Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

<< I play with Don, Chris and others in the DFW Metro in Texas. In regards to
the testudo point, a suggestion I believe would make the game fun and
enjoyable was if each Army had their 'free' quirks. I have seen this in
other games, and it appears to contrast the blandness of point-based (and
otherwise) quite nicely. >>


It will be more something like that.


Here's the philosophy on point values (to articulate why we are not changing
the values for figures that testudo, wedge, etc.):

Let us say that we decide to add 1 point per figure that can form testudo.

Let us say a roman player plays with an entire full strength imperial legion
(88 figs) of roman HI. Testudo will cost him 88 points (or about 1 typical
unit, 2 cheap LI or 2/3s of a knight unit). Is the fact that his troops can
form testudo 'worth' denying him a unit of barbarian foot? Is it that simple
a question? Or do you have to take into account just which armies we are
talking about here, their historical opponents, when and how often (we think)
testudo was used, etc. etc.
If he plays with 48 legionaires, he isn't even losing a real unit, so who
cares?
This is to say nothing of the tourney player's view that you don't need to
beat shielded reg HI by shooting at them anyway.

The playtester in me says that since all points systems are by definition
arbitrary, there must be strong evidence to change an existing one.

The long-time WRG player in me says there is no evidence of testudo being
unbalanced.

The amateur historian in me likes any chance for an army to show color. That
same historian is also not likely to change the point system because LONGBOWS
don't get a fair shake against ROMANS. :)

The tourney player in me knows that early/mid romans aren't exactly poised to
reconquer their world.

Look for army list rules to generally NOT increase the cost of the troops
that have them. And while not all lists will have them, there will be many
more such 'list rules' than there has been.

Jon

[scott holder]

Look for army list rules to generally NOT increase the cost of the troops
that have them. And while not all lists will have them, there will be many
more such 'list rules' than there has been.

>The philisophical approach to WARRIOR is that where appropriate, we'll be
doing "list rules" that deal with a particular quirk for an army. Although
far far down the road, manipular Romans will be dealt with in such a fashion.
In the near term, BIBLICAL WARRIOR has several list rules allowing for such
things as the Sumerian "pike" or the "really really long spear" used by
Myceanean Greeks earlier in their period, or some 2 horse HCh being able to
skirmish. I'm not going overboard on "list rules" but am trying to make sure
that if there is some real historical evidence (and not interprative analysis)
for certain aspects of an army that just can't be covered by a 5000 year set
of basic rules, then it'll be in there.

Scott
List Horseman

[Don Coon]

> Let us say that we decide to add 1 point per figure that can form testudo.

Or 1 point per element, or 1 point for yada yada (I am trying to show
you that I understand about arbitrary point systems)

> Let us say a roman player plays with an entire full strength imperial legion
> (88 figs) of roman HI. Testudo will cost him 88 points (or about 1 typical
> unit, 2 cheap LI or 2/3s of a knight unit). Is the fact that his troops can
> form testudo 'worth' denying him a unit of barbarian foot? Is it that simple
> a question?

No.

> Or do you have to take into account just which armies we are
> talking about here, their historical opponents, when and how often (we think)
> testudo was used, etc. etc.
> If he plays with 48 legionaires, he isn't even losing a real unit, so who
> cares?
> This is to say nothing of the tourney player's view that you don't need to
> beat shielded reg HI by shooting at them anyway.

I can not disagree with any of your points, but still hold to my own.

> The playtester in me says that since all points systems are by definition
> arbitrary, there must be strong evidence to change an existing one.

Totally agree.

> The long-time WRG player in me says there is no evidence of testudo being
> unbalanced.

I am not. Only been playing 2-3 years (maybe 20 games total). Perhaps
it is just my English that Testudo matches up well with. I have not
seen it in action against our groups Aztecs or Mongols.

> The amateur historian in me likes any chance for an army to show color. That
> same historian is also not likely to change the point system because LONGBOWS
> don't get a fair shake against ROMANS. :)

I totally agree with this too. I love the color angle. This is
Patricks take on the situation, and if more armies have a quirky free
thing, I think it would be way cool.

> The tourney player in me knows that early/mid romans aren't exactly poised to
> reconquer their world.

Again, I have never seen them beaten (2 wins - both decisive). My pool
of data is small, and it is subject to two degrees of freedom (army and
CINC - Chris Bump). I guess I need more seasoning.

Don

PS what about my retirement question?

[Greg Regets]

What happens in our tournaments should not enter into this discussion. The
tactics and formations used in tournaments are largely dictated by the way
the tournaments are organized. With 1600 points and four terrain rolls, our
tournament system largely encourages great slogging lines of infantry in
straight lines with their flanks secured on the edge of the table or
terrain. If you are even a reasonably competent player, flank security for
shooting or combat rarely enter into the equation. If you play a game with
1250 points, you start to see a greater need for things like Testudo and
Orb. Value then becomes apparent for these formations.

So, base the decisions on the other factors outlined in Jon's email, not on
the fact that we are playing with way too much lead, in my opinion, :-)

Greg

P.S. I who love to be invited up to Dallas to play, but can't ever get
Harlan to give him any advanced notice. With a week or so to plan a trip and
a handy floor to crash on, we could probably get a few S.A. guys to do a
road trip!

[Don Coon]

Could a unit in Testudo move at the same rate as one not in testudo? I
mean historically. I also mean 2 Roman units. If testudo was a
historically slower formation (it intuitively fells like it should be
slower), maybe a 40p tactical move penalty would be in order rather than
a point cost?

Don

[joncleaves]

Don

Good question.

1. There is no evidence of a "slowing", and my re-enactor buddies back this up.

2. The movement "rates" in Warrior (as in many ancient rules sets) are as much
relative as absolute, keeping to the 2/3/4/5 ratio amongst troops. The bar for
messing with that must be very high.

Jon

You go Greg. Harlan I know you love life would not suffer if we crashed at
your place.David