Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ed Forbes]

Jon,

I am going to restate my question on Swiss recoil as my email account has gone
haywire. I am getting re: to a re: before I get the original email. I am not
sure now what has been answered and what has not.

Under Feudal Warrior corrections, the list rule for Swiss inf was changed such
that Swiss P that lose now recoil.


I am unsure why it was thought that a P block of Swiss that lost to a P block of
Germans would be at such a disadvantage? Before this list rule change when two
such P blocks met the attack would stall, no matter who won.

Now, If the German P block loses, the attack stalls as they stay inplace. Moving
the Swiss 2HCT forward gives the Swiss an advantage, but not enough to do
anything but recoil the German. In later rounds it will be 8 to 8 in all cases.
The Swiss will continue to recoil the German on odds, but it will not end
quickly if just between themselves.

If the German wins (and they have the advantage in the first round due to being
4 P vs 3P/1-2HCT of Swiss ), They roll the Swiss up with 12 vs 8 due to the fact
that the Swiss recoil after the first bound.

I would ask that this addition be removed and that Swiss P recoil as per other P
under 11.212 as it does not reflect the true balance between two contempory
German and Swiss P blocks.

Ed

[joncleaves]

<<Under Feudal Warrior corrections, the list rule for Swiss inf was changed such
that Swiss P that lose now recoil.>>

This is incorrect. I'm sorry, Ed, but I didn't see your original question
because once I read this part I just ignored the rest. No such thing happened
and we have decided to ignore such posts as the only reason we can see why
someone would make one is to poke us in the eye.

Loose order foot has always recoiled from victorious foot. Some people were
apparently skipping that line of 11.212 and arguing that since they had pike,
the rule that you go down the list in 11.212 until you find who you are and then
execute the instruction was somehow no longer valid - this despite the fact that
feudal warrior has never said any such thing. I suppose that if you were one of
these people this seems like a 'change' to you. But in our view 11.212 has been
in effect the whole time and nothing in the list rule supercedes it. Yet, to
help the customer (or probably more accurately, the opponents of such a
customer...), we put that clarification on the web. The list rule has never
changed in how recoils are handled by Swiss loose order foot.

Swiss foot beat German pike. Your example ignores a number of factors, such as
disordered close germans v steady Swiss, the -1 for 2HCT, the expansion by Swiss
when they win and the typical lack of German pike shields.

No change is planned.

Jon


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

[Ed Forbes]

-- JonCleaves@... wrote:


<<Under Feudal Warrior corrections, the list rule for Swiss inf was changed such
that Swiss P that lose now recoil.>>
This is incorrect.
Loose order foot has always recoiled from victorious foot.


OK Jon,
No poke in the eye intended. I will say I am not the only one who saw this as a
change.

OK, at this point then, are Swiss P loose order in all aspects?

Do you mean then that they have the option to break off or that chariots can
breakthrough as per other loose order?

I remember when this came up before and you said no, chariots would not be able
to breakthrough as through loose order as they were not normal loose order. I
do not see this up on the web as a current list clarification, so have you
changed your mind and chariots can breakthrough as per loose order?

The option to break off Swiss P and run away also strikes me as very odd. As a
gamer, I can see a definite use, but do not see how one could justify the tactic
with Swiss P.

As you can see, my (and others) thoughts that Swiss loose order were somewhat
different in the rules applied is not out of the range of reasonable
possibilities.

Ed

The reason the list rule was clarified was that I pointed out a few
months back that, under the rules as written, a swiss pike block
could recoil or break off since they are loose formation foot. Since
a pike block breaking off is farcical I asked for a clarification of
the list rule.

Cheers..............Geoff


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

> Loose order foot has always recoiled from victorious foot. Some
people were apparently skipping that line of 11.212 and arguing that
since they had pike, the rule that you go down the list in 11.212
until you find who you are and then execute the instruction was
somehow no longer valid - this despite the fact that feudal warrior
has never said any such thing. I suppose that if you were one of
these people this seems like a 'change' to you. But in our view
11.212 has been in effect the whole time and nothing in the list
rule supercedes it. Yet, to help the customer (or probably more
accurately, the opponents of such a customer...), we put that
clarification on the web. The list rule has never changed in how
recoils are handled by Swiss loose order foot.

[joncleaves]

<<I remember when this came up before and you said no, chariots would not be
able
to breakthrough as through loose order as they were not normal loose order. I
do not see this up on the web as a current list clarification, so have you
changed your mind and chariots can breakthrough as per loose order? >>

Do you have that mail or an archive number? I don't remember saying that.
Chariots break through Swiss as through any other loose order. The ahistorical
part of that isn't the rule, its the idea of chariots fighting Swiss. Not to
mention what 8 P- armed would do to a charging chariot....lol

<<The option to break off Swiss P and run away also strikes me as very odd. As
a
gamer, I can see a definite use, but do not see how one could justify the tactic
with Swiss P. >>

There's no need to mess with that rule either. We have instances of well
disciplined foot breaking contact and reorganizing and charging in again. And
the risk is there to make the player think twice about it. I don't see an
issue. I certainly have no problem with foot of this quality getting more
options and not less..

J


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

[joncleaves]

I will ignore the use of the word farcical....lol

Please, before anyone overreacts - the rule is that Swiss recoil, not recoil or
break off. My last post to Ed was hypothetical, but in rereading it, I can see
where someone might think I was messing with the rule. I was not.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: siwardrocks <geoffcrick@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 21:43:57 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Jon: Swiss recoil-2nd


The reason the list rule was clarified was that I pointed out a few
months back that, under the rules as written, a swiss pike block
could recoil or break off since they are loose formation foot. Since
a pike block breaking off is farcical I asked for a clarification of
the list rule.

Cheers..............Geoff


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

> Loose order foot has always recoiled from victorious foot. Some
people were apparently skipping that line of 11.212 and arguing that
since they had pike, the rule that you go down the list in 11.212
until you find who you are and then execute the instruction was
somehow no longer valid - this despite the fact that feudal warrior
has never said any such thing. I suppose that if you were one of
these people this seems like a 'change' to you. But in our view
11.212 has been in effect the whole time and nothing in the list
rule supercedes it. Yet, to help the customer (or probably more
accurately, the opponents of such a customer...), we put that
clarification on the web. The list rule has never changed in how
recoils are handled by Swiss loose order foot.








Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Ed Forbes]

Jon,

No need to look up old emails. It does not matter what you said before, its
irrelevant. If you want Swiss P to act as loose under all circumstances, that's
the way it is.

I am going to have to sit down and really think this one through. This has some
really interesting tactical implications for some situations.

Ed

-- JonCleaves@... wrote:
> so have you
changed your mind and chariots can breakthrough as per loose order? >>

Do you have that mail or an archive number? I don't remember saying that.

I used "farcical" because of it's comic value :)

Cheers.......Geoff


In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> I will ignore the use of the word farcical....lol
>