Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Doug]

As I understand history, one way Berserkers might have operated was
as scattered lunatics who would work themselves up to a point where
a small group of them would rush out ahead of their "unit" and attack
the enemy.

I think the Warhammer method of not bothering to depict the elements
of Berserkers until they actually emerge from the unit is very good.
It avoids all the problems I'm having with the Warrior mechanics-
trying to figure out how to fit those odd couple of elements into the
required formation geometry.

There seem to be three ways to model this behavior in Warrior. How
do the rules allow/prevent:

1) keep the small number (say 2) of elements as a partial rear rank
of the parent unit. Can they go Impetuous and burst thru the parent
to attack? What is the effect on the parent of being burst thru?

2) insert the small number of elements as a portion of the front
rank. However, when they attack, the parent unit would be left in an
illegal formation- a two element hole in the front rank. How do you
resolve that?

3) Can a still-attached Detachment form its own front rank, with the
Parent wider but in contact:
...DD...
PPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPP

If so, would missile fire still be divided amongst the entire
combined number of elements, or would the Detachment in this
orientation be considered a separate target?

Another way to model Berserker behavior is to use them as tiny
independant bodies; a suggested cost-effective strategy is to form a
two element unit containing a Berserker in the front rank and an
ordinary viking in the second. This avoids the problems above WRT
how you separate the detachnment, but IMO it isn't the best
historical representation of their tactics. Likewise for the method
of including a large number of Berserkers in a unit so they form an
entire front rank.
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

I live in Maryland. We top the list for heroin addiction, syphilis,
violent crime, and political corruption. So if you visit, expect to
be drugged, raped, robbed, and then taxed for the experience.[Attrib
to Bulldozer]

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 10/25/2002 07:36:03 Central Daylight Time,
Scott.Holder@... writes:

> -I'll let Jon answer areas 1-3 since I don't have the rules in front of me>>


You know, I have been trying to follow this thread to see if there are any
rules questions and I have not seen any yet - it has all been tactics/opinion
stuff. I asked for whoever had a detachment rules question to ask it (them)
in a mail separate from opinion so I could track it and answer and haven't
seen that yet either.

I am standing by.

And just so everyone knows, I think Warrior models beserks just fine, so I am
not planning on getting into a discussion of whether we got it right or not.
I'm simply saying I am ready to answer rules questions where there is
confusion about rules.

Jon





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

[scott holder]

As I understand history, one way Berserkers might have operated was
as scattered lunatics who would work themselves up to a point where
a small group of them would rush out ahead of their "unit" and attack
the enemy.

-It's safer to say that we don't really have a good historical record in the k
ind of detail needed to come to precise conclusions about the Berserkers. The
re is even a line of thought, albeit a minority one, that indicates the Beserk
presence and practice has been waaaaaay overblown in modern analysis.

-I suppose we could have come up with several list rules to model this one par
ticular interpretation. In the end we did not because having them as detachme
nts is by far the easiest way of modeling their "connectivity" with a larger p
arent body, either comprising a rank or remaining within 120p if seperated. A
lso just letting them be a separate unit models the other end of the interprat
ive spectrum.

There seem to be three ways to model this behavior in Warrior. How
do the rules allow/prevent:

-I'll let Jon answer areas 1-3 since I don't have the rules in front of me

>snipping areas 1-3<

Another way to model Berserker behavior is to use them as tiny
independant bodies;

-That can be done now and was a suggested way of organizing them from one of m
y previous posts. You purchase 4 2-element units and let them fire away.

a suggested cost-effective strategy is to form a
two element unit containing a Berserker in the front rank and an
ordinary viking in the second.

-This you cannot do since such troop types cannot mix (unless as part of a det
achment/parent relationship which has it's own rules, namely that each compone
nt must follow the rules in terms of minimum unit size, 2 elements, etc).

This avoids the problems above WRT
how you separate the detachnment, but IMO it isn't the best
historical representation of their tactics. Likewise for the method
of including a large number of Berserkers in a unit so they form an
entire front rank.

-This highlights a philisophical design approach to Warrior that sometimes nee
ds explanation. What we are looking for is an end-effect and sometimes the me
chanical compromises of a game covering 5000 years of history create holes fro
m time to time. That's one reason behind list rules. Beserks were handled in
DAW the way they were was for their perceived effect on the battlefield, henc
e, having them theoretically form a front rank of a unit creates the desired e
ffect, nothing more. One additional possibility would be to allow Beserks to
freely mix with Hirdsmen and/or Warriors which is always something we can revi
sit at a later date.

-One thing becomes very clear when you start to really dig into Viking history
: they had great PR men and their historical reputation among wargamers is mu

 ch greater than the record shows. They were about 50-50 when it came actually
fighting stand-up battles and not sacking hapless monastaries along the Seine
. And damn near everytime they fought against a predominately cavalry opponen
t (western Franks and Spanish), they got s*p*a*n*k*e*d.

-I might add that of all the Viking armies I've seen fielded over the years, I
'm the only person I've known who does this Beserk detachment to Hirdsmen and/
or Warriors leaving them as an always attached front rank. Most people organi
ze them as outlined above (4 units of human projectiles).

[Doug]

>In a message dated 10/25/2002 07:36:03 Central Daylight Time,
>Scott.Holder@... writes:
>
>> -I'll let Jon answer areas 1-3 since I don't have the rules in front of me>>
>
>
>You know, I have been trying to follow this thread to see if there are any
>rules questions and I have not seen any yet

Then read it again, this time with your brain engaged.

If you don't want to give me enough understanding to make it worth
putting an army together for Fall In, then I might as well toss your
product in the trash and stick with DBM.

I have other things to do with my time than memorize the text like a
Yeshiva student studying the Torah.

>
>I'm simply saying I am ready to answer rules questions where there is
>confusion about rules.
>
>Jon
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

I live in Maryland. We top the list for heroin addiction, syphilis,
violent crime, and political corruption. So if you visit, expect to
be drugged, raped, robbed, and then taxed for the experience.[Attrib
to Bulldozer]

[Jake Kovel]

In a message dated 10/25/02 1:29:05 PM, rockd@... writes:

>Then read it again, this time with your brain engaged.
>
>If you don't want to give me enough understanding to make it worth
>putting an army together for Fall In, then I might as well toss your
>product in the trash and stick with DBM.
>
>I have other things to do with my time than memorize the text like a
>Yeshiva student studying the Torah.
>
>
I have been following this thread with my brain engaged. I have yet to see a
rules question. There has certainly been some good philosophical points but
no rules questions.

And if you think that all a Yeshiva student does is memorize you are sadly
misinformed, and I personally am offended by such a remark.

If you don't like the game then feel free not to play.

Jacob Kovel

[Greg Regets]

I will openly admit that I too haven't followed this post enough to make a
really good comment, but that has never stopped me in the past. ;-)

Here is how I feel;

1. Detatchments are not worth the point savings. Just buy a unit.

2. No matter the troop you are discussing, it is not what the troop can do, it
is what you do with the troop in question! You will never get that answer in an
egroup. You will only get it by trying it on the table, with your creative
juices flowing. Fortunately, this process is lots of fun!

2.1 Troop types do not exist in a vacuum, but as part of an overall plan. One
player may not care for MI,LTS,Sh, but another player might know the guys in his
area play lots of loose order HTW, and if he puts the LTS guys on the table,
they will work like magnets, bringing the HTW guys in range of his knights.

3. Killer troops are a viable tactic. So also, is combined arms. If your a smash
mouth player, play a smash mouth army. If your a slick, creative player, play a
slick creative army.

3.1 Play the other style army once in a while. It will make you a better player
and it is loads of fun.

4. Anyone that thinks berserkers are not viable or useful, has never been in
contact with one that rolls +3. ;-)

Above all, have fun!

G


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

--- In WarriorRules@y..., Doug <rockd@p...> wrote:
>
> There seem to be three ways to model this behavior in Warrior. How
> do the rules allow/prevent:
>
> 1) keep the small number (say 2) of elements as a partial rear rank
> of the parent unit. Can they go Impetuous and burst thru the
parent
> to attack? What is the effect on the parent of being burst thru?

Going impetuous and bursting through sounds like a DBM tactic. Impet
troops in DBM burst through uncontrolled if you don't hold them or
make a tactical move. In Warrior no such thing happens. A burst-
through in Warrior is when a routing unit hits you.

Since loose formation foot cannot voluntarily interpenetrate other
loose formation foot (6.52) and I don't think the rear rank can see
the enemy to charge anyway, you can't charge from the rear rank.

In theory, you could during an approach or counter shuffle a rear
rank detachment to the front rank, then charge, but the formation
must be legal at all times, so if you had a 2-element detachment the
entire formation could only be 2-elements wide.



> 2) insert the small number of elements as a portion of the front
> rank. However, when they attack, the parent unit would be left in
an
> illegal formation- a two element hole in the front rank. How do
you
> resolve that?

I think you answered this yourself. The formation can't be illegal
after the detachment leaves, so I don't believe a detachment forming
less than a full front rank could charge out and leave a hole. (Of
course, you could do anything you want with a house rule.)


>
> 3) Can a still-attached Detachment form its own front rank, with
the
> Parent wider but in contact:
> ...DD...
> PPPPPPPP
> PPPPPPPP
>

Again, the rules as written do not allow this.

> Another way to model Berserker behavior is to use them as tiny
> independant bodies; a suggested cost-effective strategy is to form
a
> two element unit containing a Berserker in the front rank and an
> ordinary viking in the second. This avoids the problems above WRT
> how you separate the detachnment, but IMO it isn't the best
> historical representation of their tactics. Likewise for the
method
> of including a large number of Berserkers in a unit so they form an
> entire front rank.


These are common tactics on the tabletop. I'm not up on the latest
historiography regarding Viking tactics, so I can't discuss that.

Related options, it seems to me would be having a formation deploy 2-
elements wide but more than 2 deep. This deep column would expand
after contacting the enemy foot -- assuming it forces a recoil.

Or, you could put the 2-element berzerker at either end of the
formation. So it would be BXXXXX. When the B charges a target, the
unit left behind would still be legal.

John Meunier

[Mark Mallard]

Guys i have said it before and will again. Lets not bicker. Email is a medium
that can lead to argument rather than debate. So please try harder to not
offend each other.

All my questions have been answered so far so I appreciate those people who
make the effort to answer them. Give them a break please.

By their very nature wargames rules are complicated, if they were not they
would not be interesting or any use. The more simplistic rules sets do not
offer enough game for me.

I have followed the thread on the berserks. To me the questions appear
answered.

There appears to be three options. Either have them as a full rank, as a
seperate body or as two ranks at one end of a two rank body. These would
appear to be the only way they can charge legally away from the parent. That
should be more than enough to think about.

mark mallard


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

[Doug]

ITEM 1, TO JACOB

>And if you think that all a Yeshiva student does is memorize you are sadly
>misinformed, and I personally am offended by such a remark.
>
>If you don't like the game then feel free not to play.
>
>Jacob Kovel

I'm sorry; I didn't make one of my points clearly. Things like
studying the Torah are important. Expending that level of effort for
Warrior clearly is not.

Memorization isn't my point. There's probably a phrase to denote
"rabbis debating a fine point of the Torah" but I don't know it. I do
know that there is a large body of work summarizing various points of
view over the centuries. If I could remember the name for it I would
have substituted it for "Torah."

The student or gamer reads the "rules" and then engages in
gedanken-experiments in order to try to apply the rules to various
situations. Those with more knowledge critique them.

I set out 3 situations as accurately as I could in order to learn
whether my understanding of the rules is correct or not. The minimum
Jon has to do is say "rules allow" or "rules prevent." Further
exposition would be helpful, as Scott did for the points he covered,
because these rules are complicated enough that bare knowledge of
WHAT they say doesn't always create enlightement WRT HOW to apply
them in a tactically sound manner.

Scott seems to think that I _have_ asked rules questions:

I SAID: How do the rules allow/prevent:
SCOTT SAID: I'll let Jon answer areas 1-3 since I don't have the
rules in front of me

I don't think my opponent at Fall In would be thrilled by spending
the round fixing my army list instead of playing.

ITEM 2, TO JON & THE LIST

John Meunier's response was the helpful sort of thing I was expecting
from the publishers. In the time it took Jon to write a snide
response, he could have done something helpful instead.

ITEM 3, A BLATANT RULES QUESTION

2.52 Detachments states:
"How a detachment deploys...If the detachment is currently THE front
rank(s) of the combined body, it simply moves away. When a
detachment is IN THE rear rank(s) the move must abide by the rules
for interpenetration, maneuvers, etc."

The rule does not explicitly cover the case where the detachment
forms PART of the front rank. Therefore, any interpretation must be
the same for this case:
PPPPPPPPdd
and this case:
PPPPddPPPP

I'm not going to try to parse intentions from the rules' different
wording for front/rear rank. But I have observed from the list that
apparently people have no problem with "simply moving away" in the
first case. Therefore the second case is handled in the same manner.
This results in the parent unit being in an illegal formation (6.4).

John M. said "The formation can't be illegal after the detachment
leaves" but I cannot find the rule stating so. Resolve this rules
question.

I also see that according to 6.4, a player could declare the
detachment to be "detached" without actually moving it away. It
would then be impossible for the parent to get into a legal formation
without moving the whole front rank away. Resolve this one, too.
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

I live in Maryland. We top the list for heroin addiction, syphilis,
violent crime, and political corruption. So if you visit, expect to
be drugged, raped, robbed, and then taxed for the experience.[Attrib
to Bulldozer]

--- In WarriorRules@y..., Doug <rockd@p...> wrote:

>
> John M. said "The formation can't be illegal after the detachment
> leaves" but I cannot find the rule stating so. Resolve this rules
> question.
>


Doug,

Of course the big caveat is my interpretation means squat. It is just
my reading as a consumer ho.

My assertion that the formation can't be illegal after the detachment
moves away is really an extrapolation from 6.4. It say units may be
in one of five formations: block, column, testudo, orb or skirmish.
None of those allow a front rank with a funny gap in the middle.

I could imagine a house rule that would allow the parent unit to
morph back into a block after a partial front rank detachment
charges, but to my reading it would strictly be a variant or house
rule and not sanctioned by the game system.

One other thing worth noting I think. In 2.53 there are two positions
within units that a detachment can be. (I'm basing this on the sixth
paragraph.)

"If the detachment is currently the front rank(s) of the combined
body ..."

"When a detachment is in the rear rank(s)...)

Note the "in" in the second sentence. These two sentences imply to me
that the detachment must form the entire front rank when it is the
front rank, but it could form less than a full rank if it is deeper
in the overall formation.

All this is subject to refutation by wiser and more informed sources.

John Meunier

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I have to agree with mark on this one Doug. This list seems to have a bit more
strife than other sites and perhaps things could be written more eloquently.
Perhaps we should ask the writer if they meant to be offensive. If we weren't
allowed to express our opinions then most of us would not belong here or support
this group. Email is very difficult sometimes to decipher regarding intent.
Certainly over the email waves this has happened more than once here and in
other places. Don't be shocked, but through my aquaintance with Jon, I've found
him to be very reasonable in person. Perhaps his writing style doesn't convey
enough warmth for you . I choose to believe that it is this medium that has
created this conflict . He is actually from my understanding a very busy person
that monitors each and every posting on the Warrior page and at least trys to
respond to most of them in addition to supporting a family, writing Siege
Warrior, Fantasy Warrior, etc..., writing articles for various magazines. . . ,
and not to mention his other duties as an Officer and a Gentleman. I blame this
medium and not the man and I hope you come to agree with me. Further, please
don't be ticked at me for expressing my opinion as that is what it is! Nothing
more than an opinion from someone who has been aquainted with many of these
Horsemen for the past 12 years. If you really want to learn how to understand
this rules set, it is never a bad thing to play them in tournaments! I've had my
ass handed to me so many times that it makes my head spin. I prefer to learn by
doing. Further, if this medium is not to your liking, I bet you could instant
message a horseman or if it is really important you could even call Jake at his
number that he has on his website! Hmmmm.... I might just call him about an
order for Holy Warrior and Some of those EXCELLENT Irregular Miniatures!
(Shameless advertisement LOL!)
Doug, best of wishes and good luck with the rules!
Kelly Wilkinson
"King of The Syrians"



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site

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