Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Frank Gilson]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:
> Indeed: we fought three knight armies (the last of which was Frank
and
> Dave, who were able to take impetuous SHK vs. LMI to a (to-them)
logical
> conclusion..).
I recall this, and it connects with a later point Ewan makes. The
knight army wants to mess around until a bound before time runs out
and then charge, causing routs and wavers, when facing an army that
contains a greater mass of troops.

> Basic elements: (i) lots of LI, in almost all cases superior to
anything
> we faced light-wise. This needs care - because a good mounted
opponent
> will be looking for chances to break through and/or convert
charge - but
> is key for getting to a situation where you can fight on your
terms.
> Almost all barbarian foot armies have good JLS, Sh LI, often of
decent
> morale. Use it.
Yes, you don't take wavers for LI that you lose. Your LI is
generally better than the LI that knight armies have access to. LI
has more ambush opportunities than non-LI. Learn how to deploy and
use LI JLS,Sh and S,Sh.

> (ii) A mix of unit sizes and morales; this was the basis of Chris'
use of
> Vikings for several years. So what if the bondi rout (or
evaporate)?
> That was planned for, and the twelve small IrrA / IrrB units
behind will
> be happy to hit your pursuing troops impetuously and ideally in
both
> flanks. It helps here to have some weapon available other than
JLS, which
> just doesn't cut it against SHK and their ilk.
As this applies to Gauls, you will find you have too few units and
troops if you attempt to have an army of entirely Irr A. You will
not cover enough frontage. So, buy LI and take units of Irr C with
one element up front of A. Use chariots and two element Irr A units
in the gaps and as reserves.

As far as the 'sitting' thing, don't do it. You knock yourself out
of the tournament, and probably take your opponent with you. Note
that a 5-3 loss for you is much better than a 0-0 or 1-1 draw.

There are armies that need to reduce fighting frontage, and guard
against a flank march. That's fine, but you should have a relatively
open section of table that you're fighting forward across. Express
your attack with missile fire. Resist enemy attacks using spears.
Have a reserve to engage flanks and tired/disordered enemy.

Mark Stone has told us how to shrink table frontage, and place
terrain to guard flanks...and also how to try to reduce such. I'm
sure he'll write again along these lines.

Frank

[joncleaves]

Something John Garlic said caught my eye:

"If everything has to be that open, why don't we just swap army lists before we
start?"

John, that is in fact how many of today's other miniature games are played. And
it is from that environment that much Warrior recruiting is done. The
prevailing attitude is that concealing certain part's of one's list is an
unnecessary 'gimmick' - if one is truly better, than one can win without such
secrets of detail. Secrets that are often subject to abuses that leave hard
feelings....

Warrior tries to strike that happy balance between the practical reality that
folks are coming to us from that environment and some historically feasible 'fog
of war'.

How much such fog of war is entirely up to the player.

Our focus as a group on the parameters of the NICT often leads folks to thinking
that is the only way to play Warrior. 14.0 isn't a core rule. If you want to
modify how scouting is done in your event - that's your call. I for one would
encourage others to use formats other than the NICT. Here in KC, we try to have
every event have at least one parameter different from the 'norm'.

The NICT is the way it is because that is what the rules captain for Warrior in
NASAMW finds to be true by surveying the playership. But that is not how folks
must play the game.

I am taking every feasible suggestion made in this thread and making it an
option in 14.0 for alternate formats.

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

<<B. The general doesn't need to interpret his order until he arrives.
In a nameless Barker rule set you (used to?) roll for generals'
reliability on the bound of arrival. >>

1. That isn't true. Warrior and 7th are the same on this point.

2. That's an interesting option, but it isn't interp we are talking about, it
is character. If we roll for character in advance, we give away that we have a
command off table. If we don't we might send an unreliable who never arrives
because he goes to wait (or a cautious guy goes to something less than probe)
and the CINC can't get the order changed. A major risk. But I will craft an
option with the same intent as what you are saying here.

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/29/2005 18:41:44 Central Standard Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

So.... you are making my point for me<lol>? Thank you! A flank
marching general who is unreliable or overly cautious might not turn
up. Imagine that.



I am not trying to make any point. I will include as many *options* as
possible. As far as how concealment is handled in the base 14.0, that is going
to be in line with the NICT, as we have said and as our players - overall -
have indicated they want it.

Certainly the above is realistic - no one is arguing that point that I know
of.

There is no effort to make 14.0 as realistic or as concealment orienmted as
possible either. It is JUST a set of guidelines and our players have asked
that the base set is what is used in the championships and that options are
there to be able to deviate from that.

J


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

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> <<B. The general doesn't need to interpret his order until he
arrives.
> In a nameless Barker rule set you (used to?) roll for generals'
> reliability on the bound of arrival. >>
> 1. That isn't true. Warrior and 7th are the same on this point.

Not that one, the other nameless set. A digression, not material as
I am sure you will conclude.

> 2. That's an interesting option, but it isn't interp we are
talking about, it is character. If we roll for character in
advance, we give away that we have a command off table. If we don't
we might send an unreliable who never arrives because he goes to
wait (or a cautious guy goes to something less than probe) and the
CINC can't get the order changed. A major risk. But I will craft
an option with the same intent as what you are saying here.

So.... you are making my point for me<lol>? Thank you! A flank
marching general who is unreliable or overly cautious might not turn
up. Imagine that.

But like I said I am happy with the current system _as a game_. But
as a simulation of historical engine there are few things related to
concealment that just do not work like the techniques <I> think were
very important to some armies. Not a very easy thing to make into a
_game_ though and I don't know that there is anything out there that
does a better job of it.