Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Greg Regets]

delete gole .... insert goal

gggrrrrrrrrr Macintosh spell check!!!

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Regets [mailto:greg@...]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 9:23 AM
To: 'WarriorRules@egroups.com'
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: The Swiss Rules (or is that "The Swiss
Rule"?)


I suppose I should have framed that sentence;

It bothers me that we would start considering rules to make THIS army better
against a variety of opponent that they never fought.

What I was really getting at is that there are many other armies that should
get equal treatment if our aim is historical accuracy. Did not the
Legionaries of Roman armies fight regularly and effectively in heavy
terrain? Is it no true that Macedonian pike men undertook a transformation
to lighter armor in order to increase their maneuverability? Is it not true
that some later medieval knights were far more effective on foot, fatigue
wise, because of the technological superiority of their armor (as a guy that
knows a bit about armor, I can state categorically that this is DEFINATELY
true)? Is it not true that some armies had cavalry far superior to others
because of the quality and quantity of horse flesh available?

The answer is of course yes to all. Now the rules writer can say that the
rules use things like moral to simulate this .... armies with better horses
or better armor getting higher moral, etc .... In my opinion, that is how we
should handle the Swiss. Come up with something WITHIN THE RULEBOOK that
gives them a bit of a bump if you think they need it. Have you considered
loose order pike men? I know you are far along on the rules, but how much
work could it be? They would still waver for being charged by cavalry, but
hell, they are all high moral anyway.

I really don't think any of my opinions have anything to do with making the
Swiss a super army. I agree with Todd, we will not see tournaments full of
Swiss armies any time soon. My opinions have more to do with a rulebook that
has ALL the rules in one spot .... something that has been a gole of Four
Horseman Enterprises from day one .... correct?

Greg


-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Kaeser [mailto:tnkaeser@...]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 10:11 AM
To: WarriorRules@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: The Swiss Rules (or is that "The Swiss
Rule"?)


If the arguement is against tampering with certain lists even though they
list being altered will allow them to be played historically accurate then
we should have Scott take out Testudo. Only a few Roman lists use this
formation and it definately make the Romans better against missle fire even
though it would fill the following quote by Greg Regrets
> It bothers me that we would start considering rules to make this army
better against a variety of opponent that they never fought.

I guess Testudo would make the Romans better against say an Aztec army that
they never fought eh?.
The arguement regarding the Swiss is to make them play semi-close to
historical. If there are any changes it would not make a huge shift in the
wargaming continum (sp?) - I don't see 10 Swiss armies around the corner
vieing for the NICT because the shieldless pike blocks might now have a
slight degree of flexibility with their 2HCT as they did historically. It
is not the reputation we are after (if it was they'd be a cause of unease as
per the medieval theme) it is trying to get the Swiss formations to be able
to behave as they did on the field of battle.

Todd Kaeser
----------
From: honeyman@...
To: WarriorRules@egroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: The Swiss Rules (or is that "The Swiss Rule"?)
Date: Fri, Dec 29, 2000, 8:04 AM


I must agree with Greg. If you start to tamper with one list, the
changes MUST follow thru into others. A list / army combination must
stand or fall on it's own historical merits. The purpose of a set of
rules like Warrior or 7th is to allow non-historical opponents to
face each other on a table with a "fair" degree of equality.
Otherwise, you would never play outside your historical opponents!


--- In WarriorRules@egroups.com, Greg Regets <greg@p...> wrote:
> Is it not true that the Swiss match up well against their Historical
> opponents as they are right now? It seems to me that they do.
>
> It bothers me that we would start considering rules to make this
army better
> against a variety of opponent that they never fought. Why not
address this
> same issue with any number of other armies that has splendid
reputations in
> given set piece situations, but suffer in the tournament
environment?
>
> How they match up against historical opponents should be the acid
test here,
> and as they seem to fight well against historicals, they seem to
pass the
> test.
>
> Just an opinion .... Greg




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com








To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com

[Tim Brown]

IMO, Greg is probably correct in that the goal is (was) to contain all the
core rules in one location. However, modifying lists one by one allows for
the wonderful thing called change. Since our research into history is an
ongoing adventure, I think it's great that the individual lists can be
modified to reflect current thought. The core rules don't change, but rules
are added on a list basis for individual armies as research indicates.
Besides, isn't it lots more fun to play an army with a little character,
instead of the same ole cookie cutter lists? It seems the uniforms change,
but the troop type doesn't. They could even bring back formation types on an
army by army basis. * Sound of opening up a can of worms *

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Regets
To: 'WarriorRules@egroups.com'
Sent: 12/29/2000 10:22 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: The Swiss Rules (or is that "The Swiss Rule"?)

I suppose I should have framed that sentence;

It bothers me that we would start considering rules to make THIS army
better
against a variety of opponent that they never fought.

What I was really getting at is that there are many other armies that
should
get equal treatment if our aim is historical accuracy. Did not the
Legionaries of Roman armies fight regularly and effectively in heavy
terrain? Is it no true that Macedonian pike men undertook a
transformation
to lighter armor in order to increase their maneuverability? Is it not
true
that some later medieval knights were far more effective on foot,
fatigue
wise, because of the technological superiority of their armor (as a guy
that
knows a bit about armor, I can state categorically that this is
DEFINATELY
true)? Is it not true that some armies had cavalry far superior to
others
because of the quality and quantity of horse flesh available?

The answer is of course yes to all. Now the rules writer can say that
the
rules use things like moral to simulate this .... armies with better
horses
or better armor getting higher moral, etc .... In my opinion, that is
how we
should handle the Swiss. Come up with something WITHIN THE RULEBOOK that
gives them a bit of a bump if you think they need it. Have you
considered
loose order pike men? I know you are far along on the rules, but how
much
work could it be? They would still waver for being charged by cavalry,
but
hell, they are all high moral anyway.

I really don't think any of my opinions have anything to do with making
the
Swiss a super army. I agree with Todd, we will not see tournaments full
of
Swiss armies any time soon. My opinions have more to do with a rulebook
that
has ALL the rules in one spot .... something that has been a gole of
Four
Horseman Enterprises from day one .... correct?

Greg


-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Kaeser [mailto:tnkaeser@...]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 10:11 AM
To: WarriorRules@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: The Swiss Rules (or is that "The Swiss
Rule"?)


If the arguement is against tampering with certain lists even though
they
list being altered will allow them to be played historically accurate
then
we should have Scott take out Testudo. Only a few Roman lists use this
formation and it definately make the Romans better against missle fire
even
though it would fill the following quote by Greg Regrets
> It bothers me that we would start considering rules to make this army
better against a variety of opponent that they never fought.

I guess Testudo would make the Romans better against say an Aztec army
that
they never fought eh?.
The arguement regarding the Swiss is to make them play semi-close to
historical. If there are any changes it would not make a huge shift in
the
wargaming continum (sp?) - I don't see 10 Swiss armies around the corner
vieing for the NICT because the shieldless pike blocks might now have a
slight degree of flexibility with their 2HCT as they did historically.
It
is not the reputation we are after (if it was they'd be a cause of
unease as
per the medieval theme) it is trying to get the Swiss formations to be
able
to behave as they did on the field of battle.

Todd Kaeser
----------
From: honeyman@...
To: WarriorRules@egroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: The Swiss Rules (or is that "The Swiss
Rule"?)
Date: Fri, Dec 29, 2000, 8:04 AM


I must agree with Greg. If you start to tamper with one list, the
changes MUST follow thru into others. A list / army combination must
stand or fall on it's own historical merits. The purpose of a set of
rules like Warrior or 7th is to allow non-historical opponents to
face each other on a table with a "fair" degree of equality.
Otherwise, you would never play outside your historical opponents!


--- In WarriorRules@egroups.com, Greg Regets <greg@p...> wrote:
> Is it not true that the Swiss match up well against their Historical
> opponents as they are right now? It seems to me that they do.
>
> It bothers me that we would start considering rules to make this
army better
> against a variety of opponent that they never fought. Why not
address this
> same issue with any number of other armies that has splendid
reputations in
> given set piece situations, but suffer in the tournament
environment?
>
> How they match up against historical opponents should be the acid
test here,
> and as they seem to fight well against historicals, they seem to
pass the
> test.
>
> Just an opinion .... Greg




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com








To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com




eGroups Sponsor

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=102308.1038796.2731130.908943/D=egroupmail/S=1700
059080:N/A=466330/?http://www.yahoo.com> Click Here!

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com

sometimes a a few worms are a good thing.

-----Original Message-----
From: Brown,Tim [mailto:Tim.Brown@...]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 12:34 PM
To: ''WarriorRules@egroups.com' '
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] Re: The Swiss Rules (or is that "The Swiss
Rul e"?)


IMO, Greg is probably correct in that the goal is (was) to contain all the
core rules in one location. However, modifying lists one by one allows for
the wonderful thing called change. Since our research into history is an
ongoing adventure, I think it's great that the individual lists can be
modified to reflect current thought. The core rules don't change, but rules
are added on a list basis for individual armies as research indicates.
Besides, isn't it lots more fun to play an army with a little character,
instead of the same ole cookie cutter lists? It seems the uniforms change,
but the troop type doesn't. They could even bring back formation types on an
army by army basis. * Sound of opening up a can of worms *

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Regets
To: 'WarriorRules@egroups.com'
Sent: 12/29/2000 10:22 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: The Swiss Rules (or is that "The Swiss Rule"?)

I suppose I should have framed that sentence;

It bothers me that we would start considering rules to make THIS army
better
against a variety of opponent that they never fought.

What I was really getting at is that there are many other armies that
should
get equal treatment if our aim is historical accuracy. Did not the
Legionaries of Roman armies fight regularly and effectively in heavy
terrain? Is it no true that Macedonian pike men undertook a
transformation
to lighter armor in order to increase their maneuverability? Is it not
true
that some later medieval knights were far more effective on foot,
fatigue
wise, because of the technological superiority of their armor (as a guy
that
knows a bit about armor, I can state categorically that this is
DEFINATELY
true)? Is it not true that some armies had cavalry far superior to
others
because of the quality and quantity of horse flesh available?

The answer is of course yes to all. Now the rules writer can say that
the
rules use things like moral to simulate this .... armies with better
horses
or better armor getting higher moral, etc .... In my opinion, that is
how we
should handle the Swiss. Come up with something WITHIN THE RULEBOOK that
gives them a bit of a bump if you think they need it. Have you
considered
loose order pike men? I know you are far along on the rules, but how
much
work could it be? They would still waver for being charged by cavalry,
but
hell, they are all high moral anyway.

I really don't think any of my opinions have anything to do with making
the
Swiss a super army. I agree with Todd, we will not see tournaments full
of
Swiss armies any time soon. My opinions have more to do with a rulebook
that
has ALL the rules in one spot .... something that has been a gole of
Four
Horseman Enterprises from day one .... correct?

Greg


-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Kaeser [mailto:tnkaeser@...]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 10:11 AM
To: WarriorRules@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: The Swiss Rules (or is that "The Swiss
Rule"?)


If the arguement is against tampering with certain lists even though
they
list being altered will allow them to be played historically accurate
then
we should have Scott take out Testudo. Only a few Roman lists use this
formation and it definately make the Romans better against missle fire
even
though it would fill the following quote by Greg Regrets
> It bothers me that we would start considering rules to make this army
better against a variety of opponent that they never fought.

I guess Testudo would make the Romans better against say an Aztec army
that
they never fought eh?.
The arguement regarding the Swiss is to make them play semi-close to
historical. If there are any changes it would not make a huge shift in
the
wargaming continum (sp?) - I don't see 10 Swiss armies around the corner
vieing for the NICT because the shieldless pike blocks might now have a
slight degree of flexibility with their 2HCT as they did historically.
It
is not the reputation we are after (if it was they'd be a cause of
unease as
per the medieval theme) it is trying to get the Swiss formations to be
able
to behave as they did on the field of battle.

Todd Kaeser
----------
From: honeyman@...
To: WarriorRules@egroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: The Swiss Rules (or is that "The Swiss
Rule"?)
Date: Fri, Dec 29, 2000, 8:04 AM


I must agree with Greg. If you start to tamper with one list, the
changes MUST follow thru into others. A list / army combination must
stand or fall on it's own historical merits. The purpose of a set of
rules like Warrior or 7th is to allow non-historical opponents to
face each other on a table with a "fair" degree of equality.
Otherwise, you would never play outside your historical opponents!


--- In WarriorRules@egroups.com, Greg Regets <greg@p...> wrote:
> Is it not true that the Swiss match up well against their Historical
> opponents as they are right now? It seems to me that they do.
>
> It bothers me that we would start considering rules to make this
army better
> against a variety of opponent that they never fought. Why not
address this
> same issue with any number of other armies that has splendid
reputations in
> given set piece situations, but suffer in the tournament
environment?
>
> How they match up against historical opponents should be the acid
test here,
> and as they seem to fight well against historicals, they seem to
pass the
> test.
>
> Just an opinion .... Greg




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com








To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com




eGroups Sponsor

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=102308.1038796.2731130.908943/D=egroupmail/S=1700
059080:N/A=466330/?http://www.yahoo.com> Click Here!

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com





To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com

[Greg Regets]

I would actually be more in favor of the whole thing (I bet everyone really
cares about my favor, ~laughs~) if more armies were given this treatment. I
think this is especially true of armor. There is no doubt that well made
articulated plate was far less fatiguing to wear and fight in than a chain
shirt, and yet SHI takes fatigue while HI (in chain perhaps) takes none. I
read on the internet about a demonstration where a man in a museum quality
(and accuracy) set of articulated plate actually jogged 10 miles wearing it.
This whole article was about the relative worth of types of armor.

oh well .... I wish the big boss would send us home ....

HOOK 'EM HORNS!

-----Original Message-----
From: Brown,Tim [mailto:Tim.Brown@...]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 11:34 AM
To: ''WarriorRules@egroups.com' '
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] Re: The Swiss Rules (or is that "The Swiss
Rul e"?)


IMO, Greg is probably correct in that the goal is (was) to contain all the
core rules in one location. However, modifying lists one by one allows for
the wonderful thing called change. Since our research into history is an
ongoing adventure, I think it's great that the individual lists can be
modified to reflect current thought. The core rules don't change, but rules
are added on a list basis for individual armies as research indicates.
Besides, isn't it lots more fun to play an army with a little character,
instead of the same ole cookie cutter lists? It seems the uniforms change,
but the troop type doesn't. They could even bring back formation types on an
army by army basis. * Sound of opening up a can of worms *

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Regets
To: 'WarriorRules@egroups.com'
Sent: 12/29/2000 10:22 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: The Swiss Rules (or is that "The Swiss Rule"?)

I suppose I should have framed that sentence;

It bothers me that we would start considering rules to make THIS army
better
against a variety of opponent that they never fought.

What I was really getting at is that there are many other armies that
should
get equal treatment if our aim is historical accuracy. Did not the
Legionaries of Roman armies fight regularly and effectively in heavy
terrain? Is it no true that Macedonian pike men undertook a
transformation
to lighter armor in order to increase their maneuverability? Is it not
true
that some later medieval knights were far more effective on foot,
fatigue
wise, because of the technological superiority of their armor (as a guy
that
knows a bit about armor, I can state categorically that this is
DEFINATELY
true)? Is it not true that some armies had cavalry far superior to
others
because of the quality and quantity of horse flesh available?

The answer is of course yes to all. Now the rules writer can say that
the
rules use things like moral to simulate this .... armies with better
horses
or better armor getting higher moral, etc .... In my opinion, that is
how we
should handle the Swiss. Come up with something WITHIN THE RULEBOOK that
gives them a bit of a bump if you think they need it. Have you
considered
loose order pike men? I know you are far along on the rules, but how
much
work could it be? They would still waver for being charged by cavalry,
but
hell, they are all high moral anyway.

I really don't think any of my opinions have anything to do with making
the
Swiss a super army. I agree with Todd, we will not see tournaments full
of
Swiss armies any time soon. My opinions have more to do with a rulebook
that
has ALL the rules in one spot .... something that has been a gole of
Four
Horseman Enterprises from day one .... correct?

Greg


-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Kaeser [mailto:tnkaeser@...]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 10:11 AM
To: WarriorRules@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: The Swiss Rules (or is that "The Swiss
Rule"?)


If the arguement is against tampering with certain lists even though
they
list being altered will allow them to be played historically accurate
then
we should have Scott take out Testudo. Only a few Roman lists use this
formation and it definately make the Romans better against missle fire
even
though it would fill the following quote by Greg Regrets
> It bothers me that we would start considering rules to make this army
better against a variety of opponent that they never fought.

I guess Testudo would make the Romans better against say an Aztec army
that
they never fought eh?.
The arguement regarding the Swiss is to make them play semi-close to
historical. If there are any changes it would not make a huge shift in
the
wargaming continum (sp?) - I don't see 10 Swiss armies around the corner
vieing for the NICT because the shieldless pike blocks might now have a
slight degree of flexibility with their 2HCT as they did historically.
It
is not the reputation we are after (if it was they'd be a cause of
unease as
per the medieval theme) it is trying to get the Swiss formations to be
able
to behave as they did on the field of battle.

Todd Kaeser
----------
From: honeyman@...
To: WarriorRules@egroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: The Swiss Rules (or is that "The Swiss
Rule"?)
Date: Fri, Dec 29, 2000, 8:04 AM


I must agree with Greg. If you start to tamper with one list, the
changes MUST follow thru into others. A list / army combination must
stand or fall on it's own historical merits. The purpose of a set of
rules like Warrior or 7th is to allow non-historical opponents to
face each other on a table with a "fair" degree of equality.
Otherwise, you would never play outside your historical opponents!


--- In WarriorRules@egroups.com, Greg Regets <greg@p...> wrote:
> Is it not true that the Swiss match up well against their Historical
> opponents as they are right now? It seems to me that they do.
>
> It bothers me that we would start considering rules to make this
army better
> against a variety of opponent that they never fought. Why not
address this
> same issue with any number of other armies that has splendid
reputations in
> given set piece situations, but suffer in the tournament
environment?
>
> How they match up against historical opponents should be the acid
test here,
> and as they seem to fight well against historicals, they seem to
pass the
> test.
>
> Just an opinion .... Greg




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com








To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com




eGroups Sponsor

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=102308.1038796.2731130.908943/D=egroupmail/S=1700
059080:N/A=466330/?http://www.yahoo.com> Click Here!

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com





To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com