Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Now here is a question that is sure to draw fire:

What constitutes a shield?

SHI count sheilded (or did at some point), yet have no
shield; this is the basis for my query. I understand
how the shield enters into the equation, but what
exactly makes a shield a shield? Take, for instance,
Samurai. they fought sheildless (in the traditional
sense), yet their armor was designed specifically to
repell missles and slashing blows. Would their armor
provide more shielding than say a wicker basket lid
used by so many biblical armies?

Knowing full well that ahistorical pairings are not
the basis for the rules, we do live in a defacto
ahistorical gaming community. One of the downfalls of
the old numerically named gaming system was that
traditional/historical powerhouse armies, while
historically representational, were gaming speedbumps
for some rather unlikely powerhouse armies.

The bottom line: Samurai always had the problem of
counting shieldless to misslefire and unable to
skirmish, so trash armies armed with B could always
tire them, charge impetuously and rout the Samurai
without much resistance. Will the new Samurai list
account for the armor--as in a list line denoting
"...count sheilded to missle fire..." or something
similar? Just asking while providing food for
thought.

boyd


=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

[scott holder]

Will the new Samurai list
account for the armor--as in a list line denoting
"...count sheilded to missle fire..." or something
similar? Just asking while providing food for
thought.

>I can't give you an answer, but this does harken back to my playtest
days for DBM. I hate bringing up that system here but it illustrates a
point with lists and rules. At that time, Phil was still wrestling with
troop types and their historical counterparts and, suprise suprise, the
Japanese were one that we expended quite a bit of phone and letter time
on. Yes, some of what Boyd describes is correct and *technically* (in
the DBM construct of the time), said Samurai were to be Blade (S).
Well, if there was one thing the American playtest group showed was that
Blade (S) were *the* killer troop type (in that version of the rules).
An army constructed primarily of them would run over damn near
everything else in the game. So, Phil simply made them Blade (O) and
rewickered the definition to fit. But.......originally and probably
more "historically accurate" would have still been Blade (S). But it
would screw up the game.

>I've also heard this same argument applied over the years to knights.
They discarded shields late in the medieval period and tended to
"uparmor" the one arm. However, I've still not seen to many primary
sources that state that (I can always be enlightened in this regard) and
said knights still suffered from LB or CB fire so that particular
concept never made it into later iterations of "that other set of
rules".

>Again, if there is something in a particular army that is widely
accepted, has copious historical data to support, and falls well outside
the "paradigm" of the Warrior rule book, list rules will be an option.
But, I cannot comment on Japanese at this time, Berbers, et.al, and a
convention will take place first.

Scott
List Ho

--- In WarriorRules@y..., Wanax Andron <vercengetorix@y...> wrote:
> Now here is a question that is sure to draw fire:
>
> Knowing full well that ahistorical pairings are not
> the basis for the rules, we do live in a defacto
> ahistorical gaming community. One of the downfalls of
> the old numerically named gaming system was that
> traditional/historical powerhouse armies, while
> historically representational, were gaming speedbumps
> for some rather unlikely powerhouse armies.
>
> boyd
>
>
> =====
> Wake up and smell the Assyrians


I'm not sure how to prevent this in Warrior since many of those
problems -- as I recall -- were based on the interaction of various
armor and shield combos.

Wanax -- how do those Middle Assyrians do in Warrior (or that other
system with the numbers)?

Are the foot MI,JLS,Sh or LMI,JLS,Sh?

John Meunier

[joncleaves]

You mean why does SHK suffer a weapon factor mod for being shieldless and SHI
do not? SHI without shields are certainly shieldless, you just don't get a
weapon factor mod for it.

So why the mod for SHK but not for SHI? The tables reflect armor, order and
fighting style, not just armor.


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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Scott,Jon?

I'd like to humbly piggyback on this line of thought.
I'm just wondering what your opinion is as to why a
dismounted SHI without a shield is not considered
shieldless while one that is mounted is shieldless? I
realize that Jon will most likely not answer as this
is perhaps the sort question that takes up valuable
time,but I am merely curious. Further, I'm anxiously
awaiting "Campaign and Fantasy Warrior" and do not
wish to distract any time from those endeavors! My
friend Matt Fairleigh told me that back in 6th edition
(if my memory serves me correctly and this is shakey
since I don't play that game!) SHK from the later
periods who were not armed with shields and mounted,
did not count shieldless... I'm not trying to ruffle
any designer feathers, I'm just curious about your
thoughts on this nonissue !

Kelly Wilkinson

PS I'm not trying to make any points here, I'm merely
picking your brains like I am prone to do. :)

--- Wanax Andron <vercengetorix@...> wrote:
> Now here is a question that is sure to draw fire:
>
> What constitutes a shield?
>
> SHI count sheilded (or did at some point), yet have
> no
> shield; this is the basis for my query. I
> understand
> how the shield enters into the equation, but what
> exactly makes a shield a shield? Take, for
> instance,
> Samurai. they fought sheildless (in the traditional
> sense), yet their armor was designed specifically to
> repell missles and slashing blows. Would their
> armor
> provide more shielding than say a wicker basket lid
> used by so many biblical armies?
>
> Knowing full well that ahistorical pairings are not
> the basis for the rules, we do live in a defacto
> ahistorical gaming community. One of the downfalls
> of
> the old numerically named gaming system was that
> traditional/historical powerhouse armies, while
> historically representational, were gaming
> speedbumps
> for some rather unlikely powerhouse armies.
>
> The bottom line: Samurai always had the problem of
> counting shieldless to misslefire and unable to
> skirmish, so trash armies armed with B could always
> tire them, charge impetuously and rout the Samurai
> without much resistance. Will the new Samurai list
> account for the armor--as in a list line denoting
> "...count sheilded to missle fire..." or something
> similar? Just asking while providing food for
> thought.
>
> boyd
>
>
> =====
> Wake up and smell the Assyrians
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Thanks Jon!

Kelly

--- JonCleaves@... wrote:
> You mean why does SHK suffer a weapon factor mod for
> being shieldless and SHI
> do not? SHI without shields are certainly
> shieldless, you just don't get a
> weapon factor mod for it.
>
> So why the mod for SHK but not for SHI? The tables
> reflect armor, order and
> fighting style, not just armor.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

> I'm not sure how to prevent this in Warrior since
> many of those
> problems -- as I recall -- were based on the
> interaction of various
> armor and shield combos.

That's why I asked for consideration of Samurai foot
being considered sheilded from missle fire.
Hopefully, Scott, in his omnicient capasity as list
Ho, will see the wisdom of it :)

>
> Wanax -- how do those Middle Assyrians do in Warrior
> (or that other
> system with the numbers)?
>
> Are the foot MI,JLS,Sh or LMI,JLS,Sh?
> John Meunier

John, I have no idea yet. I'm waiting to get the
lists and find out. If the foot are MI, then There
isn't much hope in the army, IMNSHO.

boyd


=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/