Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I have always wondered about the rule where you have a higher armor class in the
first rank than the second rank and when disordered, your opponent counted the
worse of the two armor ratings. If the second rank has no shield, the question
becomes clear, why aren't they also counted as shieldless. Unfortunately under
the present circumstances, there is no consequence for this situation. Does
anyone have an opinion on this?

Greg Regets <greg.regets@...> wrote:
Well, when you throw in mounted at two points a shield, it can become
a bigger deal, very, very quickly.

Just to be fair, I've always hated these kind of "list convenient"
things, so it might be just a pet peve with me.

That said, I saved my 16 points on my two Knights of St. John LMI CB
units without shields in the back, just like anyone else would.

Of course, 16 points is one thing, over 100 is another.

g




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:
> Well... yeah, it's a plus when I can give my LI B shields for only
the
> front rank. And I like having Sassanid SHC shielded backed by
unshielded
> EHC (although that has some costs!).
>
> I even think that your suggestion of 'fighting ranks' needing to be
> shielded is clever and sensible. I'd support it, probably.
>
> But I don't think this is honestly a huge issue. 162 points?
That's a
> *lot* of half-shielded foot. And even than it's on the same level
as
> being able to have pike blocks with one element of C class in a Reg
D
> unit, vs. having to be all C class. So it doesn't *really* bother
me.
>
> Greg Regets wrote:
>
> >
> > Just making sure Ewan.
> >
> > Any thoughts on the actual meat of the post?
> >
> > g
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Gee, Greg. How can you make such absolute statements without
> >
> > suggetsing
> >
> >>that they might be just opinions?
> >>
> >>Greg Regets wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>It seems to me (INDICATES OPINION) than quite a few armies are
> >>>gaining a pretty substantial benefit because they don't have to
> >
> > buy
> >
> >>>shields for back ranks. A friend of mine showed me a list the
> >
> > other
> >
> >>>day that saved 162 points, just on this alone. This was not some
> >>>third rate army getting a few extra points, but a real
powerhouse
> >>>army, basically getting to play with 1762 points. This might not
> >
> > be
> >
> >>>all that good for competitive balance (INDICATES OPINION).
> >>>
> >>>Here are a few suggestions to consider:
> >>>
> >>>1. Allow other armies to gain from this benefit, by removing
> >
> > shields
> >
> >>>from back ranks.
> >>>
> >>>2. Make the list allowed range of "any", mean you can give any
of
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>troops shields, but in whole units.
> >>>
> >>>3. Make troops that fight more than one rank, fight as
shieldless
> >
> > if
> >
> >>>any fighting ranks are not given shields (subject to the rules
of
> >>>when troops count as shieldless, of course).
> >>>
> >>>This may seem like a little thing, but little things tend to add
> >
> > up.
> >
> >>>I remember coaching football in a weight restricted youth league
> >
> > many
> >
> >>>years ago, and the league saw fit to give certain teams weight
> >
> > wavers
> >
> >>>because they were not traditional football powers, and they
> >>>complained about losing kids that were over the weight. Sure
> >
> > enough,
> >
> >>>when they showed up for games, every kid they had was over the
> >>>weight, and they outweighed every other team by ten pounds a
kid.
> >
> > In
> >
> >>>youth football, that is substantial. Naturally, all six playoff
> >
> > teams
> >
> >>>were teams that got weight wavers. Probably not the best thing
> >
> > for
> >
> >>>game balance, and in my opinion (INDICATES OPINION) neither is
> >>>allowing already powerful armies, to get extra point savings by
> >
> > not
> >
> >>>having to purchase back rank shields, while other armies do.
> >>>
> >>>Thanks ... g
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball.

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

[Greg Regets]

Even the Italian Condotta list I played at Fort Worth Wars, has 84
points of back rank shields that other more "point friendly"
offerings don't have to buy ... and that for an army where fully 25%
of the units are completely shieldless to start with!

Assuming I would still buy back rank shields for things that make
sense, like pikes and 2HCT CB units, that formationally may need
them, I still come in at 56 points below 1600.

I want it! ;-)

g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> I have always wondered about the rule where you have a higher armor
class in the first rank than the second rank and when disordered,
your opponent counted the worse of the two armor ratings. If the
second rank has no shield, the question becomes clear, why aren't
they also counted as shieldless. Unfortunately under the present
circumstances, there is no consequence for this situation. Does
anyone have an opinion on this?
>
> Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...> wrote:
> Well, when you throw in mounted at two points a shield, it can
become
> a bigger deal, very, very quickly.
>
> Just to be fair, I've always hated these kind of "list convenient"
> things, so it might be just a pet peve with me.
>
> That said, I saved my 16 points on my two Knights of St. John LMI
CB
> units without shields in the back, just like anyone else would.
>
> Of course, 16 points is one thing, over 100 is another.
>
> g
>
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
> wrote:
> > Well... yeah, it's a plus when I can give my LI B shields for
only
> the
> > front rank. And I like having Sassanid SHC shielded backed by
> unshielded
> > EHC (although that has some costs!).
> >
> > I even think that your suggestion of 'fighting ranks' needing to
be
> > shielded is clever and sensible. I'd support it, probably.
> >
> > But I don't think this is honestly a huge issue. 162 points?
> That's a
> > *lot* of half-shielded foot. And even than it's on the same
level
> as
> > being able to have pike blocks with one element of C class in a
Reg
> D
> > unit, vs. having to be all C class. So it doesn't *really*
bother
> me.
> >
> > Greg Regets wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Just making sure Ewan.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts on the actual meat of the post?
> > >
> > > g
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay
<ewan.mcnay@y...>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >>Gee, Greg. How can you make such absolute statements without
> > >
> > > suggetsing
> > >
> > >>that they might be just opinions?
> > >>
> > >>Greg Regets wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>It seems to me (INDICATES OPINION) than quite a few armies are
> > >>>gaining a pretty substantial benefit because they don't have
to
> > >
> > > buy
> > >
> > >>>shields for back ranks. A friend of mine showed me a list the
> > >
> > > other
> > >
> > >>>day that saved 162 points, just on this alone. This was not
some
> > >>>third rate army getting a few extra points, but a real
> powerhouse
> > >>>army, basically getting to play with 1762 points. This might
not
> > >
> > > be
> > >
> > >>>all that good for competitive balance (INDICATES OPINION).
> > >>>
> > >>>Here are a few suggestions to consider:
> > >>>
> > >>>1. Allow other armies to gain from this benefit, by removing
> > >
> > > shields
> > >
> > >>>from back ranks.
> > >>>
> > >>>2. Make the list allowed range of "any", mean you can give any
> of
> > >
> > > the
> > >
> > >>>troops shields, but in whole units.
> > >>>
> > >>>3. Make troops that fight more than one rank, fight as
> shieldless
> > >
> > > if
> > >
> > >>>any fighting ranks are not given shields (subject to the rules
> of
> > >>>when troops count as shieldless, of course).
> > >>>
> > >>>This may seem like a little thing, but little things tend to
add
> > >
> > > up.
> > >
> > >>>I remember coaching football in a weight restricted youth
league
> > >
> > > many
> > >
> > >>>years ago, and the league saw fit to give certain teams weight
> > >
> > > wavers
> > >
> > >>>because they were not traditional football powers, and they
> > >>>complained about losing kids that were over the weight. Sure
> > >
> > > enough,
> > >
> > >>>when they showed up for games, every kid they had was over the
> > >>>weight, and they outweighed every other team by ten pounds a
> kid.
> > >
> > > In
> > >
> > >>>youth football, that is substantial. Naturally, all six
playoff
> > >
> > > teams
> > >
> > >>>were teams that got weight wavers. Probably not the best thing
> > >
> > > for
> > >
> > >>>game balance, and in my opinion (INDICATES OPINION) neither is
> > >>>allowing already powerful armies, to get extra point savings
by
> > >
> > > not
> > >
> > >>>having to purchase back rank shields, while other armies do.
> > >>>
> > >>>Thanks ... g
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]