Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

--- On October 26 Christian Cameron said: ---

> On another note, the army I just completed painting has a very
> expensive wagon laager. The lead cost about $110.00, and then the
> painting--just so I could fortify my baggage--really, just to look
> cool. But amendment 2 would mean that by taking my 20 point baggage, I
> would invite my opponent to rain fire on me, and I WOULD NOT HAVE THE
> SAME OPTION IN RETURN. Daft. I protest.

Thinking about what Christian says here has caused me to change my mind. Here's
the thing:

Christian doesn't say this in his post, so I'm speculating and generalizing a
bit. I look at an army like Skythians, and I see it as untenable. Too much cav,
not enough foot that's good enough, and in 25mm there appear to be too many
things it can't beat: Alexandrian era close order foot, masses of elephants,
etc. But I can certainly imagine someone looking at the list and saying "Well,
I can take a TF. And under Jon's latest clarifications, if I take a TF I can
buy incendaries. And if I take incendaries, then I at least have some tactical
options against the elephants and close order foot that otherwise are such a
problem. So for me, that's the 'tipping point', and yes, I'm willing to invest
in the army, buy the lead, and paint it up...."

I enaged in a similar act of speculation when I decided to hand-build 20
chariots, buy hundreds of dollars worth of lead, and spend hundreds of hours
painting up a Shang Chinese army. For me it all hinged on a particular reading
of mixed foot and mounted skirmishers in the same body whereby the skirmishing
heavy chariots, with LI mounted on the base, actually put out 8 figures of
shooting on one element's frontage at close range. No other list gets that
combination: HCh with 2 crew with bow, that can skirmish via list rule, that
can get 2 LI with bow mounted on the base. But it all depends on a particular
reading of the arcana of who is eligible to shoot in how many ranks in
skirmish. I confirmed the reading of the relevant rules twice with Jon on this
list before investing in the army. Because that was my 'tipping point'.

And here's the whole point of raising these examples: In the Phil Barker era of
WRG 7th, I _never_ would have invested in an army like that. Because back then,
I had absolutely _no_ assurance that the rules would not be changed out from
under me, rendering my investment worthless.

The most important thing that Jon has said and reiterated to this group is that
he won't make adjustments to Warrior that have that kind of army-changing
impact. The security of Jon's committment enables me to take a chance on an
army like Shang Chinese. And perhaps for Christian to take a chance on an army
like Skythians, all the more important to Christian because he has such a deep
historical interest in it.

And to me, that's where "voting" on an incendiary rule breaks down. Christian
built and painted a part of an army based on a rule that Jon explicitly
clarified. It isn't a major rule (hence Jon's willingness to solicit opinion),
and it isn't a major part of Christian's army. But if there's even a chance
that that minor part of Christian's army is the 'tipping point' that makes it
work for him, then we ought to just leave the rule alone.

So my vote is this: leave it as is: if either you or your opponent actually take
a TF of any kind, then either you or your opponent can take incendaries.

This approach is within the realm of well-founded historical reason, which I'm
sure is why Jon put it in there this way to begin with. Think of it this way:
those armies that commonly used or encountered TFs in field battles (as opposed
to sieges) were no doubt used to thinking about a wider range of strategems,
which would include incendiaries.

And Jon, I'm sure that Christian can provide all the primary source references
you could ever want regarding the Skythians; that's generally how PhD
dissertations get written.


-Mark Stone

[Mike Turner]

I've been lurking and reading this thread for awhile. I haven't used
incendiaries, but as a LIR player I can see the potential for their
use.

I think Mark has stated his point well, I think we should just leave
the rule as is.

If someone wants to pay the points (for the TF and the arrows) they
will either a. Spend so many points they hurt themselves elsewhere in
their list, or b. Have so few units with the arrows their opponent
will simply ignore the problem.

Mike

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
>
> --- On October 26 Christian Cameron said: ---
>
> > On another note, the army I just completed painting has a very
> > expensive wagon laager. The lead cost about $110.00, and then the
> > painting--just so I could fortify my baggage--really, just to look
> > cool. But amendment 2 would mean that by taking my 20 point
baggage, I
> > would invite my opponent to rain fire on me, and I WOULD NOT HAVE
THE
> > SAME OPTION IN RETURN. Daft. I protest.
>
> Thinking about what Christian says here has caused me to change my
mind. Here's
> the thing:
>
> Christian doesn't say this in his post, so I'm speculating and
generalizing a
> bit. I look at an army like Skythians, and I see it as untenable.
Too much cav,
> not enough foot that's good enough, and in 25mm there appear to be
too many
> things it can't beat: Alexandrian era close order foot, masses of
elephants,
> etc. But I can certainly imagine someone looking at the list and
saying "Well,
> I can take a TF. And under Jon's latest clarifications, if I take a
TF I can
> buy incendaries. And if I take incendaries, then I at least have
some tactical
> options against the elephants and close order foot that otherwise
are such a
> problem. So for me, that's the 'tipping point', and yes, I'm
willing to invest
> in the army, buy the lead, and paint it up...."
>
> I enaged in a similar act of speculation when I decided to hand-
build 20
> chariots, buy hundreds of dollars worth of lead, and spend hundreds
of hours
> painting up a Shang Chinese army. For me it all hinged on a
particular reading
> of mixed foot and mounted skirmishers in the same body whereby the
skirmishing
> heavy chariots, with LI mounted on the base, actually put out 8
figures of
> shooting on one element's frontage at close range. No other list
gets that
> combination: HCh with 2 crew with bow, that can skirmish via list
rule, that
> can get 2 LI with bow mounted on the base. But it all depends on a
particular
> reading of the arcana of who is eligible to shoot in how many ranks
in
> skirmish. I confirmed the reading of the relevant rules twice with
Jon on this
> list before investing in the army. Because that was my 'tipping
point'.
>
> And here's the whole point of raising these examples: In the Phil
Barker era of
> WRG 7th, I _never_ would have invested in an army like that.
Because back then,
> I had absolutely _no_ assurance that the rules would not be changed
out from
> under me, rendering my investment worthless.
>
> The most important thing that Jon has said and reiterated to this
group is that
> he won't make adjustments to Warrior that have that kind of army-
changing
> impact. The security of Jon's committment enables me to take a
chance on an
> army like Shang Chinese. And perhaps for Christian to take a chance
on an army
> like Skythians, all the more important to Christian because he has
such a deep
> historical interest in it.
>
> And to me, that's where "voting" on an incendiary rule breaks down.
Christian
> built and painted a part of an army based on a rule that Jon
explicitly
> clarified. It isn't a major rule (hence Jon's willingness to
solicit opinion),
> and it isn't a major part of Christian's army. But if there's even
a chance
> that that minor part of Christian's army is the 'tipping point'
that makes it
> work for him, then we ought to just leave the rule alone.
>
> So my vote is this: leave it as is: if either you or your opponent
actually take
> a TF of any kind, then either you or your opponent can take
incendaries.
>
> This approach is within the realm of well-founded historical
reason, which I'm
> sure is why Jon put it in there this way to begin with. Think of it
this way:
> those armies that commonly used or encountered TFs in field battles
(as opposed
> to sieges) were no doubt used to thinking about a wider range of
strategems,
> which would include incendiaries.
>
> And Jon, I'm sure that Christian can provide all the primary source
references
> you could ever want regarding the Skythians; that's generally how
PhD
> dissertations get written.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>

[joncleaves]

Mark, as usual you have said something I have been thinking very well. I am
highly indebted to you for all the time you save me when you do things like
this. It truly means a lot.

For the record, I didn't ask Christian for primary sources on the Skythians -
which I know he has in spades.

I am not going to change incendiaries. I do really appreciate all the input. I
know some have found it frustrating, but it really does help a great deal, taken
in total.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stone <mark@...>
To: warrior <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:12:35 +0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Fighting fire with fire


--- On October 26 Christian Cameron said: ---

> On another note, the army I just completed painting has a very
> expensive wagon laager. The lead cost about $110.00, and then the
> painting--just so I could fortify my baggage--really, just to look
> cool. But amendment 2 would mean that by taking my 20 point baggage, I
> would invite my opponent to rain fire on me, and I WOULD NOT HAVE THE
> SAME OPTION IN RETURN. Daft. I protest.

Thinking about what Christian says here has caused me to change my mind. Here's
the thing:

Christian doesn't say this in his post, so I'm speculating and generalizing a
bit. I look at an army like Skythians, and I see it as untenable. Too much cav,
not enough foot that's good enough, and in 25mm there appear to be too many
things it can't beat: Alexandrian era close order foot, masses of elephants,
etc. But I can certainly imagine someone looking at the list and saying "Well,
I can take a TF. And under Jon's latest clarifications, if I take a TF I can
buy incendaries. And if I take incendaries, then I at least have some tactical
options against the elephants and close order foot that otherwise are such a
problem. So for me, that's the 'tipping point', and yes, I'm willing to invest
in the army, buy the lead, and paint it up...."

I enaged in a similar act of speculation when I decided to hand-build 20
chariots, buy hundreds of dollars worth of lead, and spend hundreds of hours
painting up a Shang Chinese army. For me it all hinged on a particular reading
of mixed foot and mounted skirmishers in the same body whereby the skirmishing
heavy chariots, with LI mounted on the base, actually put out 8 figures of
shooting on one element's frontage at close range. No other list gets that
combination: HCh with 2 crew with bow, that can skirmish via list rule, that
can get 2 LI with bow mounted on the base. But it all depends on a particular
reading of the arcana of who is eligible to shoot in how many ranks in
skirmish. I confirmed the reading of the relevant rules twice with Jon on this
list before investing in the army. Because that was my 'tipping point'.

And here's the whole point of raising these examples: In the Phil Barker era of
WRG 7th, I _never_ would have invested in an army like that. Because back then,
I had absolutely _no_ assurance that the rules would not be changed out from
under me, rendering my investment worthless.

The most important thing that Jon has said and reiterated to this group is that
he won't make adjustments to Warrior that have that kind of army-changing
impact. The security of Jon's committment enables me to take a chance on an
army like Shang Chinese. And perhaps for Christian to take a chance on an army
like Skythians, all the more important to Christian because he has such a deep
historical interest in it.

And to me, that's where "voting" on an incendiary rule breaks down. Christian
built and painted a part of an army based on a rule that Jon explicitly
clarified. It isn't a major rule (hence Jon's willingness to solicit opinion),
and it isn't a major part of Christian's army. But if there's even a chance
that that minor part of Christian's army is the 'tipping point' that makes it
work for him, then we ought to just leave the rule alone.

So my vote is this: leave it as is: if either you or your opponent actually take
a TF of any kind, then either you or your opponent can take incendaries.

This approach is within the realm of well-founded historical reason, which I'm
sure is why Jon put it in there this way to begin with. Think of it this way:
those armies that commonly used or encountered TFs in field battles (as opposed
to sieges) were no doubt used to thinking about a wider range of strategems,
which would include incendiaries.

And Jon, I'm sure that Christian can provide all the primary source references
you could ever want regarding the Skythians; that's generally how PhD
dissertations get written.


-Mark Stone




Yahoo! Groups Links






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