Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ewan McNay]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:

> I think you're being unpersuaded by the wrong combination of
conditions. I
> see the matchups you had and I see other issues than those players not
> choosing LI. But that is just me...

Of course, there are other issues. [And equally of course, I'm not about
to launch into an attack on oppponents in a public forum ].

But a LI screen decently handled allows one to alleviate or prevent many
issues, I find.

> Any chance you'll take the 1600 point version of that list to HCon?
> One can only hope...but I would bet against it...

I don't have 25mm figures for it. Dave M kindly lent me the 15mm figs.

And as I noted, there are weaknesses; the biggest - terrain, I think - is
though less of an issue in 25mm 1600 points, where there is not so much
need to close off one flank.

> <<[Digression again, and JON ALERT: rules Qs. Neither from my games, but:
> 1. a unit of El has elected to halt from 2 CPF in prepfire. It is
> then charged and either recoils or routs the chargers. May it/must it
> follow up? It's a compulsory move, but they're under mandatory halt.>>
>
> It has to follow up - it is mounted and such is compulsory.

OK. So, supplementary Qs.

1a. I assume that the El then have to take a waver test, given that they
are no longer abiding by the 'must halt until end of following bound' choice?

1a (i) If that's correct: assume they fail. They follow-up, shaken,
right? Because they would not take the waver until after they made the
follow-up move? [Note that this could lead to a combat between two shaken
units, which would be highly entertaining.]

[[Context: this came up in an Early Indian - Midianite battle. Camels had
shot El to a halt, then decided to charge in and unsurprisingly lost the
combat, shaking as a result of second disorder before breaking off.]]

> <<2. Should the Mongol list rule for picking up terrain be dependent on
> table size? With only 3 terrain picks on a 4x3 table, and being able
> to pick up two of the opponent's, they never saw a single piece of
> terrain on the table. Perhaps make this 'pick up n-2 pieces'?]>>
>
> No, we playtested it with short tables/points and are comfortable with
the
> rule as written.

OK. [In passing, let me agree again with Mark Stone's comment that the
'difficulty' with terrain is *not* in getting an open field, but rather in
getting a closed one, generally. Sure, this past NICT I rolled 4 1s for
terrain choices against Kelly's Burmese, and that was painful; but it was
also an aberration. Different topic, of course, from the Mongols, but
linked in my hippocampus.]

> <<My final game brought a third cav army, Normans. This was a much
> better balanced force, though, including two 6E MI JLS, Sh units and
> two units of LI along with 3x2E IrrC LC and a massed force of IrrA and
> IrrB HC L, Sh. >>
>
> Again, I draw a different lesson from this matchup with your army and the
> players involved than the requirement to take LI...lol For example,
I'd be
> commenting on someone taking two 6E MI JLS Sh in a 1200 point tourney
long
> before I first made mention of LI ratios...

Really? I think that - given the choice to take Normans - it is sensible
to have some backup troops/at least a minimal plan for e.g. elephants. I
think that the LI setup is a far bigger deal.

No, none of my opponents took armies that I would take, if trying to win,
nor did they construct them as I would have. So? With an aim of
trying to encourage odd armies, I think it's helpful to offer notes on
their weaknesses. For instance, I would rather see you offer a suggestion
as to how you *would* take Normans at 1200 than simply dismiss others'
choices/comments.

> Another example: someone allowing themselves to be taking 11 waver
tests has
> bigger issues than he didn't take sufficient LI...

Yes, yes. Just because there are some set of problems (a) that are
difficult to describe without coming across as unnecessarily nasty to the
player involved - at least IMO - does not mean that the set of problems
(b) is not worth mentioning.

Sigh. And after I gave you that 'playing nice' award too.

e

[joncleaves]

> <<[Digression again, and JON ALERT: rules Qs. Neither from my games, but:
> 1. a unit of El has elected to halt from 2 CPF in prepfire. It is
> then charged and either recoils or routs the chargers. May it/must it
> follow up? It's a compulsory move, but they're under mandatory halt.>>
>
> It has to follow up - it is mounted and such is compulsory.

>OK. So, supplementary Qs.

>1a. I assume that the El then have to take a waver test, given that they
are no longer abiding by the 'must halt until end of following bound' choice?>>

No, they don't have to waver because they did not make a voluntary move.



<<OK. [In passing, let me agree again with Mark Stone's comment that the
'difficulty' with terrain is *not* in getting an open field, but rather in
getting a closed one, generally. Sure, this past NICT I rolled 4 1s for
terrain choices against Kelly's Burmese, and that was painful; but it was
also an aberration. Different topic, of course, from the Mongols, but
linked in my hippocampus.]>>

We are in complete agreement, you, Mark and I. It is far easier to get an open
table than a closed one and that is exactly what the terrain table as written is
supposed to be doing.

<< > Again, I draw a different lesson from this matchup with your army and the
> players involved than the requirement to take LI...lol For example,
I'd be
> commenting on someone taking two 6E MI JLS Sh in a 1200 point tourney
long
> before I first made mention of LI ratios...

Really? I think that - given the choice to take Normans - it is sensible
to have some backup troops/at least a minimal plan for e.g. elephants. I
think that the LI setup is a far bigger deal.>>

I *think* we are in agreement here. *If* one takes Normans into an open, one
should take *something* to deal with elephants. The issue then becomes what to
do with two such large units against the many other armies that come with
something that just rolls over MI JLS.

And I have never advocated 'no LI' or people who take LI are taking a poor
choice - far from it. I just think there are ways to turn the concept of lots
of LI to pin and hit in one isolated spot against the user and have had some
success with that - nothing more.

<<No, none of my opponents took armies that I would take, if trying to win,
nor did they construct them as I would have. So? >>

I think that's a much more important characteristic of your success in this
tourney than the amount of LI you took, that's all.

<< With an aim of
trying to encourage odd armies, I think it's helpful to offer notes on
their weaknesses. >>

Hmm. I didn't realize that was your objective. As long as the top players
don't take 'odd armies', how will they encourage others to do so. By asking
them to, but not doing so themselves? That will not work...

<< For instance, I would rather see you offer a suggestion
as to how you *would* take Normans at 1200 than simply dismiss others'
choices/comments.>>

I didn't dismiss anything. I will say I would not take 2x 6E units of MI JLS
into any tourney containing Dave and you. Which is what I was saying. I'd be
happy to make a 1200 Norman list, if you'd like.

<<Sigh. And after I gave you that 'playing nice' award too.>>

There, I have agreed with you twice in this mail and offered to write a Norman
list for you. That's as nice as I get...lol

So, tell me more about your goal of getting people to take 'odd armies'...

J


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

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
>> <<[Digression again, and JON ALERT: rules Qs. Neither from my
>> games, but:
> No, they don't have to waver because they did not make a voluntary
> move.

Huh. Well, shows what I know. Thanks. Suggest that this is clarified -
that the 'must halt' does not include any forced moves - in new book. And
yes, I realise it's an obscure situation.

> I *think* we are in agreement here. *If* one takes Normans into an
> open, one should take *something* to deal with elephants. The issue
> then becomes what to do with two such large units against the many
> other armies that come with something that just rolls over MI JLS.

Oh, agree.

> <<No, none of my opponents took armies that I would take, if trying to
> win, nor did they construct them as I would have. So? >>
>
> I think that's a much more important characteristic of your success in
> this tourney than the amount of LI you took, that's all.

And agree again. Aren't we playing well now? :)

> << With an aim of trying to encourage odd armies, I think it's helpful
> to offer notes on their weaknesses. >>
>
> Hmm. I didn't realize that was your objective. As long as the top
> players don't take 'odd armies', how will they encourage others to do
> so. By asking them to, but not doing so themselves? That will not
> work...

So: I think that it may be helpful to those players who would like to play
a given army, but have difficulty getting success with it - whatever it is
- to have list construction advice/ideas, ditto tactics. This listserv is
one source of such, but actually having someone good design a list for -
say - Normans is uncommon.

How to promote such use? I don't have well-formed ideas here, yet. Sorry .

> << For instance, I would rather see you offer a suggestion as to how
> you *would* take Normans at 1200 than simply dismiss others'
> choices/comments.>>
>
> I didn't dismiss anything. I will say I would not take 2x 6E units of
> MI JLS into any tourney containing Dave and you. Which is what I was
> saying. I'd be happy to make a 1200 Norman list, if you'd like.

Oh, sure, I - and the Norman player, doubtless - would be interested.

> <<Sigh. And after I gave you that 'playing nice' award too.>>
>
> There, I have agreed with you twice in this mail and offered to write a
> Norman list for you. That's as nice as I get...lol

No comment .

> So, tell me more about your goal of getting people to take 'odd
> armies'...

The basic problem is that for all the talk of expanding the base of viable
tournament armies, there's still a relatively small set of
tournament-killer-worthy lists. I think we likely agree here even if not
on the exact set contents.

Things like Dogs of War help to avoid this (although there is of course a
set of 'Dogs-killer' armies); but in general it might just have to be by
umpire mandate: submit lists in advance, any *army* perceived as killer
outlawed. Impose that on anyone in the field who has finished in the top
60% on an NICT, or some such. Or simply pair each 'pro' player with an
'am' and have the pro design lists that both then use (difficult because
of lead availability). See above - no well-formed ideas, yet.

[Derek Downs]

In a message dated 3/28/2005 12:00:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mark@... writes:
"killer tourney armies"
What makes a killer army? Most of the crap I run most players would refuse to
run. A killer army in one person's hands is not in another. Stiers' Hoen
stuff en would not be the killer if I ran it. I would not even run the list the
way he does because it doesn't fit my style.

Han Chinese is the near perfect list. But I have seen people just get abused
running it.

One thing I would have to say is there are no "killer armies" in Biblical
Warrior.

I do have to give it to the FHE. They have made many more lists playable in
my mind at a tournament level.

Derek


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

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...> wrote:

>
> Of course, there are other issues. [And equally of course, I'm not
about
> to launch into an attack on oppponents in a public forum ].
>


>
> Yes, yes. Just because there are some set of problems (a) that are
> difficult to describe without coming across as unnecessarily nasty
to the
> player involved - at least IMO - does not mean that the set of problems
> (b) is not worth mentioning.
>

Ewan:

Oh, don't worry about coming across nasty on my account. I have a
thick enough skin, and you're a friendly and helpful enough sort. The
ridiculous error I made not marching my LC off of the steep hills is a
useful lesson that will stick with me for a long time to come. I like
having my errors pointed out to me - how else to learn.

(Of course, I don't know if having my flank off that hill would have
accomplished that much. My HC still couldn't conceivably have faced
off against your MI, but at least I could maybe have had something
else in play for another bound or two.)

Speaking of errors, I will now also always remember two other things
from my game against Jim and his Normans:

LC in route can not interpenetrate HC - that is, they don't function
when routing the same as LI. A new player error, I know, but lesson
learned.

A shaken baggage camp counts against demoraliztion for all commands.

Anyway - I had a great time, learned a lot, and enjoyed visiting West
Point. Go ahead and fire away with the critiques on my play - but the
15mm lead and list were borrowed, so that wasn't me. I'm what I guess
is a rare player who has 25mm lead, but no 15mm.

Peter

[joncleaves]

>> <<[Digression again, and JON ALERT: rules Qs. Neither from my
>> games, but:
> No, they don't have to waver because they did not make a voluntary
> move.

Huh. Well, shows what I know. Thanks. Suggest that this is clarified -
that the 'must halt' does not include any forced moves - in new book. And
yes, I realise it's an obscure situation.>>

It says now: "When an appropriate body takes 2 CPF from prep shooting and either
must halt or chooses to halt, it CANNOT perform any voluntary movement
(approaches, counters, retirements, enter skirmish formation (or any other),
etc.)." So, if there's more to add that would help, let me know - now's a good
time! lol

<<And agree again. Aren't we playing well now? >>

Yes, I do realize that your definition of 'behaved' is to agree with Ewan. What
else would it be? lol


<<So: I think that it may be helpful to those players who would like to play
a given army, but have difficulty getting success with it - whatever it is
- to have list construction advice/ideas, ditto tactics. This listserv is
one source of such, but actually having someone good design a list for -
say - Normans is uncommon.>>

Ok, fair enough. Which flavor of Normans was this?


<<The basic problem is that for all the talk of expanding the base of viable
tournament armies, there's still a relatively small set of
tournament-killer-worthy lists. I think we likely agree here even if not
on the exact set contents.>>

Hmmm, I agree that your list would be shorter than mine. But I am not sure
about the 'talk of expanding'. Who's goal/statement is that?

<<Things like Dogs of War help to avoid this (although there is of course a
set of 'Dogs-killer' armies); but in general it might just have to be by
umpire mandate: submit lists in advance, any *army* perceived as killer
outlawed. Impose that on anyone in the field who has finished in the top
60% on an NICT, or some such.>>

Whoa, there's some out of the box stuff. And i would point out that probably
the last thing we could ever get was agreement on a list of 'killers'...

J


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

[joncleaves]

<<A shaken baggage camp counts against demoraliztion for all commands.>>

Just to be clear - this is NOT true.

From 14.44:

"It does not add to the total number of bodies in a command but
DOES count against every command’s demoralization limit if destroyed or
broken.

Shaken camps do not count toward anyone's demoralization - only when broken or
destroyed.


<< I'm what I guess
is a rare player who has 25mm lead, but no 15mm.>>

And that is a good thing!!

Jon


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

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> <<A shaken baggage camp counts against demoraliztion for all commands.>>
>
> Just to be clear - this is NOT true.
>
> From 14.44:
>
> "It does not add to the total number of bodies in a command but
> DOES count against every command’s demoralization limit if
destroyed or broken.
>
> Shaken camps do not count toward anyone's demoralization - only when
broken or destroyed.
>
>

Jon:

You're correct. What I had was routing LC intercepting my baggage camp
which then failed a waver check. It would then be shaken for failing
the waver test. Would it also be broken because it was intercepted by
the routers? Hmm...if not, then it was only shaken, and my command
would not have gone into retreat - which was the way I played it.

Peter

[Mark Stone]

--- On March 28 Ewan said: ---

>
> The basic problem is that for all the talk of expanding the base of viable
> tournament armies, there's still a relatively small set of
> tournament-killer-worthy lists. I think we likely agree here even if not
> on the exact set contents.
>

A good friend and very talented Warrior player (Dave Stier) has frequently
criticized me for favoring armies that are more interesting than they are
competitive. I would have to plead guilty as charged, having played in
tournaments with Grenadine, Post Mongol Russian, and First Crusade.

I have taken Dave's advice to heart, and I have figures offering me a core of 4
or 5 armies to chose from when (a) trying to qualify for the NICT, or (b)
playing in the NICT.

But I really think that in all other contexts, as a fairly experienced player, I
have a responsibility to favor interesting over competitive. Newer and/or less
experienced players get to see a wider array of armies this way, which I think
does a lot to encourage interest in our hobby. They also get to beat the crap
out of me from time to time as one of my experiments fails miserably. I think
this, too, encourages greater interest among new players. Nobody likes to lose
all the time (he says, remembering that he lost his first 8 tournament games in
a row when thrown to the wolves by his friends back in the early days of 7th).

And honestly, I think I benefit quite a bit from playing more experimental
armies. I learned a lot more from losing three times in a row to Sassanids
while playing Sub Roman British than I learned from trouncing the same
Sassanids with my Byzantines.

And frankly, I don't know how I'd come up with tactical innovations if I didn't
play odd armies that may not be great overall, but do have some interesting
characteristic. What can you do with a large block of Irr A/Irr D LMI (First
Crusade)? What exactly is the value of regular JLS-armed LC (Grenadine)? What
happens when you buy huge blocks of bow-armed HC/MC (Post Mongol Russian)? I
don't know about others, but this is how I learn.

Cold Wars this year will be a case in point, another grand experiment to see
what happens when you... oops, almost tipped my hand there. ;)

My point is, I think veteran players can and should step outside the bounds of
"killer tourney armies" frequently. If you aren't playing in or fighting to
qualify for the NICT, then you have nothing to lose but a bit of pride. And you
have a lot to gain. You'll stretch yourself as a player, and offer a more
interesting, more diverse, and more even competitive experience to those you
game with.


-Mark Stone

[Ewan McNay]

Peter Celella wrote:
> Ewan:
>
> Oh, don't worry about coming across nasty on my account. I have a
> thick enough skin, and you're a friendly and helpful enough sort.

Glad that's how it comes across.

Well, OK: point one is that you should probably have been placing brush.
This is actually something I learnt from Dave: that cav, while disordered
from charging in the brush, are still often capable of clearing it against
many enemy troops typically found there. And it has no effect on your
ability to skirmish/shoot. My MI, on the other hand, are not even going
to think about being in there. So your placing open spaces was not
optimal, likely.

Other than that, and in the absence of a flank to get around, I don't have
a *good* plan for your army setup against mine. Trying to concentrate
fire would have been a good plan, but not as easy as it sounds and still
hoping for an up roll if the target is MI. Flank marching is almost
always a good option against foot armies, especially given the terrain you
saw and the fact that you could skirmish with LC until the flank march
arrived. I think maybe just thinking a bit more flexibly than running up
into a known terrible troop match and hoping for something good to happen
is key.

> Anyway - I had a great time, learned a lot, and enjoyed visiting West
> Point. Go ahead and fire away with the critiques on my play - but the
> 15mm lead and list were borrowed, so that wasn't me. I'm what I guess
> is a rare player who has 25mm lead, but no 15mm.

No, I realise that Jacob is to blame for the list. But then you've seen
in my NICT commentaries what I think of his lists ).

E

[joncleaves]

<<My point is, I think veteran players can and should step outside the bounds
of
"killer tourney armies" frequently. If you aren't playing in or fighting to
qualify for the NICT, then you have nothing to lose but a bit of pride. And you
have a lot to gain. You'll stretch yourself as a player, and offer a more
interesting, more diverse, and more even competitive experience to those you
game with.>>

I totally agree. Marians rule!

J




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

[joncleaves]

Peter, if the LC had nowhere else to rout to, it would have indeed carried the
camp with it, and thus the camp would be destroyed.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Celella <pcelella@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:51:42 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Tang, stationary elephants, etc.




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> <<A shaken baggage camp counts against demoraliztion for all commands.>>
>
> Just to be clear - this is NOT true.
>
> From 14.44:
>
> "It does not add to the total number of bodies in a command but
> DOES count against every command’s demoralization limit if
destroyed or broken.
>
> Shaken camps do not count toward anyone's demoralization - only when
broken or destroyed.
>
>

Jon:

You're correct. What I had was routing LC intercepting my baggage camp
which then failed a waver check. It would then be shaken for failing
the waver test. Would it also be broken because it was intercepted by
the routers? Hmm...if not, then it was only shaken, and my command
would not have gone into retreat - which was the way I played it.

Peter







Yahoo! Groups Links






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

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...> wrote:

>
> Well, OK: point one is that you should probably have been placing
brush.
> This is actually something I learnt from Dave: that cav, while
disordered
> from charging in the brush, are still often capable of clearing it
against
> many enemy troops typically found there. And it has no effect on your
> ability to skirmish/shoot. My MI, on the other hand, are not even
going
> to think about being in there. So your placing open spaces was not
> optimal, likely.
>
> Other than that, and in the absence of a flank to get around, I
don't have
> a *good* plan for your army setup against mine. Trying to concentrate
> fire would have been a good plan, but not as easy as it sounds and
still
> hoping for an up roll if the target is MI. Flank marching is almost
> always a good option against foot armies, especially given the
terrain you
> saw and the fact that you could skirmish with LC until the flank march
> arrived. I think maybe just thinking a bit more flexibly than
running up
> into a known terrible troop match and hoping for something good to
happen
> is key.
>

Ewan - thanks for the tips. That was actually quite gentle. I'll try
to keep this advice in mind for future games.

>
> No, I realise that Jacob is to blame for the list. But then you've
seen
> in my NICT commentaries what I think of his lists ).
>

Well - now I wouldn't 'blame' Jacob. Afterall, he was generous enough
to allow me the use of his lead. And he's been a great teacher to get
me to where I have gotten so far. However limited that may be. I've
had almost no experience so far in running cavalry armies, so that in
itself was quite a difference for me.

Peter

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Peter, if the LC had nowhere else to rout to, it would have indeed
carried the camp with it, and thus the camp would be destroyed.
>
> J
>

Jon:

Okay - that's how we played. My big mistake (not usually playing
cavalry armies) is that my camp was actually mobile, so I could have
moved it out of the way before the routing LC arrived. Oh well.

But one more point - could the routing LC have diverted around the
camp? There weren't any other units around to prevent there being a
two element wide gap to either side of the camp.

[joncleaves]

But one more point - could the routing LC have diverted around the
camp? There weren't any other units around to prevent there being a
two element wide gap to either side of the camp.>>

If that second sentence is true, then yes, the LC could have diverted.

J


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