Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Ok, gang. The revised rulebook is done and in the mail to you. So, it is time to move on to the things we have always wanted to be doing.

First, I will be working on a package of official experimental rules. If you have one you'd like to suggest, please do so in the next week. Experimental rules will be official and will also be considered in play if an event organizer so chooses or if both players agree to their use in a game. The best and most popular may possibly be someday elevated to basic rule status if that is what the players want.

Second, I will do a set of free designer's notes. If there is an area that just makes you say 'why the heck is this rule the way it is' please nominate it for inclusion in my designer's notes. I am not doing every rule in the book, but do want to cover those rules that make players the most curious.

Jon

[Ewan McNay]

Well, cool beans.

Requests on notes?

* Something on the design and restrictions on skirmish formation; I'm thinking particularly of the fact that in game terms it's an *anti*-shooting formation rather than a shooting one

* Justification for a default tournament scoring system that includes bonus points for winning 5-3 instead of 5-0 . Don't actually *expect* to get this one..

* Commentary on the relative impact of missile fire versus close-combat hack-and-slay (given the repeated comments/suggestions that the former is too effective); it would be nice to know how it was decided that there's no historical difference between the missile-fire abilities of Reg A class and Irr D class troops, too.

Only the middle one is with ground axe in mind . The other two are just curiosity.

[joncleaves]

Too bad the middle one isn't a rule...lol I will not be doing designer's notes on any part of 14.0.

The other two are easy and will be on the list.

Jon

[Steve Hollowell]

Experimental Rules:

EHC skirmish
120 pace variable charge move for Close Order foot
360 pace deployment zone for 15mm

[Guest]

This makes me happy! Time for a beer.
I'm very interested in the design notes.

I have a X-rule suggestion.
We've tried this out in a campaign I'm in. Unfortunately the Persian player has been rather inactive so far, and I've only seen its effects once. Everyone seemed to think it sounded fair.


Late Achaemenid Persians

Reg Persian HC, Median HC, Satrapal guard, royal guard column charge.
If armed with JLS and charging or counter-charging in column, such troops count one extra fighting figure for each second rank and third rank.
(so three elements deep fights as 5 figures)

This one's inspired by Xenophon's descriptions.
It gives us a reason to take Persian cavalry and plenty of them (rather than scraping the required minimums) and helps simulate their assumed tactics and army composition.
Many ancients considered Persian cavalry superior to greek cavalry (and most others), but inferior to the Skythic people's and eastern Iranians, -- this list rule would help enforce that perception.

More playtesting might suggest modification. Perhaps up to 3 ranks can contribute for a total of 6 fighting figures....javascript:emoticon('')
Shocked

I have some alternate roman maniple ideas "zoomed-out", but they still need more thought.

Noel.

[Ewan McNay]

I forgot:
Minor thing but it annoys me, so: X-rule to either (1, preferred) give dismounting SHK the choice to dismount with JLS instead of 2HCW, or (2) give dismounted SHK with 2HCW 1.5 ranks fighting.

Could never buy the concept that getting better armour made you unable to fight .

{And this is from a guy who thinks that the 1-for-1 dismounting of K is definitely something undercosted, yet!}

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Okay Jon,

Here's one for you. Disordered units that contain unshielded troops in ranks behind shielded troops in a front rank in hand to hand combat count shieldless and the worst armor rating for fighting. This would eliminate the cheese that most of us are guilty of to save points or at least make a nasty consequence for this practice.

Kelly

[joncleaves]

I'll tell you what, Kelly - if you never use the word cheese again on this forum, I will consider it.

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Jon,

You got me there. I won't use that term again. I was including myself in that group of offenders who don't take shields for my second rank . And thanks for your consideration, it means a lot too me.


kelly

[joncleaves]

Not taking optional shields in a unit is not an 'offense'.

Tactically, a player might find a situation where he'd want to expand the frontage of a unit so designed, but avoids it or takes risk by exposing the shieldless troops. This happens more often - much more often - than many admit or believe. At typically 6-8 points a unit, this reduction in capability is about right.
That would be about four thousandths of an army list....

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Jon,

Here's a musing that I've been thinking about for some time in reference to recovering elephant units from broken status. My thinking here is that if a body that contains elephants which breaks due to a situation that does not involve combat to it, should be able to be rallied by a general. The reasoning here is that it is the crew that has lost their morale for seeing fellows break or be destroyed and it is they that are in need of recovery as the animals could care the less. On the other hand, when said unit breaks due to hand to hand combat or shooting in which it is likely that the elephants are maddened, there would be no recovery possible as the crew are just along for the ride.

In my opinion, the current rule is NOT broken. And yes this adds a bit more to the complexity of Warrior, but I believe that it is just this kind of semi realistic rule that draws people to this excellent set. It's just a thought and nothing more. Do you think this could potentially make your list?

Kelly Former Elephant user

[Noel White]

I'd like to see something for Reg A units.
We could all agree that there is no reason to take units of entirely Reg A troops unless required. I also feel that they do not inspire the fear they should. Reg A units often represent the best of an army list.
I have two suggestions, one for mounted and one for foot.

Reg A mounted -- if entirely Reg A : are exempt from the limitation of declaring impetuous charges in the second paragraph of 6.164 (just like the Macedonian Companions)

Reg A foot -- if entirely Reg A : counts as "steady" for all tactical factor purposes, even when disordered. (they can still be charged without prompts, and waver test for "second cause" as usual)

My thinking is that Reg A cavalry should have a fearsome charge -- what superior cavalry is often known for! Using the Companion's rule seems like an expedient way of simulating this.
The Reg A foot are a little tricksy. My belief is that superior foot troops are better able to perform their duties despite the application of "friction" (from terrain or enemy) due to experience or better training.

Just my two cents.

Noel.

[tibnmich]

I like this thread of x rule possibles. I was thinking of Reg A infantry and thought if an entire unit of Reg A elite troops (eg as a bodyguard of a general) has been paid for, it could be entitled to pass waver tests on a '1'. That is, it never fails. De votio type bodyguards and the Somatophylakes of Alexander's Hypaspists etc were totally devoted troops and would not stop regardless of battle situation. If the general dies, then the Reg A unit tests shaking for having lost its general (and now CAN fail on a '1'.

my 2 cents worth!

tibnmich

[Rich Pichnarczyk]

We played a Greek/Persian game the other day and allowed all Reg A troops a +1 modifier to all "non-positive" combat die rolls. (In other words if the Reg A troops rolled a difference of "zero" or a negative factor , it would be modified by +1 on the combat table matrix.

The X-rule was simple and worked well.

[joncleaves]

Good discussion. I am listening in and collecting these for the master list - keep them coming.

J