Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Ok, it becomes clearer. For some reason, I never saw the original Fast
Warrior email from Don below.

>> The small board neutralizes cavalry a little bit, and we ran into one
problem.<<

Just to be sure everyone has the latest:
15mm Fast Warrior is 3'x2'
25mm Fast Warrior is 4'x3'

>> At one point in the game Patrick had a cavalry unit that could not counter
> or retire (he was 20p from the rear board edge). Due to a body to his
> front he also could not approach.<<

Ok its clearer. Patrick has a unit 20p from the board edge and pinned behind
one of his own units. Hmmm.

>>This was disconcerting to both of
> us.<<

It would disconcert me too.

>>Imagine his 6 man cav with a 3 wide by 2 deep friendly body
> directly to his front in HTH with an enemy (the closest known enemy).<<

I can only imagine...

>> To either side (but not beyond flank) about 200p away were other enemy
> in HTH with other friendlies. Now he has no threat to counter from, and
> can not move in any direction that will not take him closer to an enemy
(therefore can not retire). He is stuck. <<

Sure seems that way.

>>Is that just the way it is?<<

Well, yes, if that is the way you placed your troops.

>> It seems like there should be some way to move. What did we miss?<<

Doesn't seem like you missed anything. This seems akin to having a unit that
marches on 4's behind a unit that marches on 3's. The rules say you are
stuck for a reason. It is therefore bad to do so. But players still feel
that we should allow them to. I don't mean to be flip, but this is a
situation of the player's doing, not the rules. The ancient/medieval army
that actually kept and used combat troops in reserve was rare in the first
place. The start assumption for the deployment rules is a uniform line
across the table. Other deployments are tricky and come with risk that the
player must assume to do so, just as we believe his real-life counterpart
would have to do.

In addition to a deployment in two lines, it seems like we have a unit packed
so tightly in behind another that it cannot move forward. That's 'bad'
(highly risky is probably more accurate) in the rules, and we want it that
way.

>> Also when an expendable unit breaks, does it turn and rout or try to
> burst thru the enemy? Does each expendable unit break and rout
> individually, or does the whole body do it as one (imagine a 6 unit
> expendable body) Your expendable rules are very tenuous, and we deal
> with expendables on a weekly basis with Patricks Yuan Mongols. Please
> try to get us some expendable rules to playtest soon.


The expendable rules were always the most poorly written section of the old
WRG book, and I am devoting this next week and an entire section of rules to
them. This section will cover EVERYTHING about expendables (how to 'buy'
them, how they fight/break/rout/etc., etc.), even if parts of this info can
be found elsewhere in the rules. I will be happy to post the draft of rule
16.0 as soon as I am finished with it.

Until then, let me answer a couple of the above concerns.

1. Expendables rout 'away' along their rout path without deviation. They
will burst through whatever blocks their way. I know that the rules in the
file section of the egroup are (deliberately) not the current draft I have on
my computer, but I believe the version of rule 6.32 in that draft explains
this well enough. Nor is this a change from 7th ed.
2. There is only one way to have a body made up of units, and that is a
detachment joined to its parent. 99% of bodies are made up just of elements,
and not two joined units.
If you meant to ask how to handle a 'unit' made up of expendable 'elements',
that is easy, as I quote 2.52:

"Expendable elements never form units and always operate independently."

It has always been this way, as far as I know. I do not ever remember seeing
an expendable unit in all my WRG 7th games, and for good reason. It is
illegal!
Forty lashes with a wet open space string for the perp.

What I like best is how easy it was for me to answer these questions. It
gets easier every day, and that is a good thing.
Jon

[Patrick Byrne]

I have seen the replies about the rout and brake waiver. But what about the
other two questions: The unit that must just sit, and my expendables.

I also wanted to add that Little Warrior is very awesome. There are a lot
of bonuses about the format: playing time, concentration on smaller areas,
the ability to do more with the family later in the day, etc.
-PB


Donald Coon wrote:

> We played 2 games of little warrior and it was a blast. Each game took
> about 2.5 hours. Game 1 went 5 bounds and game 2 went 6. In both game
> the victor was one unit away from demoralization himself. The small
> board neutralizes cavalry a little bit, and we ran into one problem. At
> one point in the game Patrick had a cavalry unit that could not counter
> or retire (he was 20p from the rear board edge). Due to a body to his
> front he also could not approach. This was disconcerting to both of
> us. Imagine his 6 man cav with a 3 wide by 2 deep friendly body
> directly to his front in HTH with an enemy (the closest known enemy).
> To either side (but not beyond flank) about 200p away were other enemy
> in HTH with other friendlies. Now he has no threat to counter from, and
> can not move in any direction that will not take him closer to an enemy
> (therefore can not retire). He is stuck. Is that just the way it is?
> It seems like there should be some way to move. What did we miss?
>
> Also when an expendable unit breaks, does it turn and rout or try to
> burst thru the enemy? Does each expendable unit break and rout
> individually, or does the whole body do it as one (imagine a 6 unit
> expendable body) Your expendable rules are very tenuous, and we deal
> with expendables on a weekly basis with Patricks Yuan Mongols. Please
> try to get us some expendable rules to playtest soon.
>
> Don
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com

[Don Coon]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
> >> Also when an expendable unit breaks, does it turn and rout or try to
> > burst thru the enemy? Does each expendable unit break and rout
> > individually, or does the whole body do it as one (imagine a 6 unit
> > expendable body) Your expendable rules are very tenuous, and we deal
> > with expendables on a weekly basis with Patricks Yuan Mongols. Please
> > try to get us some expendable rules to playtest soon.
>
> The expendable rules were always the most poorly written section of the old
> WRG book, and I am devoting this next week and an entire section of rules to
> them. This section will cover EVERYTHING about expendables (how to 'buy'
> them, how they fight/break/rout/etc., etc.), even if parts of this info can
> be found elsewhere in the rules. I will be happy to post the draft of rule
> 16.0 as soon as I am finished with it.
>
> Until then, let me answer a couple of the above concerns.
>
> 1. Expendables rout 'away' along their rout path without deviation. They
> will burst through whatever blocks their way. I know that the rules in the
> file section of the egroup are (deliberately) not the current draft I have on
> my computer, but I believe the version of rule 6.32 in that draft explains
> this well enough. Nor is this a change from 7th ed.

Agree, but there is a line of text in chapter 5 somewhere that says
Expendables continue their charge, rout or pursuit straight ahead. We
got a little hung up there, but we are cool now.

> 2. There is only one way to have a body made up of units, and that is a
> detachment joined to its parent. 99% of bodies are made up just of elements,
> and not two joined units.
> If you meant to ask how to handle a 'unit' made up of expendable 'elements',
> that is easy, as I quote 2.52:

I did.

> "Expendable elements never form units and always operate independently."
>
> It has always been this way, as far as I know. I do not ever remember seeing
> an expendable unit in all my WRG 7th games, and for good reason. It is
> illegal!
> Forty lashes with a wet open space string for the perp.

You need to lash whoever wrote the 7.6 WRG questions and answeres which
clearly states expendables must run in 6 element units (it even says "no
more single elements of expendables running around).

So I do not think it has always been this way. But your citing of 2.52
is clear.

It makes expendables more nasty as each little element has to be mopped
up. It seems they will get many flank charges as they move in and
envelope a 1X2 formation.

Don

[joncleaves]

<<You need to lash whoever wrote the 7.6 WRG questions and answeres which
clearly states expendables must run in 6 element units (it even says "no
more single elements of expendables running around). >>

Scott's Q+A is about hostage screens, not expendables. Lash yourself!

Jon

[scott holder]

<<You need to lash whoever wrote the 7.6 WRG questions and answeres which
clearly states expendables must run in 6 element units (it even says "no
more single elements of expendables running around). >>

Scott's Q+A is about hostage screens, not expendables. Lash yourself!

>Thank you. I *thought* the Q&A on the web page was clear in that it referred
ONLY to the new crud introduced in the "new" WRG lists, not good ole fashioned
scythed chariot expendables, flaming pigs, burning camel carts, and other
ephemera.

Scott "the guy who wrote 7.6 just in case you didn't know" Holder
List Horseman

[Don Coon]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> <<You need to lash whoever wrote the 7.6 WRG questions and answeres which
> clearly states expendables must run in 6 element units (it even says "no
> more single elements of expendables running around). >>
>
> Scott's Q+A is about hostage screens, not expendables. Lash yourself!
>
> Jon

Ouch! The hostage screen is made up of IRR E expendables isnt it? Who
is holding the lash here?

I am holding Army list Vol 2 list #124 Yuan Mongol:

Hostage screen Irr E LMI, IPW @ 1.5.

The question Scott answered is "how do I handle the Irr E hostage screen
expendables..?

Are you saying that the hostage screen is not expendable (I lash
myself).?

If they are not, why do they get no command points?

If they are expendable, what is Scott talking about (Scott gets a lash)?

If Scotts answeres apply, how does this pertain to Warrior (Who do I
lash here)?

Are they expendables? If so why do they fight as a unit? Confusion
reigns here and someone needs a lashing. Will the hostage screen be a
list rule? HELP!

We have a 24 man Warrior tourny on Saturday that Chris Bump and I are
refing. There WILL be a hostage screen. How do I handle it?

Don (with red marks on back, but unwilling to drop my whip)

[Don Coon]

Holder, Scott wrote:

> >Thank you. I *thought* the Q&A on the web page was clear in that it referred
> ONLY to the new crud introduced in the "new" WRG lists, not good ole fashioned
> scythed chariot expendables, flaming pigs, burning camel carts, and other
> ephemera.

It is clear, but WARRIOR is NOT. You answere a question that has the
word expendable in it. We run 6 element hostage screens here, but
warrior makes no distinction. As we are trying to playtest WARRIOR, not
some collection of Q & A, past rulings, old data, etc, we are
understandably frustrated and confused. Patrick runs hostages on a
weekly basis, and we never know if we are playing them correctly.

Don

[joncleaves]

<< Ouch! The hostage screen is made up of IRR E expendables isnt it? Who
is holding the lash here?>>

Ok, I'll take partial responsibility for not being clear here. Now that I
have lashed myself (actually I let my wife do it, but that is another
story...) let's settle this.

Irr E 'hostage screen expendables' are not in the Warrior game.
Scott H did a hero's job trying to make sense out of a
not-very-well-thought-out troop type.
Yes, in his Q+A, the word 'expendable' does appear, but not in the places or
context you quoted. There is NO indication in my mind that Scott's interim
solution to a poorly worded WRG list rule applies to Warrior expendable
elements.

<>

Yep, he did say that. He says stuff like that all the time. It is why I am
the rules horse. :)

<< Are you saying that the hostage screen is not expendable (I lash
myself).?>>

The Q+A clearly indicates that they are not entirely the same as Warrior
expendables as they have an exception to nearly every expendable rule.

<<If they are expendable, what is Scott talking about (Scott gets a lash)?>>

Oh, definitely Scott needs to be lashed. Almost as much as the guy who
originally jammed those things into the list.

<<If Scotts answeres apply, how does this pertain to Warrior (Who do I
lash here)?>>

The current Warrior draft that is available to you does not have the
expendable rule (16.2) in it. That is because I am writing it from the
ground up.
WRG 7th ed (your source for rules we have not given you) has never allowed
expendables to be in units. Scott's Q+A addresses some Irr E LMI troops that
were permitted some expendable-like qualities with this gem of rules writing:

"Irregular E troops may be used as expendables in which case command points
need not be paid." (p2, Hutchby-Clark list 2)

That may constitute a comprehensive rule in the mother country, but us
colonists have a different standard. Scott did his best to clarify.
The NASAMW will have to decide how it is going to handle armies we have not
published lists for yet. I assume they will rely on Scott's Q+A in this
particular case. If you are playing this list now you can do whatever you
want. I'd recommend not playing them as expendables. If you must, I'd
recommend using the Q+A.

In any case, neither the line from Hutchby-Clark 2 nor the Q+A alters the
rules for expendables. They apply to H-C 2 Irr E troops "used as
expendables".

There may be a list rule for "hostage screen expendables" in one or more FHE
army lists when they are published. But it will be clear when and how they
are expendables and will minimize any exceptions if there are any at all.

I think you can tell from all this who it is I think needs a lashing.

Jon

[Don Coon]

JonCleaves@... wrote:

> Ok, I'll take partial responsibility for not being clear here. Now that I
> have lashed myself (actually I let my wife do it, but that is another
> story...) let's settle this.
>
> Irr E 'hostage screen expendables' are not in the Warrior game.
> Scott H did a hero's job trying to make sense out of a
> not-very-well-thought-out troop type.
> Yes, in his Q+A, the word 'expendable' does appear, but not in the places or
> context you quoted. There is NO indication in my mind that Scott's interim
> solution to a poorly worded WRG list rule applies to Warrior expendable
> elements.

Yes I know there is no indication about Scotts interim solution to the
poorly worded WRG list that it applies to Warrior expendables.

The question is and always has been:

How do we handle this in WARRIOR!!!

I am in a tourny tommorrow. There will be a hostage screen. Warrior
does not address it. It is a perfect time to playtest it for you
(although we have been using them for 6 months we have never known if we
were doing it the way your rules will require). Please give me
direction for the tourny. Do you just want us to play Scotts interim
fix?

Don

[joncleaves]

<< I am in a tourny tommorrow. There will be a hostage screen. Warrior
does not address it. It is a perfect time to playtest it for you
(although we have been using them for 6 months we have never known if we
were doing it the way your rules will require). Please give me
direction for the tourny. Do you just want us to play Scotts interim
fix? >>

The Warrior rules writer (me) does not need hostage screen playtesting. As
far as your tourney, I say again:

"The NASAMW will have to decide how it is going to handle armies we have not
published lists for yet. I assume they will rely on Scott's Q+A in this
particular case. If you are playing this list now you can do whatever you
want. I'd recommend not playing them as expendables. If you must, I'd
recommend using the Q+A."

Warrior "does not address it" because it is not a rule in Warrior, and I have
no idea whether it ever will be. Just like I have no idea at this point if
we will have list rules for throw-sticks, fire lances or slashing swords.

Again, my strong recommendation is to play Irr E LMI as Irr E LMI if you want
to help with Warrior. If you are practicing for some tourney that permits
the Q+A version of H-C 2 Irr E hostage screens, then you ought to use them
that way because you have a different goal in mind than playtesting Irr E LMI
for Warrior. Which is ok.

Don, if you are asking my opinion on what would help us most right now,
playing Irr E LMI according to the NASAMW Q+A page is the LAST thing you
should be doing.
The best would be a bunch of Fast Warrior games that both test that format
and work the rules.

Just my $.02
Jon

[scott holder]

Again, my strong recommendation is to play Irr E LMI as Irr E LMI if you want
to help with Warrior. If you are practicing for some tourney that permits
the Q+A version of H-C 2 Irr E hostage screens, then you ought to use them
that way because you have a different goal in mind than playtesting Irr E LMI
for Warrior. Which is ok.

>I can't provide an interim answer to this question either. I can say that my
long term approach will be to continue to have Irr E troops in a list like the
Yuan but play them straight outta Warrior, that meaning that Irr E troops
don't cause waver tests they way they do in 7th. I *think* next year I'll
hafta address on a list by list basis, what will be allowed from the old/new
lists and what won't.

>Perhaps you should simply ignore any reference to the word "expendable" as it
relates to the troops types in this list and again, just play the Irr Es as
you normally would and not worry about waver testing when they *rout*. My
attitude toward them is that they were traffic impediments, nothing more.
Like everything in the Hutchby and Clark lists, there was a tendency to "soup
up" every friggin army. Blah.

Scott

Scott

[Don Coon]

JonCleaves@... wrote:

> The Warrior rules writer (me) does not need hostage screen playtesting. As
> far as your tourney, I say again:
>
> "The NASAMW will have to decide how it is going to handle armies we have not
> published lists for yet. I assume they will rely on Scott's Q+A in this
> particular case. If you are playing this list now you can do whatever you
> want. I'd recommend not playing them as expendables. If you must, I'd
> recommend using the Q+A."

Ok. Because it is one day away, we will be using the Q&A for tomorrow
only (assuming concurence with Chris and Harlan).

> Warrior "does not address it" because it is not a rule in Warrior, and I have
> no idea whether it ever will be. Just like I have no idea at this point if
> we will have list rules for throw-sticks, fire lances or slashing swords.

I see. We have been guilty of using past momentum to drive forward with
READING the rules and trying to deal with them.

> Again, my strong recommendation is to play Irr E LMI as Irr E LMI if you want
> to help with Warrior.

I feel that this is what we should do from now on. I do nit think
Patrick will have a big problem with this (The hostage screen user in
our group).

>If you are practicing for some tourney that permits
> the Q+A version of H-C 2 Irr E hostage screens, then you ought to use them
> that way because you have a different goal in mind than playtesting Irr E LMI
> for Warrior. Which is ok.

We actually have no gaol in mind other than to play Irr E hostages as
you intend them to be played, which we will do after tommorow.

> Don, if you are asking my opinion on what would help us most right now,
> playing Irr E LMI according to the NASAMW Q+A page is the LAST thing you
> should be doing.
> The best would be a bunch of Fast Warrior games that both test that format
> and work the rules.

That we will start doing as soon as we get back from LV.

It will change a few things for us, but the only real big change is
Patrick will have to come up with 25 or 50 more points to pay commands
for his unit. I would recommend he run a 12 element body for only 1 25
point command hit. It would be cool to see the mob on the board.

I think after all the reading, misreading, lashing and getting lashed,
that we have settled this issue to both of our liking. We will proceed
with Irr E hostages as a unit and report to you, if it causes any
hitches (I doubt it will).

Thanks for the patience.

Don

[Don Coon]

Holder, Scott wrote:

> >I can't provide an interim answer to this question either. I can say that my
> long term approach will be to continue to have Irr E troops in a list like the
> Yuan but play them straight outta Warrior, that meaning that Irr E troops
> don't cause waver tests they way they do in 7th.
>
> >Perhaps you should simply ignore any reference to the word "expendable" as it
> relates to the troops types in this list and again, just play the Irr Es as
> you normally would and not worry about waver testing when they *rout*. My
> attitude toward them is that they were traffic impediments, nothing more.

We agree here too. The traffic impediment is about all they ever were,
although they often caused my archers to fire prematurely.

Don

I have seen (and been up against) the expendable hostage screen in
Book 2 (WRG 7th Far East, Asia, America). Typically each unit (or
body to be correct) was made up of at least 6 elements. These were
very good in soaking up the Irreg A and mounted compulsory charges.
Hostage screen expendale "troops" (as opposed to scythed chariots,
stampeding cattle et al) MUST be organised into bodies otherwise you
would have 30 INDIVIDUAL elements forming a solid wall across the
table.


<<< SNIPPED >>>
> It has always been this way, as far as I know. I do not ever
remember seeing
> an expendable unit in all my WRG 7th games, and for good reason.
It is
> illegal!
> Forty lashes with a wet open space string for the perp.
>
> What I like best is how easy it was for me to answer these
questions. It
> gets easier every day, and that is a good thing.
> Jon

Hi Don,

I know I should not be offering advise here but.....
We usually run the hostages in 6 element units (as per the list
explanation in the new Book 2) and they behave exactly like the troop
type they represent. ie approach, skirmish if correctly armed,
charge, counter charge etc. (imagine a big hairy mongol behind them
with a whip) Because of their Irr E grading, prompting them to charge
is always "interesting" and the rear rank never fights. But when
they die, who cares? The hostage screen MUST be counted as
expendables as they are expected to die. Else, pay the command
points, upgrade them to Irr D LI with a real weapon and still watch
them die without worries.

Cheers



--- In WarriorRules@egroups.com, Donald Coon <jendon@f...> wrote:
> JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> >
> > <<You need to lash whoever wrote the 7.6 WRG questions and
answeres which
> > clearly states expendables must run in 6 element units (it even
says "no
> > more single elements of expendables running around). >>
> >
> > Scott's Q+A is about hostage screens, not expendables. Lash
yourself!
> >
> > Jon
>
> Ouch! The hostage screen is made up of IRR E expendables isnt it?
Who
> is holding the lash here?
>
> I am holding Army list Vol 2 list #124 Yuan Mongol:
>
> Hostage screen Irr E LMI, IPW @ 1.5.
>
> The question Scott answered is "how do I handle the Irr E hostage
screen
> expendables..?
>
> Are you saying that the hostage screen is not expendable (I lash
> myself).?
>
> If they are not, why do they get no command points?
>
> If they are expendable, what is Scott talking about (Scott gets a
lash)?
>
> If Scotts answeres apply, how does this pertain to Warrior (Who do I
> lash here)?
>
> Are they expendables? If so why do they fight as a unit? Confusion
> reigns here and someone needs a lashing. Will the hostage screen
be a
> list rule? HELP!
>
> We have a 24 man Warrior tourny on Saturday that Chris Bump and I
are
> refing. There WILL be a hostage screen. How do I handle it?
>
> Don (with red marks on back, but unwilling to drop my whip)