Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Mark, we have agreed here at FHE that I will answer the Swiss question.

In a message dated 8/20/2003 14:24:29 Central Daylight Time,
mark@... writes:
First: These rules differ from the Fast Warrior list rule for Swiss. I want to
make sure I understand the differences, and then I want to know if these
supercede the Fast Warrior list rule, or if Fast Warrior still uses its own
(different) list rule.
Different for now. Intent is long term to have all the FW list rules match
the main list rules. Not there yet.

The biggest difference I see is this:
In Fast Warrior, Swiss loose order with pike can move through brush (for
example) without being disordered, but would become disordered when charging
through brush.
No. Why would charging foot be disordered by brush if loose order for
movement? There is really no difference as far as movement goes for loose order
P
and close order foot that MOVES as loose order foot.
(2) for Fast Warrior, which rule applies, the Fast Warrior list rule, or the
Feudal Warrior list rule?
For Fast - Fast applies for now.


Second: I want to make sure I understand this whole replacement in combat
thing.
Here's an example:
6 figures (in column) of Early Burgundian Men-at-Arms (Irr B SHK L,Sh)
impetuously charge 24 figures (in column) of Swiss Infantry configured thus:
first 4 ranks Reg B LMI P, last 2 ranks Reg B LMI 2HCT. The Burgundians roll
up
2, and the Swiss roll even.

The Burgundians do 5 @ 4 (L charging LMI) + 1 (charging) + 2 (impetuous) +2
(die
roll) -2 (facing pike) = 5@7 = 30.
The Swiss do 8 @ 2 (P vs. SHK) + 1 (receving imp charge) = 8@3 = 20.
The Swiss lose to a mounted opponent, and take 1 CPF.

Normally, this would cause the Swiss to recoil disordered, and under 6.5.1 an
element of 2HCT could replace an element of P in the front rank. The 2HCT
would
fight next bound, albeit disorderd, and the P would be out of the fight. The
knights would doubtless mop up, since they'd be fighting shieldless,
disordered
foot, though facing a -1 for 2HCT.

Instead, what happens is slightly different. It is one of the following three,
I'm just not sure which:

Case 1: the whole Swiss unit is disordered, the 2HCT goes to the front, but
(for
one bound only) the P fights from behind the 2HCT. Thus the combat looks like
this:
the Burgundians get:
mounted vs. LMI = 3 + 3 (shieldless) +1 (following up) +2(mtd vs. disordered
foot) -1 (facing 2HCT) -1 (mtd are disordered) -1 (mtd are tired) = 6
the Swiss get:
2HCT or P vs. SHK = 2 -1 (Swiss are disordered) = 1.
So, assuming the Burgundians got to expand, it's 6@6 vs. 8@1.
Nope. The 2HCT count as steady. Therefore not shieldless and not mtd vs.
disordered.


Case 2: the whole Swiss unit is disordered, the 2HCT goes to the front, but
(for
one bound only) the 2HCT counts as steady/first contact, and the P fights from
behind the 2HCT. Thus the combat looks like this:
the Burgundians get:
mtd vs. LMI = 3 +1 (following up) -1 (facing 2HCT) -1 (mtd are disordered) -1
(mtd are tired) = 1.
the Swiss get:
2HCT vs. SHK = 2, P vs. SHK = 2 -1 (Swiss are disordered) = 1.
So, assuming the Burgundians got to expand, it's 6@1 vs. 4@2 + 4@1.
Yep.


Case 3: the whole Swiss unit is not disordered, the 2HCT goes to the front,
and
(for one bound only) the P fights from behind the 2HCT. Thus the combat looks
like this:
the Burgundians get:
mtd vs. LMI = 3 +1 (following up) -1 (facing 2HCT) -1 (mtd are disordered) -1
(mtd are tired) = 1.
the Swiss get:
2HCT or P vs. SHK = 2
So, assuming the Burgundians got to expand, it's 6@1 vs. 8@2.
Nope, the body is still disordered, it's just that the 2HCT COUNT as
steady/first contact for that one subsequent bound of replacement.


Which of these is it?
Door #2.

Jon


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

[Mark Stone]

I just received my copy of Feudal Warrior last week, and I've been avidly
pouring over the lists. First off, I want to compliment the FHE team on a job
well done. There are some great lists here, many more playable than in TOG, and
overall they do a better job of capturing the historical feel of these armies. I
do have a few questions/comments.

1. English Longbowmen. All of the non-English lists on which these guys appear
have the following line:
"Extra to give English longbowmen 2HCW and/or Sh @4 pts"
What does this mean? If it means "and" then it is pointed wrong, as the cost
should be 8 points, not 4. If it means "or" then the points are right, but this
would imply that longbowmen can only have one or the other (as per TOG), not
both. On the 100 Years' War English list all of this is broken out separately,
and it's clear that longbowmen can have both shields and 2HCW, and pay the
appropriate points separately. I assume this is the intent of this abbreviated
one line statement, but I'm not sure. Can someone clarify?

2. French Ordonnance. I feel pretty strongly that the Ordonnance Bowmen are
mis-classified on this list in the later period. They start as Reg B MI LB, but
can be upgraded all the way to EHI, can add JLS as a hand-to-hand weapon, and
can fight from horseback. To me, that sounds exactly like HK, and I think a
strong argument can be made that many of the sergeants/retainers of this period
fit the classification of HK: fighting from horseback, also trained to fight on
foot, and equipped with EHI-type armor. So I think a pretty compelling
historical case can be made that these guys fit the HK description.

The only counter-argument I can see is "knights don't use missile weapons". In
response, I'd say that (a) there are already HK with HG on the same list, (b)
they can't use longbow when mounted anyway, and (c) the troop type
classifications are there to get as close to historical function
as we can, which is why we give Moogs shields when we know they didn't have
them, and why we give Germans SHC when that troop type had been phased out
centuries earlier.

Besides the historical record, I'd argue there are good game balance/playability
reasons to classify these guys as HK. Right now, no one will play this list in
an open tournament. In the early period, you're stuck with 6 elements of
required shieldless close order foot. In the later period, if you attempt to
upgrade your way out of this mess, you end up with something like this:
Ordonnance Bowmen, Reg B HC LB, 2 elements 27 pts each, for 64 pts
Ordonnance Bowmen, Reg B HC LB,JLS/LB 2 elements @27, 2 @33 for 130 pts

You've now spent almost 200 points on 2 units that are essentially useless. The
first unit is too small to dismount, so never gets to use its longbow. The
second unit dismounts as 8 figures of HI LB, front rank JLS. For this you're
paying 130 points. You could put them all in one unit, but that's not really any
better. As one unit or two, these guys will get shot to pieces by the first
enemy missile unit that comes near them, they put out very little missile power
of their own, and they have no hand-to-hand punch.

The only alternative is to keep them as infantry:
Ordonnance Bowmen, Reg B EHI/HI LB 3 elements @24, 3 @32, for 178 pts

This is almost as expensive, and just as useless. This unit puts out some
missile fire, and is pretty tough to shoot up, but will be crushed by the first
hand-to-hand unit of any kind that wanders into it.

If forced to play this list as it stands, I'd probably just leave these guys as
MI, as wasted points that I wanted to minimize as much as possible.

Now consider the alternative I'm proposing:
Replace these lines:
"Extra to upgrade Ordonnance Bowmen to EHI @ 8 pts.... any
Extra to upgrade mounted HI Ordonnance Bowmen to HC @ 3 pts.... any"
With this line:
"Extra to upgrade mounted HI Ordonnance Bowmen to HK @ 4 pts.... any"
together with this addition to the notes:
"HK dismount with JLS".

This change accomplishes several things:
(1) It makes the list playable. These HK with LB guys are still expensive, but
they're also pretty tough: difficult to shoot up, not overwhelming in either
foot or mounted combat, but dangerous enough in each that an opponent can't be
careless. And they deal out some decent missile fire.
(2) It makes the list distinctive. These guys, historically, were a unique troop
type in this period, representing the pinnacle of continental use of the
longbow. Classifying them this way gives them a distinctive flavor not found on
any other list.
(3) It makes the troop types behave in a more historical manner. What we're
seeing here is the emergence of the professional soldier, the first glimpse of
what will become the standing army in Europe. These guys are veterans with lots
of combat experience and training in a number of weapons, as well as trained to
fight both on foot and from horseback. They will become the hussars and dragoons
of the coming centuries. Classify them as HK here, and they both behave more
historically and fit better into the historical evolution of troop types.

Finally, keep in mind that this is no killer troop type. These guys, if
classified as HK, do several things moderately well, but nothing exceptionally
well: they have good morale, but can't be eager or impetuous; they have good
armor, but no shields; they hit mounted with the impact of knights, but
lack lances. In short, they're versatile (which expensive troops should be), but
not overpowering.

3. The Swiss. I've read the Swiss Infantry rules over and over, and I want to
make absolutely sure I understand the rules before I contemplate buying some
Swiss Ally lead for one of several armies that just got very interesting.

First: These rules differ from the Fast Warrior list rule for Swiss. I want to
make sure I understand the differences, and then I want to know if these
supercede the Fast Warrior list rule, or if Fast Warrior still uses its own
(different) list rule. The biggest difference I see is this:
In Fast Warrior, Swiss loose order with pike can move through brush (for
example) without being disordered, but would become disordered when charging
through brush. In Feudal Warrior, I can see no such restriction; in other words,
as far as I can tell in Feudal Warrior, Swiss loose order with pike can both
move and charge through brush without becoming disordered. The questions, then,
are:
(1) have I described the difference correctly?
(2) for Fast Warrior, which rule applies, the Fast Warrior list rule, or the
Feudal Warrior list rule?

Second: I want to make sure I understand this whole replacement in combat thing.
Here's an example:
6 figures (in column) of Early Burgundian Men-at-Arms (Irr B SHK L,Sh)
impetuously charge 24 figures (in column) of Swiss Infantry configured thus:
first 4 ranks Reg B LMI P, last 2 ranks Reg B LMI 2HCT. The Burgundians roll up
2, and the Swiss roll even.

The Burgundians do 5 @ 4 (L charging LMI) + 1 (charging) + 2 (impetuous) +2 (die
roll) -2 (facing pike) = 5@7 = 30.
The Swiss do 8 @ 2 (P vs. SHK) + 1 (receving imp charge) = 8@3 = 20.
The Swiss lose to a mounted opponent, and take 1 CPF.

Normally, this would cause the Swiss to recoil disordered, and under 6.5.1 an
element of 2HCT could replace an element of P in the front rank. The 2HCT would
fight next bound, albeit disorderd, and the P would be out of the fight. The
knights would doubtless mop up, since they'd be fighting shieldless, disordered
foot, though facing a -1 for 2HCT.

Instead, what happens is slightly different. It is one of the following three,
I'm just not sure which:

Case 1: the whole Swiss unit is disordered, the 2HCT goes to the front, but (for
one bound only) the P fights from behind the 2HCT. Thus the combat looks like
this:
the Burgundians get:
mounted vs. LMI = 3 + 3 (shieldless) +1 (following up) +2(mtd vs. disordered
foot) -1 (facing 2HCT) -1 (mtd are disordered) -1 (mtd are tired) = 6
the Swiss get:
2HCT or P vs. SHK = 2 -1 (Swiss are disordered) = 1.
So, assuming the Burgundians got to expand, it's 6@6 vs. 8@1.

Case 2: the whole Swiss unit is disordered, the 2HCT goes to the front, but (for
one bound only) the 2HCT counts as steady/first contact, and the P fights from
behind the 2HCT. Thus the combat looks like this:
the Burgundians get:
mtd vs. LMI = 3 +1 (following up) -1 (facing 2HCT) -1 (mtd are disordered) -1
(mtd are tired) = 1.
the Swiss get:
2HCT vs. SHK = 2, P vs. SHK = 2 -1 (Swiss are disordered) = 1.
So, assuming the Burgundians got to expand, it's 6@1 vs. 4@2 + 4@1.

Case 3: the whole Swiss unit is not disordered, the 2HCT goes to the front, and
(for one bound only) the P fights from behind the 2HCT. Thus the combat looks
like this:
the Burgundians get:
mtd vs. LMI = 3 +1 (following up) -1 (facing 2HCT) -1 (mtd are disordered) -1
(mtd are tired) = 1.
the Swiss get:
2HCT or P vs. SHK = 2
So, assuming the Burgundians got to expand, it's 6@1 vs. 8@2.

Which of these is it?


-Mark Stone

[scott holder]

1. English Longbowmen. All of the non-English lists on which these guys appear
have the following line:
"Extra to give English longbowmen 2HCW and/or Sh @4 pts"
What does this mean? If it means "and" then it is pointed wrong, as the cost
should be 8 points, not 4. If it means "or" then the points are right, but this
would imply that longbowmen can only have one or the other (as per TOG), not
both. On the 100 Years' War English list all of this is broken out separately,
and it's clear that longbowmen can have both shields and 2HCW, and pay the
appropriate points separately. I assume this is the intent of this abbreviated
one line statement, but I'm not sure. Can someone clarify?

>It's an attempt to abbreviate. You wanna buy shield for em, you pay 4 points.
You also wanna buy 2HCW for em, you pay another 4 pts.

>I'm snipping out the French Ordonnance material. It's not something I'm
inclined to agree with without going back and doing research which at this point
in time, I don't have time to do. I'll keep this email and will revisit the
issue later when I have some time. I don't mean to cut you off here, I simply
don't have the time to lay out the interprative process of the troop types in
question without doing the research again and pointing to the things that drove
what you see. Too many people breathing down my neck for Imperial Warrior:):)

3. The Swiss. I've read the Swiss Infantry rules over and over, and I want to
make absolutely sure I understand the rules before I contemplate buying some
Swiss Ally lead for one of several armies that just got very interesting.

First: These rules differ from the Fast Warrior list rule for Swiss. I want to
make sure I understand the differences, and then I want to know if these
supercede the Fast Warrior list rule, or if Fast Warrior still uses its own
(different) list rule.

>As of this point in time, the rules remain different.

>As for all the nuances of the FeudWar Swiss Rule, I'll defer to Jon and
possibly Frank Gilson as to the answers. Frank, I wouldn't answer publically
without consulting Jon first, otherwise, he gets mighty fussy:):)

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/20/2003 3:16:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
mark@... writes:

Mark, your mail is Scott's to answer, but I have a couple of comments.

First, that was an excellent, well-thought out post. I speak for all of us at
FHE when I say it is this sort of thing that helps us all in the best way
possible.

Second:

> (2) for Fast Warrior, which rule applies, the Fast Warrior
> list rule, or the
> Feudal Warrior list rule?>>

I know it is our intent that the new refined list rules are retroactively
applied to their corresponding FW list once the list book is published.
However, that has to be done in a very formal way or we are going to have a
snarled up thread about it here.
For the moment, use the FW list rule as published in the rulebook. Soon, we'll
go back and formally square this away.

Oh, and when we reprint the rulebook we will include all the correct FW
opponents and the complete 'matching' list rules.
Thanks
Jon

[scott holder]

Mark, your mail is Scott's to answer, but I have a couple of comments.

>I would prefer that you and Frank (since Frank helped with the wording of the
final product) work thru the nuances of the list rule permutations. I'd be more
than glad to review that beforehand.

[scott holder]

Heh heh, ignore this since Jon already answered the basic rules question.

-----Original Message-----
From: Holder, Scott
Sent: Wed 8/20/2003 2:37 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Cc:
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] questions about feudal warrior



Mark, your mail is Scott's to answer, but I have a couple of comments.

>I would prefer that you and Frank (since Frank helped with the wording of the
final product) work thru the nuances of the list rule permutations. I'd be more
than glad to review that beforehand.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LIdGAA/qnsNAA/IMSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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/