Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 1/21/2004 16:19:18 Central Standard Time,
spocksleftball@... writes:
4E IrgA SHK L/sh: 10@5 (mounted impetouos charge, lance, minus
facing non-impet LTS) for a total of 40 or 1 CPF
9 @ 5 if one unit of SHK.

Jon


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

Speaking of wherever hoplites are in the Warrior army lists, it seems
that the fathers of the massed LTS charge should in some measure be
allowed the same "always two full ranks" consideration as the Scot's
Common. Just my opinion, but they should have some demark from the
run of the mill sort of spearman formation.

Just for thought:
From my calculations anything without HTW will not be able to rout a
12E block of hoplites within the first 3 turns (all rolls being
equal).

4E IrgA SHK L/sh: 10@5 (mounted impetouos charge, lance, minus
facing non-impet LTS) for a total of 40 or 1 CPF

12E RgD MI LTS/sh: 12@3 (2 vs SHK +1 steady LTS receiving impeuous
mounted) for a total of 30 or 2 CPF per unit.

Hoplites recoil disordered. SHK are now tired but follow up and
expand.

Now SHK: 12@3+1-1-2 or 1 for 18...hoplites take 0
hplites: 24@2-2-1 or 0 for 24 each SHK takes 2 more CPF.

SHK break off, are tired.

Is my math right? I don't have my full book handy only the play ade
card.
Wanax

[John Murphy]

First, how wide are the hoplites? If only 2E wide and 6E deep they
would count as 32 figs for CPF, 3x4 is 36 and 4x3 is 40, so I assume
something like that.

<spocksleftball@y...> wrote:
> 4E IrgA SHK L/sh: 10@5 (mounted impetouos charge, lance, minus
> facing non-impet LTS) for a total of 40 or 1 CPF
>
> 12E RgD MI LTS/sh: 12@3 (2 vs SHK +1 steady LTS receiving impeuous
> mounted) for a total of 30 or 2 CPF per unit.
>
> Hoplites recoil disordered. SHK are now tired but follow up and
> expand.

So far, so good. Note the hoplites are a 154-pt unit and the knights
are 2 139-pt units (278 tot).

BUT, the point of being IrgA is to to roll up. if one of the two
units rolls up 1 (hence 3), they do 57 instead of 40. If both roll
up 1 they do 74 instead of 40. It is easy to see a second cause of
disorder happening (doubled with 1 cpf as well as foot losing to
mounted).

> Now SHK: 12@3+1-1-2 or 1 for 18...hoplites take 0

I do not believe the -2 applies. In fact the paragraph in the rules
states both "at first contact" and "steady" neither of which is the
case here. To make matters worse there is now a +2 for mounted
versus disordered foot. So 12@+5=48. And once again, it can get very
messy if the IrA's start rolling up. But as you will see it gets
nasty even this way.

> hplites: 24@2-2-1 or 0 for 24 each SHK takes 2 more CPF.

Note the "24@" is the absolute worst case, not likely since the SHK
as chargers have some choice where along the line they hit. And
since this also present more frontage for SHK to gang up on (may be
worth it for cascading waver tests). But let's go with that anyway.

> SHK break off, are tired.

As you can see above, this is no longer correct. The hoplites now
recoil disordered again, and the waver tests start piling up. And
all that presumes the A's don't rol up and the SHK nutters hit the
middle of the hoplites allowing for maximum lapping on the second
bound.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "J. Murphy" <jjmurphy@s...>
wrote:
> First, how wide are the hoplites? If only 2E wide and 6E deep they
> would count as 32 figs for CPF, 3x4 is 36 and 4x3 is 40, so I
assume
> something like that.

I'm thinking 3 deep & 4 wide.

> So far, so good. Note the hoplites are a 154-pt unit and the
knights
> are 2 139-pt units (278 tot).
>
> BUT, the point of being IrgA is to to roll up. if one of the two
> units rolls up 1 (hence 3), they do 57 instead of 40. If both roll
> up 1 they do 74 instead of 40. It is easy to see a second cause of
> disorder happening (doubled with 1 cpf as well as foot losing to
> mounted).

Yes, well roll up and all is moot. As someone has already indicated,
you can plan on rolling up. But your point is taken. ;)

>
> > Now SHK: 12@3+1-1-2 or 1 for 18...hoplites take 0
>
> I do not believe the -2 applies. In fact the paragraph in the rules
> states both "at first contact" and "steady" neither of which is the
> case here. To make matters worse there is now a +2 for mounted
> versus disordered foot. So 12@+5=48. And once again, it can get
very
> messy if the IrA's start rolling up. But as you will see it gets
> nasty even this way.

Yep my bad. Changes everything. OK back to the think tank :)


Wanax