Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

Good post, Mark. I will add these to my 'close relooks' for language in the
revised book.

J

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

Mark Stone · Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:16 pm Post subject: when good players go wrong

Ed Forbes' conundrum last week thinking that being disordered somehow affected
whether you counted shielded in hand to hand got me thinking. All of us have no
doubt seen experienced players either consistently get a rule wrong, or
consistently overlook a rule. Not through any deliberate intention, but just
because this is a complex rules set that even veterans struggle to master.

It occurred to me that we might actually do Jon a service by nominating for him
our most often misinterpretted or overlooked rules. I'll kick things off with
three examples I see over and over, starting -- as I should -- with one I got
consistently wrong for a long time. In fact I got it wrong until a side remark
Ewan made a couple of weeks ago made me go and look up the rule so I could
prove him wrong, only to discover that in fact he was right.

Case 1: Shooting in hand to hand.
Example: My 24 figures of Janissary archers last bound absorbed a charge from
some Venetian javelinmen (Reg C LHI JLS,Sh) into the front left element of my
Janissaries. He did more to me, but not a CPF. This bound a unit of HC
sergeants is going to follow up, charging in impetuously next to the
Janissaries. Gleefully I await his charge, confident that support shooting will
blow the HC away. My opponent, however, correctly points out that my front rank
is ineligible to support shoot since it is a rank that fought last bound. My
back rank still gets to support shoot and put some real hurt on the HC, but not
enough to prevent me from taking a CPF and more overall, thus ignominiously
recoiling disordered.
The Mistake: Somehow I had it in my head that since this was a new combat, it
didn't matter if the rank had fought in some _other_ combat last bound. The
wording on this is pretty clear, though.
The Rule: 8.83, "Shooting in Hand-to-Hand. Bodies already in contact from the
previous bound can only shoot at their opponents and then only with bow from a
rank of figures not eligible to fight."

Case 2: Pike vs. mounted.
Example: A unit of Armenian cataphracts (2 stands Irr B SHC L) and of javelinmen
(4 stands, 2x2 of Irr C LMI JLS,Sh) charge impetuously into an 8 stand block of
pikemen (4x2 Reg C MI P,Sh). The pikes do 8@2 +1 (for receiving impetuous mtd
charge) = 8@3 = 20 vs. the SHC. They do 16@3 = 40 vs. the LMI. The pikes put
out a total of 60 casualties. The SHC do 6 @ 4 + 1 + 1 (charging, and impetuous
close) -2 (facing pike) = 6@4 = 18. The LMI roll up 2 and do 9@3 +1 +2
(charging, and impetuous loose) +2 (rolled up 2) -2 (facing pike) = 9@6 = 45.
The SHC and LMI put out a combined 63. The pike player is a little disgruntled
at getting his pikes disordered, but having beaten the mounted he isn't too
worried about the LMI next bound as he thinks they will get to neither expand
nor follow up. His opponent points out that the rule says otherwise, and the
LMI follow up against disordered _and_ recoiling pike.
Mistake 1: Lots of experienced players seem to think that pike _never_ recoil
when losing on the first bound. This is in fact false. The rule says that _all_
foot losing to mounted recoil disordered, and that _other_ pike (i.e. those not
fighting mounted) become disordered.
Mistake 2: Even players who understand the pike vs. mounted rule often overlook
that the rule in fact has nothing to do with whether the mounted _beat_ the
pike. If the pike are _facing_ any mounted (not losing to), and lose overall,
then they must recoil disordered. The only exception here is if the mounted
break off or rout, but in this case the SHC can simply recoil.
The Rule: 11.212 "Winning and Losing: A body that receives more hand-to-hand
casualties than it inflicted and at least 1 CPF is destroyed if artillery, or
if exhausted. If it is not: Foot fighting mounted troops recoil and become
disordered, unless the mounted break-off or rout."

Case 3: Moving Tired in the Brush.
Example: Last bound my Varangian guard (4 stands Irr B LHI 2HCW,Sh) charged and
destroyed an enemy unit in the brush. The Varangians rolled up big in an
impetuous charge, the enemy was irregular foot, and what with the doubled
casualties that irregular foot take in hand to hand, the enemy were at 15 CPF.
The Varangians took 24 total casualties in the combat, thus were not
disordered, complete rallying at the end of approaches, and successfully dice a
counter to turn and move 40p. I'm ready to move on to the next phase when my
opponent notes that my Varangians must take a fatigue point for making that
move.
The Mistake: This is probably the most overlooked rule that I see. My Varangians
are in terrain that reduces their tactical move, and they are tired (1 fatigue
for the impetuous charge, 24 casualties = 2 CPF doubled to 4 for being
irregular foot). Making a tactical or march move reduced by terrain while tired
costs a fatigue point. Note, by the way, that my Varangians could march in the
brush without taking the fatigue point, since brush reduces only their tactical
move, not their march move.
The Rule: 5.31 "Becoming Fatigued. A body receives 1 fatigue point: (TIRED IN
DIFFICULT TERRAIN) If tired, and march segment or tactical move reduced by
difficult terrain."

Many of you may think all this is obvious. But that's part of my point, I guess.
I thought the rules about shields and disorder were obvious, too, but Ed
obviously had a tough time with them. What have you seen? What mistakes have
your veteran players made, that finally came to light?

-Mark Stone

Ewan McNay · Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:43 pm Post subject: Re: when good players go wrong

Interesting.

I always have to look up the nuances of who counts following-up/pursuing
when fresh enemy enter a fight.

I have to *remind* myself that mounted are not forced to either add or
deduct when rolling a 5/6 in a variable move.

I'll think more Smile

.

e

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

In a message dated 3/21/2005 15:49:34 Central Standard Time,
mark@... writes:

More a question for Jon than for me, but my assumption would be yes, that
2.55
is a restriction in this case. Regulars cannot voluntarily be in uneven
ranks;
expanding in a follow-up is voluntary....>>

Hmmm. I thought we clarified this long ago, but I don't see it in there.
I'll check with the other FH and give you an official answer this week.

J

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

Mark Stone · Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:03 pm Post subject: Re: when good players go wrong

--- On March 21 Jon Cleaves said: ---

>
> Good post, Mark. I will add these to my 'close relooks' for language in the
> revised book.
>

Well, the support shooting example is pretty clear; I just thought I knew the
rule and didn't.

The pike example comes up sooooo often, though, that I think it probably needs
an explicit example in the revised book. The wording is pretty clear, but for
some reason a lot of people just don't get it.

The fatigue thing is harder. The rule is there, it just isn't in a part of the
rules that people find themselves flipping to frequently. One thing that would
help this and many other cases -- and I hesitate to suggest this because it's a
lot of work -- is back-references. We've started to use this on some websites I
work with, and it makes a huge difference. What I mean back-references is this,
for example: there should be a reference in the fatigue rules in setion 5 where
it mentions "difficult terrain" to section 6.71 where difficult terrain is
defined. That's a normal reference, and easy enough to add. A back-reference
would be a notation at the end of section 6.71 listing all of the other
sections that refer to it. That might prod someone when looking at 6.71, for
example, to look up and see _why_ section 5.31 makes a reference to it.

Ed's shield example is one where the wording could perhaps be better crafted.

Ewan's example, of mounted not needing to add or deduct on a 5-6 if they don't
want to, is one that's easily handled by an example in the text.

Just my $.02 worth.

-Mark Stone

Kelly Wilkinson · Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 12:30 am Post subject: Re: when good players go wrong

Okay Mark,

Here's a question. Let's say one has three element wide, two element deep
unit of Regular longbowmen (this could work for an regulars). This unit pushes
back it's opponents. Does 2.55 in the rules keep the Regular unit from
expanding? I run into stuff like this all the time.

kelly

Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
Ed Forbes' conundrum last week thinking that being disordered somehow affected
whether you counted shielded in hand to hand got me thinking. All of us have no
doubt seen experienced players either consistently get a rule wrong, or
consistently overlook a rule. Not through any deliberate intention, but just
because this is a complex rules set that even veterans struggle to master.

It occurred to me that we might actually do Jon a service by nominating for him
our most often misinterpretted or overlooked rules. I'll kick things off with
three examples I see over and over, starting -- as I should -- with one I got
consistently wrong for a long time. In fact I got it wrong until a side remark
Ewan made a couple of weeks ago made me go and look up the rule so I could
prove him wrong, only to discover that in fact he was right.

Case 1: Shooting in hand to hand.
Example: My 24 figures of Janissary archers last bound absorbed a charge from
some Venetian javelinmen (Reg C LHI JLS,Sh) into the front left element of my
Janissaries. He did more to me, but not a CPF. This bound a unit of HC
sergeants is going to follow up, charging in impetuously next to the
Janissaries. Gleefully I await his charge, confident that support shooting will
blow the HC away. My opponent, however, correctly points out that my front rank
is ineligible to support shoot since it is a rank that fought last bound. My
back rank still gets to support shoot and put some real hurt on the HC, but not
enough to prevent me from taking a CPF and more overall, thus ignominiously
recoiling disordered.
The Mistake: Somehow I had it in my head that since this was a new combat, it
didn't matter if the rank had fought in some _other_ combat last bound. The
wording on this is pretty clear, though.
The Rule: 8.83, "Shooting in Hand-to-Hand. Bodies already in contact from the
previous bound can only shoot at their opponents and then only with bow from a
rank of figures not eligible to fight."

Case 2: Pike vs. mounted.
Example: A unit of Armenian cataphracts (2 stands Irr B SHC L) and of javelinmen
(4 stands, 2x2 of Irr C LMI JLS,Sh) charge impetuously into an 8 stand block of
pikemen (4x2 Reg C MI P,Sh). The pikes do 8@2 +1 (for receiving impetuous mtd
charge) = 8@3 = 20 vs. the SHC. They do 16@3 = 40 vs. the LMI. The pikes put
out a total of 60 casualties. The SHC do 6 @ 4 + 1 + 1 (charging, and impetuous
close) -2 (facing pike) = 6@4 = 18. The LMI roll up 2 and do 9@3 +1 +2
(charging, and impetuous loose) +2 (rolled up 2) -2 (facing pike) = 9@6 = 45.
The SHC and LMI put out a combined 63. The pike player is a little disgruntled
at getting his pikes disordered, but having beaten the mounted he isn't too
worried about the LMI next bound as he thinks they will get to neither expand
nor follow up. His opponent points out that the rule says otherwise, and the
LMI follow up against disordered _and_ recoiling pike.
Mistake 1: Lots of experienced players seem to think that pike _never_ recoil
when losing on the first bound. This is in fact false. The rule says that _all_
foot losing to mounted recoil disordered, and that _other_ pike (i.e. those not
fighting mounted) become disordered.
Mistake 2: Even players who understand the pike vs. mounted rule often overlook
that the rule in fact has nothing to do with whether the mounted _beat_ the
pike. If the pike are _facing_ any mounted (not losing to), and lose overall,
then they must recoil disordered. The only exception here is if the mounted
break off or rout, but in this case the SHC can simply recoil.
The Rule: 11.212 "Winning and Losing: A body that receives more hand-to-hand
casualties than it inflicted and at least 1 CPF is destroyed if artillery, or
if exhausted. If it is not: Foot fighting mounted troops recoil and become
disordered, unless the mounted break-off or rout."

Case 3: Moving Tired in the Brush.
Example: Last bound my Varangian guard (4 stands Irr B LHI 2HCW,Sh) charged and
destroyed an enemy unit in the brush. The Varangians rolled up big in an
impetuous charge, the enemy was irregular foot, and what with the doubled
casualties that irregular foot take in hand to hand, the enemy were at 15 CPF.
The Varangians took 24 total casualties in the combat, thus were not
disordered, complete rallying at the end of approaches, and successfully dice a
counter to turn and move 40p. I'm ready to move on to the next phase when my
opponent notes that my Varangians must take a fatigue point for making that
move.
The Mistake: This is probably the most overlooked rule that I see. My Varangians
are in terrain that reduces their tactical move, and they are tired (1 fatigue
for the impetuous charge, 24 casualties = 2 CPF doubled to 4 for being
irregular foot). Making a tactical or march move reduced by terrain while tired
costs a fatigue point. Note, by the way, that my Varangians could march in the
brush without taking the fatigue point, since brush reduces only their tactical
move, not their march move.
The Rule: 5.31 "Becoming Fatigued. A body receives 1 fatigue point: (TIRED IN
DIFFICULT TERRAIN) If tired, and march segment or tactical move reduced by
difficult terrain."

Many of you may think all this is obvious. But that's part of my point, I guess.
I thought the rules about shields and disorder were obvious, too, but Ed
obviously had a tough time with them. What have you seen? What mistakes have
your veteran players made, that finally came to light?

-Mark Stone

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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

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

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

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

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.

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

Mark Stone · Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 12:44 am Post subject: Re: when good players go wrong

--- On March 21 Kelly said: ---
>
> Here's a question. Let's say one has three element wide, two element deep
> unit of Regular longbowmen (this could work for an regulars). This unit pushes
> back it's opponents. Does 2.55 in the rules keep the Regular unit from
> expanding? I run into stuff like this all the time.
>

More a question for Jon than for me, but my assumption would be yes, that 2.55
is a restriction in this case. Regulars cannot voluntarily be in uneven ranks;
expanding in a follow-up is voluntary....

This is an argument, btw, for putting your longbowmen in 4 stand units rather
than 6 stand. I'll still argue that overall a mix of 2 stand and 6 stand units
is the correct balance for a variety of reasons, but it's a mix that's not
without its drawbacks.

-Mark Stone

Kelly Wilkinson · Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 1:40 am Post subject: Re: when good players go wrong

Mark,
Sadly, I think you are correct. My belief is that after reading one of your
most excellent posts on 6 element units, I now do so with many of my units.
Units of this size that are 3 elements wide and two deep have a maneuver
advantage over their 4 element counterparts especially when it comes to the
Right/Left face 40 pace shift and refacing your enemy. Where a unit that is 3x2
turns into a column of 6 and can then return to it's previous formation is great
while 4 element units end up in a column. Now, this isn't a problem for pikes as
much as any others, but I wish this 7th edition hold over could somehow be
changed at least for regular units of 4 elements.

kw

Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
--- On March 21 Kelly said: ---
>
> Here's a question. Let's say one has three element wide, two element deep
> unit of Regular longbowmen (this could work for an regulars). This unit pushes
> back it's opponents. Does 2.55 in the rules keep the Regular unit from
> expanding? I run into stuff like this all the time.
>

More a question for Jon than for me, but my assumption would be yes, that 2.55
is a restriction in this case. Regulars cannot voluntarily be in uneven ranks;
expanding in a follow-up is voluntary....

This is an argument, btw, for putting your longbowmen in 4 stand units rather
than 6 stand. I'll still argue that overall a mix of 2 stand and 6 stand units
is the correct balance for a variety of reasons, but it's a mix that's not
without its drawbacks.

-Mark Stone

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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

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

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

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

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

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

Kelly Wilkinson · Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 3:11 am Post subject: Re: when good players go wrong

Thanks Jon.

kw

JonCleaves@... wrote:

In a message dated 3/21/2005 15:49:34 Central Standard Time,
mark@... writes:

More a question for Jon than for me, but my assumption would be yes, that
2.55
is a restriction in this case. Regulars cannot voluntarily be in uneven
ranks;
expanding in a follow-up is voluntary....>>

Hmmm. I thought we clarified this long ago, but I don't see it in there.
I'll check with the other FH and give you an official answer this week.

J

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

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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

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

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

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

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

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

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

I am not sure why it is not in our official clarifications - some oversight
on my part I am sure, but Regs should be able to expand unevenly on follow
up. They have to 'get right' at the first opportunity after the combat is
concluded. This will be in our next clarifications update.

Jon

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

Mark Mallard · Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 11:25 am Post subject: Re: when good players go wrong

In a message dated 21/03/2005 22:49:47 GMT Standard Time,
jwilkinson62@... writes:

Mark,
Sadly, I think you are correct. My belief is that after reading one of your
most excellent posts on 6 element units, I now do so with many of my units.
Units of this size that are 3 elements wide and two deep have a maneuver
advantage over their 4 element counterparts especially when it comes to the
Right/Left face 40 pace shift and refacing your enemy. Where a unit that is 3x2
turns into a column of 6 and can then return to it's previous formation is
great
while 4 element units end up in a column. Now, this isn't a problem for
pikes as much as any others, but I wish this 7th edition hold over could
somehow
be changed at least for regular units of 4 elements.

kw

** I think this is a serious problem for pikes - if part of a line, for
example at the end, they are unable to turn 90 degrees. This is true also just
by
have a unit adjacent to it.

mark mallard

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

Kelly Wilkinson · Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 1:34 am Post subject: Re: when good players go wrong

Thanks Jon,

It's good to know that we are thinking alike at least once in a while! :)

kelly w

JonCleaves@... wrote:
I am not sure why it is not in our official clarifications - some oversight
on my part I am sure, but Regs should be able to expand unevenly on follow
up. They have to 'get right' at the first opportunity after the combat is
concluded. This will be in our next clarifications update.

Jon

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

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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

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

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

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

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

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

Ed Forbes · Centurion Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1092

My Three Major Mistakes ( full list to long for most email servers to handle )

1. pike and recoil

2. Disordered and shields

3. Counting shooting range from the front rank and not the element.

Ed

___________________________________________________________________
Speed up your surfing with Juno SpeedBand.
Now includes pop-up blocker!
Only $14.95/month -visit http://www.juno.com/surf to sign up today!