what were are trying to do at 100%. I don't believe any
change needs to take place for a few reasons.

1. There has been an attempt to recreate the historical accuracy of armies and
that should be applauded. While I may have my own misgivings about Ipichrid
(sp?) hoplites or even hypaspists not taking waver tests for being charged in
the flank or rear w/ cavalry there is nothing I can technically do about it
despite lodging a complaint or comment as I have just done :)

2. Some armies had better training b/c they developed them over time and were
obviously smarter. Why penalize intelligence with an increase in points. The
Swiss developed their tactics over time and perfected them through the school of
hard knocks. This training was carried through generations and the later lists
reflect this intelligence.

3. I already have had to add the pages of corrections to the inserts in my list
books to keep up to date - I don't want to either have to repurchase the lists
7x $15 - $105 or go through the headache of altering my books.

No system is perfect. While not 100% pleased it's time to build a bridge and
get over it.

Todd K

Greg Regets <greg.regets@...> wrote:
I don't think you need to rework the entire point system Jon.

How about something very simple like:

1 Point Per Element
This would be for very basic singular list rules, like light cavalry
fighting 1.5 ranks when not otherwise allowed to do so.

1 Point Per Figure
This would be for more advanced list rules where you get a bunch of
additional things that a troop type can do. Simply put, if you need
half a page at the front of the army list book devoted to just
you ... then you pay one point per figure for it.

20 Point Per Element
Generals with special qualities.

I don't think this would be overly complicated and I don't think you
need to redo the army list books to put a simple system like that in
place. A page on the website with list rules listed, and the cost
upgrade for each, should do the trick. Players could update as easily
as they fix something that was a typo.

Thanks ... g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> <<I'm sorry, Jon.
>
> After I sent you the three complete systems, as well as their
support from
> play-testing, I assumed you would back it up, so I deleted it from
the
> system here as I only have 400GB or so spare on my hard drive.
>
> How could you be so careless?>>
>
> Hey, no sweat. Since we all know it takes no time at all to come
up with such, just knock it out again and send!
>
> Thanks for getting it.
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>






SPONSORED LINKS
Miniature wargaming Wargaming Four horsemen Warrior

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

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.


---------------------------------




---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

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

[Greg Regets]

You did ask for suggestions ... right?



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> <<1 Point Per Element
> This would be for very basic singular list rules, like light
cavalry
> fighting 1.5 ranks when not otherwise allowed to do so.>>
>
> Why one point? Is this ability better or worse than having
another weapon or a morale upgrade? On what do you base your answer?
>
>
> <<1 Point Per Figure
> This would be for more advanced list rules where you get a bunch of
> additional things that a troop type can do.>>
>
> Why? Who decides? On what basis? Are all list rules created
equal from an open tourney standpoint?
>
> Man, just when I was thinking it was good to have you back, I have
to call the vet to get this lifeless equine out of here....lol
>
> Oh - peace
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[joncleaves]

<<You did ask for suggestions ... right?>>

Actually I asked for a complete alternate point system. We already considered
'tweaks' (for 2 years from 1999-2001...) and found it to be a completely
unacceptable solution for a number of reasons - something we have discussed on
this group what seems a hundred times. If we are ever going to do it, we are
going to do it wholesale or not at all.
Doing it wholesale means extensive playtesting and, worse, immediately rendering
useless every army list book printed the day we publish it. Scott and I may
consider such a thing as part of the Warrior Armies project, but we are a LONG
way from that. Help with a comprehensive solution would increase the likelihood
that - when the time comes - we would make the call to buy into a whole new
point system.

Our number one priority is a quality rulebook.
Number two is getting new people into the game and that means Warrior Battles.

We will visit what should be next after WB again when I am well into that
project. Right now it is Campaign Warrior. But that may change. It may even
change to stopping new products and doing a new point system. But our customers
want to know they can play with the lists they have purchased for some time and
they can - without worrying that we are going to throw them all out overnight.

I'll take any suggestion a player wants to make. But they are not all created
equal. Ones about stirrups, moog shields, point tweaks and secret weapons won't
get much attention.....

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 11/9/2005 20:33:11 Central Standard Time,
hrisikos@... writes:

Personally,
I would prefer the lisyt rule to say they don 't waver test if "frontally
charged" by mounted in the open


We are looking into that.

J


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

[Todd Schneider]

With regards to #1, The List rule says "Steady Loose
Order Hypaspists do not take a waver test if being
charged by mounted in the Open."

Now, if your charging a unit of Hypaspists from the
rear or the flank, aren't they taking a waver test
Unless Alexander is within 160 paces, as an enemy to
the flank or rear is a cause of unease to any regular
body?

Or am I missing another rule?

Thanks,
Todd

--- Todd Kaeser <hailkaeser@...> wrote:

> One thought,
>
> Unless we go back to actually fight the battles w/
> the actually armies it is impossible to replicate
> what were are trying to do at 100%. I don't believe
> any change needs to take place for a few reasons.
>
> 1. There has been an attempt to recreate the
> historical accuracy of armies and that should be
> applauded. While I may have my own misgivings about
> Ipichrid (sp?) hoplites or even hypaspists not
> taking waver tests for being charged in the flank or
> rear w/ cavalry there is nothing I can technically
> do about it despite lodging a complaint or comment
> as I have just done
>
> 2. Some armies had better training b/c they
> developed them over time and were obviously smarter.
> Why penalize intelligence with an increase in
> points. The Swiss developed their tactics over time
> and perfected them through the school of hard
> knocks. This training was carried through
> generations and the later lists reflect this
> intelligence.
>
> 3. I already have had to add the pages of
> corrections to the inserts in my list books to keep
> up to date - I don't want to either have to
> repurchase the lists 7x $15 - $105 or go through the
> headache of altering my books.
>
> No system is perfect. While not 100% pleased it's
> time to build a bridge and get over it.
>
> Todd K
>
> Greg Regets <greg.regets@...> wrote:
> I don't think you need to rework the entire point
> system Jon.
>
> How about something very simple like:
>
> 1 Point Per Element
> This would be for very basic singular list rules,
> like light cavalry
> fighting 1.5 ranks when not otherwise allowed to do
> so.
>
> 1 Point Per Figure
> This would be for more advanced list rules where you
> get a bunch of
> additional things that a troop type can do. Simply
> put, if you need
> half a page at the front of the army list book
> devoted to just
> you ... then you pay one point per figure for it.
>
> 20 Point Per Element
> Generals with special qualities.
>
> I don't think this would be overly complicated and I
> don't think you
> need to redo the army list books to put a simple
> system like that in
> place. A page on the website with list rules listed,
> and the cost
> upgrade for each, should do the trick. Players could
> update as easily
> as they fix something that was a typo.
>
> Thanks ... g
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a...
> wrote:
> >
> > <<I'm sorry, Jon.
> >
> > After I sent you the three complete systems, as
> well as their
> support from
> > play-testing, I assumed you would back it up, so I
> deleted it from
> the
> > system here as I only have 400GB or so spare on my
> hard drive.
> >
> > How could you be so careless?>>
> >
> > Hey, no sweat. Since we all know it takes no time
> at all to come
> up with such, just knock it out again and send!
> >
> > Thanks for getting it.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Miniature wargaming Wargaming Four horsemen Warrior
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.
>
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in
> one click.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>




__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com

[Craig Scott]

A's are never uneasey (o: But you are correct about Iphicratids.
Thanks!!

Craig
--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Schneider
<thresh1642@y...> wrote:
>
> With regards to #1, The List rule says "Steady Loose
> Order Hypaspists do not take a waver test if being
> charged by mounted in the Open."
>
> Now, if your charging a unit of Hypaspists from the
> rear or the flank, aren't they taking a waver test
> Unless Alexander is within 160 paces, as an enemy to
> the flank or rear is a cause of unease to any regular
> body?
>
> Or am I missing another rule?
>
> Thanks,
> Todd
>
> --- Todd Kaeser <hailkaeser@y...> wrote:
>
> > One thought,
> >
> > Unless we go back to actually fight the battles w/
> > the actually armies it is impossible to replicate
> > what were are trying to do at 100%. I don't believe
> > any change needs to take place for a few reasons.
> >
> > 1. There has been an attempt to recreate the
> > historical accuracy of armies and that should be
> > applauded. While I may have my own misgivings about
> > Ipichrid (sp?) hoplites or even hypaspists not
> > taking waver tests for being charged in the flank or
> > rear w/ cavalry there is nothing I can technically
> > do about it despite lodging a complaint or comment
> > as I have just done
> >
> > 2. Some armies had better training b/c they
> > developed them over time and were obviously smarter.
> > Why penalize intelligence with an increase in
> > points. The Swiss developed their tactics over time
> > and perfected them through the school of hard
> > knocks. This training was carried through
> > generations and the later lists reflect this
> > intelligence.
> >
> > 3. I already have had to add the pages of
> > corrections to the inserts in my list books to keep
> > up to date - I don't want to either have to
> > repurchase the lists 7x $15 - $105 or go through the
> > headache of altering my books.
> >
> > No system is perfect. While not 100% pleased it's
> > time to build a bridge and get over it.
> >
> > Todd K
> >
> > Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...> wrote:
> > I don't think you need to rework the entire point
> > system Jon.
> >
> > How about something very simple like:
> >
> > 1 Point Per Element
> > This would be for very basic singular list rules,
> > like light cavalry
> > fighting 1.5 ranks when not otherwise allowed to do
> > so.
> >
> > 1 Point Per Figure
> > This would be for more advanced list rules where you
> > get a bunch of
> > additional things that a troop type can do. Simply
> > put, if you need
> > half a page at the front of the army list book
> > devoted to just
> > you ... then you pay one point per figure for it.
> >
> > 20 Point Per Element
> > Generals with special qualities.
> >
> > I don't think this would be overly complicated and I
> > don't think you
> > need to redo the army list books to put a simple
> > system like that in
> > place. A page on the website with list rules listed,
> > and the cost
> > upgrade for each, should do the trick. Players could
> > update as easily
> > as they fix something that was a typo.
> >
> > Thanks ... g
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a...
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > <<I'm sorry, Jon.
> > >
> > > After I sent you the three complete systems, as
> > well as their
> > support from
> > > play-testing, I assumed you would back it up, so I
> > deleted it from
> > the
> > > system here as I only have 400GB or so spare on my
> > hard drive.
> > >
> > > How could you be so careless?>>
> > >
> > > Hey, no sweat. Since we all know it takes no time
> > at all to come
> > up with such, just knock it out again and send!
> > >
> > > Thanks for getting it.
> > >
> > > Jon
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > Miniature wargaming Wargaming Four horsemen Warrior
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> >
> > Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in
> > one click.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > removed]
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
> http://farechase.yahoo.com
>

[Bill Chriss]

> With regards to #1, The List rule says &quot;Steady Loose
> Order Hypaspists do not take a waver test if being
> charged by mounted in the Open.&quot;
>
> Now, if your charging a unit of Hypaspists from the
> rear or the flank, aren't they taking a waver test
> Unless Alexander is within 160 paces, as an enemy to
> the flank or rear is a cause of unease to any regular
> body?
>
> Or am I missing another rule?
>
> Thanks,
> Todd
>

No. They don't waver test under the language you give because "steady"
simply means not disordered and has nothing to do with unease. Personally,
I would prefer the lisyt rule to say they don 't waver test if "frontally
charged" by mounted in the open. But no big deal.


-Greek

[Craig Scott]

Cool, thanks Jon!!!
Craig
--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 11/9/2005 20:33:11 Central Standard Time,
> hrisikos@D... writes:
>
> Personally,
> I would prefer the lisyt rule to say they don 't waver test
if "frontally
> charged" by mounted in the open
>
>
> We are looking into that.
>
> J
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>