Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Tom McMillan]

In a message dated 8/7/01 5:26:36 AM, WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com writes:

<< 1. Most troops pay to buy a bow or sling. The bow or slings aren't free.
The
support (flavor) text only says that why they pay the extra point is that the
extra weapon requires extra training. >>

Yes, this was always a most confused rationale- as was the 'extra training'
for the 2HCT. Points values are supposed to be determined by fighting
effectiveness on the table (as they in fact are) so what in hell does
'training time' have to do with anything? Which takes longer to learn to use,
a halberd or a longbow?
(Hint, for those unfamiliar with the Late medieval period- it takes 10
years to train a longbowmen, and during the Hundred Years War England banned
all sports except archery so that their young men would be forced to practice
archery, and nothing else.)
The same can be said for the Hunnic style composite bow, used expertly
while mounted, and many other weapon systems which don't pay extra.
That famous line about 'the cost of training dwarfed the cost of
p[reoducing the weapons' or whatever falls into the 'not always true, and in
any case entirely irrelevent' category.

[Tom McMillan]

In a message dated 8/7/01 5:26:36 AM, WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com writes:

<< jees, I actually thought that the Japanese were fanatic. Now I know that
the
history books are wrong and they only charged when they had the advantage!
(since the enemy lost cohesion)
-PB >>

The problem is that they have two options - shoot or charge, and having
free choice gives unrealistic command and control.
It all goes back to the command and control system. Troops were told that
they were supposed to either hold position, advance warily, or advance and
charge when possible, hence the three orders. Decisions to do any thing else
have to come from unit commanders initiative, (counters), or from the general.
Bow armed cav have the option to either shoot their opponents or charge
tham, and we have all agonised over the decision whether to try and shoot
those opposing HC into a test, or just charge them. This is where the CinC
comes in, as he sees the entire battlefield situation and can decide to
prompt a charge, or not, based on that knowledge.
Now, if you wanted to say, 'Special Samurai rule- as these troops tended to
be unusually aggressive for misssle armed troops, they may not shoot at enemy
mounted troops in their charge range, but must always declare charges' then
that would be rather cool. If such a tactical doctrine existed, you wouldn't
need the general to make that decision. But I have a feeling you'd be better
off leaving things as they are.
It is the option which is the problem.

Hi,
 As a lurker,and loosely familiar with the Japanese list,I speak in ignorance.
But... is there an option for Ireg A , as detachment or bodyguard???
                                                                         
Rich Novak

[Don Coon]

> Bow armed cav have the option to either shoot their opponents or charge
> tham, and we have all agonised over the decision whether to try and shoot
> those opposing HC into a test, or just charge them. This is where the CinC
> comes in, as he sees the entire battlefield situation and can decide to
> prompt a charge, or not, based on that knowledge.

Huh? Why cant bow armed cav shoot and charge? I never agonize. I always
shoot. If I need to prompt a charge this has no effect on my decision to
shoot or not.

Don

[Don Coon]

 

 
Hi,  As a lurker,and loosely familiar with the Japanese list,I speak in ignorance. But... is there an option for Ireg A , as detachment or bodyguard???
1/3 of figs are allowed to be Irr A.  Solves the charge problem, but does cost some more.  Is it cheesy to by Irr A for just 1 fig?
It seems so, but the rules do not seem to prohibit this.   I for one will not do it.
 
 
Don

What has always annoyed me about B armed cav is that UNLESS also
armed with L, you need to prompt them to charge unless you just
happen to be running Irr A under Probe orders then it don't matter
WHAT they're armed with. I could never find a rational explanation
why L and B armed cav could charge unprompted while everyone else
needed to be prompted. Why does having a long pointy stick instill a
bravado that a short pointy stick does not? Does size truely matter?

As for the Samurai. I've run them in competion under 7th edition
using the old Blue Books and found that, in general, they suck like a
Hoover! Not because of the "B in the front rank" but because they
don't have enough LI (none!), not enough LC (3 elements!) and no
shields! About the only things you can do is upgrade to Irr A (an
element / unit is about right), buy lots of subgenerals (1500 points
= 1 CinC as cav, 1 cav sub, 3-4 foot subs) and roll high as your
opponent rolls low. They are fun but don't expect to be collecting
too many trophies with them.

Cheers



--- In WarriorRules@y..., "DONALD COON" <jendon@f...> wrote:
> > Bow armed cav have the option to either shoot their opponents
or charge
> > tham, and we have all agonised over the decision whether to try
and shoot
> > those opposing HC into a test, or just charge them. This is where
the CinC
> > comes in, as he sees the entire battlefield situation and can
decide to
> > prompt a charge, or not, based on that knowledge.
>
> Huh? Why cant bow armed cav shoot and charge? I never agonize. I
always
> shoot. If I need to prompt a charge this has no effect on my
decision to
> shoot or not.
>
> Don

[joncleaves]

Don

There will be no more buying elements of mixed morale. Our lists will have
one-morale elements and our rules for using old army lists will prohibit this
and other such practices.

Jon

[scott holder]

1/3 of figs are allowed to be Irr A. Solves the charge problem, but does
cost some more. Is it cheesy to by Irr A for just 1 fig?
It seems so, but the rules do not seem to prohibit this. I for one will
not do it.

>The new lists will specifically say that all "upgrades" are in elements. The
NASAMW Interp booklet prohibited "1 fig" upgrades years ago. I dunno if
that's something that *needs* to be in the basic rule set or not. Will defer
to the Rules Ho on that one.

Scott
List Ho

[scott holder]

1/3 of figs are allowed to be Irr A. Solves the charge problem, but does
cost some more. Is it cheesy to by Irr A for just 1 fig?
It seems so, but the rules do not seem to prohibit this. I for one will
not do it.

>I think Jon answered this one. Each new army list book will reiterate that
all fractions are in "numbers of elements", not fractions of single elements.
I dunno if the basic rules need to have that stated up front or not. I can
tell you that the old NASAMW Interp booklet specifically forbid fractional
element upgrades.

>A couple of thoughts on the Japanese after my perusal of what will be the
draft "Feudal Japanese" army list. First, there will be two separate Japanese
lists, Fujiwaran and Feudal. The latter list will be broken down into an
"early" and "late" period. There will be list rules for the Feudal list. In
fact, there's one for it in the Fast Warrior list that allows for LB-armed
second rank of ashigaru to fire over a first rank of ashigaru armed only with
2HCT.

>The Feudal list itself will have much more flexibility in terms of weapon
choices (namely the use of LB and B) and there will most likely be a list rule
for loose order ashigaru being able to use mantlets without reverting to close
order foot. Japanese infantry (Samurai) will be loose order, that's right,
loose order (unless they're dismounted knights but I'm getting ahead of myself
here). The cavalry will have HK and EHK options although it's waaay too early
to tell how we'll handle the tricky question of "knights shooting" since
historically, Japanese cavalry was armed with LB/B and 2HCT.

>I really should have a third list, Warrior Monks, but Mike died before really
putting down how he wanted to approach that aspect of it. I'm guessing is
that after the 276 army lists are published, we'll have some mechanism for
"filling in the gaps" as it were with a couple of armies that could stand some
treatment.

>Please don't rush to change things based just on what I've said in this
email. I've got approximately 120 armies between me and Feudal Japanese and
I'm guessing I'll have my hands full doing stuff like "Medieval German
Princes" and the friggin Late Romans before I'll focus what's left of my brain
on Feudal Japanese.

>I will say that based on our Fast Warrior experience, the Feudal Japanese
list should be fairly good in that format. We'll see come November:):)

Scott
List Ho

[Don Coon]

----- Original Message -----
From: <JonCleaves@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 7:08 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Digest Number 313


> Don
>
> There will be no more buying elements of mixed morale. Our lists will
have
> one-morale elements and our rules for using old army lists will prohibit
this
> and other such practices.
>
> Jon

Fair and just. I hate cheese.

Don

[Don Coon]

>
> >I will say that based on our Fast Warrior experience, the Feudal Japanese
> list should be fairly good in that format. We'll see come November:)
>
> Scott
> List Ho

I wont do anything. I have 200+ foot, and 50+ mounted. Sounds like my
Samurai will have to be rebased, but it sounds like in the end end the army
may have some teeth (EHK!!!).

Don