Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 3/16/2004 10:04:29 PM Central Standard Time,
jwilkinson62@... writes:
Jon, that is a brilliant idea! Taking it one step in another direction, would
it be considered looney to give Charging/pursuing/evading infantry when
facing other infantry a possibility to roll up 40 paces? Certainly this would
give
the close order troops a chance to occasionally catch the more fleet of foot
peltast types while not surrendering too much in the way of over-compensation
for the close order types. Just Thought I'd throw this out. Not that it would
be considered since it came from me. But who knows, maybe sometime down the
road you decide it has merit.
my thought/ concern with giving close order greater movement is the issue of
SHI. They would actually be given the potential to catch LI? I like Kelly's
idea better than a universal increase in mobility of close order troops.
Maybe such a rule could exclude SHI.
Chris


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/16/2004 22:18:37 Central Standard Time, cncbump@...
writes:
Taking it one step in another direction, would
it be considered looney to give Charging/pursuing/evading infantry when
facing other infantry a possibility to roll up 40 paces?>>
You tell me. My plate is full, playtest-wise...lol But I'd be interested to
see what people try and what they find out.


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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Jon, that is a brilliant idea! Taking it one step in another direction, would it
be considered looney to give Charging/pursuing/evading infantry when facing
other infantry a possibility to roll up 40 paces? Certainly this would give the
close order troops a chance to occasionally catch the more fleet of foot peltast
types while not surrendering too much in the way of over-compensation for the
close order types. Just Thought I'd throw this out. Not that it would be
considered since it came from me. But who knows, maybe sometime down the road
you decide it has merit.

kelly wilkinson

JonCleaves@... wrote:
Hmmm, no wonder those greeks started armoring their soldiers....lol

but the point, in my humble opinion, is that shooters have an
ahistorical edge, and every seasoned tournament player knows it.
I am one of those and I do not, for one, agree.

What I will agree with is that close order foot is 'too slow' in Warrior.
Not that 80p is unrealistic, but that 80p has one very unfortunate
characteristic not shared by any other troop type. It can't charge after a
march without
the enemy's cooperation. (HI marches to 240p, other guy sits, HI approaches
80p, still no charge..).
In addition, it cannot 'catch' LMI/LHI, which is the real issue you are
discussing. MI Spartans would care nothing of Kardakes shooting if they could
nail
them in a charge.

I considered 'changing' close order foot to 120p in the open, while keeping
its terrain difficulties. The issue, in 2000 as now, is that that is such a
fundamental 'change' that there is no way to properly playtest the impacts in
under a year or two. Given that, no matter how much I want Warrior to stand on
its own, our core player base is made up of old 7th players, and this was too
much of a change to make on both the grounds of getting Warrior out before
2005 and hugely impacting player army choice.

If a genie appeared and granted me one Warrior wish, it would be to allow me
to make this change, which would require a spontaneous and immediate full
playtest report based on a 1000 genie-played games that only took the blink of
an
eye and a magical muzzling of all whines about rules changes.

What *can* be done, is for those who are predisposed to, to play games using
this as an x-rule (which for all the various rules complaints out there, no
one makes use of). Like EHC skirmishing, I get a lot of periodic whines about
it, but I never get a batch of ten playtest reports on the impact on the game.
I suggest those who are motivated to see close order foot take a more
dominant role play games with 120p movement and record the results and send them
to
me. Play a tourney with that rule in effect and see what happens.

No one, especially me, says that all games or events need to be 14.0/NASAMW
standard. Rather than try to verbally convince someone of the need for change,
I would recommend building a case based on factual game results of the impact
of the change.

Jon


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



---------------------------------
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.


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Excellent point chris,
And to be honest, EHI such as Romans in anti Dacian armor would most likely
have little trouble being part of such a rule while SHI would definitely be out!

kelly

cncbump@... wrote:
In a message dated 3/16/2004 10:04:29 PM Central Standard Time,
jwilkinson62@... writes:
Jon, that is a brilliant idea! Taking it one step in another direction, would
it be considered looney to give Charging/pursuing/evading infantry when
facing other infantry a possibility to roll up 40 paces? Certainly this would
give
the close order troops a chance to occasionally catch the more fleet of foot
peltast types while not surrendering too much in the way of over-compensation
for the close order types. Just Thought I'd throw this out. Not that it would
be considered since it came from me. But who knows, maybe sometime down the
road you decide it has merit.
my thought/ concern with giving close order greater movement is the issue of
SHI. They would actually be given the potential to catch LI? I like Kelly's
idea better than a universal increase in mobility of close order troops.
Maybe such a rule could exclude SHI.
Chris


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


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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.


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Okay, I will. A few of us are going to try a Middle Earth Fantasy campaign.
We'll try that out in our battles. Btw, Black Raven Foundry have some very
awesome 15mm figs. if you haven't checked them out, you should!

kelly

JonCleaves@... wrote:
In a message dated 3/16/2004 22:18:37 Central Standard Time, cncbump@...
writes:
Taking it one step in another direction, would
it be considered looney to give Charging/pursuing/evading infantry when
facing other infantry a possibility to roll up 40 paces?>>
You tell me. My plate is full, playtest-wise...lol But I'd be interested to
see what people try and what they find out.


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


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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.


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam

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