Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[John Garlic]

Hi All,

Just looking at a few lists and wondering about sacred standards. Never used
one and not sure of benefits. Are they worth the 85 points?

John garlic


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/15/2004 21:47:52 Central Daylight Time,
jmgarlic@... writes:

Hi All,

Just looking at a few lists and wondering about sacred standards. Never
used
one and not sure of benefits. Are they worth the 85 points?

John garlic>>

I take them in lists with Irr C or C/D foot that is otherwise capable of
doing what I need to. The S keeps everyone eager within 480p. This means they
need two causes of unease in order to be uneasy, which means - among many
other things - that an Irr C foot unit won't have its charge cancelled just
because it is picking on an elephant.

Personally, if its available, I would *always* take an S standard in an army
with lots of these type troops. The Oriflamme keeping Irr C Brigans
impetuous is a must! lol Ditto the Viking Raven.

J







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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/16/2004 01:05:10 Central Daylight Time,
fredthebaddy@... writes:

In the days before Warrior was played in Australia, and 7th was
still played, we reduced the points value of sacred standards from
85, though I can't remember what to, I think about 20 points. >>
Playtesting of Warrior has shown time and again that the points for these
work fine. At 20 it would be automatic - they would always be taken as to not
do so would be irrational - even if all they did was get one unit eager when
it needed to be, that would still be worth more than hafl of a small LI unit.

At 85, they are the equivalent, for example, of a 2E Irr B HC L, B, Sh unit.
So, the player is faced with a reasonable choice - one such unit, or the
ability to get as many as 6-8 units getting off impetuous charges (not to
mention passed wavers) that otherwise would not. To my mind, this is a style
decision. But it is also a level of play decision. One of the hallmarks of
Warrior mastery is the understanding of the relationship of
support/unease/impetuous/cancelled charges. To many, the immediate benefits of
even a single
impetuous charge that might otherwise not be are not as tangible as that one
extra unit. In any case, FHE is *quite* comfortable both with the utility of
the
S standard and the points cost of it.

Note that things are also relative - an S means a lot less to A or Irr B
troops than it does to others.



Though they were effective in motivating low morale grade foot, they
were still generally found not to be worth the points, and that in
some regards they were an added liability given the response to
seeing one killed or captured>>
A lost standard is a rare thing. A standard in a broken unit is *not* lost
(it is being carried away by friendly troops and is not in the hands of the
enemy), it has to be in a destroyed body or with a general who has been killed
(10.4).

J






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

Not generally, no

ANW

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, jmgarlic@a... wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Just looking at a few lists and wondering about sacred standards.
Never used
> one and not sure of benefits. Are they worth the 85 points?
>
> John garlic
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In the days before Warrior was played in Australia, and 7th was
still played, we reduced the points value of sacred standards from
85, though I can't remember what to, I think about 20 points.

Though they were effective in motivating low morale grade foot, they
were still generally found not to be worth the points, and that in
some regards they were an added liability given the response to
seeing one killed or captured

Adrian Williams
Barbarians Wargaming Club
Sydney, Australia

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/15/2004 21:47:52 Central Daylight Time,
> jmgarlic@a... writes:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Just looking at a few lists and wondering about sacred
standards. Never
> used
> one and not sure of benefits. Are they worth the 85 points?
>
> John garlic>>
>
> I take them in lists with Irr C or C/D foot that is otherwise
capable of
> doing what I need to. The S keeps everyone eager within 480p.
This means they
> need two causes of unease in order to be uneasy, which means -
among many
> other things - that an Irr C foot unit won't have its charge
cancelled just
> because it is picking on an elephant.
>
> Personally, if its available, I would *always* take an S standard
in an army
> with lots of these type troops. The Oriflamme keeping Irr C
Brigans
> impetuous is a must! lol Ditto the Viking Raven.
>
> J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

I've seen a sacred standard used once in a competition game. The guy was
running
Ancient British against me in the finals of Games Caucus, some time around
1992
as I recall. So I'd have to say their use is pretty rare.>>

Given that the army that is generally perceived to benefit from them most is
one with a large number of Irr C foot, it is small wonder that we don't see
them in competition....




(2) the army would have to lack a required army standard, or lack an army
standard that can advanced against the enemy. An advancing army standard has
a
smaller area of effect, and is riskier to deploy since it requires that you
put
the standard in harm's way>>
The S only needs to be within 480p. The A needs to be getting closer to the
enemy, within 240p, within 240p of the body and visible to it.

You'll find, I think, among skilled players that somehow the army
standard always seems to show up, advancing, in the right place at the right
time. I suspect because in most battles there is often a key moment, and a
key
point on the battlefield, where eagerness is required. A well-played army
standard can achieve this; a sacred standard is overkill.>>
I completely agree that style and relative skill are important to the choice
to take one. But I also think that not enough is said about the waver test
aspect of the various standards. The same skilled player who can optimally
employ an A is going short somewhere on the other part of the table away from
his own key point. There, the other player - who is also skilled - is trying
to make his big bucks. Here an S can provide the right effect in more than
one area, but the A is much more confined and at risk.



I believe there is, or used to be, a Roman army that can have an S standard.
Clearly a case where you would _not_ want to buy, since you have few troops
trying to be impetuous, and your general is probably JLS HC that have no
business being near the front. On the other hand, many Biblical armies do not
have an army standard as a required buy. If any of these also have an S
standard, then that becomes an interesting option.>>
Again, it is not all about being impetuous. It is no secret that Reg B's
are the easiest thing in the world to make uneasy and get an instant 16%
increase in the chance they will fail a waver. If you have a line of Reg B
that
you see taking a couple of mounted charges while you counter-punch, for
example, then passing any wavers in there on a '2' becomes important.



(3) the army must rely on a broad impetuous advance by foot, rather than a
concentrated attack on a single point. This is really the corollary to the
point above: given that a well-played army standard can give you eagerness
at a
single point, the only reason to opt for an S standard is if you have a
different tactical plan. If you have 3 or 4 large units of C-class infantry
that are going to advance on a broad front and attempt impetuous charges,
then
an S standard is the way to go. This also compliments the first point above:
many cheap troops get more value out of an S standard than fewer more
expensive
ones.>>
Completely agree. Table size, point value and the composition of the list
ALL bear on the usefulness of an S. A 1200 point open? Prob not a good idea.
1600 point Dark Age theme - probably very good idea.

J


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

[John Garlic]

Thanks for the responses. Was just checking out early armies. I was looking at
the Early Hebrews actually. Thought Ark of the Covenant being carried by
Indiana Jones would be cool. I vaguely remember hearing about someone doing a
camp like that.

John

[scott holder]

The efficacy of a sacred standard can be scale dependent as well. You get
relatively "more coverage" with one in 25mm than in 15mm so that might also be a
factor.

And yes, many years ago, a player had a 25mm Arc standard carried by porters
with Indiana Jones featured on the model. And believe it or not, while the
reaction to it was overwhelmingly positive (it was well painted, well modeled,
well everythinged), I still got a couple of snarky comments about how that
wasn't "historical". If Indy were handy I might have borrowed his whip.......

-----Original Message-----
From: jmgarlic@... [mailto:jmgarlic@...]
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 6:36 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Sacred Standards


Thanks for the responses. Was just checking out early armies. I was looking at
the Early Hebrews actually. Thought Ark of the Covenant being carried by
Indiana Jones would be cool. I vaguely remember hearing about someone doing a
camp like that.

John

[Mark Stone]

I've seen a sacred standard used once in a competition game. The guy was running
Ancient British against me in the finals of Games Caucus, some time around 1992
as I recall. So I'd have to say their use is pretty rare.

There are three conditions that would have to be met for me to use a sacred
standard:

(1) the army would have to be composed of very few expensive troops. If you have
a lot of expensive troops, you're already having trouble holding frontage, and
the extra unit is often more valuable. I think that Medieval French (SHK) have
too many troops that are too expensive, but Feudal French (HK) probably pass
this test, as do all the earlier barbarian trash armies.

(2) the army would have to lack a required army standard, or lack an army
standard that can advanced against the enemy. An advancing army standard has a
smaller area of effect, and is riskier to deploy since it requires that you put
the standard in harm's way. On the other hand, an army standard is offered
required. You'll find, I think, among skilled players that somehow the army
standard always seems to show up, advancing, in the right place at the right
time. I suspect because in most battles there is often a key moment, and a key
point on the battlefield, where eagerness is required. A well-played army
standard can achieve this; a sacred standard is overkill.

I believe there is, or used to be, a Roman army that can have an S standard.
Clearly a case where you would _not_ want to buy, since you have few troops
trying to be impetuous, and your general is probably JLS HC that have no
business being near the front. On the other hand, many Biblical armies do not
have an army standard as a required buy. If any of these also have an S
standard, then that becomes an interesting option.

The Feudal French are a complicated choice. Normally you think of knights as
being right there on the front, and hence the army standard should suffice.
However, the one case where you don't want the knights on the front and where
you _do_ want your infantry eager, is against elephants. If you could have two
versions of the list, then one would be with S standard, one without. With only
one version of the list, it's a tough call.

(3) the army must rely on a broad impetuous advance by foot, rather than a
concentrated attack on a single point. This is really the corollary to the
point above: given that a well-played army standard can give you eagerness at a
single point, the only reason to opt for an S standard is if you have a
different tactical plan. If you have 3 or 4 large units of C-class infantry
that are going to advance on a broad front and attempt impetuous charges, then
an S standard is the way to go. This also compliments the first point above:
many cheap troops get more value out of an S standard than fewer more expensive
ones.

Of the armies I play, Feudal French is the one I ponder most often as being a
candidate for an S standard. Haven't tried it yet, but I can see some logic to
it.

Oh, and in a tourney like the Cold Wars team tourney, where you're playing with
2000 points, this becomes a much easier decision. On 2000 points you can afford
a few extras you wouldn't otherwise buy, and are often less worried about
covering frontage with extra units.


-Mark Stone