Warrior Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules
A Four Horsemen Enterprises Rules Set
 
  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups AlbumAlbum   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

X-Rule Thoughts

 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Egroup Archives
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Chris Bump
Legate
Legate


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1625

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 2:16 am    Post subject: Re: X-Rule Thoughts


In a message dated 3/16/2004 10:04:29 PM Central Standard Time,
jwilkinson62@... writes:
Jon, that is a brilliant idea! Taking it one step in another direction, would
it be considered looney to give Charging/pursuing/evading infantry when
facing other infantry a possibility to roll up 40 paces? Certainly this would
give
the close order troops a chance to occasionally catch the more fleet of foot
peltast types while not surrendering too much in the way of over-compensation
for the close order types. Just Thought I'd throw this out. Not that it would
be considered since it came from me. But who knows, maybe sometime down the
road you decide it has merit.
my thought/ concern with giving close order greater movement is the issue of
SHI. They would actually be given the potential to catch LI? I like Kelly's
idea better than a universal increase in mobility of close order troops.
Maybe such a rule could exclude SHI.
Chris


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

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 2:21 am    Post subject: Re: X-Rule Thoughts


In a message dated 3/16/2004 22:18:37 Central Standard Time, cncbump@...
writes:
Taking it one step in another direction, would
it be considered looney to give Charging/pursuing/evading infantry when
facing other infantry a possibility to roll up 40 paces?>>
You tell me. My plate is full, playtest-wise...lol But I'd be interested to
see what people try and what they find out.


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


_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Kelly Wilkinson
Dictator
Dictator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4172
Location: Raytown, MO

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 7:02 am    Post subject: X-Rule Thoughts


Jon, that is a brilliant idea! Taking it one step in another direction, would it
be considered looney to give Charging/pursuing/evading infantry when facing
other infantry a possibility to roll up 40 paces? Certainly this would give the
close order troops a chance to occasionally catch the more fleet of foot peltast
types while not surrendering too much in the way of over-compensation for the
close order types. Just Thought I'd throw this out. Not that it would be
considered since it came from me. But who knows, maybe sometime down the road
you decide it has merit.

kelly wilkinson

JonCleaves@... wrote:
Hmmm, no wonder those greeks started armoring their soldiers....lol

but the point, in my humble opinion, is that shooters have an
ahistorical edge, and every seasoned tournament player knows it.
I am one of those and I do not, for one, agree.

What I will agree with is that close order foot is 'too slow' in Warrior.
Not that 80p is unrealistic, but that 80p has one very unfortunate
characteristic not shared by any other troop type. It can't charge after a
march without
the enemy's cooperation. (HI marches to 240p, other guy sits, HI approaches
80p, still no charge..).
In addition, it cannot 'catch' LMI/LHI, which is the real issue you are
discussing. MI Spartans would care nothing of Kardakes shooting if they could
nail
them in a charge.

I considered 'changing' close order foot to 120p in the open, while keeping
its terrain difficulties. The issue, in 2000 as now, is that that is such a
fundamental 'change' that there is no way to properly playtest the impacts in
under a year or two. Given that, no matter how much I want Warrior to stand on
its own, our core player base is made up of old 7th players, and this was too
much of a change to make on both the grounds of getting Warrior out before
2005 and hugely impacting player army choice.

If a genie appeared and granted me one Warrior wish, it would be to allow me
to make this change, which would require a spontaneous and immediate full
playtest report based on a 1000 genie-played games that only took the blink of
an
eye and a magical muzzling of all whines about rules changes.

What *can* be done, is for those who are predisposed to, to play games using
this as an x-rule (which for all the various rules complaints out there, no
one makes use of). Like EHC skirmishing, I get a lot of periodic whines about
it, but I never get a batch of ten playtest reports on the impact on the game.
I suggest those who are motivated to see close order foot take a more
dominant role play games with 120p movement and record the results and send them
to
me. Play a tourney with that rule in effect and see what happens.

No one, especially me, says that all games or events need to be 14.0/NASAMW
standard. Rather than try to verbally convince someone of the need for change,
I would recommend building a case based on factual game results of the impact
of the change.

Jon


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



---------------------------------
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 - More reliable, more storage, less spam

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


_________________
Roll down and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Kelly Wilkinson
Dictator
Dictator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4172
Location: Raytown, MO

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 7:20 am    Post subject: Re: X-Rule Thoughts


Excellent point chris,
And to be honest, EHI such as Romans in anti Dacian armor would most likely
have little trouble being part of such a rule while SHI would definitely be out!

kelly

cncbump@... wrote:
In a message dated 3/16/2004 10:04:29 PM Central Standard Time,
jwilkinson62@... writes:
Jon, that is a brilliant idea! Taking it one step in another direction, would
it be considered looney to give Charging/pursuing/evading infantry when
facing other infantry a possibility to roll up 40 paces? Certainly this would
give
the close order troops a chance to occasionally catch the more fleet of foot
peltast types while not surrendering too much in the way of over-compensation
for the close order types. Just Thought I'd throw this out. Not that it would
be considered since it came from me. But who knows, maybe sometime down the
road you decide it has merit.
my thought/ concern with giving close order greater movement is the issue of
SHI. They would actually be given the potential to catch LI? I like Kelly's
idea better than a universal increase in mobility of close order troops.
Maybe such a rule could exclude SHI.
Chris


[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! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam

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


_________________
Roll down and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Kelly Wilkinson
Dictator
Dictator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4172
Location: Raytown, MO

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 9:29 am    Post subject: Re: X-Rule Thoughts


Okay, I will. A few of us are going to try a Middle Earth Fantasy campaign.
We'll try that out in our battles. Btw, Black Raven Foundry have some very
awesome 15mm figs. if you haven't checked them out, you should!

kelly

JonCleaves@... wrote:
In a message dated 3/16/2004 22:18:37 Central Standard Time, cncbump@...
writes:
Taking it one step in another direction, would
it be considered looney to give Charging/pursuing/evading infantry when
facing other infantry a possibility to roll up 40 paces?>>
You tell me. My plate is full, playtest-wise...lol But I'd be interested to
see what people try and what they find out.


[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! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam

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


_________________
Roll down and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Egroup Archives All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group