Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ewan McNay]

[I checked this with Mark before posting, as it involves some criticism of
both sides]

Mark Stone wrote:
> Sure, I'll try and provide a fairly full report here.It may provide some
> fodder for useful/educational tactical discussions, albeit at my expense.

Thanks, Mark. Take heed, everyone else .

> First, some background. The most active players in Northern California right
now
> are myself and Lenney Hermann. Like me, Lenney has returned in recent years
> from a long, DBM-induced slumber to playing Warrior. He and I face off about
> once or twice a month, which is 90% of the non-Cold Wars, non-Historicon
gaming
> I get. Lenney is a solid player, one who can be beaten but only if you're
> focused and on top of your game. Both of us intend to travel back east for
> Historicon this year, and play in the theme tournament. Lenney will be playing
> Sassanids, and I will be playing Romano-British (it's all I have figures for
in
> this period), and last night began a series of practice games between us.

:) Here let me insert my repeat plea for such theme-viable
figures; I actually am a fan of the Romano-British list!

> Here's my list:
>
> CinC w/2 stands Irr B HC JLS,Sh
> Sub w/2 stands Irr B HC JLS,Sh
> 1x 2 stands Reg C HC JLS,Sh
> 1x 4 stands Reg D LC JLS,Sh
> 2x 2 stands Reg D LC JLS,Sh
> 1x 6 stands Reg C LMI JLS,Sh
> 2x 2 stands Reg B LMI JLS,Sh
> 2x 6 stands Reg C LMI B,Sh/B
> 2x 6 stands Irr B LMI JLS,Sh
> 1x 4 stands Reg C LI JLS,Sh
> 3x 8 stands Irr D LI B
> 2x 4 stands Irr B/C HI/MI HTW,JLS,Sh/JLS,Sh*

Your report below implies 3 of these units; I don't have the list
to hand, but remember thinking that the Saxons made a great ally
contingent and I would be surprised if you only took 8E of them.
I'm a little surprised to find them in 4E units .

Other than that, I think you have fewer bowmen than I took when I
hacked together a list. I have it at home - I'll try to remember
to find it.

> Lenney's list was something like this:
>
> Command 1 -
> 1x 12 stands LI B
> 1x 8 stands LC B
> 3x 2 stands EHC/HC L,B,Sh, one unit with subgeneral
>
> Command 2 -
> 1x 2 model elephant unit w/CinC
> 1x 8 stands MI LTS,Sh/B
> 3x 2 stands EHC/HC L,B,Sh
>
> Command 3 -
> 1x 8 stands LC B
> 1x 12 stands MI B
> 3x 2 stands EHC/HC L,B,Sh, one unit with subgeneral

Unsurprisingly, there is much about this list that I don't like.
However, the basic thought that taking lots of elephants to a
theme where triple-armed legions are expected, or even the
double-armed Saxons in abundance, is a bad idea, I have to agree
with. Lancers should find lots of targets. Unless of course
everyone brings EHC lancers, in which case the elephants will be
very happy...

> My assessment:
> The basic problem for me is that he has an abundance of shock troops that can
> beat _everything_ in my army, namely the EHC lancers. I don't dare let my JLS
> guys end up on the line faced off against these, and I have to be careful
about
> putting the LMI Bow guys on the line too. And my close order foot don't really
> want to fight his lancers either. So that means my line is going to have to
> consist entirely of light troops, and if I want to extend my frontage beyond
> what the lights can cover, I'll need terrain to do it. Fortunately I have
> pretty decent light troops. So it's going to come down to my ability to use my
> light troops to enable my army to out-maneuver Lenney's army, since the
> straight up matchups tend to break all in his favor.

All agreed. The huge discrepancy in number of light units should
maybe have made this more easily doable than it seemed, though;
did Lenney really only have 1 LI and 2 LC units?

> My hope is to get a minor water feature and a marsh along it somewhere. If I
can
> pull that off, then I can (a) cut down the frontage, and (b) have the marsh as
> a zone in which my loose order foot can freely operate. As a backup I'm taking
> two hills.

I'm actually not sure that (a) would have been a good thing,
though - does not a smaller frontage favour the ''denser' of the
two armies, here the Sassanids? Getting some rough terrain is
clearly a very desirable thing, though.

Terrain was not happy for Mark here. Having any piece of vaguely
central rough ground would have given a base of operations in
which to operate with some degree of impunity - not complete, as
the EHC may still come on in if there's a target, but somewhat.

> Deployment:
> I have a ditched palisade on my list, which in theory (list rule) can go in my
> forward zone. Under Jon's latest clarifications, however, I can't put it
inside
> or within 60p of an open space (or any other terrain feature). So, scanning
the
> table, I don't see anywhere forward to put my ditched palisade.

Right. This was part of my bet with Boyd, too - there's ooften
going to be no place on the table where ditches can be helpfully
placed. I'm very surprised by the latest rulings on these, as it
does seem that list rules of this type are unlikely to see the
light of day often (a good example is the Swiss, who really need
list rules!)

> My plan, then, is to put the ditched palisade about mid table in my rear zone,
> and deploy the bulk of my army on one side of it. What I'm aiming for is a
> skirmish line of LI and LC that runs on an angle from the palisade to the
steep
> hill. I have a few gimmicks up my sleeve, however.

Note that Mark is relying on the opponent bringing the fight to
him. Likely, but not certain. Now, of course, this could be
converted into a more aggressive posture if needed, but (against
slightly more light troops) it might well have allowed an
opponent to line up the EHC more at leisure, for instance.

[Please realise that I'm not attempting to critique, much less
criticise, decisions here - more to try to point out nuances and
play devil's advocate]

> I've force marched my JLS,Sh unit of LI to grab the steep hill. I've also
force
> marched 2 2-stand units of LC just to buy some space. I'm also anticipating
> that my left flank -- the one anchored to the palisade -- is going to be my
> weak flank, so stalling on that side is important. Finally, just to keep
Lenney
> on his toes I've stuck my 6 stand unit of Reg C LMI JLS,Sh way over in the
> corner in the marsh. I figure anywhere in the open it's vulnerable, but I also
> figure he can't completely ignore it. Finally, I have a 6 stand unit of Irr B
> LMI JLS,Sh on a flank march on my right flank.

That Reg C LMI unit, plus the LC unit, are something like 106 +
38 points. Add in the second unit of LC in the middle of the
table - harder to kill as it willl have a place to run - and
that's almost 200 points to be spotting the oppponent.
Potentially. Again, just something to be realised. I confess
that I would in particular have killed off the LMI - as Mark
notes later, 2 units will likely do it as long as one is an EHC
unit, which are available in abundance.

> The Battle, Opening Moves:
> Initially, all goes according to plan for me. I end up strung out in a long
> skirmishing line. No one actually occupies the palisade. Starting from just
> inside it, I end up strung out in a long skirmishing line of: LMI B,Sh - LI B
-
> LI B - LI B - LC JLS,Sh - LC JLS,Sh - Reg B LMI JLS,Sh - LI JLS,Sh (on the
> steep hill). My other Irr B LMI JLS,Sh is slowly marching towards the steep
> hill. I have my HC, my other LMI B,Sh unit, and my other Reg B LMI JLS,Sh in
> reserve. The Saxon contingent -- HTW,JLS guys -- is looking longingly at the
> Sassanid infantry and elephants, and marching up behind my left-most LI unit.
>
> Lenney is having problems. His whole 3rd command is hung up trying to deal
with
> my pesky LC unit that I've force marched in front of him. His other two
> commands swing forward to line up with my battle line, but we're going to
close
> on my right flank well before he completes this maneuver because (a) my left
> flank is pulled back, and (b) his elephants and infantry are slow.

...and (c) he chose to give orders, and move tactically, such
that Mark's right flank is in range to engage.

Probably an error. The smaller force - especially with a
disparity as big as this one - should not be seeking too engage
along the line.

> On Bound 2 he realizes I have a flank march, and is somewhat unnerved by this.
> He knows all my scouting points are on table, so whatever is flank marching
has
> to be an infantry unit. He looks at the 3 Saxon HTW,JLS guys angling towards
my
> left, and the LMI unit lurking in the marsh, and realizes he's over-extended
if
> the flank march comes in on my left. So he slows down his advance there, all
> the while still trying to dislodge my LC.

Well... probably another error; it's only going to be one unit
coming on, it's going to be something else that EHC can handily
kill (no scouting missing), and so the fear of a left-flank
arrival is probably illusory. In fact, if Lenney had not pressed
on Mark's right, it would probably be welcomed, as more 'free'
points, which by now would be enough to give a significant win by
themselves.

> In the middle, Lenney is pressing hard. He realizes he's going to have to suck
> it up and charge my LI with his cav, otherwise he's never going to get to the
> vulnerable units behind. He throws some lancers forward with this aim, and
> draws over his MI LTS,Sh/B so that it can suck off some of my LI bow fire away
> from his EHC.

All good theories. Given the lack of loose troops on Markk's
left (in front of the Saxons) I would likely have charged the LI
with LC safe in the knowleedge that nothing was likely to come
back through the LI at me. I think .

> The Battle is Joined:
> After a couple of bounds of skirmishing back and forth, we get down to serious
> business. In the middle, Lenney charges my right most LI unit with his LC
unit,
> beats it but fails to rout it, and follows up next bound with the EHC
> subgeneral for his Command 1, routing the LI. I move an HC unit and a Reg B
LMI
> JLS,Sh unit up to be ready when the LI unit evaporates, and move my reserve
LMI
> B,Sh unit up to bolster the line.

So, it sounds as though Lenney could have afforded to wait for
the LC to beat the LI, rather than get the Sub involved, *if* he
had not been already pressed on his own left. Just trying to
follow through the sequence that led him to losing the units that
he did - here, the EHC Sub - later. I am assuming that the
EHC/HC are Irreg in order to meet list needs, which also turns
out to be a problem - for instance, they cannot counter away from
the threat that develops on Lenney's left, which would otherwise
likely be a non-issue.

> On the my left, Lenney has finally shot the LC unit into exhaustion (20 CPF,
to
> be exact), and charged it, whereupon it fails a waver and blows up. Now he
> begins pressing harder on my left flank, and I bring the LMI unit out of the
> marsh, forcing him to leave an LC unit and an EHC in reserve. His elephant and
> big bow block are finally closing in on my line.
>
> On the my right, I have my Irr B LMI JLS,Sh that has finally made its
> way up to the front of the steep hill, and Lenney has moved his EHC unit
> forward to oppose it.

And one wonders why. The EHC are sure not going to go play on
the steep hill, so they have no business being anywhere in the
area. The loss of this unit is the result of several errors, it
seems.

> The good: I roll a 5 for my flank march, meaning it shows up right on the
flank
> of Lenney's EHC unit. He's going to get hit simultaneously by 2 Irr B LMI
> JLS,Sh units, one of which will be on his flank, and there's nothing he can do
> about it.
>
> In the right section of the middle of my line, the dust has settled with
Lenney
> having an EHC general rallying tired and disordered after having destroyed my
LI
> unit. On one flank it has one of my HC units, and on the other flank is my LMI
> JLS,Sh unit. Behind this, covering Lenney's line at this point, is an EHC unit
> faced of against my 4 stand LC JLS,Sh unit.

It's not clear why this unit should be tired or disordered,
unless it charged *through* the LC (which would explain the
disorder and allow the LI to fight against HC rather than EHC).
However, that it is strongly confirms the suggestion that sending
it in may have been a mistake.

> The bad: On my left flank, all rational thought deserts me for a fleeting but
> critical moment.

This is rarely a goood thing .

> I see the possibility of unloading on Lenney's elephant CinC
> with 24 LMI B,Sh (at long range) and at least 8 of 16 LI B (at close range).
> Eager to pursue this opportunity I fling my LMI B,Sh unit forward, unhinging
it
> from the anchoring palisade. I overlook that (a) his elephant only needs to
> make a counter (2/3 chance) to avoid this, and (b) I've hung the flank of my
> LMI unit
> within reach of an EHC unit. I have no idea what I was thinking; I just
screwed
> up. When you make a plan, stick to it. That's one lesson. When you're near
> lancers, always measure that 320p zone (160p approach and 160p charge). That's
> another lesson.

Both good lessons. I have a 320p stick for just such purposes.

> The ugly: In the left section of the middle of my line, all hell is breaking
> loose. Lenney is going to charge an LI unit and my other LMI B unit with his
> lancers. To cover the flank of his lancers, however, he's had to pull his MI
> LTS,Sh/B unit far enough forward so that it is within charge reach of my
> Saxons. To enable at least one Saxon unit to reach it, I'm going to have to
put
> another Saxon unit covering the flank within charge reach of another of
> Lenney's lancer units.
>
> Going from my right to left, here's the upshot of all this: I rout the EHC
unit
> on the end of Lenney's line. His LI fail the waver test for this, and since
> they are being charged again by my LMI unit must take another test, which they
> fail.

Would not the LI have responded to the charge before any combat
happened? In which case this must have happened in two
subsequent bounds, quite plausible, but just to clarify.

> Towards the middle, I rout the EHC subgeneral rallying tired and
> disordered. This causes Command 1 to go into retirement, and causes the EHC
> unit faced off against my LC to test (and fail). It gets charged and routed
next
> bound.

Muy badness. And all largely self-induced. If the EHC general
going in did not immediately result in vulnerable targets being
exposed before he himself was... well, just another reason not ot
be there.

> At this point the entire left side of my line is in danger of collapsing. I
have
> one Saxon unit losing in combat, another winning but with a flank exposed, and
> a routing LMI unit.
>
> I have one chance to salvage things. In reserve I have another Saxon unit and
my
> CinC HC. The Saxons have already tested and passed for the routing LMI. If the
> CinC can pass the test for the LMI, then I can charge the EHC through my LMI
> with the CinC and simultaneously charge the flank of the EHC with the Saxons.
> This is risky; even if my CinC passes the waver he may well be routed by the
> lancers. But if I can avoid routing, break his lancers, and get Lenney to fail
> a couple of the ensuing waver tests, then I may be able to stabilize the left
> flank long enough for my victory on the right to carry the day.
>
> Alas, it is not to be. My CinC rolls a 1, failing his waver test for the
routing
> LMI. In the same bound the Saxons that beat the MI get charged in the flank
and
> routed as Lenney rolls up 3 with his lancers. This happens to be the Saxon
> ally, causing two waver tests for the other two Saxon units. They both fail,
> one of them is beaten in combat by mounted, must waver for second cause of
> disorder, and fails, causing it to rout, causing additional waver tests, some
> of which I fail....
>
> When the dust settles my CinC's command is under retirement and my Saxon ally
is
> under retirement. Lenney has Command 1 under retirement. I lost roughly 750
> points out of 1600, and Lenney lost roughly 450. Lenney wins an exciting and
> bloody 4-3 victory.

...and sounds as though he would have won a 5-3 if it had gone a
little longer?

> I should have never come out from next to the palisades with my LMI bowmen,
and
> I should have rolled better dice on terrain picks. Lenney needs to drop the 48
> figure bow unit in favor of more -- and better-armed -- lights, and perhaps
> take fewer lancers. I'd say in general he should take more elephants, but
since
> this is specifically for the Roman theme tournament we both think a lot of
> elephants aren't going to be useful.

:) All agreed. Maybe more bowmen in the R-B, too.

[Ewan McNay]

> Mark Stone wrote:
> > Here's my list:
> >
> > CinC w/2 stands Irr B HC JLS,Sh
> > Sub w/2 stands Irr B HC JLS,Sh
> > 1x 2 stands Reg C HC JLS,Sh
> > 1x 4 stands Reg D LC JLS,Sh
> > 2x 2 stands Reg D LC JLS,Sh
> > 1x 6 stands Reg C LMI JLS,Sh
> > 2x 2 stands Reg B LMI JLS,Sh
> > 2x 6 stands Reg C LMI B,Sh/B
> > 2x 6 stands Irr B LMI JLS,Sh
> > 1x 4 stands Reg C LI JLS,Sh
> > 3x 8 stands Irr D LI B
> > 2x 4 stands Irr B/C HI/MI HTW,JLS,Sh/JLS,Sh*

Mark notes that his list here is constrained by troops-on-hand, so that
differences may well be purely due to that, but the list I hacked up as i
went through the books back when looks like:

CinC and Sub, both in 2E IrrB HC
2E IrrB HC
2 x 2E Reg C HC
4 x 2E Reg D LC
4 x 4E Reg LMI JLS, Sh: 1 B, 1 C, 2 C/D class.
2 x 6E Reg D LMI B, 1/2 Sh
3 x 4E Reg D LI, JLS, Sh
Ally in 4E IrrB/C, H/MI, JLS, Sh, 1/2 HTW
4E and 2 x 6E ditto H/MI

Looking at it, I might take a little more LI at the cost of a Reg LMI JLS,
Sh unit. On the other hand, those were very effective at killing off my
Roman LI at PointCon, and so in theme may well be extremely useful.

The Saxon Ally is the basic strike force, and pretty decent at being so.
And this is 22 units at 1600 points, which is a lot.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, ewan.mcnay@y... wrote:
> > Deployment:
> > I have a ditched palisade on my list, which in theory (list rule)
can go in my
> > forward zone. Under Jon's latest clarifications, however, I can't
put it inside
> > or within 60p of an open space (or any other terrain feature).
So, scanning the
> > table, I don't see anywhere forward to put my ditched palisade.
>
> Right. This was part of my bet with Boyd, too - there's ooften
> going to be no place on the table where ditches can be helpfully
> placed. I'm very surprised by the latest rulings on these, as it
> does seem that list rules of this type are unlikely to see the
> light of day often (a good example is the Swiss, who really need
> list rules!)

This disturbed me yesterday to the point where I went home and reread
the entire rulebook looking for how TF is terrain, or how open
terrain precludes placement of points bought list items. From my
reading, anything bought as part of the army list with point can be
placed in any terrain. Sorry, I understand that Jon has ruled
otherwise from this post, but it just is not practicle to make this
rule stick with any reason based upon the rules. TF with or without
a ditch is akin to artillery, mobile towers, or mantlets. They are
for game timeframe purposes immobile points expendatures that are all
placed during deployment *after* terrain picks. Perhaps I'm missing
something crutial, but I find no rule that contradicts this; rather I
find rules that indicate this. From my research, forward deployed TF
is akin to forced marchers.

14.31 "An open space is...arranged to enclose any shaped area
desired, and then prevents further position of terrain within."

Page 87 "Temproary field fortifications represnted by points-bought
plashing, wagon laager, palisades, etc. are placed at deployment time
with the command whose area they are in."

14.43 "....Forced marchers may deploy in the forward zone..."

17.0, pages 96 under Temporary (field) Fortifications: "Wagon
laager, ditched palisade (cover and obstacle) 20 points" and "Field
fortifications are paid for after terrain positioning (14.3). The
points replace an equal value of troops already chosen."

4.21 "Second, the army's disposition is specified on a map
representing the battlefield and is marked relative to other commands
or terrain features. The postioins of commands must be specified
from right to left and front to rear....Units that conduct a...forced
march (14.43) are so marked as part of the deployment order."



I'm I on the wrong course here?

Wanax

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/29/2004 12:52:19 Central Daylight Time,
spocksleftball@... writes:
I don't think terrain at all, even if treated as obsticle for
movement purposes. Sorry.>>

Boyd, I am not sure what the big deal is. I am NOT trying to be smart-assed
or difficult, but TFs are absolutely a category of terrain - a subset of
obstacles, which is a subset of difficult terrain. The rule that says this is
6.71.

I see from another mail that you think that, as much as I can make out, Roman
lists are not viable because TFs are terrain - at least I think you said that.

Maybe if you stated what you thought the issue was explicitly, I could help
clear up any misunderstanding. I honestly cannot see the issue. It is true,
for example, that you cannot have a 12E long section of TF without a 1E break,
but that is hardly making any list nonviable.

Please also remember that 14.0 is NOT a rule. No one has to set up a game
that way, and it would be ok with me if more people did NOT use 14.3. The 14.0
in the new rulebook will include more options for people to use in setting up
battles with exactly this in mind.

If the question is, 'is 14.3 designed to prevent closing down half or more of
the table without the other player having a vote?', the answer is an emphatic
yes.

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/29/2004 9:21:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
spocksleftball@... writes:

> This disturbed me yesterday to the point where I went home
> and reread
> the entire rulebook looking for how TF is terrain,>>


The rule I *think* you are looking for is 6.71. TFs are defined as such under
Difficult Terrain, Obstacles at the top of page 58.

Jon

Sorry Jon, but I just don't see the logic stream that says I buy
terrain. I see you list obsticles as difficult terrain, but that is
for "movement" purposes.

Here is a test or two:
1. Do I roll for it or pay point for it?
2. Can it be destroyed and/or subverted?
3. Is the tactical effect universal or uni-directioinal?

I don't think terrain at all, even if treated as obsticle for
movement purposes. Sorry.
boyd

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/29/2004 9:21:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
spocksleftball@y... writes:
>
> > This disturbed me yesterday to the point where I went home
> > and reread
> > the entire rulebook looking for how TF is terrain,>>
>
>
> The rule I *think* you are looking for is 6.71. TFs are defined as
such under Difficult Terrain, Obstacles at the top of page 58.
>
> Jon