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 

Assessing X Rules

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> X-Rules
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6032
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:09 pm    Post subject: Assessing X Rules

Hcon was a great playtest-bed for everything. I'd like to offer my thoughts on two-season's worth of X Rules and semi-standardized tourney rules.

360p Deployment in 15mm: I don't really have a feel as to whether or not this has helped the game but it certainly hasn't hurt it. As such, it'll be around for the foreseeable future.

Barbarian Foot Rules: Passed with flying colors in the ultimate barbarian tournament, the Dark Ages. With that in mind, Bill and I will now examine what other armies in the other books will get these. Okay, make that certain line items in other armies. That'll bring us up to speed across the board with this. This will move high on the priority list.

Shieldwall/Norman Rules: We have 1 minor tweak on Shieldwall (when/how you leave it in relation to a maneuver) but overall, it worked well. Same with the Normans. Nothing unbalancing. Like with the Barbarian Foot Rules, Bill and I will examine what few lists/line items in Feudal Warrior should get Shieldwall and get that posted soon.

X Rule 5.11 (Reg B and Eagerness): This one's pretty much universally praised as giving Reg Bs a reason to exist. It's provided a very interesting dynamic to a number of armies that one now sees on the table. As with the 360p 15mm deployment rule, this one will be around for the foreseeable future.

X Rule 6.45 (EHC Skirmish): Another rule that's held up well for two seasons. But, we're not gonna use it next year. Why? We want it to be pretty specific to certain armies like the Byzantines. Once Holy Warrior is redone (next spring), we'll limit EHC skirmishing to Byzantines and a select number of non-Byzantine lists. That'll be the usual Bill and me go thru all the other lists and determine where it's appropriate.

X Rules 6.11/6.2 (Close Order Foot Increased Movement): It got a playtest-by-fire at Hcon being used in all the events. I went into this being agnostic about it, meaning if it turned out to be crap, I was okay with that. If everybody loved it, I'd be okay with that as well. It turns out that of the people I talked to, the vast majority were okay with it. Heh heh, one never gets 100% agreement on anything in this game.

I know from my perspective, the 120p move capability does two things that I consider net positives in the game:

1) It speeds up contact. Especially in 25mm. In the NICT, at least with some players, it also drastically cut down on the number of LI for those playing a certain way. As such, that increased the potential for early contact.

2) It cuts down on shooting. Like I said, I consider that a good thing.

Obviously we can dissect the nuances of what 120p close-order foot movement does to all the other variables in the game. However, that remains a theoretical, paper exercise. I can say that at least from the largest Warrior events we do, yes, it changed the game dynamic. It remains to be seen if that's a good thing or a bad thing. Given the fact that nothing immediately icky jumped out at me on this, I'm inclined to continue this into next year so that we get two full "seasons" of playtest out of it. It usually takes that long for the players to mull over the possibilities and test them out on the table.

Cheaper SHC: This isn't an X Rule yet but it soon will be. We've run this off and on at Fall In for years now and it's time to move it mainstream. Basically, we'll reduce the cost of SHC by 8 pts per element. Count on seeing it at Fall In and all of next year. Then we'll do the usual re-assessment.

scott

_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
srawls
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 86

PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:18 pm    Post subject:

I liked the 120 pace close foot rules with one proviso. When routing, close foot should move 120. As the current rule is written, non-steady close move 80. I found it strange that they move 120 until they panic, then slow down.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:18 pm    Post subject: me too...

Steve...Scott commented on that in person...and yes, I too think that routing close order foot should move 120p...but we should keep the 80p limitation to disordered or shaken (but not broken) close order foot.

We should all also note that close order troops in delaying terrain only get to move 40p...something reexamining all of this caused to spring out at me.

Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Eric Turner richmond
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 14 Sep 2008
Posts: 1
Location: Richmond, Va

PostPosted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 4:27 am    Post subject:

The 120p movement will change the game and it speeds things up. My only dislike is: there are list rules for close order (Romans) who doesn't have their charge cancelled by foot charging them. This was a direct and good effort to give historical excellent infantry an ability reward, good thing in the game. With the 120p, this infantry should be only able to use the list rule at or within 80p. This will still maintain the interplay between loose and close order troops.

Eric
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message [ Hidden ]
Kelly Wilkinson
Dictator
Dictator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4172
Location: Raytown, MO

PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 7:06 am    Post subject: Military Order Knights

I was wondering if any thought has gone into allowing Military order knights who are regulars such as Templars being able to be impetuous? In warrior Templars/other military order knights not accompanied by a general are at a bit of a disadvantage in a straight up fight against knights that would be their inferiors in martial skill that are irregular. Truly, if given the choice to have Military Order knights and some kind of Irregular K's w/o a sub, it's a more cost effective thing to avoid military order troops. I'm just sayin... I don't expect this to ever change, but was just curious what you think. Question

Kelly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> X-Rules 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