Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

If a troop type is listing as wedging in a WARRIOR list, it will:

-be one that did historically and that wedge had a noted effect.
-count 1.5 ranks.
-have weapons that do not otherwise fight 1.5 ranks.

There will be no wedging legionaires as they already have a 1.5 rank weapon.
Same with lancers and JLS armed foot.

We are talking primarily about 2HCW/2SA armed foot and JLS armed cav that fought
in a wedge historcially AND that wedge was at least sometimes a factor in
defeating opponents.

Tournament directors that allow the use of WRG lists in Warrior games will have
to decide what they want to do about this (it is their tourney after all). We
will recommend not having any wedging troops that already have a 1.5 rank
weapon.

Jon

[scott holder]

...it was my impression that:
(i) wedge is dead
(ii) troops who formerly had the ability to wedge, *AND* are using a
weapon which would normally fight only one rank, have a list-specific rule
which will allow them to use 1.5 ranks.

So, the Romans would only fight 12 (because HTW already gets 1.5 ranks); a
12-man unit of Viking berzerks armed with 2SA in 2x2 formation would still
count as 18 men, though, not 12.

It's really only Vikings and similar that are affected - I guess Slav
axemen also; can't think of others.

Right, FH?

Ewan is correct. The wedge is dead and ain't coming back as an ontable
formation. To add to Ewan's list of troops, mounted like Skythians and
Thessalians will also be effected but that will be done on a list by list
basis, not in the rules themselves since, obviously, the word "wedge" won't be
mentioned:)

Scott

[joncleaves]

To sum:

No on-table formation change or split basing.

Only in lists, not in rules. No use of the w-word.

No 'disordered block.'

No point increase.

And before anyone responds, I've been playtesting this for almost a year without
problem.
Jon

John,

I have some questions regarding wedging and what you wrote in a previous
post.

1. Troops that wedge in the lists count half a back rank as I recall. Does
this mean
that the rest of the unit counts as second rank figures if the unit is two
ranks deep?

Specifically, does a legionary block of 16 figures in a 2X2 stand formation
count
only 12 fighting with HTW or is it now 12 plus 2 for half of the other
figures?

2. You stated that the wedging does "not specifically apply" to other
troops that
already count half their back rank; am I correct? In other words, lancers
get half
a back rank already, JLS armes foot get half a back rank already, etc.?

Maybe a diagram would help.

Jls/HTW armed or wedging with other weapons:

1111 1111
1111 0000

Is this correct?

Thanks,

Chris Tebo

[Ewan McNay]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 tebo.chris@... wrote:
> Specifically, does a legionary block of 16 figures in a 2X2 stand formation
> count
> only 12 fighting with HTW or is it now 12 plus 2 for half of the other
> figures?

Not that it matters except to give data on what one user has taken away so
far, but...

...it was my impression that:
(i) wedge is dead
(ii) troops who formerly had the ability to wedge, *AND* are using a
weapon which would normally fight only one rank, have a list-specific rule
which will allow them to use 1.5 ranks.

So, the Romans would only fight 12 (because HTW already gets 1.5 ranks); a
12-man unit of Viking berzerks armed with 2SA in 2x2 formation would still
count as 18 men, though, not 12.

It's really only Vikings and similar that are affected - I guess Slav
axemen also; can't think of others.

Right, FH?
--
Dr. Ewan McNay - Behavioral Neuroscience, Yale University.
(203) 432-7005

[Ewan McNay]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 JonCleaves@... wrote:
> If a troop type is listing as wedging in a WARRIOR list, it will:


<snip stuff>

Huh. Do I understand that you folks *are* still going to have some
wedging troops [i.e. troops on the table in a wedge, split ranks, etc.]?

If so, I would advise against it; the geometry will get you players in
confusion every time . I thought that this was a good move in the
NASAMW 7th mods.

And, again, this is coming from an Imperialist. Why are all of my armies
being hurt, huh? :)

Ewan

--
Dr. Ewan McNay - Behavioral Neuroscience, Yale University.
(203) 432-7005

[Greg Regets]

From: Ewan Mcnay [mailto:ewan@...]

And, again, this is coming from an Imperialist. Why are all of my armies
being hurt, huh? :)

>>> GREG >>>> Because its well known that you, as an Imperialist commander,
happily abuse your light infantry, :-)

> From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
>
> If a troop type is listing as wedging in a WARRIOR list, it will:
>
> -be one that did historically and that wedge had a noted effect.
> -count 1.5 ranks.
> -have weapons that do not otherwise fight 1.5 ranks.
>
> There will be no wedging legionaires as they already have a
> 1.5 rank weapon. Same with lancers and JLS armed foot.
>
> We are talking primarily about 2HCW/2SA armed foot and JLS
> armed cav that fought in a wedge historcially AND that wedge
> was at least sometimes a factor in defeating opponents.

Will this come with a point cost?

IIRC one of the things about wedges was that they reverted to disordered
columns after contact, so there was a (minor) diadvantage involved in using
them.

The new version seems a lot simpler, but is a definite advantage to those
troops who can use it, with no obvious down-side.

Mike


_____________________________________________________________
Notice of Confidential Information - If you receive this message in error,
please notify the sender immediately. The information contained in this
e-mail may be legally privileged and is confidential. Unauthorised use,
dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message is prohibited.
_____________________________________________________________

[Greg Regets]

Leave it to a Imperial Roman player to try to squeak in a couple of extra
figures .... :-)

G

> From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]

> No point increase.
>
> And before anyone responds, I've been playtesting this for
> almost a year without problem.

And from Phil (about Ag's and standards, but it is equally appropriaet
here):

So if player is required to pay 25
> points more for a general, or 5/10 points more for a standard, then
> the decision to do so must make a difference.

Having an extra ability with no extra cost is the inverse of Phil's
argument.

I urge you to rethink the costs of wedging - it has an effect, so it should
havea cost.

Mike


_____________________________________________________________
Notice of Confidential Information - If you receive this message in error,
please notify the sender immediately. The information contained in this
e-mail may be legally privileged and is confidential. Unauthorised use,
dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message is prohibited.
_____________________________________________________________

[Phil Gardocki]

Another inverse of my argument is the rare SA only armed troop type. I
think they should be available at -1 off.

Philip Gardocki


And from Phil (about Ag's and standards, but it is equally appropriaet
here):

So if player is required to pay 25
points more for a general, or 5/10 points more for a standard, then
the decision to do so must make a difference.

Having an extra ability with no extra cost is the inverse of Phil's
argument.

I urge you to rethink the costs of wedging - it has an effect, so it should
havea cost.

Mike

Attachment: vcard [not shown]