Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

I'd like some tactical suggestions on the proper use of skirmishing. As far
as I could figure, based on the rules, foot (like LI B) going into skirmish
formation hampers more than helps.

I say this as they are restricted in what they can/can't do (movement,
evading, etc. per 6.45), and also lose some of their effective firepower.

i.e. 4E LI B in two ranks, regular formation, fires 8 figures, while the
same unit in skirmish fires only 6 figures. (8.7)

Also, the fact that the stands all "count as shooting from the first rank's
position" (8.7) offers no benefit when, any firing stand may count the range
from their stand or the stand in front of them if closer (8.6), so 2 ranks
of foot get the same benefit regardless of being in skirmish or not.

So, given this fact, it seems the only possible advantage of skirmishing is
for JLS armed cavalry (where they get a 3rd rank shooting)...or am I missing
something?

Cheers,
Dan


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

[Ewan McNay]

Dan - your points are correct; what you miss is that *incoming* fire at
skirrmishers is reduced in effectiveness (all foot), and that being in
skirmish allow one to evade where one could not otherwise (loose foot).

There are also odder situations, like HG-armed troops.

The greatest benefit of being in skirmish if perhaps for JLS, Sh LI who
lose little of their flexibility (they now have a compulsory evade, but
they were likely going to do so anyway) and take most incoming fire at a
-1 because they are not made shieldless by their skirmiss-mandated shooting.

Dan Bass wrote:

> I'd like some tactical suggestions on the proper use of skirmishing. As far
> as I could figure, based on the rules, foot (like LI B) going into skirmish
> formation hampers more than helps.
>
> I say this as they are restricted in what they can/can't do (movement,
> evading, etc. per 6.45), and also lose some of their effective firepower.
>
> i.e. 4E LI B in two ranks, regular formation, fires 8 figures, while the
> same unit in skirmish fires only 6 figures. (8.7)
>
> Also, the fact that the stands all "count as shooting from the first rank's
> position" (8.7) offers no benefit when, any firing stand may count the range
> from their stand or the stand in front of them if closer (8.6), so 2 ranks
> of foot get the same benefit regardless of being in skirmish or not.
>
> So, given this fact, it seems the only possible advantage of skirmishing is
> for JLS armed cavalry (where they get a 3rd rank shooting)...or am I missing
> something?
>
> Cheers,
> Dan
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Mark Stone]

--- On January 3 Dan Bass said: ---

> I'd like some tactical suggestions on the proper use of skirmishing. As far
> as I could figure, based on the rules, foot (like LI B) going into skirmish
> formation hampers more than helps.
>
> I say this as they are restricted in what they can/can't do (movement,
> evading, etc. per 6.45), and also lose some of their effective firepower.
>
> i.e. 4E LI B in two ranks, regular formation, fires 8 figures, while the
> same unit in skirmish fires only 6 figures. (8.7)
>
> Also, the fact that the stands all "count as shooting from the first rank's
> position" (8.7) offers no benefit when, any firing stand may count the range
> from their stand or the stand in front of them if closer (8.6), so 2 ranks
> of foot get the same benefit regardless of being in skirmish or not.
>
> So, given this fact, it seems the only possible advantage of skirmishing is
> for JLS armed cavalry (where they get a 3rd rank shooting)...or am I missing
> something?

Hey Jon, I know what a dead horse this is, but I didn't bring it up. I'm just
responding with my honest and entirely personal opinion.

Dan: There are very few areas of the rules where I disagree with what FHE has
done with Warrior. The areas where I disagree are all interrelated:
- effectiveness of shooting
- who is eligible to evade
- the mechanics of skirmish formation

I think, in fact, that a fix (my opinion) for these problems (my opinion also)
is not too difficult, though it would change the game a lot in some areas. FHE
have expressly stated that they aren't looking for any major changes, and so
I've never offered my fix.

It is my view that shooting overall is more effective in Warrior than is
historically justified. Specifically, I find it ludicrous that a Reg A bowman
and an Irreg D bowman shoot exactly the same, roll exactly the same shooting
dice, etc. Put another way, I find it ludicrous that a Mediterranean peasant
with a stick, a leather thong, and a rock shoots exactly the same as the most
highly trained medieval longbowman.

FHE does not share my concern, and Jon has said he isn't going to make rules
adjustments that disrupt armies people have invested in, so I have now invested
a lot of money and time in having several armies that exploit this -- to me --
discrepancy. I'm counting on Jon to stand by his word or buy my Chinese figures
off of me. *grin*

None of this bears directly on skirmish, but I bring it up to set some context.
Given the importance of shooting in Warrior, anything that affects the dynamics
of shooting becomes crucial.

And skirmish formation certainly affects shooting.

One of the oddities (my opinion) in Warrior is who is eligible to evade. I think
it entirely possible and indeed fairly common, at least in medieval times, that
there were missile troops who (a) operated in loose order because they were
used to fighting in difficult terrain, and (b) were not capable of making an
evade move because they had no experience in or training with any
evade-enabling maneuver. Warrior has absolutely no capability to represent such
troops. If you are loose order foot, and you have a missile weapon, then by
definition you can go into skirmish and thus evade.

Inevitably, that becomes one of the most important uses of skirmish formation:
to enable an evade for troops who otherwise could not evade.

Skirmish formation also diminishes the effect of enemy shooting upon the
skirmishing body. Consider a unit of LMI armed with bow. If I don't put them in
skirmish, and want to shoot with them, then enemy bow-armed troops will be
shooting at me at a factor of 5, and if I take 2 CPF I'll have to take a waver
test. If I'm in skirmish formation, that factor drops to 3, and if I take 2 CPF
all I have to do is choose between taking a waver test and making a recall move.

So that becomes the other important use of skirmish formation: to diminish the
impact of enemy shooting.

Note that _neither_ of these uses has anything to do with the skirmishing body
being shooters themselves. Skirmishing is almost always an entirely defensive
response to an enemy threat: either a defensive response to enable evading away
from someone you don't want to fight, or a defensive response to mitigate the
impact of enemy missile fire.

Despite this, the rules state that skirmish is a "shooting formation", and the
rules reinforce this idea by requiring that you have an actual or potential
shooting target in order to be eligible to assume skirmish formation.

In practice, skirmish is _not_ a shooting formation, as it is used as a
defensive response and almost always makes shooting _worse_. The only troops
who are better shooters in skirmish are:
- JLS-armed cavalry 3 ranks deep;
- CB-armed cavalry;
- Handgun-armed troops;
- Chariots.

So this is one place where the rules are misleading (my opinion). A beginner
reading the rules on skirmish and trying to figure out how to use skirmish as a
shooting formation will be baffled, and may overlook the actual use of skirmish
as a defensive formation, not a shooting formation.

My advice is to accept the artificial requirement (my opinion) to have a
shooting target in order to into skirmish for what it is: an artificial
requirement. My further advice is to focus on the defensive benefits of having
troops in skirmish formation, and think about how to effectively incorporate
those benefits into your plan of battle.

Jon, I hope I've appropriately qualified my remarks here. These are topics on
which we have an honest difference of opinion, and I mean no disrespect to you
or FHE; I just want to express an alternate point of view.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

Mark, I would be pleased if you would - if you have not already - capture all
this in rules form and save it for when i call for optional rules after the
rulebook is done.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stone <mark@...>
To: warrior <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 18:26:38 +0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Tactics Question: Skirmishers


--- On January 3 Dan Bass said: ---

> I'd like some tactical suggestions on the proper use of skirmishing. As far
> as I could figure, based on the rules, foot (like LI B) going into skirmish
> formation hampers more than helps.
>
> I say this as they are restricted in what they can/can't do (movement,
> evading, etc. per 6.45), and also lose some of their effective firepower.
>
> i.e. 4E LI B in two ranks, regular formation, fires 8 figures, while the
> same unit in skirmish fires only 6 figures. (8.7)
>
> Also, the fact that the stands all "count as shooting from the first rank's
> position" (8.7) offers no benefit when, any firing stand may count the range
> from their stand or the stand in front of them if closer (8.6), so 2 ranks
> of foot get the same benefit regardless of being in skirmish or not.
>
> So, given this fact, it seems the only possible advantage of skirmishing is
> for JLS armed cavalry (where they get a 3rd rank shooting)...or am I missing
> something?

Hey Jon, I know what a dead horse this is, but I didn't bring it up. I'm just
responding with my honest and entirely personal opinion.

Dan: There are very few areas of the rules where I disagree with what FHE has
done with Warrior. The areas where I disagree are all interrelated:
- effectiveness of shooting
- who is eligible to evade
- the mechanics of skirmish formation

I think, in fact, that a fix (my opinion) for these problems (my opinion also)
is not too difficult, though it would change the game a lot in some areas. FHE
have expressly stated that they aren't looking for any major changes, and so
I've never offered my fix.

It is my view that shooting overall is more effective in Warrior than is
historically justified. Specifically, I find it ludicrous that a Reg A bowman
and an Irreg D bowman shoot exactly the same, roll exactly the same shooting
dice, etc. Put another way, I find it ludicrous that a Mediterranean peasant
with a stick, a leather thong, and a rock shoots exactly the same as the most
highly trained medieval longbowman.

FHE does not share my concern, and Jon has said he isn't going to make rules
adjustments that disrupt armies people have invested in, so I have now invested
a lot of money and time in having several armies that exploit this -- to me --
discrepancy. I'm counting on Jon to stand by his word or buy my Chinese figures
off of me. *grin*

None of this bears directly on skirmish, but I bring it up to set some context.
Given the importance of shooting in Warrior, anything that affects the dynamics
of shooting becomes crucial.

And skirmish formation certainly affects shooting.

One of the oddities (my opinion) in Warrior is who is eligible to evade. I think
it entirely possible and indeed fairly common, at least in medieval times, that
there were missile troops who (a) operated in loose order because they were
used to fighting in difficult terrain, and (b) were not capable of making an
evade move because they had no experience in or training with any
evade-enabling maneuver. Warrior has absolutely no capability to represent such
troops. If you are loose order foot, and you have a missile weapon, then by
definition you can go into skirmish and thus evade.

Inevitably, that becomes one of the most important uses of skirmish formation:
to enable an evade for troops who otherwise could not evade.

Skirmish formation also diminishes the effect of enemy shooting upon the
skirmishing body. Consider a unit of LMI armed with bow. If I don't put them in
skirmish, and want to shoot with them, then enemy bow-armed troops will be
shooting at me at a factor of 5, and if I take 2 CPF I'll have to take a waver
test. If I'm in skirmish formation, that factor drops to 3, and if I take 2 CPF
all I have to do is choose between taking a waver test and making a recall move.

So that becomes the other important use of skirmish formation: to diminish the
impact of enemy shooting.

Note that _neither_ of these uses has anything to do with the skirmishing body
being shooters themselves. Skirmishing is almost always an entirely defensive
response to an enemy threat: either a defensive response to enable evading away
from someone you don't want to fight, or a defensive response to mitigate the
impact of enemy missile fire.

Despite this, the rules state that skirmish is a "shooting formation", and the
rules reinforce this idea by requiring that you have an actual or potential
shooting target in order to be eligible to assume skirmish formation.

In practice, skirmish is _not_ a shooting formation, as it is used as a
defensive response and almost always makes shooting _worse_. The only troops
who are better shooters in skirmish are:
- JLS-armed cavalry 3 ranks deep;
- CB-armed cavalry;
- Handgun-armed troops;
- Chariots.

So this is one place where the rules are misleading (my opinion). A beginner
reading the rules on skirmish and trying to figure out how to use skirmish as a
shooting formation will be baffled, and may overlook the actual use of skirmish
as a defensive formation, not a shooting formation.

My advice is to accept the artificial requirement (my opinion) to have a
shooting target in order to into skirmish for what it is: an artificial
requirement. My further advice is to focus on the defensive benefits of having
troops in skirmish formation, and think about how to effectively incorporate
those benefits into your plan of battle.

Jon, I hope I've appropriately qualified my remarks here. These are topics on
which we have an honest difference of opinion, and I mean no disrespect to you
or FHE; I just want to express an alternate point of view.


-Mark Stone



Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Chris Bump]

One adjunct to what Mark says here, which for what its worth I agree
with completely, is the ability to attack out of skirmish. I regret
Mark, if my attaching my support to your argument diminishes it in
the eyes of some.

This was not an original rule in WRG, which is largely what Warrior
is based upon. It came about because people fairly complained that
those troops who could historically attack out of skirmish (huns,
skythians, mongols etc) were unable to per the rules as late as the
first version of 7th edition. So rather than assign the ability to
attack out of skirmish to certain troops or armies it was given to
all who could skirmish. In my opinion this bears no resemblance to
actual performance. This ability also tends to run in the face of
the FHE position that skirmish is a shooting formation and the
combined truth that skirmish is in fact a defensive formation. Given
that list rules now exist, where they did not before, perhaps the
abiltity to attack out of skirmish could be a true advantage given
only to those troops or armies who demonstrated such a skill. Or per
Scott's previously written train of thought, those troops who should
have been able to perform such a skill. A skill that no doubt took
practice and training and so should not be granted to just anyone
with a missle or if it is to be granted to all such troops then
perhaps a sufficient penalty could be that they contact and rally in
a disordered state. Or perhaps, with notable exceptions, attacking
out of skirmish counts as a maneuver so that the average irregular
body who did not pocess such skill can then only charge 40 paces out
of the skirmish formation.

Consider the paradox that currently exists with the rules as
written. An irregular body that is in skirmish can close ranks-
coming out of skirmish and advance 40 paces in whatever time is
alloted for an approach or counter move. That same body can, under
the stress of imminent hth, close ranks just as efficiently as during
the approach phase but is still able to dash 120 paces- 300% the
distance- to contact an enemy, choosing in the process to be either
impetuous or not in what is likely less time.

Perhaps I did not read Scott's essays closely enough and this
abiltity is one of the unalienable rights assigned to all loose order
troops, in which case I concede to game design over my perception of
historical accuracy.
Chris

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
>
> --- On January 3 Dan Bass said: ---
>
> > I'd like some tactical suggestions on the proper use of
skirmishing. As far
> > as I could figure, based on the rules, foot (like LI B) going
into skirmish
> > formation hampers more than helps.
> >
> > I say this as they are restricted in what they can/can't do
(movement,
> > evading, etc. per 6.45), and also lose some of their effective
firepower.
> >
> > i.e. 4E LI B in two ranks, regular formation, fires 8 figures,
while the
> > same unit in skirmish fires only 6 figures. (8.7)
> >
> > Also, the fact that the stands all "count as shooting from the
first rank's
> > position" (8.7) offers no benefit when, any firing stand may
count the range
> > from their stand or the stand in front of them if closer (8.6),
so 2 ranks
> > of foot get the same benefit regardless of being in skirmish or
not.
> >
> > So, given this fact, it seems the only possible advantage of
skirmishing is
> > for JLS armed cavalry (where they get a 3rd rank shooting)...or
am I missing
> > something?
>
> Hey Jon, I know what a dead horse this is, but I didn't bring it
up. I'm just
> responding with my honest and entirely personal opinion.
>
> Dan: There are very few areas of the rules where I disagree with
what FHE has
> done with Warrior. The areas where I disagree are all interrelated:
> - effectiveness of shooting
> - who is eligible to evade
> - the mechanics of skirmish formation
>
> I think, in fact, that a fix (my opinion) for these problems (my
opinion also)
> is not too difficult, though it would change the game a lot in some
areas. FHE
> have expressly stated that they aren't looking for any major
changes, and so
> I've never offered my fix.
>
> It is my view that shooting overall is more effective in Warrior
than is
> historically justified. Specifically, I find it ludicrous that a
Reg A bowman
> and an Irreg D bowman shoot exactly the same, roll exactly the same
shooting
> dice, etc. Put another way, I find it ludicrous that a
Mediterranean peasant
> with a stick, a leather thong, and a rock shoots exactly the same
as the most
> highly trained medieval longbowman.
>
> FHE does not share my concern, and Jon has said he isn't going to
make rules
> adjustments that disrupt armies people have invested in, so I have
now invested
> a lot of money and time in having several armies that exploit this -
- to me --
> discrepancy. I'm counting on Jon to stand by his word or buy my
Chinese figures
> off of me. *grin*
>
> None of this bears directly on skirmish, but I bring it up to set
some context.
> Given the importance of shooting in Warrior, anything that affects
the dynamics
> of shooting becomes crucial.
>
> And skirmish formation certainly affects shooting.
>
> One of the oddities (my opinion) in Warrior is who is eligible to
evade. I think
> it entirely possible and indeed fairly common, at least in medieval
times, that
> there were missile troops who (a) operated in loose order because
they were
> used to fighting in difficult terrain, and (b) were not capable of
making an
> evade move because they had no experience in or training with any
> evade-enabling maneuver. Warrior has absolutely no capability to
represent such
> troops. If you are loose order foot, and you have a missile weapon,
then by
> definition you can go into skirmish and thus evade.
>
> Inevitably, that becomes one of the most important uses of skirmish
formation:
> to enable an evade for troops who otherwise could not evade.
>
> Skirmish formation also diminishes the effect of enemy shooting
upon the
> skirmishing body. Consider a unit of LMI armed with bow. If I don't
put them in
> skirmish, and want to shoot with them, then enemy bow-armed troops
will be
> shooting at me at a factor of 5, and if I take 2 CPF I'll have to
take a waver
> test. If I'm in skirmish formation, that factor drops to 3, and if
I take 2 CPF
> all I have to do is choose between taking a waver test and making a
recall move.
>
> So that becomes the other important use of skirmish formation: to
diminish the
> impact of enemy shooting.
>
> Note that _neither_ of these uses has anything to do with the
skirmishing body
> being shooters themselves. Skirmishing is almost always an entirely
defensive
> response to an enemy threat: either a defensive response to enable
evading away
> from someone you don't want to fight, or a defensive response to
mitigate the
> impact of enemy missile fire.
>
> Despite this, the rules state that skirmish is a "shooting
formation", and the
> rules reinforce this idea by requiring that you have an actual or
potential
> shooting target in order to be eligible to assume skirmish
formation.
>
> In practice, skirmish is _not_ a shooting formation, as it is used
as a
> defensive response and almost always makes shooting _worse_. The
only troops
> who are better shooters in skirmish are:
> - JLS-armed cavalry 3 ranks deep;
> - CB-armed cavalry;
> - Handgun-armed troops;
> - Chariots.
>
> So this is one place where the rules are misleading (my opinion). A
beginner
> reading the rules on skirmish and trying to figure out how to use
skirmish as a
> shooting formation will be baffled, and may overlook the actual use
of skirmish
> as a defensive formation, not a shooting formation.
>
> My advice is to accept the artificial requirement (my opinion) to
have a
> shooting target in order to into skirmish for what it is: an
artificial
> requirement. My further advice is to focus on the defensive
benefits of having
> troops in skirmish formation, and think about how to effectively
incorporate
> those benefits into your plan of battle.
>
> Jon, I hope I've appropriately qualified my remarks here. These are
topics on
> which we have an honest difference of opinion, and I mean no
disrespect to you
> or FHE; I just want to express an alternate point of view.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Dan Bass <dfbass@g...> wrote:
>
> I'd like some tactical suggestions on the proper use of
skirmishing. As far
> as I could figure, based on the rules, foot (like LI B) going into
skirmish
> formation hampers more than helps.
>
> I say this as they are restricted in what they can/can't do
(movement,
> evading, etc. per 6.45), and also lose some of their effective
firepower.
>
> i.e. 4E LI B in two ranks, regular formation, fires 8 figures,
while the
> same unit in skirmish fires only 6 figures. (8.7)
>
> Also, the fact that the stands all "count as shooting from the
first rank's
> position" (8.7) offers no benefit when, any firing stand may count
the range
> from their stand or the stand in front of them if closer (8.6), so
2 ranks
> of foot get the same benefit regardless of being in skirmish or not.
>
> So, given this fact, it seems the only possible advantage of
skirmishing is
> for JLS armed cavalry (where they get a 3rd rank shooting)...or am
I missing
> something?
>
> Cheers,
> Dan
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
I guess as "Mr peltast" I can't leave this one alone - there are
considerable benefits to peltasts in being able to skirmish when
faced by superior infantry (and cavalry that is too far away to
interfere) - eek! What's this? troops behaving like their historical
counterparts - don't forget that probably the whole reason this
formation is allowed to LMI/LHI is the effect of shooting by peltasts
on hoplites (who, by the way, do not need any 3CPF rule to save them).

Chris