Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Doug]

>One of the nice uses I have found with the regulars, is against the guy that
>leaves gaps just slightly under 80p between foot units in his battle
>line. It's
>a perfectly acceptable tactic to engage these units on an equal or slightly
>losing basis, in order to shrink this 'no-charge' gap area from 80p to 40p,
>such that your cavalry can get flank shots. Yes, irregulars can do this too,
>but regulars make it much easier to disguise your intent.

Huh?
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

Mr RHEA, of Tennessee, said...he believed it a correct principle that
all the militia should be armed under a Republican government. One
of the objects of such a Government was, that the people should have
arms in their hands; and those who legislate for them should take
every possible means to effect that object. For the want of arms
being in the hands of the people of the nations of Europe, their
liberty was lost. (Dec 1807)
U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1873
Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 10th Congress, 1st Session

This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains
information that may be privileged, confidential or copyrighted under
applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-mail,
in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender
by return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. Unless
explicitly and conspicuously designated as "E-Contract Intended",
this e-mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment,
or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-mail does not constitute
a consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing
purposes or for transfers of data to third parties.

I lost a tournament game a couple of weeks ago where the key to my
defeat was a Reg HC,L unit forcing my flank. I saw it coming, but
failed the required counter and had an Aztec LMI,JLS,S,Sh hit in the
unshielded flank. That one Reg HC,L unit that cost 64 points routed
my 106 point unit and eventually rolled up one entire command. To
answer the question Reg Cav, doesn't matter what type, can be worth
more than the most powerful foot in the game if played correctly.

But remember, if I had passed the counter I would have pelted the HC
with S fire and cause it to charge or take a waiver. I was
successful a number of times in hitting small cav(and knight units)
with S fire and forcing them to charge, smacking them again on the
support shot and routing most at contact. But Reg Cav can normally
manuever out of danger with a well timed counter. Irreg Cav
especially L that cannot skirmish are often forced to charge at a
disadvantage. Most successful players don't have to rely on the
impetuous +s to win, they kill you with their ability to manuever.

WD

[Greg Regets]

I prefer to have both, in roughly equal proportions. As has been pointed out,
the irregulars will do a better job of smashing, without exposing a vulnerable
general, and a regulars will do better on the perimeter or in gaps in the line.

One of the nice uses I have found with the regulars, is against the guy that
leaves gaps just slightly under 80p between foot units in his battle line. It's
a perfectly acceptable tactic to engage these units on an equal or slightly
loosing basis, in order to shrink this 'no-charge' gap area from 80p to 40p,
such that your cavalry can get flank shots. Yes, irregulars can do this too,
but regulars make it much easier to disguise your intent.

Of all the advantages I see for the regular cavalry, the biggest by far in my
mind is the ability to back out of loose order foot charge reach, while still
maintaining your own cavalry's ability to charge - eliminating the foot's
ability to declare and making him eat you flat-footed, with applicable waver
tests. This can happen with irregulars to be sure, but is much easier with
regulars.

Just my two cents ...
G

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 6/26/2003 12:38:31 PM Central Standard Time,
hailkaeser@... writes:


> Swiss C-in-C in a 40 man pike/halberd unit (front HI)
> to a 12 man EHC unit. The EHC hit the pike - rolled
> up 4 (irreg A), pushed me back, next turn w/ 9 figs

Having run the swiss a few times myself, I think that you forgot that the
pikes do not recoil after that first loss to cav but rather just go disordered.
No recoil presumably means no followup and hence no expansion. The cav do get
the benefit of fighting disordered foot, but should not get the follow up
bonus. Of course an up 5 solves most all woes.

My safety caveat... Jon are we playing that correctly?
Chris


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/26/2003 14:16:10 Central Daylight Time, cncbump@...
writes:

> Having run the swiss a few times myself, I think that you forgot that the
> pikes do not recoil after that first loss to cav but rather just go
> disordered.
> No recoil presumably means no followup and hence no expansion. The cav do
> get
> the benefit of fighting disordered foot, but should not get the follow up
> bonus. Of course an up 5 solves most all woes.
>
> My safety caveat... Jon are we playing that correctly?
> Chris
>

Yes. And even worse for the horse when you see the new Swiss list rule.....


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

[Todd Kaeser]

So much also depends on the purpose of the cavalry.

If it's EHC than irreg makes more sense - can't
skirmish anyway so bring it on.

If you have quality combat troops than reg HC is a
great support troop. If all you have is reg HC than
you might have problems in the attack, unless you're
hitting the flanks.

I love reg HC L,B,Sh and would take it over the irreg
counterpart. But w/ the lance rule (1/2 back rank)
EHC is pretty dangerous. To the point that I lost my
Swiss C-in-C in a 40 man pike/halberd unit (front HI)
to a 12 man EHC unit. The EHC hit the pike - rolled
up 4 (irreg A), pushed me back, next turn w/ 9 figs (I
had hit one of his expansions w/ my knight unit) he
rolled up 5 routing the pike and pushing the knights
back.

scary stuff.

Todd K

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 6/26/2003 7:18:20 PM Central Standard Time,
rockd@... writes:


> Huh?
> --
>
> Doug

Doug,
What Greg describes here is a very good tactic. It is what makes this game
more like chess than checkers because it recognizes the ability to disguise
your intent and using the correct troop types in order to do this. It
demonstrates the intent to think beyond the current bound and points out how the
particular troop type being discussed is better suited for this role than its
irregular counterpart. Subtlties like this, and more importantly the ability to
utilize them, are what seperate the best players from the better players.
Chris


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/26/2003 19:17:50 Central Daylight Time,
rockd@... writes:

> >One of the nice uses I have found with the regulars, is against the guy
> that
> >leaves gaps just slightly under 80p between foot units in his battle
> >line. It's
> >a perfectly acceptable tactic to engage these units on an equal or slightly
> >losing basis, in order to shrink this 'no-charge' gap area from 80p to 40p,
> >such that your cavalry can get flank shots. Yes, irregulars can do this
> too,
> >but regulars make it much easier to disguise your intent.
>
> Huh?
>

For once, Doug, we totally agree. I have no idea what all that meant either.
There is no 'gap shrinking' and gaps are measured in elements, not paces.
Among other issues. Perhaps if the author of this comment would expound....

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/26/2003 21:41:43 Central Daylight Time, cncbump@...
writes:

> Doug,
> What Greg describes here is a very good tactic.

Could we get a diagram? I smell something illegal or misunderstood....


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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Todd, Kelly Wilkinson here!
Are you refering to our game at Historicon a few years back when I rolled up for
Allah!? Now that was a desperate charge! Very lucky dice for me, not so good for
the Swiss! Ugh! Just wondering?!?

Kelly

Todd Kaeser <hailkaeser@...> wrote:

So much also depends on the purpose of the cavalry.

If it's EHC than irreg makes more sense - can't
skirmish anyway so bring it on.

If you have quality combat troops than reg HC is a
great support troop. If all you have is reg HC than
you might have problems in the attack, unless you're
hitting the flanks.

I love reg HC L,B,Sh and would take it over the irreg
counterpart. But w/ the lance rule (1/2 back rank)
EHC is pretty dangerous. To the point that I lost my
Swiss C-in-C in a 40 man pike/halberd unit (front HI)
to a 12 man EHC unit. The EHC hit the pike - rolled
up 4 (irreg A), pushed me back, next turn w/ 9 figs (I
had hit one of his expansions w/ my knight unit) he
rolled up 5 routing the pike and pushing the knights
back.

scary stuff.

Todd K

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

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



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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I have to echo Gregs comments here. I love Reg HC and try to skillfully use them
to back up my LTS/P armed foot verses Moogs of all types and close order nasties
such as Romans. Regular HC allows for Wiggle room for maneuvering and makes an
opponent who is not using a combined arms tactic pay the ultimate price. Just
my two cents. I've seen Frank Gilson's use of this tactic in our game a few
years back at Historicon involving my Celt-Iberians verses his Phyric army. It
is most effective!

Kelly Wilkinson

gar@... wrote:
I prefer to have both, in roughly equal proportions. As has been pointed out,
the irregulars will do a better job of smashing, without exposing a vulnerable
general, and a regulars will do better on the perimeter or in gaps in the line.

One of the nice uses I have found with the regulars, is against the guy that
leaves gaps just slightly under 80p between foot units in his battle line. It's
a perfectly acceptable tactic to engage these units on an equal or slightly
loosing basis, in order to shrink this 'no-charge' gap area from 80p to 40p,
such that your cavalry can get flank shots. Yes, irregulars can do this too,
but regulars make it much easier to disguise your intent.

Of all the advantages I see for the regular cavalry, the biggest by far in my
mind is the ability to back out of loose order foot charge reach, while still
maintaining your own cavalry's ability to charge - eliminating the foot's
ability to declare and making him eat you flat-footed, with applicable waver
tests. This can happen with irregulars to be sure, but is much easier with
regulars.

Just my two cents ...
G


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



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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

[Greg Regets]

Jon ... with all due respect, I think you are making a bit much out of this.

Everyone knows the two element, one element gap rules of 6.53. They are
basically no different than in 7th. Nothing it illegal or misunderstood.

Please note that my post was in response to Todd's (I think) concerning regular
light cavalry. Everyone knows there is an unwritten gap rule just for light
cavalry, that is defined by the notion that you may not approach closer than
40p to anything. This is completely seperate from the element gap rules of
6.53.

Light cavalry has to start behind the flank to charge. The light cavalry may
not approach closer than 40p to either shoulder unit (that is where the 80p
comes into play), but may sit there while the friendly infantry recoils and the
enemy unit follows up inside the light cavalry's 40p (shrinking the new
unwritten gap to 40p). The LC may then make a legal move from within 40p, as
defined by 6.0.

Hope this makes sense. I lost a family member rather unexpectedly yesterday and
I seem to be a bit out of it today.

Peace ... G



> <html><body>
>
>
> <tt>
> In a message dated 6/26/2003 21:41:43 Central Daylight Time, cncbump@...
<BR>
> writes:<BR>
> <BR>
> > Doug,<BR>
> > What Greg describes here is a very good tactic.<BR>
> <BR>
> Could we get a diagram?  I smell something illegal or misunderstood....<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]<BR>
> <BR>
> </tt>
>
> <br>
>
> <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
>
> <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
> <td align=center><font size="-1" color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor</b></font></td>
> </tr>
> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
> <td align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0> <tr>
<td
align=center><font face=arial size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=244522.3313099.4604523.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705059
080:HM/A=1595056/R=0/SIG=124fv1soh/*http://ashnin.com/clk/muryutaitakenattogyo?
YH=3313099&yhad=1595056"
alt=""><img
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/qu/quinstreet/300x250_uofp_yellow-
arrows2.gif"
alt="Click Here!" width="300" height="250" border="0"></a></td></tr></table>
</td>
> </tr>
> <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
M=244522.3313099.4604523.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1595056/rand=808679009"></
td></tr>

> </table>
>
> <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
>
>
> <br>
> <tt>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com<BR>
> <BR>
> </tt>
> <br>
>
> <br>
> <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.</tt>
> </br>
>
> </body></html>
>

[Todd Kaeser]

Yes Kelly I am.

I am still in awe of the power of EHC.

Todd

--- kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@...> wrote:
> Todd, Kelly Wilkinson here!
> Are you refering to our game at Historicon a few
> years back when I rolled up for Allah!? Now that was
> a desperate charge! Very lucky dice for me, not so
> good for the Swiss! Ugh! Just wondering?!?
>
>
> Kelly
>
> Todd Kaeser <hailkaeser@...> wrote:
>
> So much also depends on the purpose of the cavalry.
>
> If it's EHC than irreg makes more sense - can't
> skirmish anyway so bring it on.
>
> If you have quality combat troops than reg HC is a
> great support troop. If all you have is reg HC than
> you might have problems in the attack, unless you're
> hitting the flanks.
>
> I love reg HC L,B,Sh and would take it over the
> irreg
> counterpart. But w/ the lance rule (1/2 back rank)
> EHC is pretty dangerous. To the point that I lost
> my
> Swiss C-in-C in a 40 man pike/halberd unit (front
> HI)
> to a 12 man EHC unit. The EHC hit the pike - rolled
> up 4 (irreg A), pushed me back, next turn w/ 9 figs
> (I
> had hit one of his expansions w/ my knight unit) he
> rolled up 5 routing the pike and pushing the knights
> back.
>
> scary stuff.
>
> Todd K
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/27/2003 12:38:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, gar@...
writes:

> Jon ... with all due respect, I think you are making a bit
> much out of this.>>

I am sorry to hear of the loss of your family member, Greg.

All I was asking for was the original example - I can't seem to find it, so I
have no frame of reference on what you are talking about.

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Oh My. . . .! LOL! When you roll up that much, MC can leave the same scars! Mike
Lewis rolled up 6, four times in a Fast Warrior game at my home a couple of
weeks ago along with one up 5 and my Byzantines stilled pulled out the win. But
rolling like that has left a mark on me as well to respect the power of the
"Irreg A's"!
Kelly "Sword of Mohammed"

Todd Kaeser <hailkaeser@...> wrote:
Yes Kelly I am.

I am still in awe of the power of EHC.

Todd

--- kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@...> wrote:
> Todd, Kelly Wilkinson here!
> Are you refering to our game at Historicon a few
> years back when I rolled up for Allah!? Now that was
> a desperate charge! Very lucky dice for me, not so
> good for the Swiss! Ugh! Just wondering?!?
>
>
> Kelly
>
> Todd Kaeser <hailkaeser@...> wrote:
>
> So much also depends on the purpose of the cavalry.
>
> If it's EHC than irreg makes more sense - can't
> skirmish anyway so bring it on.
>
> If you have quality combat troops than reg HC is a
> great support troop. If all you have is reg HC than
> you might have problems in the attack, unless you're
> hitting the flanks.
>
> I love reg HC L,B,Sh and would take it over the
> irreg
> counterpart. But w/ the lance rule (1/2 back rank)
> EHC is pretty dangerous. To the point that I lost
> my
> Swiss C-in-C in a 40 man pike/halberd unit (front
> HI)
> to a 12 man EHC unit. The EHC hit the pike - rolled
> up 4 (irreg A), pushed me back, next turn w/ 9 figs
> (I
> had hit one of his expansions w/ my knight unit) he
> rolled up 5 routing the pike and pushing the knights
> back.
>
> scary stuff.
>
> Todd K
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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



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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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