Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

About a year ago, Greg Regets posted a brief but very inciteful piece on the use
of light troops in Warrior. Greg's piece was elegant in its brevity, but
profound in the way that Sun Tzu's "Art of War" is profound.

I thought at the time that if we're going to have Sun Tzu, we ought to have
Clausewitz as well. In that spirit -- and it's taken me the better part of a
year, working on this a little bit at a time -- I've put together a rather more
ponderous tome on the use of light troops in Warrior.

You'll find it in the "Files" section for this group; the file it called
"skirmish.html". It should be readable when opened with any standard web
browser. Alternatively, you can view it online at:
http://digitalpilgrim.com/play/warrior/skirmish.html

I'd be interested in what people think, whether the newer players find this
helpful, and whether I've made any errors in the rules. And feel free to
disagree with me philosophically.

On a side note: I'd like to start collecting pieces that people have found
particularly useful on this list that pertain to strategy and tactics more than
rules, and put them together on a website. If I'm feeling really ambitious I may
work through the archive and try to dig out some of those past messages. But if
anything comes up currently that you guys think has strategy/tactics value,
please let me know and I'll archive it on my website. You can email me offline
at "mark at digitalpilgrim dot com".


-Mark Stone

Nice work, Mark!

I am only part way through the archives (Why oh why don't they have
a decent search function on Yahoo? Just the kind of mindless
omission that irritates me about Microsoft.) but have aboout two
hundred pages of mainly tactical or army construction excerpts I
have collected in a Word doc for later digestion and possible
comprehension. It should be high yield ore for your purposes. It
will be quite some time before I get through the remaining 7000
posts, but I can zip what I have and send it to you.

One suggestion on location:the files list is awfully cluttered, and
I would suggest creating a Doctrine and Tactics folder and putting
all the good stuff there.

Regards,

Mike

[joncleaves]

Yes, Mark - superb stuff.




The second would be the use of light troops to deny the enemy his
ability to march-pin at 240p from high value targets ... which might
be loosely termed "The Ultimate Anti-Moog Tactic". >>
Which of course would require a countermeasure article, as getting your
moogs pinned by LI is new player stuff...but then, this is just what helps a new
player most, I would guess.


The first would outline the difference between the use of light
troops in 15mm and 25mm.

The third is the use of light troops to influence approach direction
for the enemy. (more of a 15mm thing) >>



These I would love to hear. I am aware that the NASAMW table sizes have to
be taken into account when switching scales, but there are some who believe
this makes for two quite different *games*. Now, most folks would know I
don't agree with this at all, but I would love to hear the actual detailed
explanation - which has been missing from the discussion.
These are my votes for the next articles...

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/24/2004 23:05:51 Central Daylight Time,
greg.regets@... writes:

Not pinning Moogs (and such), as much as denying them the ability to
get to 240p in march, approach to 120p next bound, and charge home.
Dangerous things like Moogs loose much of their danger, if denied
their first and best initial target.>>
Well, that is the nature of my question. Player A has LI. Player B has LI
and/or LC and/or Reg LMI and moogs. How is A's LI going to deny the moogs
(or like troops) anything?

Another issue - as an irr LMI shock player - is that they march on 2's and
so aren't generally part of the bound 2 strike in any case. Mine bat
clean-up, generally, unless I forced march them - which takes good guess work
and the
right terrain and/or friends. I think you're suggesting that enemy LI can
just deny LMI shock troops their strike at will, and I don't think that is the
case. I was looking for the detail, if you don't mind and have the time.

Thanks!
jon








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

This is greatly appreciated Mark. It banished a number of half-baked ideas
and misbegotten notions of mine.
Thanks

Allan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Stone" <mark@...>
To: "warrior" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 4:50 PM
Subject: [WarriorRules] using light troops


> About a year ago, Greg Regets posted a brief but very inciteful piece on
the use
> of light troops in Warrior. Greg's piece was elegant in its brevity, but
> profound in the way that Sun Tzu's "Art of War" is profound.
>
> I thought at the time that if we're going to have Sun Tzu, we ought to
have
> Clausewitz as well. In that spirit -- and it's taken me the better part of
a
> year, working on this a little bit at a time -- I've put together a rather
more
> ponderous tome on the use of light troops in Warrior.
>
> You'll find it in the "Files" section for this group; the file it called
> "skirmish.html". It should be readable when opened with any standard web
> browser. Alternatively, you can view it online at:
> http://digitalpilgrim.com/play/warrior/skirmish.html
>
> I'd be interested in what people think, whether the newer players find
this
> helpful, and whether I've made any errors in the rules. And feel free to
> disagree with me philosophically.
>
> On a side note: I'd like to start collecting pieces that people have found
> particularly useful on this list that pertain to strategy and tactics more
than
> rules, and put them together on a website. If I'm feeling really ambitious
I may
> work through the archive and try to dig out some of those past messages.
But if
> anything comes up currently that you guys think has strategy/tactics
value,
> please let me know and I'll archive it on my website. You can email me
offline
> at "mark at digitalpilgrim dot com".
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

[Ewan McNay]

Warning: OT and pointless.

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Mark Stone wrote:
> About a year ago, Greg Regets posted a brief but very inciteful piece on the
use

I just thought that "inciteful" was such a tremendous typo, given the
occasional atmosphere here. Made me laugh.

Commentary on the piece itself later.

[Greg Regets]

Mark ...

As always, your posts are well worth the read!

If you don't mind, I would like to suggest that you consider the
addition of three sections to your splendid work.

The first would outline the difference between the use of light
troops in 15mm and 25mm.

The second would be the use of light troops to deny the enemy his
ability to march-pin at 240p from high value targets ... which might
be loosely termed "The Ultimate Anti-Moog Tactic". ;-)

The third is the use of light troops to influence approach direction
for the enemy. (more of a 15mm thing)


The only point we really differ on is the usefulness of CB armed LI.
I tend to like it in limited numbers, because of it's ability to get
to short range in one approach, and useful factors against high value
targets.

This may be a question of tactics, as I tent to avoid matching LI on
other lights, instead opting to shoot enemy lights with loose order
shooters. This saves the LI for exploitation shots or pin duty. For
exploitation shots, the CB is a clear winner, as this normally takes
the form of marching to pin in one bound, approaching and shooting in
the next. This makes the 120p short range very important. For pin
duty, you normally can't do significant shooting damage no matter
what you are armed with.

Slings are even better, but I haven't played an army with slings
since Bush 41 was President.

Again ... great article!

g

[Greg Regets]

Not pinning Moogs (and such), as much as denying them the ability to
get to 240p in march, approach to 120p next bound, and charge home.
Dangerous things like Moogs loose much of their danger, if denied
their first and best initial target.

I should have been more clear.

Thanks Jon. :-)




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Yes, Mark - superb stuff.
>
>
>
>
> The second would be the use of light troops to deny the enemy his
> ability to march-pin at 240p from high value targets ... which
might
> be loosely termed "The Ultimate Anti-Moog Tactic". >>
> Which of course would require a countermeasure article, as getting
your
> moogs pinned by LI is new player stuff...but then, this is just
what helps a new
> player most, I would guess.
>
>
> The first would outline the difference between the use of light
> troops in 15mm and 25mm.
>
> The third is the use of light troops to influence approach
direction
> for the enemy. (more of a 15mm thing) >>
>
>
>
> These I would love to hear. I am aware that the NASAMW table
sizes have to
> be taken into account when switching scales, but there are some
who believe
> this makes for two quite different *games*. Now, most folks would
know I
> don't agree with this at all, but I would love to hear the actual
detailed
> explanation - which has been missing from the discussion.
> These are my votes for the next articles...
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Todd Schneider]

OK, call this a "newbies Ignorance" if you will, but
is it me, or are the differences between 25mm and 15mm
a matter of personal taste. I haven't played 25's
that much, buit to me, the Army I used handled no
differently in 25's than it did in 15's.
The tactics were the same, the matchups were the
same...theresults were the same .

So, could someone point out what I am missing in this
regard?

Todd

>The first would outline the difference between the
>use of light troops in 15mm and 25mm.

There is a difference and it boils down to the different ratios
between the ground scale and the size of bases between the scales

ANW

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Schneider
<thresh1642@s...> wrote:
> OK, call this a "newbies Ignorance" if you will, but
> is it me, or are the differences between 25mm and 15mm
> a matter of personal taste. I haven't played 25's
> that much, buit to me, the Army I used handled no
> differently in 25's than it did in 15's.
> The tactics were the same, the matchups were the
> same...theresults were the same .
>
> So, could someone point out what I am missing in this
> regard?
>
> Todd
>
> >The first would outline the difference between the
> >use of light troops in 15mm and 25mm.

[Todd Schneider]

From my POV thats a visual differnde more than
antyhing else, ecpsecially when the "Pace" is
proraated as well.

15mm would play differently on an 8x5 to be sure, like
wise 25 on a 6x4...

Todd


--- Adrian Williams <fredthebaddy@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
There is a difference and it boils down to the
different ratios
between the ground scale and the size of bases between
the scales

ANW

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Schneider
<thresh1642@s...> wrote:
> OK, call this a "newbies Ignorance" if you will, but
> is it me, or are the differences between 25mm and
15mm
> a matter of personal taste. I haven't played 25's
> that much, buit to me, the Army I used handled no
> differently in 25's than it did in 15's.
> The tactics were the same, the matchups were the
> same...theresults were the same .
>
> So, could someone point out what I am missing in
this
> regard?
>
> Todd
>
> >The first would outline the difference between the
> >use of light troops in 15mm and 25mm.


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/25/2004 00:43:04 Central Daylight Time,
fredthebaddy@... writes:

There is a difference and it boils down to the different ratios
between the ground scale and the size of bases between the scales

ANW





Yes, given the tables NASAMW uses the ratio is slightly different - got
that. There are players, however, who contend this makes for two entirely
different games and I am just looking to get an explanation of why beyond a 25mm
army covering 8-10% more table, which I find makes very little difference.

I played the same army list in both scales all last year on four table sizes
and did not find the impact others claim - just looking to see what I am
potentially missing.

J


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/25/2004 08:10:36 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

You are correct, the 10% flank-to-flank width is not a big deal. But
the 70% forward zone depth is.


Yes, John, I get that the table is slightly 'shallower'. But Irr LMI/CO
foot (the troops this matters to) can't reach the center line in one march at
either ratio and LMI can be in a bound two fight at either ratio. There is no
argument that the ratios make things slightly different and require a slight
adjustment. My contention is that no one has explained why they might be
considered different enough games that a veteran player could be 'good' at one
and 'not good' at the other. I don't think there is any more need to review
the fact that the table sizes chosen by NASAMW produce slight variations due
to the different ratios involved....lol

J


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

[John Murphy]

All in table size
25mm: table 40E wide, forward zone 510p to centerline
15mm: table 45E wide, forward zone 720p to centerline

I actually do not think the extra 5E of flank room is the big
difference here. It tends to matter a bit in other rule sets which
use individual elements but the difference in Warrior or a rule set
with multi-element units is almost nil.

What does make a huge difference is the forward zone to centerline,
which is what all non-force-marched troops must cross (on
the "average"), is only 70% as large in 25mm. The difference amounts
to an extra march segment, so 15mm troops come to grips slower.
Obviously that impacts use of light troops since the battleline
troops, unless force-marched, begin that much farther from the enemy.

Two observations, if both players habitually force march a lot of
battleline troops the games are essentially the same. Secondly the
famous ET "in your face" tournament rear zones, 480p vice 240p, make
the 15mm game like a 25mm game in terms of initial seperation, which
is why their stated intent is to make the 15mm game like a 25mm game.

Personally, except that it is a major change, I think Jon should
consider for the new rulebook re-doing rear zones to be measred in
paces from the centerline which would also eliminate the difference
between scales.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Schneider
<thresh1642@s...> wrote:
> OK, call this a "newbies Ignorance" if you will, but
> is it me, or are the differences between 25mm and 15mm
> a matter of personal taste.

[John Murphy]

Nah guys, this is a misconception of what people mean by the real
difference in the games, I think. The difference is not in terms of
base size versus table width. It is the rules themselves relating to
forward zone size in paces on NASAMW (sorry Jon) tables. See my last.

> From my POV thats a visual differnde more than
> antyhing else, ecpsecially when the "Pace" is
> proraated as well.
> ---------------------------------
> There is a difference and it boils down to the
> different ratios
> between the ground scale and the size of bases between
> the scales