Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Derek Downs]

In a message dated 10/28/2005 11:54:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
shahadet_99@... writes:
Asif
Are your Sicilian Hohenstaufen for sale now? And if so how much? :)

Derek


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

Okay, so be it. The rule stays.

Just to stay in theme with Mark's and Christian's ideas, I'll add
this:

I've been playing Sicilian Hohenstaufen since I first started
Warrior, first borrowing minis from my friend Jevon, and then
actually purchasing some minis of my own. I haven't painted them
yet, and now, I'm glad.

Because I won't EVER PLAY THAT LIST AGAIN.

Why?

They have NO option for buying TFs. So my opponent will basically
dictate when incendiaries may be used. ALWAYS.

Do I actually care that much about incendiaries? Not really.

But for my opponent to have a tactical option that is not available
to me, simply because of a rule in the rulebook - that grates against
the nerves.

To paraphrase Christian "THAT'S DAFT. I protest".

<sigh> Oh well, I'm sure I can take those Knights and bowmen and do
something lame and be a copycat on other people's ideas for
competitive armies.

I hear Portugese and Medieval Spanish are competitive - I'll have
to see if they get TFs.

And on the plus side, this could be my "tipping point" for investing
in Koryo Korean - they can buy 10pt ditches.............

Regards,
Asif

p.s. after reading all the threads, my preferred solution?

"14.46:

What can points from list adjustment be used for?:

- Incendiaries: If, after adjustment, either side has bought TFs
or Fighting Transport, the OPPOSING player may purchase flaming
missiles for any B or LB armed troops. Such missiles can ONLY be
used to attack TFs and Fighting Transport. Note that flaming
missiles purchased by other means (list rule, scenario rule,
supplemental rules such as SIEGE Warrior, etc) are not subject to
this targetting restriction. "

By the by, in this entire discussion, we haven't discussed buying
Naptha shots for Stone Throwers - I would assume they fall under a
similar situation?



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> 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@d...>
> 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]
>

[Todd Schneider]

--- shahadet_99 <shahadet_99@...> wrote:

> Okay, so be it. The rule stays.
>
> Just to stay in theme with Mark's and Christian's
> ideas, I'll add
> this:
>
> I've been playing Sicilian Hohenstaufen since I
> first started
> Warrior, first borrowing minis from my friend Jevon,
> and then
> actually purchasing some minis of my own. I haven't
> painted them
> yet, and now, I'm glad.
>
> Because I won't EVER PLAY THAT LIST AGAIN.
>
> Why?
>
> They have NO option for buying TFs. So my opponent
> will basically
> dictate when incendiaries may be used. ALWAYS.
>

Call me crazy or wrongheaded here, but how is that
historically inaccurate?

From my expierence on the tabletop, I know if my
opponenet did what I always wanted him to do, I'd be a
happier player. Maybe not a better one.

When you get right down to it, most every list has
soimething another list won't, be it a unit option,
wepaon option, terrain option, special list rule,
whatever.

> Do I actually care that much about incendiaries?
> Not really.

Obviously you care, or you'd still be playing Sicilian
Hohenstaufen.


>
> But for my opponent to have a tactical option that
> is not available
> to me, simply because of a rule in the rulebook -
> that grates against
> the nerves.
>

A Tactical option like circulating combatants, ot JLS
armed Cav that fight 1.5 ranks, Heavy CHariots that
Skirmish or knights that dismount as 2HCW instead of
JLS?



> To paraphrase Christian "THAT'S DAFT. I protest".
>

Well, I've waited to see a better solution proposed.
Still havwen't seen one.

> <sigh> Oh well, I'm sure I can take those Knights
> and bowmen and do
> something lame and be a copycat on other people's
> ideas for
> competitive armies.

As has been told to me by several long time
players...Back in the old days, Sicilian Hohenstaufen
used to be run quite a bit, because they were one of
the few armies whose Knights could "Wedge", a tactical
"gimmick/option" not available to many other Knight
Armies, including the French, who were the best
knights of the medieval period.

Now, could one assume if you were playing 7th edition,
you'd be playing Hohenstaufen because they could
wedge, and not because you liked what the list had to
offer?

> I hear Portugese and Medieval Spanish are
> competitive - I'll have
> to see if they get TFs.

And the person playing the list doesn't matter at all?
I run an Army with No mounted and NO TF's, and on a
good day it's very competitive. And on a bad day it's
not. Which I think is something that can be said for
each list out there.

>
> And on the plus side, this could be my "tipping
> point" for investing
> in Koryo Korean - they can buy 10pt
> ditches.............
>
> Regards,
> Asif

Well, I have to admit, in reading all the messages on
the forum, this is the first time someone has tailored
their list choice into whether or not they can get
TF's so they can get Incindiaries (not that
incindiaries really matter to them in the first
place).

Regards,
Todd

geez Paden, her old man ain't even cold yet


----- Original Message -----
From: <darnd022263@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Final Words: Fighting fire with fire


> In a message dated 10/28/2005 11:54:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> shahadet_99@... writes:
> Asif
> Are your Sicilian Hohenstaufen for sale now? And if so how much?
>
> Derek
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>