Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

I'm looking for advice from the experienced battle masters out there.

None of the armies I played in that old numbered game (ONG) really used
standards. I see the obvious benefits of army and sacred standards. Although
army standards appear to be good only if you intend on putting them close to
the enemy and pressing forward with them.

Other than letting lots of people know when your general dies, what is the
value of personal standards? Or rather, is the benefit to visibility worth
the added waver roles in actual tabletop battles?

John Meunier



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

[joncleaves]

<<> Other than letting lots of people know when your general dies, what is the
>
> value of personal standards?>>

Permitting your general to be seen for orders, prompts and getting regular
mounted impetuous.

<< Or rather, is the benefit to visibility worth >
> the added waver roles in actual tabletop battles?>>

'Worth it' is a tournament question. Back when we were writing the rules,
many complained that P standards were only a liability. I totally disagree.
First, for historical armies, you should take P standards for those who had
them. For list-based competition armies, you may *have* to take them for
generals who always did.

If you are making a competition list and have the choice you may feel that
helping your general be seen when he routs isn't 'worth' anything you
otherwise might use the P standard for. I find them very useful and almost
always take them. First, I have no plan for my generals to rout, so it isn't
really an issue. Second, they are more typical in 'regular' armies where
I use them to get several mounted regulars to charge impetuously at once, a
tactic that seems to take many by surprise for some reason. I also do a lot
of maneuvering and take many steps, including the use of P's, to reduce the
number of minutes in my prompts.

To each his or her own, I guess. But it seems (to me) defeatist to not take
a P because of worry about your own generals routing....

J


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

[Ewan McNay]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 scribblerjohn@... wrote:
> None of the armies I played in that old numbered game (ONG) really used
> standards. I see the obvious benefits of army and sacred standards. Although
> army standards appear to be good only if you intend on putting them close to
> the enemy and pressing forward with them.

Correct.

> Other than letting lots of people know when your general dies, what is the
> value of personal standards? Or rather, is the benefit to visibility worth
> the added waver roles in actual tabletop battles?

Zero value; a waste of points .

[What do i really fell? Oh, ok...]

In the UK, the cost for a P standard was abolished for exactly that
reason. I think that they provide, in some limited circumstances, a small
advantage when prompting. Otherwise, they merely serve to signal that the
general has fallen and more people should take waver tests.

A PA has a small advantage vs. an A std - it is only lost when the general
is wounded, rather than when the unit is broken - but this is again a
difference so small as to be silly, IMNSHO. If your CinC is routing, you
probably don't care that much, as the game is lost .

Ewan

[Ewan McNay]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 JonCleaves@... wrote:
> Permitting your general to be seen for orders, prompts and getting regular
> mounted impetuous.

That latter is a valid point. It's never been an issue for me; regular
strike units either contain a general or are paired with such a unit.

> If you are making a competition list and have the choice you may feel that
> helping your general be seen when he routs isn't 'worth' anything you
> otherwise might use the P standard for. I find them very useful and almost
> always take them. First, I have no plan for my generals to rout, so it isn't
> really an issue. Second, they are more typical in 'regular' armies where
> I use them to get several mounted regulars to charge impetuously at once, a
> tactic that seems to take many by surprise for some reason. I also do a lot
> of maneuvering and take many steps, including the use of P's, to reduce the
> number of minutes in my prompts.

Hmm. I do a lot of maneouvres also, but rarely retreats; I don't think
I've ever (maybe once?) been short on pips; partly because I run multiple
generals in any irregular army, and prompts take few minutes in regular
armies.

> To each his or her own, I guess. But it seems (to me) defeatist to not take
> a P because of worry about your own generals routing....

Agreed. but to me, the value of a P standard is akin to that of darts on
horseback. I *could* use them - if i dismounted - but the occasion on
which I might do so is so, so, so rare compared to the cost.

E

> Permitting your general to be seen for orders,
> prompts and getting regular
> mounted impetuous.

This was always a main tactic for me when playing
Maurikian Byzantines. Who would suspect EHC Regs to
charge impetuously :)


> I use them to get several mounted regulars to charge
> impetuously at once, a
> tactic that seems to take many by surprise for some
> reason. I also do a lot
> of maneuvering and take many steps, including the
> use of P's, to reduce the
> number of minutes in my prompts.

I never have been able to prompt within the same bound
reguardless. Anyway, another trick is to buy many
subgenerals and give each only the unit they are
attached to. Then they can charge unprompted and
impetously, and they get to take their P standard with
them When they rout, no one else cares ;^D

> To each his or her own, I guess. But it seems (to
> me) defeatist to not take
> a P because of worry about your own generals
> routing....

By time my generals get into combat, they usually blow
up in place rather than rout. I try ti stay out of
combat with generals, but that never happens.
boyd


=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/