Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[scott holder]

Give me one historian who says 800 drilled pikemen faced 800 barbarians with
spears and won every time.

>*Any* historian can't because the only case(s) in which that specific type of
encounter occurred would have been during the Galatian migration thru the
Balkans to central Turkey. Any other pike vs somebody historical battle
didn't necessarily involve what we now call "barbarians" in a pitched battle
on a level playing field. This is exactly the kind of issue that simply
cannot be resolved when trying to relate isolated events to a mechanical
system that covers 5000 years of history. Whether or not one agrees with that
approach is problematic, it's the approach we're taking. Thus we are left to
interpret precious little data on battlefield systems that never met each
other on the battlefield (using my favorite example, Sumerian Battle carts vs
Teutonic Knights, GO ONAGERS!!!!!). Some decry that as fantasy. Fine. Those
people usually aren't die hard ancient wargamers plus there are plenty of
other systems out there that cater to their needs.

>Let me restate something that appears to have been lost in the discussion
over the last several months. When the four of us went in on this deal to
acquire 7th, each of us had a common perception of the state of 7th, that
being that the rules were not broke and as such, they didn't need a whole
lotta fixing. Cleaning up? Most assuredly. A few minor *playtested* tweaks?
You betcha. Army lists that would hopefully reflect consensus research and
be written specifically for the new rules? Absolutely.

>But beyond that, forget it. That's why if Jon or myself sound abrubt with
some of you, it's because your mission statement and our mission statement are
significantly different. We are taking a rules system that for the most part
we like, we know works (after 14 years of "playtesting"), and we know has a
core audience and are hopefully going to make it easier to use and easier to
"get into". Period.

>As Jon put it a couple of weeks ago, we're into development now, not any
overhaul of the basic mechanics that, let me say this again, have held up well
for the last 14 years; if you do not agree with that premise, than the final
Warrior product is not for you. Anyone who is truly interested in helping
develop these rules would better spend their time making sure the rules are
clearer than glass. Far be it for me to suggest how online threads run but
rest assured I no longer read the ones that start in on something that
requires basic mechanical changes to the system.

Scott
List Ho

[Ed Forbes]

On 20 Mar 2001 08:33:00 Z "Holder, Scott <FHWA>"
<Scott.Holder@...> writes:
>
> When the four of us went in on this
> deal to
> acquire 7th, each of us had a common perception of the state of 7th,
> that
> being that the rules were not broke and as such, they didn't need a
> whole
> lotta fixing. Cleaning up? Most assuredly. A few minor
> *playtested* tweaks?
> You betcha. Army lists that would hopefully reflect consensus
> research and
> be written specifically for the new rules? Absolutely.
>
> >But beyond that, forget it. That's why if Jon or myself sound
> abrubt with
> some of you..

Hello Scott,

No problem with the abruptness. Its your game and you know what you want
it to reflect.

You have done some major changes to 7th though, the rank and a half for
cav and 2 ranks for charging LTS being some of the more extreme.

My question on pike vs LTS had more to do with the downgrading of pike
over and above from 7th and was this intentional or an unexpected
byproduct we are all now going to have to live with for now?

I take the long view on rules. I know that revisions are the LAST thing
you are wanting to talk about now, but as we have all seen over the
years, they do come about every several years. The perception on the
problem with impetuous comes under this last heading. If it is not
discussed, how can any true consensus on what should be being represented
on the tabletop come about?

Thanks,

Ed F

[joncleaves]

I third what Scott and Bill have said. Scott expressed, in his eloquent
fashion, the underlying philosophy of FHE. Let's all move on.
Hit us with your list rules!

[Bill Low]

Scott has it right. Whether each of us agrees with each and every rule or
change is beside the point. And remember, guys and gals, it's a game.

-Bill Low, the Legal Horse-guy.

At 08:33 AM 3/20/2001 Z, you wrote:
>
> Give me one historian who says 800 drilled pikemen faced 800 barbarians
with
> spears and won every time.
>
>>*Any* historian can't because the only case(s) in which that specific
type of
> encounter occurred would have been during the Galatian migration thru the
> Any other pike vs somebody historical battle
>"" in a pitched battle
> This is exactly the kind of issue that simply
> cannot be resolved when trying to relate isolated events to a mechanical
> Whether or not one agrees with that
> Thus we are left to
> interpret precious little data on battlefield systems that never met each
> other on the battlefield (using my favorite example, Sumerian Battle
carts vs
> Those
> people usually aren't die hard ancient wargamers plus there are plenty of
> other systems out there that cater to their needs.
>
>>Let me restate something that appears to have been lost in the discussion
> When the four of us went in on this deal to
> acquire 7th, each of us had a common perception of the state of 7th, that
> being that the rules were not broke and as such, they didn't need a whole
> A few minor *playtested* tweaks?
> Army lists that would hopefully reflect consensus research and
> Absolutely.
>
>> That's why if Jon or myself sound abrubt with
> some of you, it's because your mission statement and our mission
statement are
> We are taking a rules system that for the most part
>""), and we know has a
> core audience and are hopefully going to make it easier to use and easier to
>"" Period.
>
>>As Jon put it a couple of weeks ago, we're into development now, not any
> overhaul of the basic mechanics that, let me say this again, have held up
well
> for the last 14 years; if you do not agree with that premise, than the final
> Anyone who is truly interested in helping
> develop these rules would better spend their time making sure the rules are
> Far be it for me to suggest how online threads run but
> rest assured I no longer read the ones that start in on something that
> requires basic mechanical changes to the system.
>
> Scott
> List Ho
>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/

[scott holder]

Hit us with your list rules!

>Remind me to kill you later:):)

>Um, to date, I don't have all that many list rules contained within the 276
army lists for Fast Warrior (which is turning into a blueprint of sorts for
the "regular" lists). In some cases, there will be additional list rules in
the regular lists and not in Fast Warrior because of the list composition (ie,
no list rules for Vikings because of how the list is put together).

>I don't have the lists in front of me but from memory, here's what I have
thus far:

1) "Sumerian Pike" rule. Two ranks of pike max but count as pike in all other
ways. I *think* this applies to perhaps 3 lists in FW (Sumerian, Akkadian,
Mycenean)

2) Skirmishing 2 horse HCh. This is a really old theme rule that's worked
well and applies to perhaps half a dozen lists in Biblical Warrior.

3) "Skythian/Thessalian" rule. Non-lance armed cav fights 1.5 ranks. Again,
we'll see more of this in the regular lists.

4) "Maniple" rule. This one covers two Roman lists and essentially allows
undisordered hastati/princep/triari units to replace each other in combat (ie,
interpenetrate when it otherwise wouldn't be voluntary)

5) "Swiss" rule(s). I think I finally have a handle on this but it actually
consists of 4, ugh, separate little rules and part of me rebels at doing that
in a FW list. But, I haven't finished with it yet so we'll see

I *think* I'm forgeting one or two additional ones that have made their way
into FW. Examples of list rules that won't be in FW are things like the
chinese fire lances and of course my personal fav, bolt shooters on elephants
(Khmer). Again, they're not in there because of the FW army list composition.

I am *very* conservative when it comes to list rules so while you can shoot
them my way, please don't expect (m)any to end up in the final product. What
I would like are some ideas beyond what I have percolating in my head about
Vikings and combined units of Beserkers/Huscarles.

The Fast Warrior lists have just undergone their second draft. I'll be typing
in the changes tonight.

Scott