Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

<< Has there been any consideration given to having a loose order foot
classification that doesn't skirmish but also doesn't test waver when
charged by mounted?>>

If we did this, it would be on a list rule basis. Feel free to propose which
loose order troops might be better represented by such a rule. Best if you
include the history to go with.

<<An old nightmare when 36 viking bondi failed waver when charged by 6
knights still rankles.>>

Those big chickens! Who do they think they are, anyway?

Jon

Jon,

First to establish my credentials, Jake can attest to my trying to make a
Viking army work in tournaments for two years and loosing big time. Even I
have a feeling that the Viking list should do better in WRG. However, the
historical fact is that when facing mounted forces (ie: Norman Horse) the
northern barbarian foot scum had to sail away or die. As an observation,
those armies (Vikings, Mongols) that were nomadic in nature won their laurels
through their strategic movements not the individual battles that they fought.

To put all emotion aside, I believe that sub-classing LMI/LHI into
skirmishing and no-skirmishing groups would undermine the nature of the troop
class. It would be an additional complexity to the rules that history may
not support.

Jamie Gentry
Phantom Raider 6
If you ain't Cav you ain't!

I'm sure this falls into the category of stuff discussed endlessly under
7.6, but let me ask anyway.

Has there been any consideration given to having a loose order foot
classification that doesn't skirmish but also doesn't test waver when
charged by mounted?

An old nightmare when 36 viking bondi failed waver when charged by 6
knights still rankles.

Allowing vikings to be HI/MI eliminates the waver test, but it also
takes most of the fury out of their charge.

John Meunier

[joncleaves]

<< To put all emotion aside, I believe that sub-classing LMI/LHI into
skirmishing and no-skirmishing groups would undermine the nature of the
troop
class. It would be an additional complexity to the rules that history may
not support. >>

Phantom raider 6, this is Warhorse 3. Roger, over.

I don't think that is how it will turn out, but do not want to speculate on
possible Viking (or any other) list rules, as I have not seen Scott's Dark
Age lists yet.

If we look at doing anything that radical we'll have it playtested and aired
here first.
Jon

Jon,

A horse army needs someone to overrun ;{).

Jamie
Phantom Raider 6
"If you ain't Cav you Ain't"

[scott holder]

<< To put all emotion aside, I believe that sub-classing LMI/LHI into
skirmishing and no-skirmishing groups would undermine the nature of the
troop
class. It would be an additional complexity to the rules that history may
not support. >>

Phantom raider 6, this is Warhorse 3. Roger, over.

I don't think that is how it will turn out, but do not want to speculate on
possible Viking (or any other) list rules, as I have not seen Scott's Dark
Age lists yet.

If we look at doing anything that radical we'll have it playtested and aired
here first.

I used the "shield wall" rule for the 7th ed Dark Age theme tourney's. It was
one of those funzy little things that, upon closer examination, may or may not
have been an accurate representation of those times when the historical record
shows that a "shield wall" was used. Over the years, other explanations for
this "formation" have arisen, the best probably being that the troops were in
fact in close formation and simply locked their shields together similar to
what a hoplite formation would have done. There is no conclusive evidence
that loose order troops such as the Vikings had the flexibility to fight/march
in loose and close formations as the situation allowed (similar to the always
depated Macedonian Hypaspists). That's why most army lists (including the
NASAMW revisions) generally take the approach that you can "buy" your Vikings
(or Hypaspists) as either close or loose order troops. And that's what Jamie
was referring to in his quote above (I think). No problem actually from a
paper exercise for a tourney: if you're playing Vikings, one army can be
loose order depending on the enemy, the other close order. Of course no one
wants to have essentially two sets of figures (because of the basing
requirements) for this which and my guess is that most players would like the
extreme tactical flexibilty of loose order Vikings who can, if need be, become
"close order" Vikings (aka via some type of shield wall formation) to resist
cav charges. Again, it doesn't appear that there's enough evidence to suggest
the Vikings could do that at the drop of a hat. But I still await more data
from a couple of folks before I proceed.

I'm still gathering up material on the issue and awaiting some input from a
couple of people who's primary interest is in this period. I won't really
know much until I start to wade into the lists themselves and that won't
happen for a couple of weeks as I'm still cleaning up BIBLICAL WARRIOR and
awaiting final input on it.

Finally, here's a great quote that I think sums up the pitfalls of making too
much (or too little) out of a particular army:

"In a casually brutal age, Vikings were simply better brutes."

Scott

Scott,

You hit the nail on the head.

Jamie
Phantom Raider 6
If you ain't Cav you ain't

[joncleaves]

<<Do we still have the interpretation that a unit that charges impetuously
is not responding to a charge and does not take a waver test?>>

If the charge is not otherwise cancelled, yes.

 

-----Original Message-----From: John Meunier <jmeunier@indiana.edu>To: warriorrules@egroups.com <warriorrules@egroups.com>Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 08:17Subject: [WarriorRules] Loose order foot waver testsI'm sure this falls into the category of stuff discussed endlessly under7.6, but let me ask anyway.Has there been any consideration given to having a loose order footclassification that doesn't skirmish but also doesn't test waver whencharged by mounted?An old nightmare when 36 viking bondi failed waver when charged by 6knights still rankles.Allowing vikings to be HI/MI eliminates the waver test, but it alsotakes most of the fury out of their charge.John Meunier
 
You think you have problems with Vikings?! Try playing with a Welsh army, the waver test rule makes them lots of fun: LMI LTS Sh (Irr C)
The only way round it is to hide in terrain (not always available) and leave a thin wall of saxon allies to guard the open spaces or to walk round in such big units that it is almost impossible for a small unit of knights to cause a CPF and immediately unshake as the knights bounce off. This second tactic however requires the opponent to be considerate and only send the knights in one at a time.
Do we still have the interpretation that a unit that charges impetuously is not responding to a charge and does not take a waver test?
 
 

Here are the comments re: loose order foot that disappeared into the
mist yesterday. First, one understands that the concept of "loose
order" is a wargaming construct, providing a useful abstraction for
wargming purposes, but otherwise doesn't exist in either historical
or military literature. What I have understood this construct to
represent on the wargames table is an average formation for those
troops who may have occasionally fought in a more or less well-formed
manner (of ordered ranks and files), but oft times did not,
preferring instead to fight in gangs (warbands) or to skirmish (not
formed in units, rather as individuals).

Thus, Scott's argument re: Vikings, for example, is actually
backwards; one doesn't need proof that Viking karls formed close
order "shieldwalls" in order to justify taking them out of "loose
order", rather because it is believed they were capable of fighting
very effectively in formation, but only elected to do so when forced
by circumstances, that they were given the "loose" designation in the
first place. (Please recall that Viking karls were designated close
order troops in early WRG lists).

If one were designing a game from scratch, one could make "order",
whether close, open, or unformed, a function of troop formation
(which is the right way to do it), instead of troop type (which was a
bad decision by WRG), and avoid some of the pitfalls of the existing
WRG/Warrior standard. But I would argue very strongly against doing
that in Warrior. I think Scott's prior solution to the problem, using
a special rule (eg. shieldwall) exempting some list specific troop
types from cavalry induced waver tests is exactly the way to go.

Rather than arbitrarily splitting "loose order" troops into
skirmishing and non-skirmishing types, which is a clear admission
that the "loose order" concept is badly flawed, more attention could
be paid to training, morale class, and arms. Thus, regular LMI/LHI of
at least "C" class (such as Macedonian Hypaspists or professional,
mercenary Greek peltasts) may be assumed to have reliably formed into
effective close order units to counter mounted threats (give them
a "shieldwall" option), and yet skirmished when it was to their
advantage. Similarly, Irregular A or B class LHI are also going to
reliably stand up to cavalry (give them a "shieldwall" option). Other
LHI/LMI must continue to waver test as per the current rules.

Paul