Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ewan McNay]

Yes. Uneasy != unsteady.

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Todd Schneider 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@...> 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
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Bill Chriss]

> Yes. Uneasy != unsteady.
>


Ewan,

What does != mean? Clearly uneasy is not the same as unsteady. Unsteady
means disordered and has nothing to do with morale, which is what
uneasy relates to. Unease is a morale deal. Steadiness is a different
concept altogether, so, no, the hypaspists would not test. They might
be uneasy for morale test purposes, but they are not unsteady unless
disordered. So, does != mean not equal to?

-Greek

[Mark Mallard]

** This idea makes a lot of sense. At least it should be a starting point
for discussion.

mark mallard


In a message dated 09/11/2005 17:07:12 GMT Standard Time,
greg.regets@... writes:

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






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

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 09/11/2005 19:08:16 GMT Standard Time,
darnd022263@... writes:

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



** Often brigaded with the agema too.

mark mallard


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

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 10/11/2005 11:38:17 GMT Standard Time,
markmallard7@... writes:

** Often brigaded with the agema too.

mark mallard




I was of course refering to the seleucid companions and not Alexanders, but
the principle is the same. Not lots of units of companions. I have always
fielded the minimum amount, with the list rules they may be a little more
valuble now but they are still pretty vulnerable troops.

mark mallard


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

[Derek Downs]

In a message dated 11/10/2005 8:44:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

e. And yes, OK, I *could* buy some loose troops in the Sassanid list. At
3000 points or so..
WOW. You know how I love EHC. You can buy 2376 points of EHC on the Sassanid
list. Not counting generals or command. So you need to up you number to about
5000 before you buy any loose troops. :)

Derekcus


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

[Derek Downs]

In a message dated 11/10/2005 9:19:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,
hailkaeser@... writes:
I find it quite ironic that many of our arguements are over how troops and
armies preformed historically, yet many of us find ways to use them in ways that
never were used historically b/c it is to our advantage. Nothing like seeing
17 elephants on the board in 2-3 model units where most battles I've read
about have large groupings of elephants b/c of the difficulty of controlling
their lines We all (maybe most) take advantage of the rules/lists to max our
effectiveness on the table.
17 elephants is nothing. Before Warrior Inc screwed things up I had 21 in a
list.
By the way elepahnts are too bogus as well. But at least they all have the
same abilities at the same cost. No list has special free rules to make certain
elephants work better.

Now I think Burmese elepants should be able to burst through any troops the
beat in HtH, counter in any situation, remove opponents terrain, ignore prep
fire results and fly.
They do cost 63 points each. :)

Derekcus


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

[Derek Downs]

In a message dated 11/10/2005 9:26:09 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Turnerm@... writes:
orthogonal.

orthogonal

At right angles. The term is used to describe electronic signals that appear
at 90 degree angles to each other. It is also widely used to describe
conditions that are contradictory, or opposite, rather than in parallel or in
sync
with each other.


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

[Derek Downs]

Hell I looked it up in the dictionary and still don't know what it means.


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

[Derek Downs]

In a message dated 11/10/2005 9:19:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,
hailkaeser@... writes:
find it quite ironic that many of our arguements are over how troops and
armies preformed historically, yet many of us find ways to use them in ways that
never were used historically b/c it is to our advantage. Nothing like seeing
17 elephants on the board in 2-3 model units where most battles I've read about
have large groupings of elephants b/c of the difficulty of controlling their
lines We all (maybe most) take advantage of the rules/lists to max our
effectiveness on the table.
By the way Todd. Even the Macedonians spread elephants out among the troops
throughout the army.

Deekcus


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

[Mark Mallard]

**
Very true.

mark mallard


In a message dated 10/11/2005 15:30:53 GMT Standard Time,
darnd022263@... writes:

By the way Todd. Even the Macedonians spread elephants out among the troops
throughout the army.

Deekcus






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

[Ewan McNay]

Yes - sorry, thought that the ascii terminology, where there's no 'struck
through equal' sign, was standard, but probably just science geek stuff .

So, at somewhat more length: the question asked was 'did I miss
something?' and my answer was intended to say 'yes, you mssed the fact
that 'uneasy' and 'unsteady' are orthogonal.'

:-)

e. And yes, OK, I *could* buy some loose troops in the Sassanid list. At
3000 points or so.. ;)

hrisikos@... wrote:
>> Yes. Uneasy != unsteady.
>>
>
>
>
> Ewan,
>
> What does != mean? Clearly uneasy is not the same as unsteady. Unsteady
> means disordered and has nothing to do with morale, which is what
> uneasy relates to. Unease is a morale deal. Steadiness is a different
> concept altogether, so, no, the hypaspists would not test. They might
> be uneasy for morale test purposes, but they are not unsteady unless
> disordered. So, does != mean not equal to?
>
> -Greek
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Todd Kaeser]

I find it quite ironic that many of our arguements are over how troops and
armies preformed historically, yet many of us find ways to use them in ways that
never were used historically b/c it is to our advantage. Nothing like seeing 17
elephants on the board in 2-3 model units where most battles I've read about
have large groupings of elephants b/c of the difficulty of controlling their
lines We all (maybe most) take advantage of the rules/lists to max our
effectiveness on the table.



Todd K


markmallard7@... wrote:

In a message dated 09/11/2005 19:08:16 GMT Standard Time,
darnd022263@... writes:

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



** Often brigaded with the agema too.

mark mallard


[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]

[Jeff Zorn]

Same thing happens in DBM. If players see an advantage to using a
gimmick (whether it's in the rules or lists) they'll do it. Probably
safe to say that this will always happen in all rule systems that
attempt to cover a vast period with a universal set of rules.

At 09:15 AM 11/10/2005, you wrote:
>I find it quite ironic that many of our arguements are over how
>troops and armies preformed historically, yet many of us find ways
>to use them in ways that never were used historically b/c it is to
>our advantage. Nothing like seeing 17 elephants on the board in 2-3
>model units where most battles I've read about have large groupings
>of elephants b/c of the difficulty of controlling their lines We
>all (maybe most) take advantage of the rules/lists to max our
>effectiveness on the table.
>
>
>
>Todd K

[joncleaves]

<<I find it quite ironic that many of our arguements are over how troops and
armies preformed historically, yet many of us find ways to use them in ways that
never were used historically b/c it is to our advantage. Nothing like seeing 17
elephants on the board in 2-3 model units where most battles I've read about
have large groupings of elephants b/c of the difficulty of controlling their
lines We all (maybe most) take advantage of the rules/lists to max our
effectiveness on the table.

Todd K>>
[

Todd, that was very well said. And in an open tourney environment, I am as
'guilty' of that as anyone.

We take it as our charter to get the rules as right as possible in an historical
sense. After that, what plays out in opens is whatever plays out in opens.

J


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