Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ed Forbes]

Jon,

The new list rule that Swiss must recoil if they loose effects their play much
more than one would think.


All other Pike do not recoil. Why are the Swiss Pike perceived to work
differently at contact than other pike? I believe that a Swiss block recoiling
at contact does not model their well recorded battle field tenacity where they
might stop, but seldom retired under pressure.


I believe the Swiss model better as the rule was first listed than as it now
does with the rule change. I never understood what brought on the rule change in
the first place.


Ed Forbes

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/7/2005 00:26:12 Central Standard Time,
thresh1642@... writes:

Sigh...must read before hitting send..



That's ok, Todd. You're not the only one....lol


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

Greetings Ed,
You get to bring up troops that fight shielded and steady at a higher factor
even if they were shaken prior to combat. You move like loose order but react
like close. You get all this for FREE I don't see how you can complain about
a small price for your free toys.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "eforbes100@j..." <eforbes100@j...> wrote:
>
> Jon,
>
> The new list rule that Swiss must recoil if they loose effects their play much
more than one would think.
>
>
> All other Pike do not recoil. Why are the Swiss Pike perceived to work
differently at contact than other pike? I believe that a Swiss block recoiling
at contact does not model their well recorded battle field tenacity where they
might stop, but seldom retired under pressure.
>
>
> I believe the Swiss model better as the rule was first listed than as it now
does with the rule change. I never understood what brought on the rule change in
the first place.
>
>
> Ed Forbes
>

[Mark Stone]

--- On December 6 Ed Forbes said: ---

> The new list rule that Swiss must recoil if they loose effects their play much
> more than one would think.
>
> All other Pike do not recoil. Why are the Swiss Pike perceived to work
> differently at contact than other pike?

Ed,

I want to be clear that you're asking Jon about the right case here, since this
thread started with an example about knights vs. Swiss.

So: _all_ pike recoil against mounted. 7th, Warrior, doesn't matter. They always
have. Swiss, Macedonian, doesn't matter. All pike recoil against mounted.

In fact -- and this is my #1 personal pet peeve for a rule that has been clear
for ages that people consistently refuse to understand -- the mounted can even
_lose_ the pike, and the pike _still_ recoil disordered, if they lost the
combat overall (unless the mounted break or break-off; merely recoiling the
mounted doesn't prevent recoiling disordered).

Let me illustrate with an example (from my Game #1 in the Open at Historicon
this summer).

A unit of Chinese firelancers and a unit of Chinese tribal elephants together
charge a unit of Seleucid pike. The firelancers are 4 stands of Reg C HI
LTS,Sh,Firelance in a 1 x 4 column. The elephants are 2 models of Irr C crew of
3 w/Bow in a 1 x 2 column. The pike are 8 stands of Reg C MI P,Sh in a 2 x 4
column. Everyone rolls even.

The pikes must take the charge at the halt, since their charging opponents
include mounted.

The elephants do 5@1=7, + crew doing 2@2=4 for a total of 11.
Against the elephants, the pikes do 8@1=12.
The elephants recoil, having taken 1 CPF and more.

The firelancers do 8@5=32.
Against the firelancers, the pikes do 8@2=16.

Overall, the pikes take more, and a CPF, though not twice as many. However,
since the pikes lost overall and their opponents include mounted who neither
broke nor broke off, the pikes recoil disordered.


-Mark Stone

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Excellent post Mark.

kelly

Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
--- On December 6 Ed Forbes said: ---

> The new list rule that Swiss must recoil if they loose effects their play much
> more than one would think.
>
> All other Pike do not recoil. Why are the Swiss Pike perceived to work
> differently at contact than other pike?

Ed,

I want to be clear that you're asking Jon about the right case here, since this
thread started with an example about knights vs. Swiss.

So: _all_ pike recoil against mounted. 7th, Warrior, doesn't matter. They always
have. Swiss, Macedonian, doesn't matter. All pike recoil against mounted.

In fact -- and this is my #1 personal pet peeve for a rule that has been clear
for ages that people consistently refuse to understand -- the mounted can even
_lose_ the pike, and the pike _still_ recoil disordered, if they lost the
combat overall (unless the mounted break or break-off; merely recoiling the
mounted doesn't prevent recoiling disordered).

Let me illustrate with an example (from my Game #1 in the Open at Historicon
this summer).

A unit of Chinese firelancers and a unit of Chinese tribal elephants together
charge a unit of Seleucid pike. The firelancers are 4 stands of Reg C HI
LTS,Sh,Firelance in a 1 x 4 column. The elephants are 2 models of Irr C crew of
3 w/Bow in a 1 x 2 column. The pike are 8 stands of Reg C MI P,Sh in a 2 x 4
column. Everyone rolls even.

The pikes must take the charge at the halt, since their charging opponents
include mounted.

The elephants do 5@1=7, + crew doing 2@2=4 for a total of 11.
Against the elephants, the pikes do 8@1=12.
The elephants recoil, having taken 1 CPF and more.

The firelancers do 8@5=32.
Against the firelancers, the pikes do 8@2=16.

Overall, the pikes take more, and a CPF, though not twice as many. However,
since the pikes lost overall and their opponents include mounted who neither
broke nor broke off, the pikes recoil disordered.


-Mark Stone


SPONSORED LINKS
Miniature wargaming Wargaming Four horsemen Warrior

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

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.


---------------------------------






---------------------------------
Yahoo! Shopping
Find Great Deals on Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

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

[Bill Chriss]

>
> Overall, the pikes take more, and a CPF, though not twice as many.
> However,
> since the pikes lost overall and their opponents include mounted who
> neither
> broke nor broke off, the pikes recoil disordered.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>


Well, once again I feel dumb. I never really appreciated this game
mechanic. This does seem a bit odd, but then I must honestly confess my
anti-mounted bias.

-Greek

[Ed Forbes]

-- "scsabrecoach" <scsabrecoach@...> wrote:

>Greetings Ed,
>You get to bring up troops that fight shielded and steady at a >higher factor
even if they were shaken prior to combat. You move >like loose order but react
like close. You get all this for FREE >I don't see how you can complain about
a small price for your free >toys.



scsabrecoach,

It is not the cost that matters, but the effectiveness. 9 pt moggs start at a
route vs 24 pt Swiss in an impetuous charge. But that's OK as the moggs make up
for it with greater numbers, the ability to cover a greater frontage, and work
at full effectiveness in woods.

You think that the Swiss get to many list rules now? Personally I would add
another in addition to changing the rule back to disorder in place instead of
recoil. I would allow the same option that allows classical armies to have their
charge not canceled by mounted or impetuous. It would give the Swiss at least a
chance to withstand a charge by moggs. And it would be historical as the Swiss
were not intimidated by mounted at all.

In historical mach-ups, the Swiss came out ahead against others of the period
that they fought on a regular basis. They were the undisputed champs at this
type of warfare. As it stands, I would take a Burgundian army against a Swiss
army any time under this new rule change that requires recoil. And the
Burgundian would be the odds on favorite to win. The Swiss would have had a
hard time of it before, but it is worse now. Hows that for historical match-ups
and results. As I have played both of these armies on a regular basis, I am very
familiar with both the strengths and weaknesses of both of these armies.


Without the list rules the Swiss have little or no chance of wining against
historical opponents, which are the basis for the list rules.
Playing the Swiss, many of which are shield-less LMI to shooting, in a game that
so totally rewards shooting, makes one become very adapt at working shooting
priorities to the greatest possible level. I enjoyed the challenge as long as
there was some hope of winning.

I welcomed the arrival of the list rules for the Swiss as it allowed an army
based totally on shock to be at least somewhat competitive in a game so
dominated by shooting. They had an advantage against knight armies but were
rolled over by moggs. Games against mounted bow armies tended to be 1-1 or 5-1,
a Swiss loss or draw. I still played them as I had an interest in the period.
Losing the ability not to recoil reduces the Swiss effectiveness just enough to
make them now loose against knight armies also.



With the new recoil rule my Swiss army goes back into the box and are now only
used as special purpose support troops in small numbers as playing with a Swiss
army puts me a a competitive disadvantage with both historical and open
opponents. I do not mind loosing that much, and playing the Swiss you had better
not, but I would like to win sometimes.


Ed

[Ed Forbes]

Mark,

yep, your right. We played it localy so long under the interp that " other
pike-armed foot recoil if already disorded, otherwise become disorded" was a
stand alone case that I revert back to it every so often and then get my hand
slaped and have to relearn it in polite company.

It was the ability of the Swiss to charge and stick if they did not get routed
which I most miss.

You are right. Foot vs Mounted is the first line and it should be read top to
bottom.

Ed




_________________-
Ed,

I want to be clear that you're asking Jon about the right case here, since this
thread started with an example about knights vs. Swiss.

So: _all_ pike recoil against mounted. 7th, Warrior, doesn't matter. They always
have. Swiss, Macedonian, doesn't matter. All pike recoil against mounted.

[Mark Stone]

--- On December 6 Ed Forbes said: ---

> Mark,
>
> yep, your right. We played it localy so long under the interp that " other
> pike-armed foot recoil if already disorded, otherwise become disorded" was a
> stand alone case that I revert back to it every so often and then get my hand
> slaped and have to relearn it in polite company.
>
> It was the ability of the Swiss to charge and stick if they did not get routed
> which I most miss.

Ed,

I do agree that having the Swiss recoil rather remain in place disordered (with
the non-disordered 2HCT element replacing) makes a _huge_ difference in foot
vs. foot combats. In my opinion, the biggest impact is whether or not opposing
loose order foot (like "moogs") get to follow up and expand. Expansion really
changes the dynamic a lot. I too wonder if this is entirely representative of
the historical record. I'm trying to think of opposing foot that the Swiss ever
flinched in the face of, and I'm not coming up with a lot of examples.


-Mark Stone

[Todd Schneider]

On the subject of Swiss, our local Swiss player feels
they would be better served if, like the Classical
Pike, they had the "3CPF for shooting" effects rather
than the 2CPF.

As a guy who plays a very heavy bow Army, it does eem
a bit odd to me that I can shoot some of the premier
shieldless heavy infantry of the day to a halt pretty
easily.

Todd

--- Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:

> --- On December 6 Ed Forbes said: ---
>
> > Mark,
> >
> > yep, your right. We played it localy so long under
> the interp that " other
> > pike-armed foot recoil if already disorded,
> otherwise become disorded" was a
> > stand alone case that I revert back to it every so
> often and then get my hand
> > slaped and have to relearn it in polite company.
> >
> > It was the ability of the Swiss to charge and
> stick if they did not get routed
> > which I most miss.
>
> Ed,
>
> I do agree that having the Swiss recoil rather
> remain in place disordered (with
> the non-disordered 2HCT element replacing) makes a
> _huge_ difference in foot
> vs. foot combats. In my opinion, the biggest impact
> is whether or not opposing
> loose order foot (like "moogs") get to follow up and
> expand. Expansion really
> changes the dynamic a lot. I too wonder if this is
> entirely representative of
> the historical record. I'm trying to think of
> opposing foot that the Swiss ever
> flinched in the face of, and I'm not coming up with
> a lot of examples.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
>




__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com

[Todd Schneider]

Sigh...must read before hitting send..

Anways, the Swiss were some of the premier heavy
Infantry of the day, and did have a reputation for
withstanding bowfire, right?

Todd (the Hasty)...

--- Todd Schneider <thresh1642@...> wrote:

> On the subject of Swiss, our local Swiss player
> feels
> they would be better served if, like the Classical
> Pike, they had the "3CPF for shooting" effects
> rather
> than the 2CPF.
>
> As a guy who plays a very heavy bow Army, it does
> eem
> a bit odd to me that I can shoot some of the premier
> shieldless heavy infantry of the day to a halt
> pretty
> easily.
>
> Todd
>
> --- Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
>
> > --- On December 6 Ed Forbes said: ---
> >
> > > Mark,
> > >
> > > yep, your right. We played it localy so long
> under
> > the interp that " other
> > > pike-armed foot recoil if already disorded,
> > otherwise become disorded" was a
> > > stand alone case that I revert back to it every
> so
> > often and then get my hand
> > > slaped and have to relearn it in polite company.
> > >
> > > It was the ability of the Swiss to charge and
> > stick if they did not get routed
> > > which I most miss.
> >
> > Ed,
> >
> > I do agree that having the Swiss recoil rather
> > remain in place disordered (with
> > the non-disordered 2HCT element replacing) makes a
> > _huge_ difference in foot
> > vs. foot combats. In my opinion, the biggest
> impact
> > is whether or not opposing
> > loose order foot (like "moogs") get to follow up
> and
> > expand. Expansion really
> > changes the dynamic a lot. I too wonder if this is
> > entirely representative of
> > the historical record. I'm trying to think of
> > opposing foot that the Swiss ever
> > flinched in the face of, and I'm not coming up
> with
> > a lot of examples.
> >
> >
> > -Mark Stone
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________
> Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
> Just $16.99/mo. or less.
> dsl.yahoo.com
>
>




__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Mark,

Are there any historical examples of any pike phalanx's ever being beaten
head on by any non pikes? I know that livy pretty much says that fromt the front
they are untouchable, it's the Roman maneuverability and numbers flanking that
wins the day against such formations.

kelly

Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
--- On December 6 Ed Forbes said: ---

> Mark,
>
> yep, your right. We played it localy so long under the interp that " other
> pike-armed foot recoil if already disorded, otherwise become disorded" was a
> stand alone case that I revert back to it every so often and then get my hand
> slaped and have to relearn it in polite company.
>
> It was the ability of the Swiss to charge and stick if they did not get routed
> which I most miss.

Ed,

I do agree that having the Swiss recoil rather remain in place disordered (with
the non-disordered 2HCT element replacing) makes a _huge_ difference in foot
vs. foot combats. In my opinion, the biggest impact is whether or not opposing
loose order foot (like "moogs") get to follow up and expand. Expansion really
changes the dynamic a lot. I too wonder if this is entirely representative of
the historical record. I'm trying to think of opposing foot that the Swiss ever
flinched in the face of, and I'm not coming up with a lot of examples.


-Mark Stone



SPONSORED LINKS
Miniature wargaming Wargaming Four horsemen Warrior

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

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!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Todd,

I've read where Swiss formations took bombard shots that created red
swaths in their ranks and the Swiss troops that survived would step forward,
reform and continue to attack. They were some very arrogant, brash, and "bad
assed" warriors.

kelly

Todd Schneider <thresh1642@...> wrote:
Sigh...must read before hitting send..

Anways, the Swiss were some of the premier heavy
Infantry of the day, and did have a reputation for
withstanding bowfire, right?

Todd (the Hasty)...

--- Todd Schneider <thresh1642@...> wrote:

> On the subject of Swiss, our local Swiss player
> feels
> they would be better served if, like the Classical
> Pike, they had the "3CPF for shooting" effects
> rather
> than the 2CPF.
>
> As a guy who plays a very heavy bow Army, it does
> eem
> a bit odd to me that I can shoot some of the premier
> shieldless heavy infantry of the day to a halt
> pretty
> easily.
>
> Todd
>
> --- Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
>
> > --- On December 6 Ed Forbes said: ---
> >
> > > Mark,
> > >
> > > yep, your right. We played it localy so long
> under
> > the interp that " other
> > > pike-armed foot recoil if already disorded,
> > otherwise become disorded" was a
> > > stand alone case that I revert back to it every
> so
> > often and then get my hand
> > > slaped and have to relearn it in polite company.
> > >
> > > It was the ability of the Swiss to charge and
> > stick if they did not get routed
> > > which I most miss.
> >
> > Ed,
> >
> > I do agree that having the Swiss recoil rather
> > remain in place disordered (with
> > the non-disordered 2HCT element replacing) makes a
> > _huge_ difference in foot
> > vs. foot combats. In my opinion, the biggest
> impact
> > is whether or not opposing
> > loose order foot (like "moogs") get to follow up
> and
> > expand. Expansion really
> > changes the dynamic a lot. I too wonder if this is
> > entirely representative of
> > the historical record. I'm trying to think of
> > opposing foot that the Swiss ever
> > flinched in the face of, and I'm not coming up
> with
> > a lot of examples.
> >
> >
> > -Mark Stone
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________
> Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
> Just $16.99/mo. or less.
> dsl.yahoo.com
>
>




__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com



SPONSORED LINKS
Miniature wargaming Wargaming Four horsemen Warrior

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

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.


---------------------------------






---------------------------------
Yahoo! Personals
Skip the bars and set-ups and start using Yahoo! Personals for free

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

kelly wilkinson wrote:
> Are there any historical examples of any pike phalanx's ever being
> beaten head on by any non pikes? I know that livy pretty much says
> that fromt the front they are untouchable, it's the Roman
> maneuverability and numbers flanking that wins the day against such
> formations.

While I'm not Mark, off the top of my head I know that Milanese
condottieri dismounted and defeated the Swiss pike head on at Arbedo
with cut down lances and swords.

Have fun!
Cole

[Kelly Wilkinson]

nick,

Was this before or after the Swiss' 70 year supremacy? What were the
circumstances?

Nicholas Cioran <ncioran@...> wrote:
kelly wilkinson wrote:
> Are there any historical examples of any pike phalanx's ever being
> beaten head on by any non pikes? I know that livy pretty much says
> that fromt the front they are untouchable, it's the Roman
> maneuverability and numbers flanking that wins the day against such
> formations.

While I'm not Mark, off the top of my head I know that Milanese
condottieri dismounted and defeated the Swiss pike head on at Arbedo
with cut down lances and swords.

Have fun!
Cole







SPONSORED LINKS
Miniature wargaming Wargaming Four horsemen Warrior

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

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.


---------------------------------






---------------------------------
Yahoo! Personals
Let fate take it's course directly to your email.
See who's waiting for you Yahoo! Personals

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