Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

I think that It will be easier to define some global characteristics, like
"impetuous" or "stubborn". This will be easier to use than a list rule, because
you only need to define the characteristic in the rule book, and then say, for
instance, "military order knights are impetuous" or "spartan hoplites are
stubborn" in the list books.
Emilio.





I have two comments.



> To me the cavalry case seems easier to deal with. The device used

for Companions

> of letting them make impetuous charges is one way to go, and may be

appropriate

> in some cases besides just Companions.



I really like this one... the impetuous charges for Reg A's that is.

I play Alexandrian Macedonian mostly, and I love this list rule. Those

enemy irregular's aren't so scary anymore. For shieldess lancers with

no missile weapons they are suprisingly as valuable to me as they were

perhaps, to Alexander.





> Foot is harder.



I agree.

Reg A foot might be "better" because they stick together, stay in

formation and fret less than their B and C counterparts. That "never

uneasy" rule just doesn't seem to help them hold on long enough to be

worth it. Supported B's will do the same job for less.



I'd like to be able to put down a unit of Reg A's and be sure that

whatever they faced (frontally) was going to have a hell of a time

breaking through no matter what weapons they carry. "Sire, the

Persians darken the sky with their arrows", "All the better, we shall

fight in the shade!"



What about making combat caused disorder harder to inflict on them?

Say 4CPF, or 3 times casualties ...perhaps ignore the first disorder

result or something like that? Maybe no follow-up bonus against them?

Something to keep them in the fight (undisordered).



The +1 for combat just tells us that Reg A's are better at killing

people. That may or may not be accurate, but I'm pretty sure that's

not what makes Reg A foot "great" in most historical cases.



Good luck with that.

Noel.



















SPONSORED LINKS




Miniature wargaming


Wargaming


Four horsemen





Warrior

















YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS






Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.


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


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[joncleaves]

That is an idea we will use for Warrior Battles and may retroactively use for
Warrior at some point.

-----Original Message-----
From: EMILIO MOSKOWICH <escalat@...>
To: warriorrules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:03:53 +0100 (GMT+01:00)
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Knight List Rule Proposals/Suggestions


I think that It will be easier to define some global characteristics, like
"impetuous" or "stubborn". This will be easier to use than a list rule, because
you only need to define the characteristic in the rule book, and then say, for
instance, "military order knights are impetuous" or "spartan hoplites are
stubborn" in the list books.
Emilio.





I have two comments.



> To me the cavalry case seems easier to deal with. The device used

for Companions

> of letting them make impetuous charges is one way to go, and may be

appropriate

> in some cases besides just Companions.



I really like this one... the impetuous charges for Reg A's that is.

I play Alexandrian Macedonian mostly, and I love this list rule. Those

enemy irregular's aren't so scary anymore. For shieldess lancers with

no missile weapons they are suprisingly as valuable to me as they were

perhaps, to Alexander.





> Foot is harder.



I agree.

Reg A foot might be "better" because they stick together, stay in

formation and fret less than their B and C counterparts. That "never

uneasy" rule just doesn't seem to help them hold on long enough to be

worth it. Supported B's will do the same job for less.



I'd like to be able to put down a unit of Reg A's and be sure that

whatever they faced (frontally) was going to have a hell of a time

breaking through no matter what weapons they carry. "Sire, the

Persians darken the sky with their arrows", "All the better, we shall

fight in the shade!"



What about making combat caused disorder harder to inflict on them?

Say 4CPF, or 3 times casualties ...perhaps ignore the first disorder

result or something like that? Maybe no follow-up bonus against them?

Something to keep them in the fight (undisordered).



The +1 for combat just tells us that Reg A's are better at killing

people. That may or may not be accurate, but I'm pretty sure that's

not what makes Reg A foot "great" in most historical cases.



Good luck with that.

Noel.



















SPONSORED LINKS




Miniature wargaming


Wargaming


Four horsemen





Warrior

















YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS






Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.


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


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Frank Gilson]

Yup, a very good idea we at my company use for our
games...called 'keywording'. Saves time and space, with one
qualification...

Don't use too many keywords...develop and define the minimum set.

Frank

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> That is an idea we will use for Warrior Battles and may
retroactively use for Warrior at some point.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: EMILIO MOSKOWICH <escalat@...>
> To: warriorrules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:03:53 +0100 (GMT+01:00)
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Knight List Rule
Proposals/Suggestions
>
>
> I think that It will be easier to define some global
characteristics, like
> "impetuous" or "stubborn". This will be easier to use than a list
rule, because
> you only need to define the characteristic in the rule book, and
then say, for
> instance, "military order knights are impetuous" or "spartan
hoplites are
> stubborn" in the list books.
> Emilio.

[Todd Schneider]

Fantasy Warrior has gone that rout to an extent. DOes
make a few things easier IMO.

Todd

--- Frank Gilson <franktrevorgilson@...>
wrote:

> Yup, a very good idea we at my company use for our
> games...called 'keywording'. Saves time and space,
> with one
> qualification...
>
> Don't use too many keywords...develop and define the
> minimum set.
>
> Frank
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@...
> wrote:
> >
> > That is an idea we will use for Warrior Battles
> and may
> retroactively use for Warrior at some point.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: EMILIO MOSKOWICH <escalat@...>
> > To: warriorrules@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:03:53 +0100 (GMT+01:00)
> > Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Knight List Rule
> Proposals/Suggestions
> >
> >
> > I think that It will be easier to define some
> global
> characteristics, like
> > "impetuous" or "stubborn". This will be easier to
> use than a list
> rule, because
> > you only need to define the characteristic in the
> rule book, and
> then say, for
> > instance, "military order knights are impetuous"
> or "spartan
> hoplites are
> > stubborn" in the list books.
> > Emilio.
>
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com