Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Well, Greg, I don't know what we might do as list rules (make suggestions, now
is the time) but 2-12 elements isn't changing as far as basic rules go, and
neither is regulars in even ranks.

[Greg Regets]

Did anyone consider my thoughts on unit size as it relates to lists. I
hadn't heard anything, which is quite unusual.

Greg

[joncleaves]

<<Why press on a point like this. There is no down side to being open minded in
this area. Let players do what they want to do, as long as it's not
ridiculous.>>

Greg, all I have heard Scott say is that the min and max number of elements in a
list will be scrubbed to make sure it both makes sense from an historical
standpoint (if not exact down to the man) AND not be something totally bizarre
from a Warrior unit standpoint.
Nothing more.

I will go out on a limb and say, as an example, if the history says 0-7 elements
of LC for a given troop, we will probably go with 0-8, esp. if regular. Nothing
more.

[Greg Regets]

I had actually made a suggestion a while back, but will be glad to post
again.

Different players like different unit sizes. History teaches us that unit
sizes varied. Most armies didn't even have "units" persay, but rather had
"the men from that village" next to "the guys from over that hill".

Many of the lists have things like (for example);

Pikes REG,C,MI,P,Sh @4 points ... 24-62

or

Javlinmen IRR,C,LMI,JLS,Sh @3 points ... 0-24

Obviously the pikes were made by someone that favors 32 figure units.
Players that want 16's would need to buy two units, when the historical
model might have been to have a unit of them in your army. The Javlinmen
list perhaps prefers 24 figure units, where a player might prefer 27 figure
units. This really comes up big with light cavalry, where I see people using
everything from four man units to 16 man units. I know in many of the NASAMW
lists, people that like 12 figure LC units get a bum ride.

My suggestion would be that in addition to the numbers of figures available,
the lists have a unit count, for example;

Huns ... IRR,C,LC,JLS,Sh @7 ... 16-32 or 1-3 units.

This would allow a guy to buy one 12 figure unit and qualify, or buy 3x12
figure units and still be fine.

Likewise, in the list body text where it makes you buy a allied general if
more than 12LC is used, perhaps you could say something like "if more than
one unit of LC is used".

I just feel that making the list more "user friendly" will make players want
to play a wider majority of lists.

Thanks ... Greg

Scott, Thank you for not taking the joy out concocting army list from us. It would for me, disrupted my delict constitution if I could not ponder lists in the "john". It has been said before that,thats were my list belong anyway. I also vote for your undemocratic potions on all these issues. regards,David

[scott holder]

In Biblical Warrior I have worked on the "standard unit size" concept based on
14 years of 7th edition "playtesting". So, that will be reflected in the fact
that pike blocks are usually purchased in 4 element (stop thinking figures
fellas) units. If you like 8 element pike blocks, you're okay in this
approach to lists.

I'm pretty sure that this concern is a non-concern. I'm tweaking list sizes
and stuff to take into account that guys purchase Irr loose order foot in
groups of 6, or divisors or multipliers thereof.

Scott
List Ho

PS: I'm sooooooo embarassed about the Pike/LTS -2 issue. Sheesh, I only
wrote 7.6, ya expect me to know the details?

An Army list that gave the minimum number of elements for a "unit"
would probably irritate 95% of the players. However, given that a
minimum standard within an army could be established, it would
probably help novices, and regulate tournaments to a great extent.

If votes are being counted, I vote for minimum element sizes for
units in Army lists.

Scott Turner

[scott holder]

An Army list that gave the minimum number of elements for a "unit"
would probably irritate 95% of the players. However, given that a
minimum standard within an army could be established, it would
probably help novices, and regulate tournaments to a great extent.

>Perhaps I mispoke earlier. The army lists will not have any guidelines as to
the number of elements that "should" be in a unit. The game mechanics pretty
much dictate that. Moreover, work I've done in the past suggests that
"forcing" players to play historically sized units pretty much kills the
flavor of the game. Case in point, Seleucids. To accurately portray Seleucid
pike units (at least during the late Punic era when they fought the Romans),
the unit size should be *at least* 12 elements. In fact, they should be 16
elements, clearly beyond the mechanics of the game. Another example are
Alexandrian pike units. They should be 6 elements in size if we are to be
"historically accurate". Who would play pike units in 6 element sizes? It
just doesn't work. The same case can be made for Romans from the Punic era.
All those little maniples are "best represented" by 2 element units. An
already sucky ass army becomes totally untenable if we make players play them
accutely historical.

>I know, no one is saying that here (I think). But I'm on a tear.

>As for regulating tournaments, one of the attractions of this system is the
ability to concoct army lists. I would not want to take that joy out of the
game, particularly since it's my joy:):)

If votes are being counted, I vote for minimum element sizes for
units in Army lists.

>I apologize for the following undemocratic reply: votes are not being
counted and this is one of those philisophical differences of opinion that the
4H don't happen to agree with.

Scott
List Ho

[Greg Regets]

I don't buy IRR LMI in groups divisible by six. I don't use much of it, but
when I do, it is usually in nine stand units, three by three. Of course
since most lists give you 0-24, ~smiles~

Why press on a point like this. There is no down side to being open minded
in this area. Let players do what they want to do, as long as it's not
ridiculous. We are all using the same point system, so it's fair ... unless
of course you want to say that the point system isn't balanced .

Greg

[Greg Regets]

Marxist Dog!!!!!
 
~smiles~
 

-----Original Message-----From: DAVBEE217@AOL.COM [mailto:DAVBEE217@AOL.COM]Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 3:47 PMTo: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [WarriorRules] Unit SizeScott, Thank you for not taking the joy out concocting army list from us. It would for me, disrupted my delict constitution if I could not ponder lists in the "john". It has been said before that,thats were my list belong anyway. I also vote for your undemocratic potions on all these issues. regards,David To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[scott holder]

I will go out on a limb and say, as an example, if the history says 0-7
elements of LC for a given troop, we will probably go with 0-8, esp. if
regular. Nothing more.

>That is correct. I'm pretty pleased with Biblical Warrior from that
standpoint although a couple of people here have helped scrub it from that
standpoint as well.

>The point I was trying to make was that no list will say "pike units must be
in unit sizes no smaller than "x"".

Scott

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Kudos to you Scott! Keep up the Excellent work!

                                                            Kelly