Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[jhill4913@comcast.net]

What weapon did the Khitan Lao cavalry use that served as a lance while mounted and a 2HCT when dismounted?

[Mark Stone]

Far Eastern "spears" are a bit of a puzzle to assimilate into rules systems whose roots have a more Western orientation. Spear heads of 80 cm or greater length are not uncommon in Far East archeology. Think about that for a moment. What is the point of a spear head almost 3 feet in length? Yes, iron (and earlier bronze) adds more weight per length than wood, but also adds a commensurate unwieldiness when trying to use it simply as a spear.

The answer is that such a spear is used for both thrusting and cutting. Not the ax blade cutting of a Western halberd, but more of a broadsword style cutting achieved by gripping the haft closer to the spear head.

The resulting weapon is somewhat shorter than a Western lance, but comparable in terms of weight, and so -- in my opinion -- warrants a lance classification when fighting mounted. It certainly isn't JLS. But when dismounted, a soldier could quickly shift between a grip towards the butt end -- making it more like LTS -- or "choking up" (to borrow a baseball term) making it more like a broadsword, and hence 2HCW. The best classification we have in Warrior -- again, in my opinion -- is 2HCT.

That's just my view. I do not speak for Scott or Bill, who are the voice of authority for Four Horsemen. And both have done a lot more research into the relevant history than I have, so I certainly defer to their expertise. But Oriental weapons and tactics have become a bit of a personal passion of mine in recent years, and it's fascinating to see such completely different origin stories for tactics and weapons in these armies.

[jhill4913@comcast.net]

That makes sense but how is that weapon different from the Japanese Yari, which doesn't count as a L when mounted?

[Mark Stone]

[Frank Gilson]

Note also that weapon classification is not simply based on the weapon's physical characteristics, or the function when used by an individual soldier, but also in how bodies of troops equipped in that manner fought.

Some troops might get a lance because they regularly charged while mounted, with a spear-ish weapon stiffly held, into the enemy.

I don't personally know what mounted Japanese of the period did, but if they did not do that (commonly) then their Yari would not be classified as a lance (if, for example, they might have ridden into enemy, but slashed away or poked with the Yari, not held it like a lance for impact).

[scott holder]

I'll be blunt:

We don't typically engage in "why did you do that?" discussions as it pertains to army lists. Purchasing the rights to the rules gave us the right to ignore such questions. Read thru some of the stickies in various forums for a still pertinent screed on this subject.

Why? Because back when Jimmy was heavily involved in the Other Rules System, army list development was precisely the messy disaster everyone saw it to be. Not going back there.

Sorry to be obnoxious about this. By not getting into it, it shuts down future questions.

Having said that, I'll kinda fall off the wagon this one time. Stop looking at the analysis purely based on the weapon's characteristics but rather tactical implementation of the formation itself. A mounted Khitan weapon being described was used "lance-like" in battle whereas the Japanese weapon was not. Is this akin to a "DBM-ish" approach to the game? Sure. It also solves a lot of problems and avoids taking us down dead end alleys when it comes to how we want things to play out on the table.

Oh, as I was writing this diatribe, I see that Frank answered the question in a far more diplomatic manner.

scott

[Ewan McNay]

Scott, moderately undiplomatic? Surely not.

[scott holder]

[Ed Kollmer]

I love it when Scott says: "I'll be blunt"
I know something good is going to follow.
Also, being one of the oldest guys in this adventure.
Who is "Jimmy"?
Ed the Rash
PS .Probably showing my ignorance, but you guys know that how ignorant I am.

[scott holder]

Jimmy Hill is a former president of NASAMW...don't hold that against him.

He played The Other Game back in the day. Another of the Florida gang.

scott

[jhill4913@comcast.net]

It is nice to be remembered, Scott. Please don't worry about being "blunt" as I'm still learning the rules of this web site, as well as WARRIOR itself. It's a slow process for a dinosaur like me, as evidenced by my last place finish at the recent Derekcon.

I certainly don't want to criticize any of the work done by your team over the last two decades (or is it three). So much has changed for the better it's hard to get my head around it. I have to admit campaigning for a pet list/rule is an old and bad habit.

Thanks again for all of the recent help, through posts on this site. This goes for Todd Frank and others who have patiently answered all my questions, regardless of how inane. Here are a couple more than have little to do with lists, so feel free to move this to the appropriate place.

1. Has a history of the Four Horsemen Enterprises journey ever been posted?
I ask this because I'm interested in hearing how you guys pulled this off back then and how you keep it going today.
2. Other than Fast Warrior, has there ever been work done on a simplified set of Warrior rules designed to introduce basic concepts for newbies?
I ask the last question because over the last 5 years I've worked with middle schoolers to teach miniature war-games. Mostly ships and tanks but they really liked DBA, although I didn't, because of its simplicity.

Long Live NASAMW, whatever that stands for.

Jimmy

[Frank Gilson]

NASAMW stands for the North American Society of Ancient and Medieval Wargamers...Ancient and Medieval now applying to the Wargamers, not necessarily the armies we run.

[scott holder]

Jimmy:

Marc Cribbs came up with a pretty nifty Fast Warrior setup:

http://www.fourhorsemenenterprises.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17469

I've made a couple of mods to it. Anyway, check out the link.

Also too, Jon and I were working on a simplified version called Warrior Battles. You can download the playtest copy:
http://www.fourhorsemenenterprises.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17129

If you're interested beyond that, email me off-forum and I can send you the playtest copy with additional notes. I liked where Warrior Battles was going. We had some mechanical issues that were stumbling blocks. Jon moved onto another project and my interest went dormant because I didn't sense any great interest from anybody else. I remain convinced that WB could be a great substitute for another ancients/medieval game that's gotten a lot of traction in recent years. However, that player base would probably never get past the underlying origins of the game to ever give it a chance, another reason why I stopped working on it.

scott

[Todd Kaeser]

Just as a side note to this discussion:

Frist - love that the forum is lighting up and I can pop in here and look at and add to discussions on WARRIOR. Can't wait for Cold Wars in a week from today.

Second - I greatly appreciate all that the Four Horsemen have done to extend the life of this hobby that I love so dearly.

Todd

[jhill4913@comcast.net]

Scott,
I did try to PM you as to WB 1.5 as i'm very interested. I'm not sure what you mean by "underlying origins" although I'm sure any new rules set has an uphill battle to fight. I would hope younger gamers might go for something a bit easier to learn with 800-1000 point armies. Of course the shift to 25-28mm figs also drives up cost over 15mm. That being said, we have a large group here in Tallahassee that spends hundreds upon hundreds on 40K figs, as well as hours painting them.
Jimmy