Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Help!

An enemy of mine fields a Seulicid army but insists on making his
elephants expendables. Thrice now.

(confession: I have always considered generals hiding behind fields
of massed pikes to be cowards, and those generals who chose Roman
armies to be aberations of the human soul . . .)

I have no expertise in this era (refer to my spelling), yet his
assertion offends my sense of rightness.

In his defence, he maintains that the elephants (often) had to be
goaded into battle (pachyderms are after all intelligent - some more
so than their C-in-C's) and this fact justifies the expendable rating.

But when pressed with the point that (a) the mahouts stayed with
their mounts (unlike scythed chariots, whose drivers bailed out
before contact); and (b) the rules on expendables never explicitly
mentions elephants; and (c) elephants can never be impetuous; his
comeback is:

"Well, it doesn't say anywhere that I can't!"

I realise this gets back to Lily ("That which is not forbidden is
allowed" - The Eye of the Cyclone), but, as Phil Barker sagely
observed, "...neither are nuclear weapons" (...forbidden by 7th ed.)

(I should add that when I suggested he save 100 command points and
make his CinC expendable at well, his response was somewhat sour...)

I am fully aware that the more rules one makes, the more rules
lawyers one makes, and also that not every played game has the luxury
of an uninvolved umpire (yet alone an historically authoritive
umpire).

There are two things I'm asking for here.

The first is for some educated (and maybe even authoritive) debate on
the subject of elephants as expendables.

The second is that army lists should be clear which troop types are
expendable.

I add here that I usually consider LI to be expendable (in set-piece
battles: in campaign circumstances I treat them differently), yet I
always pay to have them commanded. To me, this illustrates form
(creatures requiring orders) above function ("You're all going to die
holding off those Szeklers. This is how you'll do it . . .")

Terence


PS Big Whinge:

The only suppliers (of WRG products) in Sydney that I know of are
often 2 years behind schedule AT BEST (the first 7th Ed Army list was
readily available in 1998, and as the region and period were of no
interest to me, I didn't buy it.} HEAVY HINT: BE SURE OF YOUR
DISTRIBUTORS, and let me know so I can tell my friends.

I currently live in Sydney, Australia, and (because of 7th Ed rules)
am greatly interested in the FastWarrior rules. My own belief system
is that DBA was a good step forward for the wargaming community,
whereas DBM 3.0 plus revisions is an abomination of complications.

I respect Phil Barker for his vision, if not for his execution.

Anyone on this list in Sydney or thereabouts, please feel free to
drop me a line. I grew tired of wargaming, but the prospect of an
"8th
Edition" has me all excited again.

May the Four Horsemen prevail!

Cheers,

Terry.


PPS: for your X-Rules:

I like the limited commands given in the 6th Ed lists. Their weakness
is that they apply whether you are fielding 500 points or 5000
points.
I would suggest a formula of the following ilk:

Total commands point spent = some basic points allotment + "x" points
per 100 army points

where "army points" is the nominal army points cost (eg 1500 per side)

"x" could be a constant for all armies (for simplicity)
or could be tailored to each army.
the "basic points allotment" could also be tailored for each army, at
the cost of extra complication and additional debate . . .


Note that this proposal gives the command advantage back to regulars,
and would encourage irregular armies to use more figures and less
units. My own experience of 7th Ed wargaming is that irregulars have
insufficient incitement to use large units.

"What say you, good people?"

Terry. . .

[scott holder]

"Well, it doesn't say anywhere that I can't!"

>Warning: A FH is about to go off on a rant. Your "friend" has hit a sore
point with me and it's not one I tolerate well. Fortunately it's not directed
at anybody I've personally been in contact with over the years and if the
target of the following rant happens to subscribe to this list (I don't know
one way or the other), don't ever identify yourself and play in a tournament I
ever umpire. You might be out the door before you get in the door! Terrence,
if he's a good friend of yours, hmmmmmm, you must have the patience of a
saint.

>Thankfully your opponent is down under and not someone I've encountered
umpiring all these years. Because if that were the case, I might be willing
to toss him out of a tournament:):)

>Seriously, his attitude is the kind that's been turning people off of
ancients for the better part of 30 years now. I had thought we were beyond
this type of crap, at least for the most part. Here in the States, rules
"discussions" have tended to revolve more around the mechanics and meaning of
existing rules, not this throwback to 5th edition where you'd find players who
had units with shields on the left arm of half the figures and on the right
arm of half the figures, all because "it doesn't say anywhere I can't." That
type of ploy was simply the player trying to browbeat the umpire. As most of
those on this list who also have happened to play in tournaments I've run over
the years can attest to, I *love* players like that. One of the nice things
about the 7th ed community in North America over the last 5-7 years is that
it's grown into a very collegial bunch, all the flamers seem to be found in
DBM these days. Or perhaps they still exist in 7th ed in other parts of the
world:):)

I realise this gets back to Lily ("That which is not forbidden is
allowed" - The Eye of the Cyclone), but, as Phil Barker sagely
observed, "...neither are nuclear weapons" (...forbidden by 7th ed.)

(I should add that when I suggested he save 100 command points and
make his CinC expendable at well, his response was somewhat sour...)

>For the life of me, I can't believe someone would even think about using this
type of logic in a set of rules that has the aforementioned Phil Barker
statement (which btw is in there precisely because of junior knuckleheads like
those Terrence is unfortunately enough to play against). I'd strongly
recommend this person find another set of rules to play, perhaps a good
Napoleonic set of rules since I don't play that period.

The first is for some educated (and maybe even authoritive) debate on
the subject of elephants as expendables.

>For starters, most historical accounts we have involve a very limited number
of battles. Alas, most Indian and/or Chinese sources of possible battles have
received limited translations over the years.

>Be that as it may, I can safely say that your opponent has been smoking
crack, or whatever the equivelent is down under. For starters, most accounts
I'm familiar with (Alexandrian, Seleucid, and Khmer if you can believe it)
don't even come close to describing elephant battle tactics in such a way as
to make them expendables under the way such troops are defined. Second, the
accounts I've read of Indian (the peoples, not the species) and Khmer war
elephants were highly trained animals that required years of expense and work
in order to make them effective on the battlefield. Third, the one possible
account your friend read after having 10 too many Fosters would be the battle
(name escapes me at the moment) where the Seleucid general spaced his
elephants out in a line along the front of his tactical line. When the
elephants were beat up, the routed this way and that, causing havoc. It's
true that elephants, based on the historical accounts, tended to "go crazy"
after routing. That is defined in the rules (or at least in the NASAMW 1994
Interp Booklet) as not being able to rally them after they rout. Some rules
take the "random movement" mechanic to cover elephants when that happened.
Unfortunately, that seems to have happened rarely.

>I can trot out a number of examples where it's clear that elephants fought in
tight formations with effective command/control by their handles. Pyrrhus'
battles against the Romans are wonderful cases in points that everybody can be
familiar with. Better yet, when the Mongols invaded modern day SE Asia and
encountered the Khmer Empire's war elephants, they had a helluva time with
them and it's very obvious that such elephants were trained and fought they
way we as rules writers envision "units" fighting.

>I'm less familiar with the elephants from the Ghaznavids.

>Lastly, your opponent apparently can't read 7th edition well since
expendables are clearly defined IN THE RULES! It says "expendables are yadda
yadda yadda". Of course your opponent apparently thinks that more text was
needed so as to say "expendables are not yadda yadda yadda".

>Please tell him to stay down there.

Scott "bad cop" Holder
List Horseman
NASAMW Chief Umpire

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Scott, that was the battle of Magnesia that you were trying to think of. Try
not to work so hard and come visit us over here in Western Missouri when you
can!

Kelly

[joncleaves]

Time for the 'good cop'.

Considering that both WRG 7th and Warrior both clearly state exactly how
elephants fight, fighting them another way is to be playing some other game.
Whatever other game your friend is playing is not Warrior.

As to the "historical" argument that elephants should be treated as expendables,
we do not agree and Warrior is not going to change how elephants fight.

While I feel the same way about what I have been told about your friend as
Scott, I've only heard one half the story. I can tell you however, that you may
pass along to your friend that anyone who plays elephants as expendables is in
violation of the rules.
If he is doing it to 'playtest' a proposed concept, he is not using his time
wisely as far as FHE is concerned, as we have no intention to change that rule.
If he's doing it to players who don't know the rules yet, then that is the worst
form of cheating.

Come play with us!
Jon

[Greg Regets]

The rules clearly point out what IS an expandable and states that ALL others
are combined into units of 2 to 12 elements. Tell your fiend that adult
education in the arts of reading English are available at most local
community colleges.

What I hate most about the slippery eel example shown here is that it casts
players that may be innovative WITHIN the rules in the same column as those
that are looking for an edge that is clearly not part of the rules.

We struggle with this a bit here in the NASAMW Southwest Region, where some
players are so suspicious of slimy tactics, they do not recognize advanced
tactics that are clearly in the rulebook.

Scott is 100% correct. This is VERY bad for our hobby. Not only does it
reflect poorly on people that get screwed by tactics that are full of flaws,
it also reflects poorly on those more experienced players that can't use
anything creative without being cast in the pit of vipers.

Keep the tirades against this sort of thing going Scott ... this is a hill
that is definitely worth dying for!

Greg

Dear Warrior Friends,

First, thanks for the definitive replies on this subject.

As for Scott's rant:

(> >Warning: A FH is about to go off on a rant.)...

Dear Scott,

it's no rant but a very important stand you take with great passion.
It's actually good to see a HorseMan reveal himself. Even better to
know that it is the game, not gamesmanship, that is uppermost in your
mind.

Scott also wrote:

Terrence,
> if he's a good friend of yours, hmmmmmm, you must have the patience
of a saint.

Actually, I don't, which is why I've only wargamed twice in the last 3
years.
It's only through stumbling onto this egroup that my enthusiasm for
wargaming has been re-kindled. I like what I read here. I like your
draft rules, both content and presentation.


> >Seriously, his attitude is the kind that's been turning people off
of ancients for the better part of 30 years now. I had thought we
were beyond this type of crap . . . One of the nice things about the
7th ed community in North America over the last 5-7 years is that
it's grown into a very collegial bunch, all the flamers seem to be
found in DBM these days. Or perhaps they still exist in 7th ed in
other parts of the world:):)

De Boneheads Multitudinious?? Great: I loved 7th Ed. Apart from how
poorly it was written.

Terence wrote:
> (I should add that when I suggested he save 100 command points and
> make his CinC expendable at well, his response was somewhat sour...)
>
Scott replied:
> >For the life of me, I can't believe someone would even think about
using this type of logic in a set of rules that has the aforementioned
Phil Barker statement (which btw is in there precisely because of
junior knuckleheads like those Terrence is unfortunately enough to
play against).

Scott, I was taking his logic to its extreme, and he knew it.

>> I'd strongly recommend this person find another set of rules to
play, perhaps a good Napoleonic set of rules since I don't play that
period.

Great suggestion for him - I hate Napoleonics! He can argue all he
likes about charge distances . . .


>> It's true that elephants, based on the historical accounts, tended
to "go crazy" after routing. That is defined in the rules (or at
least in the NASAMW 1994> Interp Booklet) as not being able to rally
them after they rout.

It seems your draft rules follow this interpretation.

>>Some rules take the "random movement" mechanic to cover elephants
when that happened. Unfortunately, that seems to have happened rarely.

Good to know. As consideration for your X-rules, perhaps give
elephants a 1 in 6 chance of "going crazy" in a random direction.


> >Lastly, your opponent apparently can't read 7th edition well since
expendables are clearly defined IN THE RULES! It says "expendables
are yadda yadda yadda". Of course your opponent apparently thinks
that more text was needed so as to say "expendables are not yadda
yadda yadda".

hmmmm. Very sore point, indeed.


Furthermore, I'm sorry about missing the army list reference. It's an
obvious place to look, but as I don't have armies in that period, I
haven't had the army list to refer to. My (painful) oversight.


Thanks again for your passion,

Terence