Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Todd Schneider]

Jon,

I was thinking about this last night when redoing the
Traazor list I used. I found that If I dropped the PA
standard I could keep my Legionaire units as Reg C,
but wanted to get a clarification on some mixed morale
Units.

Reg D Units fight as -1 on a net +. No big deal
there. They also Test as D's.

In a Unit of 4E, where the fronk rank is C's and the
rear Rank is D's, the rear rank will fight as Reg D's
with the minus, the front rank won't. If prompted,
The unit will not have to take a waver to charge,
because they aren't entirely D, right? If the the
unit has to take a waver, it's as a "D" morale Unit
and not a C? Where is that addressed in the rules, I
don't see it in 5.5+

In a 4E unit, where the front rank is Reg B and the
back Rank Reg C, if the die roll is a net minus, the
front rank and not the entire unit will get the +1
back, right (essentially the opposite of Reg C/D).

Thanks,
Todd

[joncleaves]

Interesting, Todd, that this is on Warrior Rules...lol


> In a Unit of 4E, where the fronk rank is C's and the
> rear Rank is D's, the rear rank will fight as Reg D's
> with the minus, the front rank won't. If prompted,
> The unit will not have to take a waver to charge,
> because they aren't entirely D, right? >>

Correct.

<< If the the
> unit has to take a waver, it's as a "D" morale Unit
> and not a C? Where is that addressed in the rules, I
> don't see it in 5.5+>>

5.51 second paragraph (the lone sentence right before the morale value table).

>
> In a 4E unit, where the front rank is Reg B and the
> back Rank Reg C, if the die roll is a net minus, the
> front rank and not the entire unit will get the +1
> back, right (essentially the opposite of Reg C/D).>>

Correct.

Reg D's do not get the -1 on a net +, correct? Just Irreg D's?

Scott A McCoppin, AIA
mccoppinarchitecture, pa
704.560.4154
architecture@...

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Schneider [mailto:thresh1642@...]
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 11:24 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Mixed Morale Units

Jon,

I was thinking about this last night when redoing the
Traazor list I used. I found that If I dropped the PA
standard I could keep my Legionaire units as Reg C,
but wanted to get a clarification on some mixed morale
Units.

Reg D Units fight as -1 on a net +. No big deal
there. They also Test as D's.

In a Unit of 4E, where the fronk rank is C's and the
rear Rank is D's, the rear rank will fight as Reg D's
with the minus, the front rank won't. If prompted,
The unit will not have to take a waver to charge,
because they aren't entirely D, right? If the the
unit has to take a waver, it's as a "D" morale Unit
and not a C? Where is that addressed in the rules, I
don't see it in 5.5+

In a 4E unit, where the front rank is Reg B and the
back Rank Reg C, if the die roll is a net minus, the
front rank and not the entire unit will get the +1
back, right (essentially the opposite of Reg C/D).

Thanks,
Todd
_____

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
<mailto:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 1/5/2004 12:04:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,
sctrac@... writes:

> Reg D's do not get the -1 on a net +, correct? Just Irreg
> D's?>>

Any D class. 9.43

Ahh, the player sheet that came with my rulebook is incorrect.

Thanks.

Scott A McCoppin, AIA
mccoppinarchitecture, pa
704.560.4154
architecture@...

-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 12:13 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Mixed Morale Units

In a message dated 1/5/2004 12:04:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,
sctrac@... writes:

> Reg D's do not get the -1 on a net +, correct? Just Irreg
> D's?>>

Any D class. 9.43
_____

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
<mailto:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 1/5/2004 12:38:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,
sctrac@... writes:

> Ahh, the player sheet that came with my rulebook is
> incorrect.
>
> Thanks.>>

It is misleadingly written (too much shorthand). We are working on making a
better one and making it available free on the internet.

[Doug]

>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.

I know people do this routinely, but I've not read closely enough to
really understand the benefits and disadvantages of having just the
front rank be a better morale class. Can someone give a
comprehensive list of reactions etc are based on the "best" and which
on the "worst?, and why is it advantageous or not to mix the unit?

[Ewan McNay]

Comprehensive? probably not.

However: the problem with having all-D units is that they take a waver
test if prompted to charge. Hence, one element (only, not a full rank) of
C class avoids this problem. Most sensible with close foot, who take
wavers for very few other causes (basically routing friends, which I never
plan on having); but I also do this with e.g. IrrD LI B, who often want to
be able to charge impetuously rather than have to take a charge at the
halt (and potentially waver test).

Being part-A class makes you never uneasy. Being at least front rank IrrB
makes you start as eager. Being part IrrA has assorted benefits (mostly
the potential melee bonus) and costs (forced actions).

Those seem the most common. Having *ranks* of mixed morale is often
list-imposed, and usually to simulate a mix of fierceness and fragility by
having a front rank of IrrA backed by IrrC or IrrD.

e

Doug wrote:

>>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.
>
>
> I know people do this routinely, but I've not read closely enough to
> really understand the benefits and disadvantages of having just the
> front rank be a better morale class. Can someone give a
> comprehensive list of reactions etc are based on the "best" and which
> on the "worst?, and why is it advantageous or not to mix the unit?
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Mark Stone]

--- On March 1 Ewan said: ---

>> 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.

--- In response to which Doug asked: ---

> I know people do this routinely, but I've not read closely enough to
> really understand the benefits and disadvantages of having just the
> front rank be a better morale class. Can someone give a
> comprehensive list of reactions etc are based on the "best" and which
> on the "worst?, and why is it advantageous or not to mix the unit?

A mixed unit of Ds and Cs is really only useful for a unit that in fact does not
expect to do a lot of hand to hand fighting, but may occaisionally need to
"push" a lesser unit out of the way.

Ironically -- and I've been thinking about writing a longer piece on this -- the
units that won't do a lot of fighting are your main battle line units. (Unless
your opponent is Chris Damour).

One example: a 32 figure unit of pike is there to push the battle line forward,
and to pressurize the enemy by doing so. It doesn't actually expect to get into
hand to hand combat, as there are relatively few things that _want_ to fight it,
and the few that there are (Moogs) _it_ doesn't want to fight. So it's lot in
life is generally to march as far as it can, and then plod forward 80p for the
remainder of the battle. Occaisionally some fancy expanding, contracting, and
facing is needed to see that the main battle line is properly connected to the
flanks, but that's about it. So far, this unit could be entirely D class and do
just fine.

What used to be annoying, though, was to have a small unit of LI pop up in front
of such a unit. The LI could not be caught in an evade, and you'd have to be
prompted to charge it, hence a waver test if you were D class. This particular
situation has been alleviated by forcing a test or recall onto LI who are 40p
from foot, but the general situation still occurs. What if you need to charge
off LI that's 80p away? What if it's a unit of LC or LMI instead of LI? Having
that one stand of C class troops in the front rank alleviates the problem of
taking a waver test for charging, and does so with the minimum expenditure of
points on your part. You've spent only 4 points extra instead of the 32 needed
to up-morale the entire unit.

Second example: You have a unit of LC or LI that is part of your skirmish line.
Assume it is a unit of Reg D LC with bow. Mostly this unit exists to shoot
things, pin things to stop them from marching, and evade from things. It is
very unlikely to ever launch a frontal charge unless against a disordered
unit, and hence being D doesn't really hurt it. It counters less well, and
fights less well, but by and large that's not a huge negative.

There are times, however, when you have an opportunity to charge an enemy LI or
LC unit in the flank even though you aren't starting behind their flank. On the
wings of the battle line this situation comes up frequently. In this situation
you have to be prompted to charge, and hence take a waver test if entirely D
class. Having that one stand of C class troops eliminates the need to take the
waver test at a minimal cost (2 points).

So that's the rationale behind mixed morale units of C and D class. Other mixed
morale combinations are advantageous in other situations, and some are of so
little benefit that you never see them used (mixed Reg B and Reg C units, for
example).


-Mark Stone

[Greg Regets]

See ... I don't have a problem at all with the mixed moral, and don't
see that as a "point convenient" issue. In that instance, the unit is
question is being bought for a desired effect, and points are being
payed for.

Irregular B in the front is a unit that is simulating eagerness
caused by putting bolder soldiers up front. If it tests, is still
tests as the lower moral grade. I think this is very well done for
guys like Franks, etc ...

One element of C moral simulates a few better quality guys mixed in
the unit, giving the unit a little more earnest. Again, if the unit
checks, it does so at the lower moral.

To me, the shields/points thing is completely different. Its nothing
more than a points saving. There is a potentially negative factor
involved, but be honest, how often if ever does it come up. I played
Kn.ofSt.J almost weekly, for over five years and the shieldless back
rank bowmen never once came up.

Just my opinion ... g




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:
> Comprehensive? probably not.
>
> However: the problem with having all-D units is that they take a
waver
> test if prompted to charge. Hence, one element (only, not a full
rank) of
> C class avoids this problem. Most sensible with close foot, who
take
> wavers for very few other causes (basically routing friends, which
I never
> plan on having); but I also do this with e.g. IrrD LI B, who often
want to
> be able to charge impetuously rather than have to take a charge at
the
> halt (and potentially waver test).
>
> Being part-A class makes you never uneasy. Being at least front
rank IrrB
> makes you start as eager. Being part IrrA has assorted benefits
(mostly
> the potential melee bonus) and costs (forced actions).
>
> Those seem the most common. Having *ranks* of mixed morale is
often
> list-imposed, and usually to simulate a mix of fierceness and
fragility by
> having a front rank of IrrA backed by IrrC or IrrD.
>
> e
>
> Doug wrote:
>
> >>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.
> >
> >
> > I know people do this routinely, but I've not read closely enough
to
> > really understand the benefits and disadvantages of having just
the
> > front rank be a better morale class. Can someone give a
> > comprehensive list of reactions etc are based on the "best" and
which
> > on the "worst?, and why is it advantageous or not to mix the unit?
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

[joncleaves]

Just my opinion ... g>>

Thanks, Greg. I know you think it is a minor thing, but I very much apprecaite
it.

J

[Greg Regets]

No worries Jon. I guess I just figured that anything posted here by
anyone other than Scott or yourself, was just opinion. :-)

g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Just my opinion ... g>>
>
> Thanks, Greg. I know you think it is a minor thing, but I very
much apprecaite it.
>
> J

[Ewan McNay]

No, no wait, you mean that all this pontificating will not change
anything? What happened to my supreme power?? Help me, I'm SHRink i n g...

Greg Regets wrote:

>
> No worries Jon. I guess I just figured that anything posted here by
> anyone other than Scott or yourself, was just opinion.
>
> g
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
>>Just my opinion ... g>>
>>
>>Thanks, Greg. I know you think it is a minor thing, but I very
>
> much apprecaite it.
>
>>J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Todd Schneider]

Doug,

Speaking for myself, the vast majority of my Army is
based on Irr C Foot, and I have a list option to
upgrade any element to Irr B.
I run my unit's with 5E of C and 1E of B. The result
is that for most purposes, the entire unit is now
"Eager" as the result of the prescence of the 1E of
B's, but they still waver test as C's.

Unless of course I've been playing this wrong for the
past 9 months or so... :-)

Todd
--- Doug <rockd@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
>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.

I know people do this routinely, but I've not read
closely enough to
really understand the benefits and disadvantages of
having just the
front rank be a better morale class. Can someone give
a
comprehensive list of reactions etc are based on the
"best" and which
on the "worst?, and why is it advantageous or not to
mix the unit?

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Schneider <thresh1642@s...>
wrote:
> Doug,
>
> Speaking for myself, the vast majority of my Army is
> based on Irr C Foot, and I have a list option to
> upgrade any element to Irr B.
> I run my unit's with 5E of C and 1E of B. The result
> is that for most purposes, the entire unit is now
> "Eager" as the result of the prescence of the 1E of
> B's, but they still waver test as C's.
>
> Unless of course I've been playing this wrong for the
> past 9 months or so...
>
> Todd

If I'm not mistaken, I think the front rank of an unit must be
entirely Irr B in order to be eager.