Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

Now that all the fuss over getting into skirmish has died down, I thought I'd
finally step in and throw a little (OK, a lot of) gasoline on the fire.

I understand the mechanics of how the skirmish rules work. I can play them
without difficulty, and without undue confusion. But frankly, I have no real
grasp of what historical maneuver or set of maneuvers this bit of the rules is
allegedly simulating. And this isn't a Warrior-specific thing; my puzzlement
dates back to 7th when the rules were changed to require that one have or be
capable of having a target in order to go into skirmish.

6.45 states "Skirmish formation represents all the various circulating methods
used for shooting...."

What a complete and utter load of bu****it!

I've wracked my brains trying to think what "used for shooting" means. I can
come up with only two possible definitions:
- makes shooting for a unit possible;
- makes shooting for a unit better.

The former is clearly not the case, as no unit becomes eligible to shoot in
virtue of going into skirmish. The latter is the case in only a handful of
circumstances:
- loose or open order foot armed with handguns;
- mounted in more than two ranks depth.

Of all the times someone goes into skirmish, the two cases above represent a
tiny proportion (I'll argue on the order of 1%). So clearly, despite what the
rules say skirmish is for, players have co-opted it for some other purpose.

In reality, skirmish is overwhelmingly used for two reasons:
- to make a unit less vulnerable to shooting;
- to enable a unit to evade that otherwise could not do so.

Note that _neither_ reasons has anything whatsoever with the unit's own ability
to shoot, effectiveness at shooting, or the availability of targets.

So let's call a spade a spade, shall we? What 6.45 _should_ say is something
like "skirmish is a defensive formation used by loose or open order troops that
uses a circling maneuver to make the unit a more difficult target to shoot at
and to facilitate rapid escape in the form of an evade move..."

Of course, as soon as you put that kind of honesty into the rules, it becomes
utterly baffling why one would have to have a target to shoot _at_ if the main
purpose of skirmish is in response to _being_ a target, not _having_ a target.

I suppose one could respond that players aren't using the skirmish rule the way
it was intended. That is precisely the kind of response that Phil Barker made
on many rules over the years. To some extent it reflected a difference between
British and American gaming customs. Brits seemed much more inclined to "play
the intent" in order to achieve a simulation. Americans are clearly
pre-disposed to play the limit of a rule's meaning in the quest for competitive
advantage. But frankly, I think Phil's whining response that "that's not the
way the rule was intended" was mostly an admission that his writing sucked.

Jon has, for the most part, taken us refreshingly away from that tradition. But
this one thorny exception remains. We, as players, patently _don't_ use
skirmish as a shooting formation. We use it overwhelmingly as a defensive
formation. So why call it a shooting formation? And why tie its use to ability
to shoot?

I'll offer some speculation here. Back in the days of 7th when the rule was
changed about eligibility for going into skirmish, I speculate it was in
response to a perceived game play problem. Players with troops who could
skirmish were flinging them into skirmish as quickly as possible, typically on
Bound 2, and often at great distances from the enemy (say 240p-480p). Said
units would then spend the rest of the game maneuvering around in skirmish,
often in the absence of any immediate enemy presence. This seemed strongly
artificial rather than realistic. But more importantly, it was slowing games
down and making it harder to get decisive results as armies easily evaded back
from opposition they did not want to face.

So I'll speculate that it was the latter problem that the change in skirmish
eligibility was aimed to fix. And the truth is it's a bad fix to a real
problem.

The real problem is that too many troops can go into skirmish. Or, to put it
precisely, too many troops have the capability of evading. There are troops
who, given their operations in bad terrain, should be loose or open order. Some
of these troops had missile weapons. But it's a real leap in logic to say that
the combination of the two -- being loose or open order and having a missile
weapon -- automatically turned one into a troop type that knew how to execute
as complicated a maneuver as an evade.

My period of history is the Middle Ages. I'll be damned if I can find a single
definitive account of a battle in which English longbowmen executed a maneuver
that can only be accounted for as an evade. Some maneuvers might be a counter
or a retirement. Some might be an example of a routing body that was rallied.
But something that clearly and only can be interpreted as an evade? I can find
no evidence to support that.

Nor can I find any evidence that Turkish Sipahis or Egyptian Mamelukes ever
engaged in something that could only be interpretted as an evade. All the
unambiguous examples of evades appear to come from light troops evading.

There are exceptions: Mongols and Romans both appear to have achieved a level of
tactical discipline that enabled troops to evade that we do not otherwise
associate with that maneuver. But the definitive examples of non-light troops
engaging in an evade are so sparse that they could be handled within the scope
of appropriate list rules.

So the correct way to solve the perceived problem of over-using skirmish as a
defensive formation in 7th would have been to deny evades to loose order troops
unless specifically permitted by list. I suppose that's water under the bridge
now, but I certainly feel no sympathy whatsoever for Jon when people have
trouble understanding the skirmish rules. Since the rule fundamentally makes no
sense, it is of course hard to visualize and thus hard to understand and employ
correctly.


-Mark Stone

[Todd Schneider]

Mark,

As Always, an insightful post. Speaking as a new(ish)
player, I learn quite a bit from your posts. This one
was no exception, but it has be scracthcing my head
and asking:

What do you propose as a "fix?"

If your foot, should the ability to evade be a die
roll like a counter, with a bonus for being in
Skirmish formation?
Should you roll like a counter to be able to go into
skirmish?
Or limit it to troops armed with something other than
JLS? (So LC L can evade, but not skirmish)?

I have no expierence with TOG game, so I have
difficulty following the rules discussion from one set
to the next.

Todd

[John Murphy]

deny evades to loose order troops unless specifically permitted by
list. I suppose that's water under the bridge now
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I beleive this likely falls into the same category as 120p CO foot
charge moves and certain other items which are probably good
simulation ideas deemed to be too major of a change to the
interactions in the entire game system to correct. And, actually,
this probably 'fixes' a portion of the CO foot problem addressed by
that as well w/o resorting to 120p moves. Even as one of a ton
of 'loose foot' players I would say go for this, but not likely,
we'll see.

IMO (!) sometimes it is also good to remember this is what you give
up for the _overall_ stability in the major rules interactions which
Jon and FHE seem pretty dedicated to. If you want wholesale changes
(every two years like certain companies tend to do) then there _are_
other rule sets which seem to favor that.

But it appears (to me admittedly) that not all but most of this
hobby is in fact concerned with open tournament play as opposed to
historical simulation and to that majority of players such a change
to their carefully developed army capabilities would be overly
disruptive. And despite any published statement to the contrary I
believe that concern lies at the base of things like this - and
depending on how you want to look at it that is not necessarily all
a bad thing.

But heck every time I stick my neck out anymore it gets violently
chopped and I suspect this will be no different. So hack away at my
personal observations!

[Mark Stone]

--- On May 28 John Murphy said: ---

>>
>> deny evades to loose order troops unless specifically permitted by
>> list. I suppose that's water under the bridge now
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> I beleive this likely falls into the same category as 120p CO foot
> charge moves and certain other items which are probably good
> simulation ideas deemed to be too major of a change to the
> interactions in the entire game system to correct. And, actually,
> this probably 'fixes' a portion of the CO foot problem addressed by
> that as well w/o resorting to 120p moves. Even as one of a ton
> of 'loose foot' players I would say go for this, but not likely,
> we'll see.

I think you're right here. In an ideal world where we could rewind and tweak one
or two rules about Warrior I think skirmish is one of those things that would
change, and movement for close order foot is another.

Random thought: what if close order foot had an approach of 80p but a charge
move of 120p? Or could charge an extra 40p by paying an extra fatigue? But I
digress....

Ironically, I'm one of those players who plays skirmish to the max. I seldom
have close order foot in my army, almost never have close order foot on the
line, and my entire concept of a "line" is based on being able to skirmish and
evade.

Having said that, I too would actually welcome this change, even though it would
trash my entire tactical doctrine. I'd gladly rethink my tactics and rethink
how to reuse the figures I have.

I also understand that Jon is highly unlikely to even consider this kind of
change. I've "baited" him several times on this topic and he won't even respond
to make an idle/speculative discussion out of it. Ah, well. Sometimes Jon has a
bit too much of that George-Bush-I-make-no-mistakes attitude for his own good.

> IMO (!) sometimes it is also good to remember this is what you give
> up for the _overall_ stability in the major rules interactions which
> Jon and FHE seem pretty dedicated to. If you want wholesale changes
> (every two years like certain companies tend to do) then there _are_
> other rule sets which seem to favor that.

These are excellent points with which I am in complete agreement. Jon has
salvaged a clever but broken game engine, and turned it into something stable,
playable, reliable, and fun. That's a remarkable achievement that cannot be
overshadowed by any specific complaints.

> But it appears (to me admittedly) that not all but most of this
> hobby is in fact concerned with open tournament play as opposed to
> historical simulation and to that majority of players such a change
> to their carefully developed army capabilities would be overly
> disruptive. And despite any published statement to the contrary I
> believe that concern lies at the base of things like this - and
> depending on how you want to look at it that is not necessarily all
> a bad thing.

Again, I agree. Our hobby does seem to be characterized by players who put open,
tournament play first. I count myself in that group, certainly. I am a major
history buff, and without that interest I'd probably be playing Warhammer 40k
or some such. But I love the open tournament format (it's the former chess
player in me, I guess).

I do worry that tournament play is not the best way to encourage new
participants in the hobby, that we'd serve our recruitment goals better with
more scenario and set-piece battles. That's an issue I'm still pondering,
though. I'm hopeful that Eric Turner and others will have some good ideas about
how to advance our hobby in that regard.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/28/2004 14:10:51 Central Daylight Time,
mark@... writes:

I suppose that's water under the bridge
now, but I certainly feel no sympathy whatsoever for Jon when people have
trouble understanding the skirmish rules.>>
Sympathy is something I never expect to expect...lol And I need none!
Again, I have said that I will revise the wording of 6.45 to help with
understanding the intent. In fact I am about to begin the work on section 6.0
for
the new rulebook and will do exactly that this next two weeks. I am
completely baffled as to what else it is I am supposed to be doing on this
issue...
There is no evidence of any ancient/medieval troop using a skirmish-type
formation for the sole purpose of protecting itself from shooting without
shooting in return.
What I *will* agree to in your post, Mark, is that there is no way this
rules set can accomodate all the 'types' of evasion/skirmishing accomplished by
all the types of troops that used those methods. At some point the balance of
playability and realism swings to playability and we have to cut down on the
possibilities to manageable levels.
As important, Warrior's original, and to a large extent current, player base
is serious former 7th players. When the paper was blank in 1999 and 2000
and we could do what we wanted with the rules, the vast majority of our player
base wanted to keep this rule the way it was. As I have stated in the past,
if I felt completely free to change Warrior, there is a list of things I
would do. But we cannot satisfy everyone (Lord knows...) and what the majority
expects is a stable rules set, even if some people think it has warts in some
specific areas.
If I were to contemplate a change to only permit evades to loose order
missile troops where I had a primary source describing an evasion by that
specific
troop, the very fabric of the game would alter and many lists would not play
the way their owners - players who spent much time and treasure on gathering
those forces, understood they would play when they gathered them.
So, in the end, there's things I'd change too, man, if I felt I could. I
must say, though, that the skirmish rules are not one of them...lol
Jon


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/28/2004 16:03:51 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

IMO (!) sometimes it is also good to remember this is what you give
up for the _overall_ stability in the major rules interactions which
Jon and FHE seem pretty dedicated to. If you want wholesale changes
(every two years like certain companies tend to do) then there _are_
other rule sets which seem to favor that.>>
Thanks, John. Exactly.


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/28/2004 17:37:12 Central Daylight Time,
mark@... writes:

I also understand that Jon is highly unlikely to even consider this kind of
change. I've "baited" him several times on this topic and he won't even
respond
to make an idle/speculative discussion out of it. Ah, well. Sometimes Jon
has a
bit too much of that George-Bush-I-make-no-mistakes attitude for his own
good.>>
Oh no - I make mistakes. Plenty of them. I would consider changing many
rules in Warrior, if we felt that is what players wanted. But, as a group,
they do not. If and when that changes, FHE will consider changes.
One thing to keep in mind. This egroup has 400 members. Many do not get
email, many only a daily digest. The *vast* majority do not post openly. This
egroup does not represent the majority of Warrior players worldwide. The
regular posters on this list who periodically cal for changes are, and i do not
mean this any way but factually, a tiny fraction of Warrior players. This
group is a resource for those who come here to use it, but it can't be said
that
because I do not get into a discussion of rules changes that I do not listen
- I do. I choose not to get into it because through multiple sources it is
quite clear to us what the majority of Warrior players want, and they don't
want what is going on in other rules sets. They want the armies they buy to
fight the way they understood them to fight when they bought them. There are
individual areas in the rules that can be argued to be 'incorrect' as the
reader understands history. I am not aware of any that do not have a counter
argument tha the rules got it right, so we are not even in the position of
having anything out there we *know* to be 'wrong' and just aren't fixing for
stability's sake alone.



> IMO (!) sometimes it is also good to remember this is what you give
> up for the _overall_ stability in the major rules interactions which
> Jon and FHE seem pretty dedicated to. If you want wholesale changes
> (every two years like certain companies tend to do) then there _are_
> other rule sets which seem to favor that.

These are excellent points with which I am in complete agreement. Jon has
salvaged a clever but broken game engine, and turned it into something
stable,
playable, reliable, and fun. That's a remarkable achievement that cannot be
overshadowed by any specific complaints.>>
That is a huge compliment, and I thank you profusely for it on behalf of
those who helped me. But I just have to say, that I do not think it is a
broken
engine. I think it is the best engine in the ancients hobby - hands down.
If I didn't honestly think so, I would not have helped save it.
J


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

[Mark Mallard]

Hmmn.
I believe i may partly be to blame.
In the early 1980s i wrote an article for Slingshot (magaizine of the
Society of Ancients), highlighting the problems in WRG 6th with shooting.
It was seized upon and the 7th edition skirmish rules came into being. They
were a massive improvement at the time and are almost 20 years old i think.
Mark Mallard


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