Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

HI

Combining two of the recent threads. I've also played a bit of DBR
and feel some of the comments here are a little unkind. I always
really liked the way that DBR represented Pistol armed cav and mixed
pike and shot foot (surely two key issues in renaissance wargaming).
The Gush rules (apart from the tedious reaction testing system) made
it almost impossible to employ mounted pistol fire effectively

On the issue of incendiaries I have had great deal of opportunity to
make use of the new rules recently. In our last comp here in Oz (6
rounds 1300point) I used Jurchen/Jin (one of the chinese armies
allowed to give all its foot incendiaries). As I was in a gimmicky
mood I had 96 foot archers equipped with 1 shot incendiaries (as well
as firelances, artillery and camels). I used this list ten times in
total (6 at the comp+four practise games) and cant say I found the
incendiaries to be all that devastating. I tended to find that the
short range combined with the expense left me wondering if it was all
worth the effort. Perhaps they would be more effective in an army
whose archers also had a combat weapon (such as later Tang) but then
you are talking about an excetionally expensive D grade foot man. My
only real reality issue with the incendiary rules as they stand is
mobility. Surely the equipment and process of firing incendiaries
would slow you down quite a bit. I find the idea of firing
incendiaries while in skirmish (or perhaps even in a turn where an
approach was made) perplexing. With this said I think people are far
more worried about inc than their effect justifies. I certainly
wouldn't go dumping a gun army like H. Sicilian because it lacked
incendiary capabilities.

Martin

HI

Combining two of the recent threads. I've also played a bit of DBR
and feel some of the comments here are a little unkind. I always
really liked the way that DBR represented Pistol armed cav and mixed
pike and shot foot (surely two key issues in renaissance wargaming).
The Gush rules (apart from the tedious reaction testing system) made
it almost impossible to employ mounted pistol fire effectively

On the issue of incendiaries I have had great deal of opportunity to
make use of the new rules recently. In our last comp here in Oz (6
rounds 1300point) I used Jurchen/Jin (one of the chinese armies
allowed to give all its foot incendiaries). As I was in a gimmicky
mood I had 96 foot archers equipped with 1 shot incendiaries (as well
as firelances, artillery and camels). I used this list ten times in
total (6 at the comp+four practise games) and cant say I found the
incendiaries to be all that devastating. I tended to find that the
short range combined with the expense left me wondering if it was all
worth the effort. Perhaps they would be more effective in an army
whose archers also had a combat weapon (such as later Tang) but then
you are talking about an excetionally expensive D grade foot man. My
only real reality issue with the incendiary rules as they stand is
mobility. Surely the equipment and process of firing incendiaries
would slow you down quite a bit. I find the idea of firing
incendiaries while in skirmish (or perhaps even in a turn where an
approach was made) perplexing. With this said I think people are far
more worried about inc than their effect justifies. I certainly
wouldn't go dumping a gun army like H. Sicilian because it lacked
incendiary capabilities.

Martin

HI

Combining two of the recent threads. I've also played a bit of DBR
and feel some of the comments here are a little unkind. I always
really liked the way that DBR represented Pistol armed cav and mixed
pike and shot foot (surely two key issues in renaissance wargaming).
The Gush rules (apart from the tedious reaction testing system) made
it almost impossible to employ mounted pistol fire effectively

On the issue of incendiaries I have had great deal of opportunity to
make use of the new rules recently. In our last comp here in Oz (6
rounds 1300point) I used Jurchen/Jin (one of the chinese armies
allowed to give all its foot incendiaries). As I was in a gimmicky
mood I had 96 foot archers equipped with 1 shot incendiaries (as well
as firelances, artillery and camels). I used this list ten times in
total (6 at the comp+four practise games) and cant say I found the
incendiaries to be all that devastating. I tended to find that the
short range combined with the expense left me wondering if it was all
worth the effort. Perhaps they would be more effective in an army
whose archers also had a combat weapon (such as later Tang) but then
you are talking about an excetionally expensive D grade foot man. My
only real reality issue with the incendiary rules as they stand is
mobility. Surely the equipment and process of firing incendiaries
would slow you down quite a bit. I find the idea of firing
incendiaries while in skirmish (or perhaps even in a turn where an
approach was made) perplexing. With this said I think people are far
more worried about inc than their effect justifies. I certainly
wouldn't go dumping a gun army like H. Sicilian because it lacked
incendiary capabilities.

Martin