Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Tom McMillan]

I think, speaking as an old TOG gamer who now just dabbles socially, that
my main impression from the day was that the old barbarian charge is no longer
formidable. I apologise if this has been analysed to death here already.
Consider a unit of Picts, 2 elements wide, 4 deep charging impetuously into
2 wide, 2 deep medium halberdiers. With 9 @ 6 vs 12 @ 5, the halberdiers
actually cause more damage on an even roll. True, they are then shieldless, but
the -3 is cancelled by the loss of impetuous charge, and the Picts are tired, so
things do not improve. Perhaps I'm missing something?
If not, this comes as something of a surprise. The original intent was that
impetuous charges were scary, and it behooved the opponent to defuse and
prevent them, or he was in trouble. On an even roll the barbarian pushes his
opponent back- not very good, but at least another shot at an uproll. On an
uproll
you push him back disordered, and things are looking good. A big uproll routs
him. Now you just take twice as many fatigue as the other guy, while causing
similar casualties.
Yes, I realise that the same factors apply to charging, say, Early Imperial
Romans, but the heavy legionary is not only more expensive than the
halberdier, but also an anti-infantry specialist vulnerable to capable cavalry.
And as
for the barbarian using his superior numbers to wear his opponent down, the
Pict unit costs more than the halberd unit.
As the halberd and the axe are superchargred to keep pace with the
supercharged lancer ( and presumably the LTS is soon to follow), there seems to
be a
danger of upsetting the balances upon which the original elegance of the system
was based. - Tom




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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/1/2005 21:12:25 Central Standard Time, Quahog25@...
writes:

Consider a unit of Picts, 2 elements wide, 4 deep charging impetuously into
2 wide, 2 deep medium halberdiers. With 9 @ 6 vs 12 @ 5, the halberdiers
actually cause more damage on an even roll. True, they are then shieldless,
but
the -3 is cancelled by the loss of impetuous charge, and the Picts are
tired, so
things do not improve. Perhaps I'm missing something?
If not, this comes as something of a surprise. The original intent was that
impetuous charges were scary, and it behooved the opponent to defuse and
prevent them, or he was in trouble.>>

I am not going to go into anyone's 'original intent' but my own.

I do not intend for Picts to beat steady halberdiers, esp. Picts not armed
with LTS. We here at FHE are perfectly comfortable with the above
interaction. Steady halberdiers will indeed beat a JLS charge, even if
impetuous. What
happened in 6th or 7th isn't a determinant - we use what we believe the
interaction should be based on our understanding of historical results.

<< As the halberd and the axe are superchargred to keep pace with the
supercharged lancer ( and presumably the LTS is soon to follow),>>

The halberd and axe are not 'being supercharged' to 'keep pace' with
anything. First, Warrior 2HCT has always been 1.5 ranks if steady and
non-impetuous, so there isn't any change there. And the fact that they are 1.5
ranks if
steady and non-impetuous has nothing to do with 'supercharged lancers' as
Warrior lancers have always been 1.5 ranks.

Some LTS users will be getting list rules in Classical Warrior, but there is
no change planned for the base weapon.

<< there seems to be a
danger of upsetting the balances upon which the original elegance of the
system
was based. - Tom >>


The original elegance of this system began in 2002... We had the 7.6
engine as a start point, that is true. But I have never done a single thing in
the design of Warrior to try and have it be a 'better 7th.' From the day we
bought it, it has been our game and every decision made has been to get
history right - at least the history of our understanding. Only one decision
has
ever been made on the basis of some sort of continuity with 7th - the
keeping of the terms: bound, prompt and waver....
This game was born in 2002 - what happened before that many of us were part
of, but we aren't making decisions based on it.

J




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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/3/2005 21:03:07 Central Standard Time,
cncbump@... writes:

Jon,
Do you have any idea how much you degrade your credibilty not to mention
your integrity when you write such things?
Chris>>


Well, there isn't anyone here able to question my integrity...lol But
credibility certainly. What is it I am supposed to have done wrong now?

J








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

[Chris Bump]

Jon,
Do you have any idea how much you degrade your credibilty not to mention
your integrity when you write such things?
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 9:32 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] What I learned at Bill's - the Arms Race



In a message dated 3/1/2005 21:12:25 Central Standard Time,
Quahog25@...
writes:

First, Warrior 2HCT has always been 1.5 ranks if steady and
non-impetuous, so there isn't any change there.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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