Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[scott holder]

I think you have Dave's comments all wrong. His opponent did not screen
the only massed archer unit on the tabel, but instead fought it with his
weakest unit and lost - go figure. Then he did it again.

>Agreed. Half the time it's the tactical situation driving this with
the whole idea of getting out of whack troop type matches in your favor.

The armor on the Bondi is an error in the FW list, but possible as an
upgrade to one unit in the main list where the effect of the armor is
diffused. I think we have the Viking list accurately portrayed.

>At the risk of sounding self satisfied *taking that risk* I'm actually
quite happy with the Viking list in Warrior. The player running it in
an open environement is gonna hafta take some risks in order to
potentially get big rewards. That playing mentality certainly doesn't
appeal to all players, that's why the devine made
piketrash/lateimperialromanslime:):)

And no list is meeting my approval if someone made them into 'gods'.
The Aztec list will be interesting and capable. But they will not be
'gods'.

>Let me add that I've already received some off-list whining and moaning
about how the Aztec list will look based on the snapshot they've seen in
Fast Warrior. Most of the active East Coast players have never felt the
Aztec's "gods" and haven't felt that way for years. I have them and
still can't make them win. Moreover, just about every elephant heavy
army I've seen competently run literally runs over the Aztecs regardless
of how much terrain the latter gets to hide in.

>Believe me, Aztecs ain't gonna be gods. They ain't now. They are
hopelessly dated in terms of research. I did a Spearpoint article on
the New World armies many years ago prior to the publication of the DBM
lists. You can get an idea of where I'll be going with them by reading
that article.

Scott
List Ho

Man! Nothings worse than listening to us gamers and
our STORIES!!!

James

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

Ugh. Reminds me of some of the things I didn't like
> about 7th.
>
> So, I guess Aztecs will be gods again in Warrior.
> After being
> downgraded to Hordes in DBM.
>
> JM

I agree! I wonder, Mr. Holder, if you will take into
account the article that Mr. Darrell Smith wrote in
Spearpoint a few years back regarding Amerind armies.
How their weapons can be counted as 2hcw against
armored opponents! According to many Spanish sources,
Aztec weapons shattered on contact with Spaniards
wearing armour.

Just grist for the page,

JL


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

[scott holder]

I agree! I wonder, Mr. Holder, if you will take into
account the article that Mr. Darrell Smith wrote in
Spearpoint a few years back regarding Amerind armies.
How their weapons can be counted as 2hcw against
armored opponents! According to many Spanish sources,
Aztec weapons shattered on contact with Spaniards
wearing armour.

>Please see my other post regarding Aztecs and again try to find the
article that I wrote regarding army composition of Aztecs, et.al.
That's where my main interest lies and to get the weapon classification
correct given the definitions contained in Warrior.

>Although many Spanish sources discuss the shattering effect of
stone-based concussive weapons on Spanish soldiers, many of those same
sources go on to say that these same weapons were actually nastier than
the Spanish metal ones against unarmored or partically armored targets,
ie. they were great at shredding quilts and skin. One *might* argue
that on balance, the two effects still result in the same end result.
I've also read one or two secondary sources/opinions that the whole
concussive effect was sufficient, not just the pointy edged rocks.

>However, this line of thinking is also in line with the whole "why
don't we give troops with stirrups a bonus" philosophy which I don't
subsribe to (actually the stirrup issue is probably a bad example given
the original source work on it and subsequent academic hammering; but,
it's also the most frequently quoted).

>Another of my favorites is the "scare" factor people often quote when
the Aztecs first saw Spanish horses. A good review of a few books about
the Aztecs puts this into the correct "minimal impact" context it
deserves within the rules. My favorite would be the "biological list
rule" that would make any New World player fighting against somebody
from another continent make some type of "small pox" roll:):)

>This subjuect usually boils down to the inevitable ahistorical aspect
of ancient/medieval wargaming. Would the Aztecs have been a
technological match for, oh, let's say the Late Teutonic Knights? Well,
no, probably not but it's really no different than pitting Early
Dynastic Sumerians against the same Late Teutonic Knights:):)

>I guess my answer to the original question is....no. You can tell I
usta be an intelligence officer.

Scott
List Ho

[Patrick Byrne]

The troop type looks good, but no way are they gods. They lack the
maneuverability and take moral checks from horsies, and they take fatigue
like a banshee. Add more fatigue sinks and take away more maneuverability.

This is the reason why Warrior is cool. Everyone's got their own likings.
Right now, My favorite Army would be one that has a good mixture of Reg, v.
Irr, Cav v. Foot.

Don't just downgrade a troop or army just because it looks awesome. Each
troop has their specialties. The Aztecs may look good, but in the open, My
Mongol general smiles ear to ear.

Right now, I think the Gods of the battlefield are Reg B MI HTW,JLS,D,SH
with Testudo ability - MIR Legionaries. and they remind me of the classic
D&D characters.
-PB



> From: "johnatht" <jmeunier@...>
> Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 16:08:03 -0000
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Fast Warrior 101
>
> --- In WarriorRules@y..., "david_smith_kc" <davidsmith@k...> wrote:
>> **Man, that's the truth. My Bondi archers, (which were LHI last
>> weekend), were the stud-muffins of the contest. My Huscarles were
>> standing by watching as my Bondi archers threw off one Irish unit
>> after another. : )
>>
>> Dave
>
>
> Ugh. Reminds me of some of the things I didn't like about 7th.
>
> So, I guess Aztecs will be gods again in Warrior. After being
> downgraded to Hordes in DBM.
>
> JM
>
>
> 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/
>
>

[Don Coon]

> Right now, I think the Gods of the battlefield are Reg B MI HTW,JLS,D,SH
> with Testudo ability - MIR Legionaries. and they remind me of the classic
> D&D characters.
> -PB


Dont forget Caltrops dude! Lucky no one around here runs MIR. No wait
thats my army. Sorry .

Don

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Actually Patrick, the god's of battle can all be Reg B
2HCW, Jls,D or S, sh(front rank) Reg B Jls, D or S, sh
back rank. this is what the Aztec or Inca can field
and PLEASE bring your mongols! I can skirmish your LC
to death and Slap your EHC/HC around like the wimpy
troop types they are verses my Native Americans!
Further, if you have a Timurid list with Elephants
that is all the better! The above weapons will EAT YOU
ALIVE!

James Lee

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

[Kelly Wilkinson]

--- jjendon@... wrote:
>
> > Right now, I think the Gods of the battlefield are
> Reg B MI HTW,JLS,D,SH
> > with Testudo ability - MIR Legionaries. and they
> remind me of the classic
> > D&D characters.
> > -PB
>
>
What really makes the Aztecs/Inca's better than ther
Late Romans is that they can skirmish and use
slings(staying out of range of legionaires) and shoot
them to ribbons! Even if they come to within dart
range, the Incan/Aztecs will skirmish being shot at a
factor of 0 verses their return shot at a +2. Very
ugly indeed. And now imagine how they will do against
the earlier Romans! Yuck! They are just too good!

James Lee

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

[Ewan McNay]

kelly wilkinson wrote:
>
> Actually Patrick, the god's of battle can all be Reg B
> 2HCW, Jls,D or S, sh(front rank) Reg B Jls, D or S, sh
> back rank. this is what the Aztec or Inca can field
> and PLEASE bring your mongols! I can skirmish your LC
> to death and Slap your EHC/HC around like the wimpy
> troop types they are verses my Native Americans!
> Further, if you have a Timurid list with Elephants
> that is all the better! The above weapons will EAT YOU
> ALIVE!

Well... not really. I've taken Aztecs or Incas to two 7th World
championships (and a bunch of other tourneys). Against a competent
Mongol, it's basically a no-score draw: they can't hurt you*, you can't
catch them.

*Exception: most Mongols have a unit of 12 EHK (rarely, 2x6) that can
try to fight the LMI heads-up. They'll lose, but slowly. Usual tactic
is to use the 963 4-man LC units to run in massed circles looking for a
flank to pin, so that said pinned unit gets the EHK in the front next
bound and may even be disordered/shaken.

In the shooting duel, when the LMI do well the LC just run away - and
others take their place. If the LC get a big up, that may be a
disordered LMI unit, in which case loose order cav will join the
shooting party - looking for a second waver - and/or charge. If the LMI
are in skirmih to avoid being shot up at all, then loose order cav can
run them down.

Now, having played devil's advocate, I'd sure prefer to be the Aztec; in
the quintessential example, on a bare table against a Belgian Mongol
player with (I think) 17 4-man LC units, I deployed on the center line
(out-scouted - gee, surprise!) and eventually pushed him off the edge of
the table. But it relies on making some key counters.

Ewan (who will take the Aztec side of this battle for real money :)

[Ewan McNay]

kelly wilkinson wrote:
> What really makes the Aztecs/Inca's better than ther
> Late Romans is that they can skirmish and use
> slings(staying out of range of legionaires) and shoot
> them to ribbons! Even if they come to within dart
> range, the Incan/Aztecs will skirmish being shot at a
> factor of 0 verses their return shot at a +2. Very
> ugly indeed. And now imagine how they will do against
> the earlier Romans! Yuck! They are just too good!

Well... no again. LIR is like an Aztec with cav - any competent LIR
player will use that advantage to force the Aztec not to be in skirmish
- for fear of being run down - and then just kill it. Even Auxilia
bowmen can outrange the slings .

Sorry to be so flatly opposing, but these ideas of how godlike the
Incas/Aztec are just ain't so.

[scott holder]

Well... no again. LIR is like an Aztec with cav - any competent LIR
player will use that advantage to force the Aztec not to be in skirmish
- for fear of being run down - and then just kill it. Even Auxilia
bowmen can outrange the slings .

Sorry to be so flatly opposing, but these ideas of how godlike the
Incas/Aztec are just ain't so.

>Exactly. Last time I ran an army I know well (Khmer) against em, no battle.
Using the Ewan billiard table example, I justs moved the elephants and LHI up,
took the shot, passed the waver test, charged Aztec foot, end of game.

>I've always said that if they were that killer, more people would use them. As
Ewan indicated, they simply don't have enough shock when you need it. The Otomi
just ain't around in quantity. A good army, yes, but also if you're patient.
And the main reason most people lose against it is that they fall into the trap
of trying to do too much too soon. Ewan's Mongol example is prime, both armies
really can't flatten the other without huge luck swings or total incompetence on
one side or the other. I can also recall an NICT battle of about 15 years ago
where the supposedly invincible Aztecs fought a 2-2 draw against Qin Chinese,
both players being about equal in skill.

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Good point Scott, I see your point. Thanks for the
insight!

Kelly

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball
http://sports.yahoo.com

[joncleaves]

John

I do not see any reason why you should have to rebase a DBM NByz army to make a
Warrior army out of it. Is there a particular troop type you are thinking of?

jon

[joncleaves]

John

You don't have to change any of that. Warrior provides for double depth bases
(see end of 2.512 on page 13). The two lancer one horse archer kavallaroi
elements are fine, in fact very aethestic in my opinion.

If you use three rank deep skutatoi, you may have to make another rank of LTS in
some units, but your double element lts/b stands are fine for ranks two and
three.

We were very sensitive to this issue and I think we have done all we could. But
I will issue further clarifications to make it work before I am going to ask
anyone to rebase.

Jon

[joncleaves]

We aim to please, and in no area more than making it easy on folks.