Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[scott holder]

I'm looking for *thoughts*, nothing more, since I'm struggling with an issue
that's bedeviled me since 7th edition came out: Swiss armies.

Everyone agrees that the Swiss generalls suck in 7th and such performace
seemingly belies their historical performance. Over the years myself and
others have attempted to remedy their suckiness by a variety of methods.
First some background. What's interesting is that most Swiss battles of our
period were mostly ambush battles. Okay, they fought Charles the Bold 3 times
in what we would consider open battles and there's another open battle against
the French or somebody (I got the reference at home). But that's it. Their
"real" reputation on the battlefied for kicking ass and taking names comes
outside of the period (Renaissance). Okay, they had a "reputation" for
fierceness in our period and were employed as mercenaries as such but there is
precious little else to go on.

So, here's what's been attempted over the years to "correct" the percieved
deficiency of the Swiss:

1) Let Swiss regulars (whether pike or halberd armed) charge impetuously.
This idea was first put forward in the late 80s and eventually died. I
believe this idea is based on the "fierce reputation" of the Swiss. I have
some problems with it mainly because Swiss pike and/or halberd units didn't
charge cavalry; instead they went to ground and presented a "hedgehog" of
spears. So, at the very least, if this concept is used, it should only apply
to Swiss regulars charging infantry. Well, I can find no instances of battles
in the period where Swiss infantry charged an opponent with what we would
generally consider impetuous. So, allowing them to do this based simply on
the assessment that the Swiss were "fierce", well, I dunno.

2) Let Swiss pike and halberds fight in mixed units with all kinds of goofy
rank combnations. This model attempts to duplicate the well documented Swiss
formation of having big blocks of infantry with pike all around the outside
with a core of halberd armed troops in the center of the formation. It's
generally been translated onto the tabletop by allowing something like a front
rank of 2HCT and count pike from subsequent ranks as being able to fight. One
of the "neat" byproducts of this list rule is that an opponent takes a
potential -3 on contact (-2 for the pike, -1 for the 2HCT). The major problem
with this is that the Swiss simply didn't fight that way. The pike boys were
in the front rank, second rank, third rank, and fourth rank. The halberdiers
seemed to simply be hanging around in the center ranks just in case they were
needed to whack off pesky opposing infantry who managed to out flank or out
fight the pikes.

3) NASAMW Theme Tourney Rules. These have been: all close order Swiss foot
(not dismounted knights, etc) can march and make tactical moves as if they
were loose order. This includes the ability to expand on a follow up move. b)
Such troops are not disordered by the terrain and don't take waver tests for
being charged by mounted in the open. Essentially, Swiss foot get all the
advantages of being loose order with none of the disadvantages; however, Swiss
foot still fight at -2 if disordered by other causes and does follow all other
combat rules as if it were close order. c) Swiss combined pike and 2HCT-armed
foot units count as elephants and chariots for unease except against knights.

The reason for #3 is my perception of how the Swiss generally fought and their
use of terrain. It doesn't change the essential nature of the troop type in
how they interact with others in a combat mode but it does give the Swiss
player some interesting tactical options. I've already decided to tweak #3 by
eliminating the first part (march and tac move as loose order) which means
that Swiss pikemen would have the ability to march and move thru disordering
terrain w/o the negative effects. Part C in #3 works real well in a theme
tourney but I'm a bit leery of extrapolating that out over 5000 years.
Particularly since the battlefield record of the Swiss in our period is fairly
minimal and I really don't get the impression that, for example, Charles the
Bold and his Burgundian armies particularly where scared to death of the
Swiss. Again, that "effect" seems to pop up more in the Renaissance era than
in ours.

So, I'm in a virtual loop of what to do.

Scott
List ho

[joncleaves]

Greg, Greg, Greg. It is certainly history we are talking about here. It is not
just that we want an army to perform against historical opponents as much the
same way as they did as we can manage, but also that troop types act they way
they seem to have. Sometimes the Reg/Irreg - LHI/HC/SHK, etc models just don't
quite match what we think happened. We plan to handle those very few situations
with list rules. This is an example.

My thought on Option #3 is that I like it as it stands in its entirety.
Furthermore, I believe your concerns about creating "Super-Swiss Pike
Blocks" is diluted when matching it against the fact that anyone playing
Swiss are at a real disadvantage from the outset (i.e. high-cost core
troops, little to no cav for the flanks, little light or loose order
troops). In all, not a very workable army in the old 7th fashion.
Accordingly, option #3 as written really only levels the field for the Swiss
player more than anything else. Just my thought for what its worth.

Kevin Santos, Sr.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Holder, Scott <FHWA> [SMTP:Scott.Holder@...]
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 5:45 AM
> To: WarriorRules@egroups.com
> Subject: [WarriorRules] The Swiss Rules (or is that "The Swiss
> Rule"?)
>
> I'm looking for *thoughts*, nothing more, since I'm struggling with an
> issue
> that's bedeviled me since 7th edition came out: Swiss armies.
>
> Everyone agrees that the Swiss generalls suck in 7th and such performace
> seemingly belies their historical performance. Over the years myself and
> others have attempted to remedy their suckiness by a variety of methods.
> First some background. What's interesting is that most Swiss battles of
> our
> period were mostly ambush battles. Okay, they fought Charles the Bold 3
> times
> in what we would consider open battles and there's another open battle
> against
> the French or somebody (I got the reference at home). But that's it.
> Their
> "real" reputation on the battlefied for kicking ass and taking names comes
> outside of the period (Renaissance). Okay, they had a "reputation" for
> fierceness in our period and were employed as mercenaries as such but
> there is
> precious little else to go on.
>
> So, here's what's been attempted over the years to "correct" the percieved
> deficiency of the Swiss:
>
> 1) Let Swiss regulars (whether pike or halberd armed) charge impetuously.
> This idea was first put forward in the late 80s and eventually died. I
> believe this idea is based on the "fierce reputation" of the Swiss. I
> have
> some problems with it mainly because Swiss pike and/or halberd units
> didn't
> charge cavalry; instead they went to ground and presented a "hedgehog" of
> spears. So, at the very least, if this concept is used, it should only
> apply
> to Swiss regulars charging infantry. Well, I can find no instances of
> battles
> in the period where Swiss infantry charged an opponent with what we would
> generally consider impetuous. So, allowing them to do this based simply
> on
> the assessment that the Swiss were "fierce", well, I dunno.
>
> 2) Let Swiss pike and halberds fight in mixed units with all kinds of
> goofy
> rank combnations. This model attempts to duplicate the well documented
> Swiss
> formation of having big blocks of infantry with pike all around the
> outside
> with a core of halberd armed troops in the center of the formation. It's
> generally been translated onto the tabletop by allowing something like a
> front
> rank of 2HCT and count pike from subsequent ranks as being able to fight.
> One
> of the "neat" byproducts of this list rule is that an opponent takes a
> potential -3 on contact (-2 for the pike, -1 for the 2HCT). The major
> problem
> with this is that the Swiss simply didn't fight that way. The pike boys
> were
> in the front rank, second rank, third rank, and fourth rank. The
> halberdiers
> seemed to simply be hanging around in the center ranks just in case they
> were
> needed to whack off pesky opposing infantry who managed to out flank or
> out
> fight the pikes.
>
> 3) NASAMW Theme Tourney Rules. These have been: all close order Swiss
> foot
> (not dismounted knights, etc) can march and make tactical moves as if they
> were loose order. This includes the ability to expand on a follow up move.
> b)
> Such troops are not disordered by the terrain and don't take waver tests
> for
> being charged by mounted in the open. Essentially, Swiss foot get all the
> advantages of being loose order with none of the disadvantages; however,
> Swiss
> foot still fight at -2 if disordered by other causes and does follow all
> other
> combat rules as if it were close order. c) Swiss combined pike and
> 2HCT-armed
> foot units count as elephants and chariots for unease except against
> knights.
>
> The reason for #3 is my perception of how the Swiss generally fought and
> their
> use of terrain. It doesn't change the essential nature of the troop type
> in
> how they interact with others in a combat mode but it does give the Swiss
> player some interesting tactical options. I've already decided to tweak
> #3 by
> eliminating the first part (march and tac move as loose order) which means
> that Swiss pikemen would have the ability to march and move thru
> disordering
> terrain w/o the negative effects. Part C in #3 works real well in a theme
> tourney but I'm a bit leery of extrapolating that out over 5000 years.
> Particularly since the battlefield record of the Swiss in our period is
> fairly
> minimal and I really don't get the impression that, for example, Charles
> the
> Bold and his Burgundian armies particularly where scared to death of the
> Swiss. Again, that "effect" seems to pop up more in the Renaissance era
> than
> in ours.
>
> So, I'm in a virtual loop of what to do.
>
> Scott
> List ho
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>

[Greg Regets]

Is it not true that the Swiss match up well against their Historical
opponents as they are right now? It seems to me that they do.

It bothers me that we would start considering rules to make this army better
against a variety of opponent that they never fought. Why not address this
same issue with any number of other armies that has splendid reputations in
given set piece situations, but suffer in the tournament environment?

How they match up against historical opponents should be the acid test here,
and as they seem to fight well against historicals, they seem to pass the
test.

Just an opinion .... Greg



-----Original Message-----
From: Holder, Scott <FHWA> [mailto:Scott.Holder@...]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 4:45 AM
To: WarriorRules@egroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] The Swiss Rules (or is that "The Swiss Rule"?)


I'm looking for *thoughts*, nothing more, since I'm struggling with an issue
that's bedeviled me since 7th edition came out: Swiss armies.

Everyone agrees that the Swiss generalls suck in 7th and such performace
seemingly belies their historical performance. Over the years myself and
others have attempted to remedy their suckiness by a variety of methods.
First some background. What's interesting is that most Swiss battles of our
period were mostly ambush battles. Okay, they fought Charles the Bold 3
times
in what we would consider open battles and there's another open battle
against
the French or somebody (I got the reference at home). But that's it. Their
"real" reputation on the battlefied for kicking ass and taking names comes
outside of the period (Renaissance). Okay, they had a "reputation" for
fierceness in our period and were employed as mercenaries as such but there
is
precious little else to go on.

So, here's what's been attempted over the years to "correct" the percieved
deficiency of the Swiss:

1) Let Swiss regulars (whether pike or halberd armed) charge impetuously.
This idea was first put forward in the late 80s and eventually died. I
believe this idea is based on the "fierce reputation" of the Swiss. I have
some problems with it mainly because Swiss pike and/or halberd units didn't
charge cavalry; instead they went to ground and presented a "hedgehog" of
spears. So, at the very least, if this concept is used, it should only
apply
to Swiss regulars charging infantry. Well, I can find no instances of
battles
in the period where Swiss infantry charged an opponent with what we would
generally consider impetuous. So, allowing them to do this based simply on
the assessment that the Swiss were "fierce", well, I dunno.

2) Let Swiss pike and halberds fight in mixed units with all kinds of goofy
rank combnations. This model attempts to duplicate the well documented
Swiss
formation of having big blocks of infantry with pike all around the outside
with a core of halberd armed troops in the center of the formation. It's
generally been translated onto the tabletop by allowing something like a
front
rank of 2HCT and count pike from subsequent ranks as being able to fight.
One
of the "neat" byproducts of this list rule is that an opponent takes a
potential -3 on contact (-2 for the pike, -1 for the 2HCT). The major
problem
with this is that the Swiss simply didn't fight that way. The pike boys
were
in the front rank, second rank, third rank, and fourth rank. The
halberdiers
seemed to simply be hanging around in the center ranks just in case they
were
needed to whack off pesky opposing infantry who managed to out flank or out
fight the pikes.

3) NASAMW Theme Tourney Rules. These have been: all close order Swiss foot
(not dismounted knights, etc) can march and make tactical moves as if they
were loose order. This includes the ability to expand on a follow up move.
b)
Such troops are not disordered by the terrain and don't take waver tests for
being charged by mounted in the open. Essentially, Swiss foot get all the
advantages of being loose order with none of the disadvantages; however,
Swiss
foot still fight at -2 if disordered by other causes and does follow all
other
combat rules as if it were close order. c) Swiss combined pike and
2HCT-armed
foot units count as elephants and chariots for unease except against
knights.

The reason for #3 is my perception of how the Swiss generally fought and
their
use of terrain. It doesn't change the essential nature of the troop type in
how they interact with others in a combat mode but it does give the Swiss
player some interesting tactical options. I've already decided to tweak #3
by
eliminating the first part (march and tac move as loose order) which means
that Swiss pikemen would have the ability to march and move thru disordering
terrain w/o the negative effects. Part C in #3 works real well in a theme
tourney but I'm a bit leery of extrapolating that out over 5000 years.
Particularly since the battlefield record of the Swiss in our period is
fairly
minimal and I really don't get the impression that, for example, Charles the
Bold and his Burgundian armies particularly where scared to death of the
Swiss. Again, that "effect" seems to pop up more in the Renaissance era
than
in ours.

So, I'm in a virtual loop of what to do.

Scott
List ho




























To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com

[joncleaves]

Note we are not 'adding' to lists. We are creating our own. This is a
discussion about the FHE Warrior Swiss list, not an addition to someone
else's. And we may just be looking into all or some of the other issues you
mentioned.

[Greg Regets]

Hey .... ~laughs~ .... the man asked for opinions, so I gave one. Nobodies
forcing anyone to agree .... and opinions that always agree are not worth
much anyway.

Making a list if instances where armies don't act like the historical
accounts written about them, would take weeks to put on paper.

Why not let Roman Legionaries in some periods fight in either close or loose
order with a formation change, this can certainly be justified historically?

Why not let my Knights of St. John fight bound after bound on foot without
taking fatigue .... because they did so at St. Elmo's.

Why not give Byzantines cavalry back their dart, it is mentioned in several
contemperary works.

I guess I'm just very much against adding things to the lists that do not
exist in the rules, like the Swiss example or my Roman Legionary example. I
think this is a slippery slope, better to be avoided.

Greg

P.S. Were the Swiss really that good, or did they gain the benefits of a
tremendous spin machine in Italy that had to figure out a way to sell the
fact that they got their incompetent butts kicked AGAIN? Opinions differ!
~smiles~

[Mike Turner]

Come on Jon, How about Mr. Reget's LIR rule, I certainly see merit.
-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 5:45 PM
To: WarriorRules@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] The Swiss Rules (or is that "The Swiss
Rule"?)

Note we are not 'adding' to lists. We are creating our own. This is a
discussion about the FHE Warrior Swiss list, not an addition to someone
else's. And we may just be looking into all or some of the other issues you

mentioned.


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com

[Todd Kaeser]

Greetings,
    I am not an expert, but I have done a fair amount of research on the Swiss and have played them in both the theme and non-theme events.

.Greg's letter snipped..
>Is it not true that the Swiss match up well against their Historical
>opponents as they are right now? It seems to me that they do.

When looking at the Swiss vs. Burgundian, the Swiss match up rather poorly. The loose LB troops shoot up the Swiss forcing them to waver. While they are A class and usually pass it is also difficult to catch the buggers without luck of terrain or stupidity of an opponent. The increase in mov't would allow for a more historical feel of the Swiss charging at great speed to crush their opponents. The theme rules work well at how they fought historically.

Greg snipped again.
>It bothers me that we would start considering rules to make this army better
>against a variety of opponent that they never fought. Why not address this
>same issue with any number of other armies that has splendid reputations in
>given set piece situations, but suffer in the tournament environment?

Greg, I agree with you. We have to remember that we are using a rules set that encompasses 4500 years of armies and that certain sacrifices with regard to history have to be made in order to make the game work smoothly.

Scott snipped...
2) Let Swiss pike and halberds fight in mixed units with all kinds of goofy
rank combnations. The major problem
with this is that the Swiss simply didn't fight that way. The pike boys were
in the front rank, second rank, third rank, and fourth rank. The halberdiers
seemed to simply be hanging around in the center ranks just in case they were
needed to whack off pesky opposing infantry who managed to out flank or out
fight the pikes.

I agree that the Swiss should not be allowed to have the 2hHCT in the front. They could be allowed to expand the 2HCT figures in subsequent bounds after contact. This would allow for the historical feel of the choppers getting out on the flanks. Historically the halberdiers would flow through the pike to the front of the fighting when the pike block was stalled or in a hedgehog. There is good evidence for this happening. How do you play this? Well the back ranks of 2HCT could be allowed to expand out when the pike block is in combat and not following up. This would allow for more figures to fight, but make the Swiss unit vunerable to shieldless MI on the edge of the block. The halberdiers could, as an alternative, move to the front of the unit and fight as a front rank and have the second rank of pike fight as normal. In the second round of combat the 2HCT would not count shieldless and the opponent would take the -1 minus for facing 2HCT. This second example would actually be a better historical approach to the Swiss Rule in my humble opinion.

The Swiss are a lot of fun to play, but if your opponent does not want to mix it up it is quite annoying. They are just too slow, shieldless, and have little in the way of support.

Todd Kaeser

[joncleaves]

Certainly not buried. We are talking minor rules in maybe 1 list in 8-10, and
that number only that high due to the remaining wedgers and the biblical 'pike'
rule, neither of which should be a surprise to anyone.

For example, in the entire late medieval list group, the only two I can think of
are wedge (for those troops that did AND have a one-rank-only weapon) and what
we might do with the Swiss. Even Hussite wagons will be in the base rules!

[scott holder]

IRR A Loose Order

>Depends on the period of the Swiss. The NASAMW list (which forms the basis
of the Fast Warrior list and will form the basis for the Warrior list) already
allows this. The problem is that the Swiss began moving away from an army of
fanatical halbadiers sometime in the 1420s and therein lies the problem I've
wrestled with for a dozen years.

Allow them to fight rank and a half by formation

>That has been bounced around before. Again, it won't help in the immediate
future but is something to consider down the road.

Allow them to be used as detatchments of the pikes

>This I like right off the bat. Again, can't do much with it now but will in
the future.

[scott holder]

Certainly not buried. We are talking minor rules in maybe 1 list in 8-10, and
that number only that high due to the remaining wedgers and the biblical
'pike' rule, neither of which should be a surprise to anyone.

For example, in the entire late medieval list group, the only two I can think
of are wedge (for those troops that did AND have a one-rank-only weapon) and
what we might do with the Swiss. Even Hussite wagons will be in the base
rules!

Lemme explain a couple of things here, practical and philisophical.

When Jake, Jon, and myself sat down to outline our general approach to this,
one of the first issues we discussed was the entire philisophical approach to
the rules. And one central tenant of 7th was the fact that there were not
"list rules" (okay, there were but only because the old WRG lists had em
leftover from 6th). We agreed that we wanted to take a step backwards into a
6th edition mindset *shudders* and include, where applicable, the occasional
list rule. The three of us felt that after 13 years of 7th, we could feel
fairly comfortable in identifying a few areas that would benefit from list
rules. The new WRG lists showed that to a certain extent (fire lances and my
personal favorite, artillery on Khmer elephants) it could work without
problems.

Having disposed of that fundamental philosphical debate, the creation of list
rules devolved to me because I'm the list ho. As I worked thru Biblical
Warrior (the only Warrior army list book completed in draft form to date), I
ended up with two. One has to do with pikes only being effective in two ranks
(one list rule for three lists I believe) and the other has to do with letting
certain 2-horse HCh the ability to skirmish (one list rules for perhaps 6
lists, I don't have em in front of me). The army list book is laid out in
such a way that the list rules are listed in the front of the book as are the
armies covered by them. That way the onus on the player isn't to peruse the
fine print of each list looking for list rules.

Having dropped everything to work on Fast Warrior lists which had to cover
every army list FHE plans on doing, obviously I had to map out, at least in
general terms, possible "list rules" for any troop types that appear in those
lists. In some instances, none will appear (like fire lances and Khmer
elephant artillery) because those troop types aren't included in the lists.

But others are and at this point, it's as Jon sez, these are relating to
"wedging" and certain pikes fighting only two ranks (and in once case,
irregular, haven't worked out the last kinks on that one).

I'm taking a very conservative approach to list rules (in Warrior since in
Fast Warrior, they just don't pop up all that often) and these hafta pass thru
several people before they see the light of day. So don't expect hordes of em
but they *will* be in there.

Scott
List ho

I think you are if danger of disapearing under a confusing pile of special
lists
if you keep heading this way.
I would not be happy going to a comp and having to find out the special
rules
for each and every army I face.
If a troop type doesn't work under the rules change it, now is the best time
for it!
just my thoughts.
Chris
Message: 10
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 18:44:57 EST
From: JonCleaves@...
Subject: Re: The Swiss Rules (or is that "The Swiss Rule"?)

Note we are not 'adding' to lists. We are creating our own. This is a
discussion about the FHE Warrior Swiss list, not an addition to someone
else's. And we may just be looking into all or some of the other issues you
mentioned.

[Greg Regets]

Have you considered changing the halbard guys to;

IRR A Loose Order
Allow them to fight rank and a half by formation
Allow them to be used as detatchments of the pikes

This would allow them to expand out on follow up (I think) or fight
effectively in the gaps between their parent units. They would also be
effective in brush and rocky ground, something that seems very historical.
These are also examples that fit in our rule book.

I also like Todd's idea .... much better that allowing Swiss to have a 33.3%
movement advantage over other close foot. Why, because they were better
trained? Better trained that Alexanders phalanx or Roman Legionaries? The
mind boggles.

Greg

I must agree with Greg. If you start to tamper with one list, the
changes MUST follow thru into others. A list / army combination must
stand or fall on it's own historical merits. The purpose of a set of
rules like Warrior or 7th is to allow non-historical opponents to
face each other on a table with a "fair" degree of equality.
Otherwise, you would never play outside your historical opponents!


--- In WarriorRules@egroups.com, Greg Regets <greg@p...> wrote:
> Is it not true that the Swiss match up well against their Historical
> opponents as they are right now? It seems to me that they do.
>
> It bothers me that we would start considering rules to make this
army better
> against a variety of opponent that they never fought. Why not
address this
> same issue with any number of other armies that has splendid
reputations in
> given set piece situations, but suffer in the tournament
environment?
>
> How they match up against historical opponents should be the acid
test here,
> and as they seem to fight well against historicals, they seem to
pass the
> test.
>
> Just an opinion .... Greg

[Greg Regets]

I suppose I should have framed that sentence;

It bothers me that we would start considering rules to make THIS army better
against a variety of opponent that they never fought.

What I was really getting at is that there are many other armies that should
get equal treatment if our aim is historical accuracy. Did not the
Legionaries of Roman armies fight regularly and effectively in heavy
terrain? Is it no true that Macedonian pike men undertook a transformation
to lighter armor in order to increase their maneuverability? Is it not true
that some later medieval knights were far more effective on foot, fatigue
wise, because of the technological superiority of their armor (as a guy that
knows a bit about armor, I can state categorically that this is DEFINATELY
true)? Is it not true that some armies had cavalry far superior to others
because of the quality and quantity of horse flesh available?

The answer is of course yes to all. Now the rules writer can say that the
rules use things like moral to simulate this .... armies with better horses
or better armor getting higher moral, etc .... In my opinion, that is how we
should handle the Swiss. Come up with something WITHIN THE RULEBOOK that
gives them a bit of a bump if you think they need it. Have you considered
loose order pike men? I know you are far along on the rules, but how much
work could it be? They would still waver for being charged by cavalry, but
hell, they are all high moral anyway.

I really don't think any of my opinions have anything to do with making the
Swiss a super army. I agree with Todd, we will not see tournaments full of
Swiss armies any time soon. My opinions have more to do with a rulebook that
has ALL the rules in one spot .... something that has been a gole of Four
Horseman Enterprises from day one .... correct?

Greg


-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Kaeser [mailto:tnkaeser@...]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 10:11 AM
To: WarriorRules@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: The Swiss Rules (or is that "The Swiss
Rule"?)


If the arguement is against tampering with certain lists even though they
list being altered will allow them to be played historically accurate then
we should have Scott take out Testudo. Only a few Roman lists use this
formation and it definately make the Romans better against missle fire even
though it would fill the following quote by Greg Regrets
> It bothers me that we would start considering rules to make this army
better against a variety of opponent that they never fought.

I guess Testudo would make the Romans better against say an Aztec army that
they never fought eh?.
The arguement regarding the Swiss is to make them play semi-close to
historical. If there are any changes it would not make a huge shift in the
wargaming continum (sp?) - I don't see 10 Swiss armies around the corner
vieing for the NICT because the shieldless pike blocks might now have a
slight degree of flexibility with their 2HCT as they did historically. It
is not the reputation we are after (if it was they'd be a cause of unease as
per the medieval theme) it is trying to get the Swiss formations to be able
to behave as they did on the field of battle.

Todd Kaeser
----------
From: honeyman@...
To: WarriorRules@egroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: The Swiss Rules (or is that "The Swiss Rule"?)
Date: Fri, Dec 29, 2000, 8:04 AM


I must agree with Greg. If you start to tamper with one list, the
changes MUST follow thru into others. A list / army combination must
stand or fall on it's own historical merits. The purpose of a set of
rules like Warrior or 7th is to allow non-historical opponents to
face each other on a table with a "fair" degree of equality.
Otherwise, you would never play outside your historical opponents!


--- In WarriorRules@egroups.com, Greg Regets <greg@p...> wrote:
> Is it not true that the Swiss match up well against their Historical
> opponents as they are right now? It seems to me that they do.
>
> It bothers me that we would start considering rules to make this
army better
> against a variety of opponent that they never fought. Why not
address this
> same issue with any number of other armies that has splendid
reputations in
> given set piece situations, but suffer in the tournament
environment?
>
> How they match up against historical opponents should be the acid
test here,
> and as they seem to fight well against historicals, they seem to
pass the
> test.
>
> Just an opinion .... Greg




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com








To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com