Warrior Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules
A Four Horsemen Enterprises Rules Set
 
  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups AlbumAlbum   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

X-rule proposal

 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Egroup Archives
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1373

PostPosted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 8:10 pm    Post subject: X-rule proposal


Of course I don't know the proceedure for this, so here are my X-
rules:

1. All foot charge 120p, while tactical and march movement remains as
is.

2. Only LI, LC and Lch can skirmish, but all missile armed loose
order can add 1 to recall/counter dice roll when facing non-missile
armed foot.

3. All RgA and RgB troops test waver only for A and B troops routing.

4. IrgD count 1/2 unit for demoralization purposes.

5. abandoned stakes no longer exist.

For what its worth, there are my prefered tweaks.

boyd

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Todd Schneider
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 904
Location: Kansas City

PostPosted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 8:36 pm    Post subject: Re: X-rule proposal


Speaking as one of Jons playtesters, proposals are all
well and good. Until people start playing them and
there's feedback, they'll be nothing more than
proposals.

As much as I like some of the proposed X rules, my
plate in KC is full playtesting other Warrior rules
subsets and helping with the 2nd Edition rules.
Scenario's and Sample Games I can do by myself because
there's little interaction required on them from My
POV, and it's hard to judge what another person would
do with an army list.

So, perhaps instead of players talking about propsed X
Rules, they could be playing them.

Speaking from expierence, I know Jon and Scott will
pay more attention when you provide them with
playetest evidence.

Todd

--- Wanax Andron <spocksleftball@...> wrote:

---------------------------------


Of course I don't know the proceedure for this, so
here are my X-
rules:

1. All foot charge 120p, while tactical and march
movement remains as
is.

2. Only LI, LC and Lch can skirmish, but all missile
armed loose
order can add 1 to recall/counter dice roll when
facing non-missile
armed foot.

3. All RgA and RgB troops test waver only for A and B
troops routing.

4. IrgD count 1/2 unit for demoralization purposes.

5. abandoned stakes no longer exist.

For what its worth, there are my prefered tweaks.

boyd


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.


_________________
Finding new and interesting ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory almost every game!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   AIM Address

Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1373

PostPosted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 9:22 pm    Post subject: Re: X-rule proposal


Alas, my group consist of me and sometimes Ambrose. I can playtest
the hell out of anything you want, but this provides nothing without
an independant confirmation.

Another problem with playtesting is that, as you've pointed out, my
preferences will make the x-rule work for me. Afterall, it suits my
playstyle or I wouldn't propose it :)

Wanax

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Schneider <thresh1642@s...>
wrote:
> Speaking as one of Jons playtesters, proposals are all
> well and good. Until people start playing them and
> there's feedback, they'll be nothing more than
> proposals.
>
> As much as I like some of the proposed X rules, my
> plate in KC is full playtesting other Warrior rules
> subsets and helping with the 2nd Edition rules.
> Scenario's and Sample Games I can do by myself because
> there's little interaction required on them from My
> POV, and it's hard to judge what another person would
> do with an army list.
>
> So, perhaps instead of players talking about propsed X
> Rules, they could be playing them.
>
> Speaking from expierence, I know Jon and Scott will
> pay more attention when you provide them with
> playetest evidence.
>
> Todd
>
> --- Wanax Andron <spocksleftball@y...> wrote:
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
> Of course I don't know the proceedure for this, so
> here are my X-
> rules:
>
> 1. All foot charge 120p, while tactical and march
> movement remains as
> is.
>
> 2. Only LI, LC and Lch can skirmish, but all missile
> armed loose
> order can add 1 to recall/counter dice roll when
> facing non-missile
> armed foot.
>
> 3. All RgA and RgB troops test waver only for A and B
> troops routing.
>
> 4. IrgD count 1/2 unit for demoralization purposes.
>
> 5. abandoned stakes no longer exist.
>
> For what its worth, there are my prefered tweaks.
>
> boyd
>
>
> 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.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 9:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Re: X-rule proposal


In a message dated 6/1/2004 2:22:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
spocksleftball@... writes:

> Alas, my group consist of me and sometimes Ambrose. I can playtest
> the hell out of anything you want, but this provides nothing without
> an independant confirmation. >>
[
[
Two guys playtesting an x-rule is 2 more than we have now.


>
> Another problem with playtesting is that, as you've pointed out, my
> preferences will make the x-rule work for me. Afterall, it
> suits my
> playstyle or I wouldn't propose it Smile>>

Are you saying you could not be objective? lol Seriously, playtesting REQUIRES
a player try to get the most out of the rule for himself. If it is too much, it
is out of balance.

J


_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2004 3:15 pm    Post subject: Re: X-rule proposal


In a message dated 6/2/2004 10:55:57 Central Daylight Time,
cncbump@... writes:

Close order foot may declare a controlled charge (max range of 80 paces) or
a Long charge (max range of 120 paces). Forgive the names I've assigned,
they are irrelevant except that they differentiate an intentional difference in
distance/ range. The Long charge would have the down side of not allowing
the charger to recall those troops and just like impetuous chargers they would
have to rally forward and would incur a 1 cpf hit. >>
Excellent stuff. Write it up and playtest it.....
Jon


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


_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Chris Bump
Legate
Legate


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1625

PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2004 6:10 pm    Post subject: Re: X-rule proposal


1. All foot charge 120p, while tactical and march movement remains as
is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


I've been giving this one quite a bit of thought lately because I think that you
could be on to something that might revolutionize the game. I think though that
it should be more uncertain than just uniformly declaring that all foot have a
charge range of 120 paces all of the time.

The idea I have been mulling over would deal strictly with close order foot and
would state something to the degree that: Close order foot may declare a
controlled charge (max range of 80 paces) or a Long charge (max range of 120
paces). Forgive the names I've assigned, they are irrelevant except that they
differentiate an intentional difference in distance/ range. The Long charge
would have the down side of not allowing the charger to recall those troops and
just like impetuous chargers they would have to rally forward and would incur a
1 cpf hit. Furthermore, just as tired troops cannot declare impetuous, neither
could tired troops declare a long charge. So a Galatian close order body that
declared impetuous long for example would incur 2 cpf's, 1 each for impetuous
and declaring long. And then obviously only 1 cpf if declaring either long or
impetuous but not both. An EIR legionnaire that declared a long charge would
have the 120 pace range but would incur the 1cpf hit for making the decision to
not advance closer prior to launching the charge and just as if he had declared
impetuously (I know that he can never) must rally forward. The controlled
charge would work exactly as the current charges do. In essence the possibility
would exist for close order body to charge longer distances, but at a price.
You want to catch those LI? At what price?

I think that this would make close order armies a little more viable and far
less vulnerable to the loose order skirmishers, particularly the jls armed ones.
Generals will be far more discerning when deciding to place a unit of peltasts
in front of an opposing phalanx to skirmish and delay. But equally the commander
who launches his close order formation in pursuit of a loose order body will
need to consider that the chance of catching them may mean that they find
themselves in a precarious position.

Chris

----- Original Message -----
From: Wanax Andron
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 12:10 PM
Subject: [WarriorRules] X-rule proposal




Of course I don't know the proceedure for this, so here are my X-
rules:

1. All foot charge 120p, while tactical and march movement remains as
is.

2. Only LI, LC and Lch can skirmish, but all missile armed loose
order can add 1 to recall/counter dice roll when facing non-missile
armed foot.

3. All RgA and RgB troops test waver only for A and B troops routing.

4. IrgD count 1/2 unit for demoralization purposes.

5. abandoned stakes no longer exist.

For what its worth, there are my prefered tweaks.

boyd

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

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  

Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1373

PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2004 7:24 pm    Post subject: Re: X-rule proposal


I like your idea. I will think more on it. Yes this is my biggest
pet peave for Warrior.

My own idea was that randomness of the charge is already accounted
for in the "roll short" "roll normal" dice we already roll.

What I would think is that the long charge cost nothing but disorder
after a long charge that catches nothing. In other words, no CPF but
risking disorder is dangerous. And yes tired bodies cannot charge
long sounds good. Also to complement, the 120p charge is not
preempted by impetuous foot charges except by a non-target unit.

Wanax


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "CHRIS BUMP" <cncbump@v...>
wrote:
> 1. All foot charge 120p, while tactical and march movement remains
as
> is.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>
> I've been giving this one quite a bit of thought lately because I
think that you could be on to something that might revolutionize the
game. I think though that it should be more uncertain than just
uniformly declaring that all foot have a charge range of 120 paces
all of the time.
>
> The idea I have been mulling over would deal strictly with close
order foot and would state something to the degree that: Close order
foot may declare a controlled charge (max range of 80 paces) or a
Long charge (max range of 120 paces). Forgive the names I've
assigned, they are irrelevant except that they differentiate an
intentional difference in distance/ range. The Long charge would
have the down side of not allowing the charger to recall those troops
and just like impetuous chargers they would have to rally forward and
would incur a 1 cpf hit. Furthermore, just as tired troops cannot
declare impetuous, neither could tired troops declare a long charge.
So a Galatian close order body that declared impetuous long for
example would incur 2 cpf's, 1 each for impetuous and declaring
long. And then obviously only 1 cpf if declaring either long or
impetuous but not both. An EIR legionnaire that declared a long
charge would have the 120 pace range but would incur the 1cpf hit for
making the decision to not advance closer prior to launching the
charge and just as if he had declared impetuously (I know that he can
never) must rally forward. The controlled charge would work exactly
as the current charges do. In essence the possibility would exist
for close order body to charge longer distances, but at a price. You
want to catch those LI? At what price?
>
> I think that this would make close order armies a little more
viable and far less vulnerable to the loose order skirmishers,
particularly the jls armed ones. Generals will be far more
discerning when deciding to place a unit of peltasts in front of an
opposing phalanx to skirmish and delay. But equally the commander who
launches his close order formation in pursuit of a loose order body
will need to consider that the chance of catching them may mean that
they find themselves in a precarious position.
>
> Chris
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Wanax Andron
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 12:10 PM
> Subject: [WarriorRules] X-rule proposal
>
>
>
>
> Of course I don't know the proceedure for this, so here are my X-
> rules:
>
> 1. All foot charge 120p, while tactical and march movement
remains as
> is.
>
> 2. Only LI, LC and Lch can skirmish, but all missile armed loose
> order can add 1 to recall/counter dice roll when facing non-
missile
> armed foot.
>
> 3. All RgA and RgB troops test waver only for A and B troops
routing.
>
> 4. IrgD count 1/2 unit for demoralization purposes.
>
> 5. abandoned stakes no longer exist.
>
> For what its worth, there are my prefered tweaks.
>
> boyd
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Todd Schneider
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 904
Location: Kansas City

PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2004 7:36 pm    Post subject: Re: Re: X-rule proposal


Going on this thread, if a close order boy charges
long, and fails to catch it's intended target, it
would be disordered. Would it be able to recover from
that disorder? And WHen?

Todd
--- Wanax Andron <spocksleftball@...> wrote:

---------------------------------
I like your idea. I will think more on it. Yes this
is my biggest
pet peave for Warrior.

My own idea was that randomness of the charge is
already accounted
for in the "roll short" "roll normal" dice we already
roll.

What I would think is that the long charge cost
nothing but disorder
after a long charge that catches nothing. In other
words, no CPF but
risking disorder is dangerous. And yes tired bodies
cannot charge
long sounds good. Also to complement, the 120p charge
is not
preempted by impetuous foot charges except by a
non-target unit.

Wanax


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "CHRIS BUMP"
<cncbump@v...>
wrote:
> 1. All foot charge 120p, while tactical and march
movement remains
as
> is.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>
> I've been giving this one quite a bit of thought
lately because I
think that you could be on to something that might
revolutionize the
game. I think though that it should be more uncertain
than just
uniformly declaring that all foot have a charge range
of 120 paces
all of the time.
>
> The idea I have been mulling over would deal
strictly with close
order foot and would state something to the degree
that: Close order
foot may declare a controlled charge (max range of 80
paces) or a
Long charge (max range of 120 paces). Forgive the
names I've
assigned, they are irrelevant except that they
differentiate an
intentional difference in distance/ range. The Long
charge would
have the down side of not allowing the charger to
recall those troops
and just like impetuous chargers they would have to
rally forward and
would incur a 1 cpf hit. Furthermore, just as tired
troops cannot
declare impetuous, neither could tired troops declare
a long charge.
So a Galatian close order body that declared impetuous
long for
example would incur 2 cpf's, 1 each for impetuous and
declaring
long. And then obviously only 1 cpf if declaring
either long or
impetuous but not both. An EIR legionnaire that
declared a long
charge would have the 120 pace range but would incur
the 1cpf hit for
making the decision to not advance closer prior to
launching the
charge and just as if he had declared impetuously (I
know that he can
never) must rally forward. The controlled charge
would work exactly
as the current charges do. In essence the possibility
would exist
for close order body to charge longer distances, but
at a price. You
want to catch those LI? At what price?
>
> I think that this would make close order armies a
little more
viable and far less vulnerable to the loose order
skirmishers,
particularly the jls armed ones. Generals will be far
more
discerning when deciding to place a unit of peltasts
in front of an
opposing phalanx to skirmish and delay. But equally
the commander who
launches his close order formation in pursuit of a
loose order body
will need to consider that the chance of catching them
may mean that
they find themselves in a precarious position.
>
> Chris
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Wanax Andron
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 12:10 PM
> Subject: [WarriorRules] X-rule proposal
>
>
>
>
> Of course I don't know the proceedure for this, so
here are my X-
> rules:
>
> 1. All foot charge 120p, while tactical and march
movement
remains as
> is.
>
> 2. Only LI, LC and Lch can skirmish, but all
missile armed loose
> order can add 1 to recall/counter dice roll when
facing non-
missile
> armed foot.
>
> 3. All RgA and RgB troops test waver only for A
and B troops
routing.
>
> 4. IrgD count 1/2 unit for demoralization
purposes.
>
> 5. abandoned stakes no longer exist.
>
> For what its worth, there are my prefered tweaks.
>
> boyd
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]


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.


_________________
Finding new and interesting ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory almost every game!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   AIM Address

Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1373

PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2004 8:34 pm    Post subject: Re: X-rule proposal


sessation cured i would think.
Wanax

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Schneider <thresh1642@s...>
wrote:
> Going on this thread, if a close order boy charges
> long, and fails to catch it's intended target, it
> would be disordered. Would it be able to recover from
> that disorder? And WHen?
>
> Todd
> --- Wanax Andron <spocksleftball@y...> wrote:
>
> ---------------------------------
> I like your idea. I will think more on it. Yes this
> is my biggest
> pet peave for Warrior.
>
> My own idea was that randomness of the charge is
> already accounted
> for in the "roll short" "roll normal" dice we already
> roll.
>
> What I would think is that the long charge cost
> nothing but disorder
> after a long charge that catches nothing. In other
> words, no CPF but
> risking disorder is dangerous. And yes tired bodies
> cannot charge
> long sounds good. Also to complement, the 120p charge
> is not
> preempted by impetuous foot charges except by a
> non-target unit.
>
> Wanax
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "CHRIS BUMP"
> <cncbump@v...>
> wrote:
> > 1. All foot charge 120p, while tactical and march
> movement remains
> as
> > is.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> >
> > I've been giving this one quite a bit of thought
> lately because I
> think that you could be on to something that might
> revolutionize the
> game. I think though that it should be more uncertain
> than just
> uniformly declaring that all foot have a charge range
> of 120 paces
> all of the time.
> >
> > The idea I have been mulling over would deal
> strictly with close
> order foot and would state something to the degree
> that: Close order
> foot may declare a controlled charge (max range of 80
> paces) or a
> Long charge (max range of 120 paces). Forgive the
> names I've
> assigned, they are irrelevant except that they
> differentiate an
> intentional difference in distance/ range. The Long
> charge would
> have the down side of not allowing the charger to
> recall those troops
> and just like impetuous chargers they would have to
> rally forward and
> would incur a 1 cpf hit. Furthermore, just as tired
> troops cannot
> declare impetuous, neither could tired troops declare
> a long charge.
> So a Galatian close order body that declared impetuous
> long for
> example would incur 2 cpf's, 1 each for impetuous and
> declaring
> long. And then obviously only 1 cpf if declaring
> either long or
> impetuous but not both. An EIR legionnaire that
> declared a long
> charge would have the 120 pace range but would incur
> the 1cpf hit for
> making the decision to not advance closer prior to
> launching the
> charge and just as if he had declared impetuously (I
> know that he can
> never) must rally forward. The controlled charge
> would work exactly
> as the current charges do. In essence the possibility
> would exist
> for close order body to charge longer distances, but
> at a price. You
> want to catch those LI? At what price?
> >
> > I think that this would make close order armies a
> little more
> viable and far less vulnerable to the loose order
> skirmishers,
> particularly the jls armed ones. Generals will be far
> more
> discerning when deciding to place a unit of peltasts
> in front of an
> opposing phalanx to skirmish and delay. But equally
> the commander who
> launches his close order formation in pursuit of a
> loose order body
> will need to consider that the chance of catching them
> may mean that
> they find themselves in a precarious position.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Wanax Andron
> > To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 12:10 PM
> > Subject: [WarriorRules] X-rule proposal
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Of course I don't know the proceedure for this, so
> here are my X-
> > rules:
> >
> > 1. All foot charge 120p, while tactical and march
> movement
> remains as
> > is.
> >
> > 2. Only LI, LC and Lch can skirmish, but all
> missile armed loose
> > order can add 1 to recall/counter dice roll when
> facing non-
> missile
> > armed foot.
> >
> > 3. All RgA and RgB troops test waver only for A
> and B troops
> routing.
> >
> > 4. IrgD count 1/2 unit for demoralization
> purposes.
> >
> > 5. abandoned stakes no longer exist.
> >
> > For what its worth, there are my prefered tweaks.
> >
> > boyd
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
> 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.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Chris Bump
Legate
Legate


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1625

PostPosted: Thu Jun 03, 2004 12:27 am    Post subject: Re: Re: X-rule proposal


My responses will be inserted after each of Boyd's.
----- Original Message -----
From: Wanax Andron
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 11:24 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: X-rule proposal


Wanax: I like your idea. I will think more on it. Yes this is my biggest
pet peave for Warrior.

My own idea was that randomness of the charge is already accounted
for in the "roll short" "roll normal" dice we already roll.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[CTB]: This would still be the case. Just because you declare a long charge
and your opponent evades does not mean that you move the full 120, you would
roll for variable distance just as close order foot do now when charging
evaders.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Wanax: What I would think is that the long charge cost nothing but disorder
after a long charge that catches nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[CTB]: I thought about disorder for a while when coming up with this and
decided against it for two reasons. First it is crushing for close order to
ever find themselves disordered and so such a penalty would affect play balance
and second I think that the disorder categorization in Warrior is more to
represent true mayhem within the ranks as opposed to a body that is out of
breath and trying to reform ranks. The mandatory rally represents the latter.
I don't think that they would be so disordered as to warrent a tag as such, just
the obvious need to rally and the added proviso that since they went all out
they are not able to recover and try to recall. The 1cpf came from my memories
of football practice when in full pads we would run 100 yd sprints (closest
similarity I could come up with to 120 paces). Would wind you pretty good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In other words, no CPF but
risking disorder is dangerous. And yes tired bodies cannot charge
long sounds good. Also to complement, the 120p charge is not
preempted by impetuous foot charges except by a non-target unit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[CTB]: No, I don't want to change the dynamics of the relationship between
regular and irregular foot. Impetuous would still preempt a nonimpetuous
charge. I think that the best chance an x-rule has of being accepted, much less
used, is if it has minimal impact on the rules as already written.
Chris


Wanax


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "CHRIS BUMP" <cncbump@v...>
wrote:
> 1. All foot charge 120p, while tactical and march movement remains
as
> is.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>
> I've been giving this one quite a bit of thought lately because I
think that you could be on to something that might revolutionize the
game. I think though that it should be more uncertain than just
uniformly declaring that all foot have a charge range of 120 paces
all of the time.
>
> The idea I have been mulling over would deal strictly with close
order foot and would state something to the degree that: Close order
foot may declare a controlled charge (max range of 80 paces) or a
Long charge (max range of 120 paces). Forgive the names I've
assigned, they are irrelevant except that they differentiate an
intentional difference in distance/ range. The Long charge would
have the down side of not allowing the charger to recall those troops
and just like impetuous chargers they would have to rally forward and
would incur a 1 cpf hit. Furthermore, just as tired troops cannot
declare impetuous, neither could tired troops declare a long charge.
So a Galatian close order body that declared impetuous long for
example would incur 2 cpf's, 1 each for impetuous and declaring
long. And then obviously only 1 cpf if declaring either long or
impetuous but not both. An EIR legionnaire that declared a long
charge would have the 120 pace range but would incur the 1cpf hit for
making the decision to not advance closer prior to launching the
charge and just as if he had declared impetuously (I know that he can
never) must rally forward. The controlled charge would work exactly
as the current charges do. In essence the possibility would exist
for close order body to charge longer distances, but at a price. You
want to catch those LI? At what price?
>
> I think that this would make close order armies a little more
viable and far less vulnerable to the loose order skirmishers,
particularly the jls armed ones. Generals will be far more
discerning when deciding to place a unit of peltasts in front of an
opposing phalanx to skirmish and delay. But equally the commander who
launches his close order formation in pursuit of a loose order body
will need to consider that the chance of catching them may mean that
they find themselves in a precarious position.
>
> Chris


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

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  

Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1373

PostPosted: Thu Jun 03, 2004 3:08 pm    Post subject: Re: X-rule proposal


Beleive it or not, between tending my youngest son till bedtime and
scrapping a new corps of 15mm napoleonic Brits, I sat myself down and
ran a couple of scrimages between hoplites and irreg LMI, then
hoplites and SHC and HK. The interesting thing I find is that there
is virtually no change in close order dynamic with the 1CPF cost
method you proposed. The disorder was catastrophic. I ran w/o
preemting, and the results were fairly good IMO as the close order
were not pushed back by impetous LMI, but the LMI were actually
recoiled on some dice. Against SHC it was very cute, since the
hoplites got 2 full ranks of LTS they were able to withstand the
SHC. Not so the HK who started outside of 120p and so charged the
hoplites standing still. Thus all current methods of dealing with
close order still work, but it becomes problematic for loose order
foot to rule the enguagement.

With just these few runs, I find it a worthy x-rule contemplation for
the 1CPF but not for the disorder as you indicate below.

Wanax

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "CHRIS BUMP" <cncbump@v...>
wrote:
> My responses will be inserted after each of Boyd's.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Wanax Andron
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 11:24 AM
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: X-rule proposal
>
>
> Wanax: I like your idea. I will think more on it. Yes this is
my biggest
> pet peave for Warrior.
>
> My own idea was that randomness of the charge is already
accounted
> for in the "roll short" "roll normal" dice we already roll.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> [CTB]: This would still be the case. Just because you declare a
long charge and your opponent evades does not mean that you move the
full 120, you would roll for variable distance just as close order
foot do now when charging evaders.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Wanax: What I would think is that the long charge cost nothing
but disorder
> after a long charge that catches nothing.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> [CTB]: I thought about disorder for a while when coming up with
this and decided against it for two reasons. First it is crushing
for close order to ever find themselves disordered and so such a
penalty would affect play balance and second I think that the
disorder categorization in Warrior is more to represent true mayhem
within the ranks as opposed to a body that is out of breath and
trying to reform ranks. The mandatory rally represents the latter.
I don't think that they would be so disordered as to warrent a tag as
such, just the obvious need to rally and the added proviso that since
they went all out they are not able to recover and try to recall.
The 1cpf came from my memories of football practice when in full pads
we would run 100 yd sprints (closest similarity I could come up with
to 120 paces). Would wind you pretty good.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> In other words, no CPF but
> risking disorder is dangerous. And yes tired bodies cannot
charge
> long sounds good. Also to complement, the 120p charge is not
> preempted by impetuous foot charges except by a non-target unit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> [CTB]: No, I don't want to change the dynamics of the
relationship between regular and irregular foot. Impetuous would
still preempt a nonimpetuous charge. I think that the best chance an
x-rule has of being accepted, much less used, is if it has minimal
impact on the rules as already written.
> Chris
>
>
> Wanax
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "CHRIS BUMP" <cncbump@v...>
> wrote:
> > 1. All foot charge 120p, while tactical and march movement
remains
> as
> > is.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> >
> > I've been giving this one quite a bit of thought lately because
I
> think that you could be on to something that might revolutionize
the
> game. I think though that it should be more uncertain than just
> uniformly declaring that all foot have a charge range of 120
paces
> all of the time.
> >
> > The idea I have been mulling over would deal strictly with
close
> order foot and would state something to the degree that: Close
order
> foot may declare a controlled charge (max range of 80 paces) or a
> Long charge (max range of 120 paces). Forgive the names I've
> assigned, they are irrelevant except that they differentiate an
> intentional difference in distance/ range. The Long charge would
> have the down side of not allowing the charger to recall those
troops
> and just like impetuous chargers they would have to rally forward
and
> would incur a 1 cpf hit. Furthermore, just as tired troops
cannot
> declare impetuous, neither could tired troops declare a long
charge.
> So a Galatian close order body that declared impetuous long for
> example would incur 2 cpf's, 1 each for impetuous and declaring
> long. And then obviously only 1 cpf if declaring either long or
> impetuous but not both. An EIR legionnaire that declared a long
> charge would have the 120 pace range but would incur the 1cpf hit
for
> making the decision to not advance closer prior to launching the
> charge and just as if he had declared impetuously (I know that he
can
> never) must rally forward. The controlled charge would work
exactly
> as the current charges do. In essence the possibility would
exist
> for close order body to charge longer distances, but at a price.
You
> want to catch those LI? At what price?
> >
> > I think that this would make close order armies a little more
> viable and far less vulnerable to the loose order skirmishers,
> particularly the jls armed ones. Generals will be far more
> discerning when deciding to place a unit of peltasts in front of
an
> opposing phalanx to skirmish and delay. But equally the commander
who
> launches his close order formation in pursuit of a loose order
body
> will need to consider that the chance of catching them may mean
that
> they find themselves in a precarious position.
> >
> > Chris
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Egroup Archives All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group