Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Doug]

So what would an X-Rule be for this? How many AP reduction for
removing the ability to evade? Would they instead rout?

This is the sort of thing that fantasy rules could use even if not in
the historic rules.

>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.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Doug <rockd@p...> wrote:
>
> So what would an X-Rule be for this? How many AP reduction for
> removing the ability to evade? Would they instead rout?
>
> This is the sort of thing that fantasy rules could use even if not
in
> the historic rules.
>
> >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.
>
Why have any AP reduction - just have a list rule that prevents
specific LMI/LHI (you mentioned medieval bowmen) from skirmishing.
It doesn't cost the Romans any extra points to be able to use all
their extra formations - if it costs less to be able to skirmish,
then it should cost more to be able to use testudo etc.

Chris

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Doug <rockd@p...> wrote:
>
> So what would an X-Rule be for this? How many AP reduction for
> removing the ability to evade? Would they instead rout?
>
> This is the sort of thing that fantasy rules could use even if not
in
> the historic rules.
>
> >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.
>
Actually, it would probably be simpler to disallow skirmishing for
all loose order foot unless their list allows it. I guess that means
that only peltasts (plus some troops like Illyrians) would be allowed
to use the formation.

Chris

[Greg Regets]

In my opinion, the real meat of the problem is charging out of
skirmish.

This was done to simulate historical tactics (shooting someone
disordered and then charging in), but to my way of thinking, the flaw
in that thinking was deciding that these historical tactics had to be
able to be accomplished in a single bound.

Accomplishing these historical tactics was possible under the old
system, before charging out of skirmish was possible. If you shot a
unit disordered in bound three, they will still be disordered in the
charge phase of bound four ... so historical tactics are still in
play. Quite frankly, I find this more accurate and more historical
than allowing the whole shooting and charging mess in one bound ...
which somewhat reminds me of accurate battle damage assessment of the
present, rather than the guesswork of the past.

In my opinion, TOG was a better game before they "fixed" the skirmish
rules ... much more pure, and much more intellectual, as it made a
player really decide on the "posture" of their army and plan advanced
tactics over the span of two bounds, rather than one.

Just my opinion ... g

P.S. Congratulations to USC and all their fans ... the finest team my
beloved Longhorns have ever played ... bar none!