Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Dave Markowitz]

The rank and 1/2 against "Super-Heavy" Troops certainly is a big difference. I
havn't made it through warrior yet, but the changes between Warrior and 7th that
are patently significant are:

1. demorialization and 1/2
2. new shooting arc (making it much more difficult for those units of 4 LC to
scoot out of shooting range).

I'm sure there are others, but I'll have to read the rules to find them .

[joncleaves]

THERE ARE NO TROOPS ON FOOT ARMED WITH JLS THAT HAVE OR WILL GET A 'WEDGE' LIST
RULE.

Yikes.

[scott holder]

As I understand the rule, troops with Jls, will always fight 1.5 ranks.
If Jls does not apply then they will not get the +1 jls bonus, but will
still fight 1.5 ranks. Am I all wet on this?

>At the risk of getting dope slapped by the Rules Ho, you are correct
(Hey, I've still gotta umpire this stuff so I need to be able to answer
questions). This *is* a change from that "other" set of rules we usta
play so I read it again and compared just to make sure. Since it didn't
involve any math, I'm feeling on solid ground here:):)

Scott
List Ho

[scott holder]

Hmph. I saw the other email. I thought I read it and Chris' correctly,
meaning that JLS armed troops fighting against, oh, let's say SHK, still
fight 1.5 ranks against them. However, said hapless JLS-armed troops
would not get the javelin bonus. I actually read this again and again
when I stumbled across it because it is a change, a good one IMNSHO.

>>> JonCleaves@... 3/4/02 7:09:00 AM >>>
Not exactly, Scott. Off to the agonizer booth.

[scott holder]

Let's use an example that comes direct from "Scott's Basement" from a
game played probably 8 years ago. Jon, running either SHK or SHC (the
latter would have been Jake's Tibetans) plows into my hapless Irr A
Galatians (or motto "maniacal but useless") who took the charge at the
halt. Said Galatians only fought 1 rank because the JLS + didn't apply.
In the new and improved Warrior world, said Galatians would fight 1.5
ranks now and still wouldn't get the JLS +. Unless my tactical
expertise of "rolling up 4 now" comes into play, said Galatians still
die, they die fanatics but still die. Which is as it should be. One
dimensional armies are great in period but obviously ain't gonna hack it
over 5,000 years of armies.

>>> JonCleaves@... 3/4/02 7:23:00 AM >>>
Scott and Chris - the statement made below by Scott IS correct:

" JLS armed troops fighting against, oh, let's say SHK, still fight 1.5
ranks against them. However, said haples JLS-armed troops would not get
the javelin bonus."

ONLY SO LONG AS it is either first contact or the other conditions of
9.22 are met. If for example, they were not pursuing in a second bound
and armed with 2HCW, they would NOT be fighting 1.5 ranks. (but, if
they were fighting elephants, they would!).

Yes, a difference from 7th's engine is that the 1.5 ranks is not tied
directly to whom you get the + against. To determine if you get 1.5
ranks, you go to 9.22.

You have to be complete in these answers I have found. :)

Jon


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/

[Patrick Byrne]

Whoa, hold up.

If a unit is armed with 2HCW, JLS and by list rule, can wedge:
1. On first bound (charging contact), both ranks fight 2HCW, JLS.
2. On second bound, the front rank gets 2HCW only and the back rank gets
JLS.

Right?
-PB


> From: JonCleaves@...
>
> ONLY SO LONG AS it is either first contact or the other conditions of 9.22 are
> met. If for example, they were not pursuing in a second bound and armed with
> 2HCW, they would NOT be fighting 1.5 ranks. (but, if they were fighting
> elephants, they would!).
>
> Jon

[Ewan McNay]

The one time I managed to get SHC into Galatians, the galatians won...
this was in one of Eric Turner's events about 5 years back, when I was
already getting abuse for taking Sleazy Seleucids {Actually, i should try
to play with these guys a couple more times before I bet Scott eviscerates
the dual-list sleaze... ;)

But, to get back on topic: the change makes a much bigger difference when
your Spanish LMI have just been evaporated by a unit or three of SHK, and
now your little Irreg A unit is about to smack their flank. hitting with
5 guys vs. 3 makes a *big* difference. [Likewise for Otomi, although they
might have 2HCW in any case, or for Gall Gael, etc. etc]

E



On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Holder, Scott <FHWA> wrote:

> Let's use an example that comes direct from "Scott's Basement" from a
> game played probably 8 years ago. Jon, running either SHK or SHC (the
> latter would have been Jake's Tibetans) plows into my hapless Irr A
> Galatians (or motto "maniacal but useless") who took the charge at the
> halt. Said Galatians only fought 1 rank because the JLS + didn't apply.
> In the new and improved Warrior world, said Galatians would fight 1.5
> ranks now and still wouldn't get the JLS +. Unless my tactical
> expertise of "rolling up 4 now" comes into play, said Galatians still
> die, they die fanatics but still die. Which is as it should be. One
> dimensional armies are great in period but obviously ain't gonna hack it
> over 5,000 years of armies.
>
> >>> JonCleaves@... 3/4/02 7:23:00 AM >>>
> Scott and Chris - the statement made below by Scott IS correct:
>
> " JLS armed troops fighting against, oh, let's say SHK, still fight 1.5
> ranks against them. However, said haples JLS-armed troops would not get
> the javelin bonus."
>
> ONLY SO LONG AS it is either first contact or the other conditions of
> 9.22 are met. If for example, they were not pursuing in a second bound
> and armed with 2HCW, they would NOT be fighting 1.5 ranks. (but, if
> they were fighting elephants, they would!).
>
> Yes, a difference from 7th's engine is that the 1.5 ranks is not tied
> directly to whom you get the + against. To determine if you get 1.5
> ranks, you go to 9.22.
>
> You have to be complete in these answers I have found.
>
> Jon
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>

[scott holder]

The one time I managed to get SHC into Galatians, the galatians won...
this was in one of Eric Turner's events about 5 years back, when I was
already getting abuse for taking Sleazy Seleucids {Actually, i should
try
to play with these guys a couple more times before I bet Scott
eviscerates
the dual-list sleaze... ;)

>Heh heh, not likely anytime soon. I think there's a wonderful place
for one-list tourneys but I am also a big believer in two-list tourneys
as well. There are arguments to be made that both concepts offer up
more competitive armies to the general mix. Therefore, I have no
inclination to do away with one or the other. It's a far cry from
Kruse's old "6 list" tournament days. Come to think of it, when we went
to only two lists, LIR suddenly became less popular.

>Seleucids, like Aztecs, have had their "fad" period (longer than most
mind you) and I'm convinced as players search out the nuances in
Warrior, we'll see the cycle repeat itself.

But, to get back on topic: the change makes a much bigger difference
when
your Spanish LMI have just been evaporated by a unit or three of SHK,
and
now your little Irreg A unit is about to smack their flank. hitting
with
5 guys vs. 3 makes a *big* difference. [Likewise for Otomi, although
they
might have 2HCW in any case, or for Gall Gael, etc. etc]

>Well, in this case, in the long run, Spanish (Punic-era kind) won't
have Irr A when I get done with the list. That, and the Tibetan EHK,
were the two most egregious historical interprative cock ups (to put it
in an English term) of the new WRG lists. In either example (Spanish
LMI or Gall Gael), assuming both have a 1.5 rank weapon to beging with
(HTW with Spanish, JLS with Gall Gael), they're fighting 5 guys anyway.
If you had Hirdsmen (the new word for Huscarls), and they were only
armed with 2HCW (as opposed to front rank with 2HCW, second rank with
JLS), they also would get 5 figures because they're charging. If they
are split-armed (2HCW in front, JLS in back) they get 5 figures without
the list rule.

Scott
List Ho

[Ewan McNay]

On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Holder, Scott <FHWA> wrote:
> >Heh heh, not likely anytime soon. I think there's a wonderful place
> for one-list tourneys but I am also a big believer in two-list tourneys
> as well. There are arguments to be made that both concepts offer up
> more competitive armies to the general mix. Therefore, I have no
> inclination to do away with one or the other. It's a far cry from
> Kruse's old "6 list" tournament days. Come to think of it, when we went
> to only two lists, LIR suddenly became less popular.

Sorry, my bad: I meant the *Seleucid* sleaze - one list with elephants,
one with SHC - not the setup in general.

> >Well, in this case, in the long run, Spanish (Punic-era kind) won't
> have Irr A when I get done with the list. That, and the Tibetan EHK,
> were the two most egregious historical interprative cock ups (to put it
> in an English term) of the new WRG lists.

:) Well, yeah, but it makes a fun army .

> In either example (Spanish
> LMI or Gall Gael), assuming both have a 1.5 rank weapon to beging with
> (HTW with Spanish, JLS with Gall Gael), they're fighting 5 guys anyway.
> If you had Hirdsmen (the new word for Huscarls), and they were only
> armed with 2HCW (as opposed to front rank with 2HCW, second rank with
> JLS), they also would get 5 figures because they're charging. If they
> are split-armed (2HCW in front, JLS in back) they get 5 figures without
> the list rule.

This is all true for Warrior; I was just noting that it *wasn't* true in
7th, as JLS second-rank guys would not count at all against SH-types, even
if hitting them in the rear .

E

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Okay Scott, One more time please. Lmi with jls in a
list like slavs(that usta wedge) can charge
superheavies and still fight 5 guys per if thy are a
single wide element but get no jls bonus? Or does this
apply for any troops armed with a weapon that allows
1.5 ranks but you don't necessarily get the jls bonus?
Sorry to be thick headed about this but I thought that
in the game we usta play something else was the case
and I am a bit confused.

Kelly
--- "Holder, Scott <FHWA>" <Scott.Holder@...>
wrote:
> The one time I managed to get SHC into Galatians,
> the galatians won...
> this was in one of Eric Turner's events about 5
> years back, when I was
> already getting abuse for taking Sleazy Seleucids
> {Actually, i should
> try
> to play with these guys a couple more times before I
> bet Scott
> eviscerates
> the dual-list sleaze...
>
> >Heh heh, not likely anytime soon. I think there's
> a wonderful place
> for one-list tourneys but I am also a big believer
> in two-list tourneys
> as well. There are arguments to be made that both
> concepts offer up
> more competitive armies to the general mix.
> Therefore, I have no
> inclination to do away with one or the other. It's
> a far cry from
> Kruse's old "6 list" tournament days. Come to think
> of it, when we went
> to only two lists, LIR suddenly became less popular.
>
> >Seleucids, like Aztecs, have had their "fad" period
> (longer than most
> mind you) and I'm convinced as players search out
> the nuances in
> Warrior, we'll see the cycle repeat itself.
>
> But, to get back on topic: the change makes a much
> bigger difference
> when
> your Spanish LMI have just been evaporated by a unit
> or three of SHK,
> and
> now your little Irreg A unit is about to smack their
> flank. hitting
> with
> 5 guys vs. 3 makes a *big* difference. [Likewise
> for Otomi, although
> they
> might have 2HCW in any case, or for Gall Gael, etc.
> etc]
>
> >Well, in this case, in the long run, Spanish
> (Punic-era kind) won't
> have Irr A when I get done with the list. That, and
> the Tibetan EHK,
> were the two most egregious historical interprative
> cock ups (to put it
> in an English term) of the new WRG lists. In either
> example (Spanish
> LMI or Gall Gael), assuming both have a 1.5 rank
> weapon to beging with
> (HTW with Spanish, JLS with Gall Gael), they're
> fighting 5 guys anyway.
> If you had Hirdsmen (the new word for Huscarls), and
> they were only
> armed with 2HCW (as opposed to front rank with 2HCW,
> second rank with
> JLS), they also would get 5 figures because they're
> charging. If they
> are split-armed (2HCW in front, JLS in back) they
> get 5 figures without
> the list rule.
>
> Scott
> List Ho
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball
http://sports.yahoo.com

[joncleaves]

Dave

No

Jon

[Dave Smith]

Jon;

I don't know if this has been covered before, but can foot troops
with JLS wedge? I seem to recall some discussion about this, but I
can't recall the specifics.

Dave
[looking for cover]


--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> THERE ARE NO TROOPS ON FOOT ARMED WITH JLS THAT HAVE OR WILL GET
A 'WEDGE' LIST RULE.
>
> Yikes.

[Don Coon]

> Jon;
>
> I don't know if this has been covered before, but can foot troops
> with JLS wedge? I seem to recall some discussion about this, but I
> can't recall the specifics.

I can not tell if you are joking here. Poor Jon is going to have a stroke
if anyone uses the W word again. We would all help his longevity on this
planet if we talked about rank and a half fighting eligibility rather than
saying W***E. BTW for the record I am SO glad W***E is gone.

Don

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/6/2002 05:42:29 Central Standard Time,
jjendon@... writes:

<< The laughs per word of this answere is the highest of any email I have ever
read!

Don >>

That's very cool, because that is how I intended it. Now, keep that same
'email tone of voice' in mind whenever you read one of my posts and you'll
have the right flavor. :)

Jon

[Don Coon]

> Dave
>
> No
>
> Jon

The laughs per word of this answere is the highest of any email I have ever
read!

Don