Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Tom McMillan]

In a message dated 3/2/2005 4:33:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,
WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com writes:
Remember the days when naked untrained savages with sharp sticks
could kick the crap out of elite Halbardiers? Is that the elegance we
want to return to?

I sure don't!!!

No, if Celts are now simply useless, and the impetuous charge mechanic is
now pointless, that's fine. As the author makes clear, he is free to write the
rules as he pleases. I am glad that instead of smply pointing out where I was
wrong and telling me I didnt know what i was talking about he supported my
theorem and frankly replied that javelin armed barbarians simply lose, and that
is the author's intent. Clearly that is my problem as a 'dinosaur' with
'baggage' to assume that the rules for impetuous charges, and the ways regular
armies could defuse them, were there for some reason. Now I know better.
I just wasn't aware that the Chinese grunt was the great archetype 'elite'
warrior of history. - Tom


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

[joncleaves]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Quahog25@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 3/2/2005 4:33:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com writes:
>
> No, if Celts are now simply useless, and the impetuous charge
mechanic is
> now pointless, that's fine.>>

Oh really now. I did not say that and it isn't true. I said JLS
Picts can't beat steady halberdiers and i don't have any evidence
that they ever did, so what's the issue? Certainly the impetuous
charge mechanic is far from pointless - actually the case can more
easily be made that it might be too powerful as opposed to too
weak...

<< As the author makes clear, he is free to write the
> rules as he pleases. I am glad that instead of smply pointing out
where I was
> wrong and telling me I didnt know what i was talking about he
supported my
> theorem and frankly replied that javelin armed barbarians simply
lose, and that
> is the author's intent.>>

Every decent military in the world sought specifically to be better
than a mob with a short spear. LMI JLS is the vanilla troop of
Warrior because it was the vanilla troop of history...

<< Clearly that is my problem as a 'dinosaur' with
> 'baggage' to assume that the rules for impetuous charges, and the
ways regular
> armies could defuse them, were there for some reason.>>

I did not use those terms. The ways regular armies defuse impetuous
charges remain and have nothing to do with steady 2HCT being 1.5
ranks.

<< Now I know better.
> I just wasn't aware that the Chinese grunt was the great
archetype 'elite'
> warrior of history. - Tom >>

Come on, Tom, that isn't being helpful. Have you got a case of JLS
Picts even fighting halberdiers, let alone winning?

J

[Greg Regets]

Picts would beat any halbardiers in the woods, and hurt the close
order ones mighty bad in almost any terrain.

Picts can also be played in very deep formations that match up fairly
well against equal point value of halbardiers with heavy armor. You
rarely see this, at least in my area. People tend to play Irregular
units two ranks deep, and then wonder why they are not more effective.

Be historical, and win ... ;-)

If skillfully deployed and played, Picts will get to charge
impetuously against mounted, eliminating a waver test and giving a
good chance of gaining deadly result.

Picts can also work movement to get to 40p before charging, and get a
shielded prep shot before charging.

If care is taken, Picts will trash elephants ... which certainly
can't be said for halbardiers.

I don't know much about Chinese armies, so am not qualified to
comment on what they should, or should not be. Looking at OW thought,
I notice that some troops are regular with 2HCT, and some are regular
with 1HCW. The 2HCT can fight the Picts, but the 1HCW will not like
the outcome, player skill being equal.

Isn't this satisfactory?

g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Jon" <JonCleaves@a...> wrote:
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Quahog25@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 3/2/2005 4:33:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> > WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com writes:
> >
> > No, if Celts are now simply useless, and the impetuous charge
> mechanic is
> > now pointless, that's fine.>>
>
> Oh really now. I did not say that and it isn't true. I said JLS
> Picts can't beat steady halberdiers and i don't have any evidence
> that they ever did, so what's the issue? Certainly the impetuous
> charge mechanic is far from pointless - actually the case can more
> easily be made that it might be too powerful as opposed to too
> weak...
>
> << As the author makes clear, he is free to write the
> > rules as he pleases. I am glad that instead of smply pointing out
> where I was
> > wrong and telling me I didnt know what i was talking about he
> supported my
> > theorem and frankly replied that javelin armed barbarians simply
> lose, and that
> > is the author's intent.>>
>
> Every decent military in the world sought specifically to be better
> than a mob with a short spear. LMI JLS is the vanilla troop of
> Warrior because it was the vanilla troop of history...
>
> << Clearly that is my problem as a 'dinosaur' with
> > 'baggage' to assume that the rules for impetuous charges, and the
> ways regular
> > armies could defuse them, were there for some reason.>>
>
> I did not use those terms. The ways regular armies defuse
impetuous
> charges remain and have nothing to do with steady 2HCT being 1.5
> ranks.
>
> << Now I know better.
> > I just wasn't aware that the Chinese grunt was the great
> archetype 'elite'
> > warrior of history. - Tom >>
>
> Come on, Tom, that isn't being helpful. Have you got a case of JLS
> Picts even fighting halberdiers, let alone winning?
>
> J

[Tom McMillan]

Nice crowd.
Reread my post- it was a calm and rational, objective and intended to be
constructive, discussion of what appeared to be a balance problem which came up
at a recent event.
Of course I get the bullying smackdown from the author, its the only style
of argument of which he is capable, then get called names and told to get out
of the hobby by others.
Good grief. - Tom


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/3/2005 06:10:20 Central Standard Time, Quahog25@...
writes:

Nice crowd.
Reread my post- it was a calm and rational, objective and intended to be
constructive, discussion of what appeared to be a balance problem which came
up
at a recent event.
Of course I get the bullying smackdown from the author, its the only style
of argument of which he is capable, then get called names and told to get
out
of the hobby by others.
Good grief. - Tom >>


Tom, that was not at all intended to be any sort of 'bullying smackdown'. I
stated our position that we do not believe that JLS-armed Irr LMI should
beat steady halderdiers in a straight-up match. I asked if you knew of such a
case. I disagreed with you that somehow being impetuous didn't matter any
more. I would do any of those things again, because I believe them all to be
true.

I didn't see where anyone called you a name, but I will review yesterday's
messages and if I find such I will warn the writer.

I am sorry you feel this way, your membership in and contributions to this
list are highly desired. Please accept my apologies on behalf of the group.

J








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

Greetings

Not yet having OW and not having any 2HCT troops yet I have not been
focussing on the 2HCT debate. However I caught Tom's comment about
8E of Picts charging 4E of (shieldless) halberdiers.

I could not quite follow all the numbers:
(1) Halberdiers 4E Reg C? MI? 2HCT no shield (58 points if the ? are
OK) fight in 1.5 ranks so are 12@5 vs LMI Sh.
(2) Picts 8E Irr C? LMI LTS or JLS?, Sh (97 points if the ? are OK)
fight in 1.5 ranks if LTS or JLS as LMI so would be (2E wide 4 deep)
at 9@3 (LTS) or 9@4 (JLS) against MI.

If the Picts are charging the halberdiers impetuously they would get
+2 for loose impetuous charge
+3 for target shieldless
-1 faced by 2HCT

(a) This would normally give 9@8 for LTS and 9@9 for JLS?

(b) Is there something special that occurs in this specific case
with the impetuous charge or list rules that impact these
halberdiers?

Regards

Edward

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 3/3/2005 06:10:20 Central Standard Time,
Quahog25@a...
> writes:
>
> Nice crowd.
> Reread my post- it was a calm and rational, objective and
intended to be
> constructive, discussion of what appeared to be a balance problem
which came
> up
> at a recent event.
> Of course I get the bullying smackdown from the author, its the
only style
> of argument of which he is capable, then get called names and
told to get
> out
> of the hobby by others.
> Good grief. - Tom >>
>
>
> Tom, that was not at all intended to be any sort of 'bullying
smackdown'. I
> stated our position that we do not believe that JLS-armed Irr LMI
should
> beat steady halderdiers in a straight-up match. I asked if you
knew of such a
> case. I disagreed with you that somehow being impetuous didn't
matter any
> more. I would do any of those things again, because I believe
them all to be
> true.
>
> I didn't see where anyone called you a name, but I will review
yesterday's
> messages and if I find such I will warn the writer.
>
> I am sorry you feel this way, your membership in and contributions
to this
> list are highly desired. Please accept my apologies on behalf of
the group.
>
> J

[Mike Turner]

Ed,
Steady 2HCT count shielded 1st round of combat (like 2HCW) so the
Picts don't get the +3 the first round of combat, but will on
subsequent bounds,
Mike


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Edward Sturges"
<edward_sturges@h...> wrote:
>
> Greetings
>
> Not yet having OW and not having any 2HCT troops yet I have not
been
> focussing on the 2HCT debate. However I caught Tom's comment about
> 8E of Picts charging 4E of (shieldless) halberdiers.
>
> I could not quite follow all the numbers:
> (1) Halberdiers 4E Reg C? MI? 2HCT no shield (58 points if the ?
are
> OK) fight in 1.5 ranks so are 12@5 vs LMI Sh.
> (2) Picts 8E Irr C? LMI LTS or JLS?, Sh (97 points if the ? are OK)
> fight in 1.5 ranks if LTS or JLS as LMI so would be (2E wide 4
deep)
> at 9@3 (LTS) or 9@4 (JLS) against MI.
>
> If the Picts are charging the halberdiers impetuously they would
get
> +2 for loose impetuous charge
> +3 for target shieldless
> -1 faced by 2HCT
>
> (a) This would normally give 9@8 for LTS and 9@9 for JLS?
>
> (b) Is there something special that occurs in this specific case
> with the impetuous charge or list rules that impact these
> halberdiers?
>
> Regards
>
> Edward
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 3/3/2005 06:10:20 Central Standard Time,
> Quahog25@a...
> > writes:
> >
> > Nice crowd.
> > Reread my post- it was a calm and rational, objective and
> intended to be
> > constructive, discussion of what appeared to be a balance
problem
> which came
> > up
> > at a recent event.
> > Of course I get the bullying smackdown from the author, its the
> only style
> > of argument of which he is capable, then get called names and
> told to get
> > out
> > of the hobby by others.
> > Good grief. - Tom >>
> >
> >
> > Tom, that was not at all intended to be any sort of 'bullying
> smackdown'. I
> > stated our position that we do not believe that JLS-armed Irr
LMI
> should
> > beat steady halderdiers in a straight-up match. I asked if you
> knew of such a
> > case. I disagreed with you that somehow being impetuous didn't
> matter any
> > more. I would do any of those things again, because I believe
> them all to be
> > true.
> >
> > I didn't see where anyone called you a name, but I will review
> yesterday's
> > messages and if I find such I will warn the writer.
> >
> > I am sorry you feel this way, your membership in and
contributions
> to this
> > list are highly desired. Please accept my apologies on behalf
of
> the group.
> >
> > J

[joncleaves]

I could not quite follow all the numbers:
(1) Halberdiers 4E Reg C? MI? 2HCT no shield (58 points if the ? are
OK) fight in 1.5 ranks so are 12@5 vs LMI Sh.>>

No, 2HCT (and 2HCW, LTS, P) do not count shieldless if steady at first contact,
even if they have no shield. This is a base rule, not a list rule.

This means the +3 isn't there, so your numbers are incorrect.

<<(b) Is there something special that occurs in this specific case
with the impetuous charge or list rules that impact these
halberdiers?>>

Nope.

Jon

[Todd Schneider]

The Combat would be as follows (I think)

The Halberdiers are 12@5

The Picts would be 9@6 (Assuming Halberdiers are MI,
Charging and impetuos, -1 for facing 2HCT).

On Even Dice, Picts do 45 casualties, or 2 CPF to
Halberdiers.
Halberdiers do 48 casualties, or 2 CPF, doubled to 4
if Irr.

The Picts Recoil, the Halberdiers may choose to follow
up. Neither is Disordered. The Picts will be tired,
being at 5 CPF (1 for the charge, 4 for combat).

If the Halberdiers follow up, the next bound of
combat, they will be 12@6, or 60 casualties and 3CPF
to the Picts.
The Picts will be 12@4 (Tired and Other foot vs.
Shieldless MI armed with 2HCT. 36 casualties, another
2 CPF to the Halberdiers.
Picts will be disordered, Tired, and have 11CPF.

Third Bound Halberdiers will again be 12@6, which
would destroy the Picts in Combat.
The Picts would be 9@3, or 23 casualties, which would
be 1 CPF to the Halberdiers, tiring them.

All in all, sound slike a pretty historical matchup tp
me. If the Picts roll well and the Halberdiers don't
the first round of combat, then it becomes a pushing
match, but then anything can and will happen with
random dice rolling.

Todd
--- JonCleaves@... wrote:


---------------------------------
I could not quite follow all the numbers:
(1) Halberdiers 4E Reg C? MI? 2HCT no shield (58
points if the ? are
OK) fight in 1.5 ranks so are 12@5 vs LMI Sh.>>

No, 2HCT (and 2HCW, LTS, P) do not count shieldless if
steady at first contact, even if they have no shield.
This is a base rule, not a list rule.

This means the +3 isn't there, so your numbers are
incorrect.

<<(b) Is there something special that occurs in this
specific case
with the impetuous charge or list rules that impact
these
halberdiers?>>

Nope.

Jon


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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.

[Doug]

>The Halberdiers are
>
>The Picts would be

>All in all, sounds like a pretty historical matchup tp
>me.

!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!
ROTFLMAO

Jon

Thanks.

I had looked right past the relevant bullet in 7.1 .

On a very minor point the language 'cannot count shieldless (even if
they do not posses shields) ...' is a little convoluted. Would it
not be simpler to say: 'count as shielded (even if they do not
possess shields) ...'?

Regards

Edward

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> I could not quite follow all the numbers:
> (1) Halberdiers 4E Reg C? MI? 2HCT no shield (58 points if the ?
are
> OK) fight in 1.5 ranks so are 12@5 vs LMI Sh.>>
>
> No, 2HCT (and 2HCW, LTS, P) do not count shieldless if steady at
first contact, even if they have no shield. This is a base rule, not
a list rule.
>
> This means the +3 isn't there, so your numbers are incorrect.
>
> <<(b) Is there something special that occurs in this specific case
> with the impetuous charge or list rules that impact these
> halberdiers?>>
>
> Nope.
>
> Jon

[joncleaves]

On a very minor point the language 'cannot count shieldless (even if
they do not posses shields) ...' is a little convoluted. Would it
not be simpler to say: 'count as shielded (even if they do not
possess shields) ...'?>>

Yep. And that whole section gets two big cross reference charts in the new
rulebook, too.

Jon

[Tom McMillan]

In a message dated 3/2/2005 5:54:21 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Remember the days when naked untrained savages with sharp sticks
could kick the crap out of elite Halbardiers? Is that the elegance we
want to return to?

I sure don't!!!

It wasn't really the pointed sticks you had to worry about, it was the fury
of the barbarian charge. Those savages and their sticks did ok in the hands
of the Cimbri and Teutones against the Republican Romans, (who had just
finished wiping the floor with the Macedonians and Seleucids, so probably would
have
done ok against Chinese infantry), annihilating 3 armies before Marius showed
how a real general dealt with them. Caesar also had his moments, and the
Galatians did well enough against the Successors that they eventually, after a
20
year successful rampage through the heartland, had to be given a kingdom in
Anatolia.
Proving once again, to quote Steve Roper's dictum, that historically,
ANYTHING can be argued both ways. - Tom


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