Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Derek Downs]

J,

Why did Warrior Inc find it necessary to turn the Macedonian armies into
super armies.
The Pike have 3 special rules, the Companions have 4 special rules, some of
the loose troops have special rules, the LC fight a rank and a half, and maybe
some things I have missed.

They weren't bad armies before.

Derekcus


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

I think ... (and let me warn you, I play alexandrian macedonian out of
love, I'm a relatively new player, and I am a barstool historian)...
that the intent was to raise classical infantry to its ancient
reputation.

People were a little disappointed with their hoplite's performance,
and rightly so. Irr D MI JLS Sh were a threat! The most feared
warriors of the ancient world, defeated by troops "reluctant to close,
or deficient in hand to hand skills" (see page 8 of rulebook). Just
plain wrong.

So classical infantry get breast implants.

Remember that hoplites/phalangites/legions were really the "knights"
of their time. In comparison, early mounted troops were often nutty
rich guys with more guts than brains -- bringing their hobby to battle.

How they compare with armies 1000+ years apart, well hard to say. We
would expect them to lose to medieval knights/technology, but oddly
enough some elements of ancient armies seemed to creep back in during
the middle ages...

I think overall the macedonian/greek/roman armies work better. More
like how they are described by ancient authors (those guys never
exagerated). They can defeat stuff they should be able to defeat,
within their own period. With the exception of the Hypastpists, they
all still have the same old weaknesses.

Now if only Achaemenid Persian cavalry lived up to its fearsome
reputation! I'd like to see a HC "column charge" special rule -- fight
with an extra 1 figure each rank after the first...he he.

Noel.


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, darnd022263@a... wrote:
>
> J,
>
> Why did Warrior Inc find it necessary to turn the Macedonian
armies into
> super armies.
> The Pike have 3 special rules, the Companions have 4 special rules,
some of
> the loose troops have special rules, the LC fight a rank and a half,
and maybe
> some things I have missed.
>
> They weren't bad armies before.
>
> Derekcus
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[Derek Downs]

In a message dated 11/5/2005 12:31:27 AM Eastern Standard Time,
agrianian@... writes:
think ... (and let me warn you, I play alexandrian macedonian out of
love, I'm a relatively new player, and I am a barstool historian)...
that the intent was to raise classical infantry to its ancient
reputation.
They did need to help the Hoplites. My main cripe is that they helped so many
of the troop types in Macedonian that it is too strong. The companions are
way too bogus.

Derek


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

> They did need to help the Hoplites. My main cripe is that they
helped so many
> of the troop types in Macedonian that it is too strong. The
companions are
> way too bogus.
>
> Derek

Yeh, I hear ya.
The Companions perhaps went a little overboard.
They were good lance cavalry, but so were a lot of other later armies.
I think it works in-period, but that's about it.

On the other hand, there is still a lot of better cavalry out there. I
find the breakthrough/impetuous rules don't really help them kill
anything they couldn't before. These rules just help them finish-off
stuff they already could damage. But, boy, they sure do operate well
in the rear! Even when isolated. It fits the Alexander mythology well.

I could understand the complaints. Poor bloody persians!

Noel.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 11/5/2005 12:24:47 Central Standard Time,
agrianian@... writes:

I think it works in-period, but that's about it.


Read this again and be amazed....lol The Companion list rules' SOLE purpose
is to make them work in period...

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 11/4/2005 07:18:30 Central Standard Time,
darnd022263@... writes:

J,

Why did Warrior Inc find it necessary to turn the Macedonian armies into
super armies.
The Pike have 3 special rules, the Companions have 4 special rules, some of
the loose troops have special rules, the LC fight a rank and a half, and
maybe
some things I have missed.

They weren't bad armies before.

Derekcus





FHE, you mean...lol

Those troops in those armies were not performing against HISTORICAL
opponents the way we felt they should. Therefore we wrote list rules to make
those
troops perform the way we feel the record shows they did.

How they perform against lists from 1000 years in their future or past has
nothing to do with the list rules.

J


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

>
> Read this again and be amazed....lol The Companion list rules' SOLE
purpose
> is to make them work in period...
>
> Jon

Hey Jon, I'm not complaining. I just can't bring myself to type those
little smiley face things. Tone of voice dosen't type very well.

I much prefer that the armies work in-period. If they didn't, I
probably wouldn't play. I really like the Classical Warrior lists. I'd
agree with Chris Cameron's earlier statement that Warrior is a massive
improvement over 7th Ed, and that the 4 hosers (see, I'm trying)
have done an superb job with the lists. I'm lucky. In Canada I face
primarily in-period armies. We have Alexandrian Macedonian, Hoplites,
Skythians, Polybian Romans and soon Thracians and Persians. It's
great! We have to get a campaign going.

What I mean to say is that I sympathize with out-of-period opponents.
They have cool cavalry (or whatever) that dosen't need list rules to
work well in their own period. When they face macedonians/samurai and
the like (WHO DO NEED LIST RULES), they might be a little annoyed. The
list rules might come off as too much for people in the open
tournaments. "Why does he get to do that? They don't even have saddles
or stirrups for $#*@ sake!" Is there a way around this? Not really.
Theme tournaments help. Fight more in-period opponents; that's what I
do. I find that more fun anyway.

Looking forward to Siege/Campaign/Fantasy Warrior,
Noel.

[joncleaves]

No sweat at all, Noel - and very good comments....

<<Looking forward to Siege/Campaign/Fantasy Warrior, >>

Note that Campaign Warrior and Fantasy Warrior exist as playable games right
now.....




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

[Derek Downs]

In a message dated 11/7/2005 7:21:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,
franktrevorgilson@... writes:
I played Alexandrian Imperial in NICT 2005, as did Dave Markowitz.
Dave won with them


I did not find the Companion special rules to be 'overpowered'. Why?
of course not you are running them

too many free rules for them
no other cav in the game gets anything that ridiculous


Well, they're shieldless HC. That means that they can NOT ever be
exposed to shooting...even a little bit of shooting.

well then giv ethe Han shieldless HC the same rules

Also, when they do get into hth combat, they'll be taking a lot of
casualties.
so do all the other HC in the game Normans, etc


I still plan on taking near the minimum of them...they occasionally
have use, but the vulnerability of shieldless HC is too great.
you probably buy the minimums on these to take advantage of the "favored"
pike and loose troops in the same list

Derekcus


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

[Frank Gilson]

I played Alexandrian Imperial in NICT 2005, as did Dave Markowitz.

I did not find the Companion special rules to be 'overpowered'. Why?

Well, they're shieldless HC. That means that they can NOT ever be
exposed to shooting...even a little bit of shooting.

Also, when they do get into hth combat, they'll be taking a lot of
casualties.

I still plan on taking near the minimum of them...they occasionally
have use, but the vulnerability of shieldless HC is too great.

Frank

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Noel White" <agrianian@y...>
wrote:
>
> > They did need to help the Hoplites. My main cripe is that they
> helped so many
> > of the troop types in Macedonian that it is too strong. The
> companions are
> > way too bogus.
> >
> > Derek
>
> Yeh, I hear ya.
> The Companions perhaps went a little overboard.
> They were good lance cavalry, but so were a lot of other later
armies.
> I think it works in-period, but that's about it.
>
> On the other hand, there is still a lot of better cavalry out
there. I
> find the breakthrough/impetuous rules don't really help them kill
> anything they couldn't before. These rules just help them finish-
off
> stuff they already could damage. But, boy, they sure do operate
well
> in the rear! Even when isolated. It fits the Alexander mythology
well.
>
> I could understand the complaints. Poor bloody persians!
>
> Noel.
>

[Todd Schneider]

--- darnd022263@... wrote:

> In a message dated 11/7/2005 7:21:06 PM Eastern
> Standard Time,
> franktrevorgilson@... writes:
> I played Alexandrian Imperial in NICT 2005, as did
> Dave Markowitz.
> Dave won with them
>
>
> I did not find the Companion special rules to be
> 'overpowered'. Why?
> of course not you are running them
>
> too many free rules for them
> no other cav in the game gets anything that
> ridiculous

Do any other Cavin the game need those rules to get
them to perform historicaly accurately?

>
>
> Well, they're shieldless HC. That means that they
> can NOT ever be
> exposed to shooting...even a little bit of shooting.
>
> well then giv ethe Han shieldless HC the same rules
>

Were the Han known for their "Companion" type Cavalry
charges?

Todd




__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Derek Downs]

In a message dated 11/7/2005 10:23:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,
thresh1642@... writes:

> Well, they're shieldless HC. That means that they
> can NOT ever be
> exposed to shooting...even a little bit of shooting.
>
> well then giv ethe Han shieldless HC the same rules
>

Were the Han known for their "Companion" type Cavalry
charges?

Todd
well "Todd" that was just an example maybe there were some who knows
Big Al just didn't fight anyone
the point why all the special rules


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

[Todd Schneider]

Because without them the Companions would be Ordinary
Shieldless HC?

Is that what they should be treated as? What rules
would you rather they have if not the ones they have
now?

Todd

--- darnd022263@... wrote:

> In a message dated 11/7/2005 10:23:55 PM Eastern
> Standard Time,
> thresh1642@... writes:
>
> > Well, they're shieldless HC. That means that they
> > can NOT ever be
> > exposed to shooting...even a little bit of
> shooting.
> >
> > well then giv ethe Han shieldless HC the same
> rules
> >
>
> Were the Han known for their "Companion" type
> Cavalry
> charges?
>
> Todd
> well "Todd" that was just an example maybe there
> were some who knows
> Big Al just didn't fight anyone
> the point why all the special rules
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>




__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com

[Derek Downs]

In a message dated 11/8/2005 9:01:38 AM Eastern Standard Time,
thresh1642@... writes:
Because without them the Companions would be Ordinary
Shieldless HC?

Is that what they should be treated as? What rules
would you rather they have if not the ones they have
now?

Todd
OK I have figured out what I hav ethe problem with. These armies get all
these special rules for no extra points. I believe they should have to pay
something to have these units do all this magic.

Other armies like the Samnites even have rules that make thier troops worse
but still cost the same points. I don't mind the rules, but these games are
supposed to be equal points and these armies are getting something for nothing.

Derekcus


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

[Derek Downs]

In a message dated 11/8/2005 5:19:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
thresh1642@... writes:
Makes sense, but then if Reg A Companions get "costed"
more because they have special rules, wouldn't the
price of Light Infantry go up as well, regardless of
their morale or weapons, because of the special rules
they have as well?
This is what I was looking at. Each troop type, ie Companions, pike, loose,
etc should all be more. Maybe there should be an option to buy each"special"
ability like we do armor upgrades.

Derekcus


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