Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Don Coon]

> Again A's never check as they are always eager, short of being shaken,
which of course can never happen because they are always eager. Give them a
+1 like we apply -1 for uneasy troops and you have never waivering troops.
Irr B's become almost as impervious. Don't like it.
> Chris

First off, I do not think A's are always eager. They can just never be
uneasy. Irr B are eager, but 2 causes of unease cancel this. I still see
your point though, as Irr B are eager MOST of the time. Irr B would
actually be more impervious to waver than A troops. Hmmm.

Don

[joncleaves]

Don

These x-rules will be included in the next update to them.

Jon

[Don Coon]

Jon et all,

Here are the 3 X rules I would like included. Rather than 1 X-rule, I would
rather they were 3 separate ones so anyone chossing to use them, can mix and
match at will.

1. Knights do not test waver for non knights (this may be an unneccesary
rule as it will often be mitigated by 2).

2. Eager units get a +1 to waver tests.

3. Generals in the line of command of a body in retreat DO NOT have to
make retirement and march moves. They may stay on board using legal moves as
they see fit in an attempt to recover the command. They are not allowed to
declare charges, although they may countercharge. Once the command has
become unrecoverable due to more than half on the units being off table or
destroyed, he must make retirement and march moves to get off table as per
RETREAT orders.

We have not yet played by these rules. Here are my thoughts.

1. It just feels like Knights should ignore the pee-ons they are forced to
fight with (say this with an elitist tongue in cheek to get the right feel).
Samurai may need to be included too. This is the easiest of the 3 rules, I
see to get rid off, as rule 2 covers many Knight/pee-on relationships.

2. Not having playtested this, I have no idea what this does to play
balance. I like that it gives eager troops a boost. It also adds more
value to standards (which are very overcosted IMHO) as they help you on the
road to eagerness.

3. This is my favorite. I personally hate it when a command goes into
RETREAT, and the general is the first off board. Many players have their
generals in the rear, away from enemy troops to survey, issue orders, and
rally bodies. This very position makes them the first off in a retreat.
While I see the "I am going to save my skin" mentality of making them
retreat with the command, I prefer to think of my generals as a cut above
the other soldiers. I think they see the demoralization of the command as a
situation needing their attention, and should act to recover the command.
Once it becomes hopeless (over half the units destroyed or off board), he
gives up hope.

Don

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 03/24/2002 8:10:38 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jjendon@... writes:

<< 3. This is my favorite. I personally hate it when a command goes into
RETREAT, and the general is the first off board. Many players have their
generals in the rear, away from enemy troops to survey, issue orders, and
rally bodies. This very position makes them the first off in a retreat.
While I see the "I am going to save my skin" mentality of making them
retreat with the command, I prefer to think of my generals as a cut above
the other soldiers. I think they see the demoralization of the command as a
situation needing their attention, and should act to recover the command.
Once it becomes hopeless (over half the units destroyed or off board), he
gives up hope.
>>
What if this rule were based on general's rating? Unreliable and cautious
retreat immediately, bold follows your commented ideas and rash, must attack
nearest enemy to exact revenge for defeat of his forces, or some such?
Chris

[Harlan Garrett]

Good idea.

HG

-----Original Message-----
From: cncbump@... [mailto:cncbump@...]
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 10:17 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] X rule


In a message dated 03/24/2002 8:10:38 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jjendon@... writes:

<< 3. This is my favorite. I personally hate it when a command goes
into
RETREAT, and the general is the first off board. Many players have
their
generals in the rear, away from enemy troops to survey, issue orders,
and
rally bodies. This very position makes them the first off in a retreat.
While I see the "I am going to save my skin" mentality of making them
retreat with the command, I prefer to think of my generals as a cut
above
the other soldiers. I think they see the demoralization of the command
as a
situation needing their attention, and should act to recover the
command.
Once it becomes hopeless (over half the units destroyed or off board),
he
gives up hope.
>>
What if this rule were based on general's rating? Unreliable and
cautious
retreat immediately, bold follows your commented ideas and rash, must
attack
nearest enemy to exact revenge for defeat of his forces, or some such?
Chris


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=215002.1818248.3328688.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705
059080:HM/A=847665/R=0/*http://ads.x10.com/?bHlhaG9vbW9uc3RlcjcuZGF0=101
7073123%3eM=215002.1818248.3328688.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705059080:HM/A
=847665/R=1>

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=215002.1818248.3328688.1261774/D=egrou
pmail/S=1705059080:HM/A=847665/rand=699834106>

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



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

[Don Coon]

> << 3. This is my favorite. I personally hate it when a command goes into
> RETREAT, and the general is the first off board. Many players have their
> generals in the rear, away from enemy troops to survey, issue orders, and
> rally bodies. This very position makes them the first off in a retreat.
> While I see the "I am going to save my skin" mentality of making them
> retreat with the command, I prefer to think of my generals as a cut above
> the other soldiers. I think they see the demoralization of the command
as a
> situation needing their attention, and should act to recover the command.
> Once it becomes hopeless (over half the units destroyed or off board), he
> gives up hope.
> >>
> What if this rule were based on general's rating? Unreliable and cautious
> retreat immediately, bold follows your commented ideas and rash, must
attack
> nearest enemy to exact revenge for defeat of his forces, or some such?
> Chris

Not bad.

Don

[joncleaves]

I am in complete agreement with Todd, FWIW, that we are a long way from x-rules
being in tourneys. Theme rules are a different story, but it was NOT our intent
to have x-rules in big public events.

Jon

[Todd Kaeser]

I would hope that tournaments would not use x-rules
until there has been some mastery of the "basic" set.
Few people know the rules well enough and to add new
rules would only confuse people.

On another note, a tournament organizer can run any
x-rule they choose, but Historicon, Cold-wars and
Fall-in should be just the basic set w/ the exception
of themes.

One arguement for the knight waver testing question.
If knights shouldn't have to waver test then why
should chariots, nobles, Sacred Thebens, Immortals,
fanatics, etc not have the same option? The idea is
that they are of good enough morale that the potential
of them failing the test is limited.

We need to be realistic in the fact that this is a
game and that it includes 4,500 years of armies.

my 2 cents,
Todd K

--- jjendon@... wrote:
> Jon et all,
>
> Here are the 3 X rules I would like included.
> Rather than 1 X-rule, I would
> rather they were 3 separate ones so anyone chossing
> to use them, can mix and
> match at will.
>
> 1. Knights do not test waver for non knights (this
> may be an unneccesary
> rule as it will often be mitigated by 2).
>
> 2. Eager units get a +1 to waver tests.
>
> 3. Generals in the line of command of a body in
> retreat DO NOT have to
> make retirement and march moves. They may stay on
> board using legal moves as
> they see fit in an attempt to recover the command.
> They are not allowed to
> declare charges, although they may countercharge.
> Once the command has
> become unrecoverable due to more than half on the
> units being off table or
> destroyed, he must make retirement and march moves
> to get off table as per
> RETREAT orders.
>
> We have not yet played by these rules. Here are my
> thoughts.
>
> 1. It just feels like Knights should ignore the
> pee-ons they are forced to
> fight with (say this with an elitist tongue in cheek
> to get the right feel).
> Samurai may need to be included too. This is the
> easiest of the 3 rules, I
> see to get rid off, as rule 2 covers many
> Knight/pee-on relationships.
>
> 2. Not having playtested this, I have no idea what
> this does to play
> balance. I like that it gives eager troops a boost.
> It also adds more
> value to standards (which are very overcosted IMHO)
> as they help you on the
> road to eagerness.
>
> 3. This is my favorite. I personally hate it when
> a command goes into
> RETREAT, and the general is the first off board.
> Many players have their
> generals in the rear, away from enemy troops to
> survey, issue orders, and
> rally bodies. This very position makes them the
> first off in a retreat.
> While I see the "I am going to save my skin"
> mentality of making them
> retreat with the command, I prefer to think of my
> generals as a cut above
> the other soldiers. I think they see the
> demoralization of the command as a
> situation needing their attention, and should act to
> recover the command.
> Once it becomes hopeless (over half the units
> destroyed or off board), he
> gives up hope.
>
> Don
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®
http://movies.yahoo.com/

[Dave Markowitz]

I agree.

> I am in complete agreement with Todd, FWIW, that we are a long way from
x-rules being in tourneys. Theme rules are a different story, but it was
NOT our intent to have x-rules in big public events.
>
> Jon

Put me in this camp too. Warrior is too young to be running tournies with
other than the core rules.

Don

[Don Coon]

> One arguement for the knight waver testing question. If knights shouldn't
have to waver test then why
> should chariots, nobles, Sacred Thebens, Immortals, fanatics, etc not have
the same option? The idea is
> that they are of good enough morale that the potential of them failing the
test is limited.
>
> We need to be realistic in the fact that this is a
> game and that it includes 4,500 years of armies.

No reason at all. My X-rule can be expanded to cover any army, that had
demonstratable snobby troops (i.e troops who did not view others as equals).
The only reason I used Knights and Samurai is that is what I know.

Don

[Don Coon]

> I am in complete agreement with Todd, FWIW, that we are a long way from
x-rules being in tourneys. Theme rules are a different story, but it was
NOT our intent to have x-rules in big public events.
>
> Jon

Put me in this camp too. Warrior is too young to be running tournies with
other than the core rules.

Don

[Patrick Byrne]

I don't believe the idea with Knights and or Samurai is about morale. It is
more about the cultural fact that Knights considered all people but nobles
as inferior, both in day to day life as on the battlefield.

I personally believe that "they fail their waiver test when they want to",
is about their right sentiment. Not because some C class troops doesn't
want to fight anymore.

If the other peoples you listed fall into that same category, then maybe
they should be considered for the same X-Rule. I think that It can be
modified any way to make sense.
-PB


> From: Todd Kaeser <hailkaeser@...>
> Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 07:15:39 -0800 (PST)
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] X rule

> One arguement for the knight waver testing question.
> If knights shouldn't have to waver test then why
> should chariots, nobles, Sacred Thebens, Immortals,
> fanatics, etc not have the same option? The idea is
> that they are of good enough morale that the potential
> of them failing the test is limited.
>
> We need to be realistic in the fact that this is a
> game and that it includes 4,500 years of armies.
>
> my 2 cents,
> Todd K
>
> --- jjendon@... wrote:
>> Jon et all,
>>
>> Here are the 3 X rules I would like included.
>> Rather than 1 X-rule, I would
>> rather they were 3 separate ones so anyone chossing
>> to use them, can mix and
>> match at will.
>>
>> 1. Knights do not test waver for non knights (this
>> may be an unneccesary
>> rule as it will often be mitigated by 2).
>>
>> 2. Eager units get a +1 to waver tests.
>>
>> 3. Generals in the line of command of a body in
>> retreat DO NOT have to
>> make retirement and march moves. They may stay on
>> board using legal moves as
>> they see fit in an attempt to recover the command.
>> They are not allowed to
>> declare charges, although they may countercharge.
>> Once the command has
>> become unrecoverable due to more than half on the
>> units being off table or
>> destroyed, he must make retirement and march moves
>> to get off table as per
>> RETREAT orders.
>>
>> We have not yet played by these rules. Here are my
>> thoughts.
>>
>> 1. It just feels like Knights should ignore the
>> pee-ons they are forced to
>> fight with (say this with an elitist tongue in cheek
>> to get the right feel).
>> Samurai may need to be included too. This is the
>> easiest of the 3 rules, I
>> see to get rid off, as rule 2 covers many
>> Knight/pee-on relationships.
>>
>> 2. Not having playtested this, I have no idea what
>> this does to play
>> balance. I like that it gives eager troops a boost.
>> It also adds more
>> value to standards (which are very overcosted IMHO)
>> as they help you on the
>> road to eagerness.
>>
>> 3. This is my favorite. I personally hate it when
>> a command goes into
>> RETREAT, and the general is the first off board.
>> Many players have their
>> generals in the rear, away from enemy troops to
>> survey, issue orders, and
>> rally bodies. This very position makes them the
>> first off in a retreat.
>> While I see the "I am going to save my skin"
>> mentality of making them
>> retreat with the command, I prefer to think of my
>> generals as a cut above
>> the other soldiers. I think they see the
>> demoralization of the command as a
>> situation needing their attention, and should act to
>> recover the command.
>> Once it becomes hopeless (over half the units
>> destroyed or off board), he
>> gives up hope.
>>
>> Don
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards?
> http://movies.yahoo.com/
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>