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 

Theme Rules Playtest
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Warrior Playtest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Rich Pichnarczyk
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 15
Location: New Jersey

PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:39 pm    Post subject: Barb. theme playtest

Scott,
We're planning a playtest of the Barb theme rules. I've a question on #3 "Combat-related" with 3rd & 4th ranks eligible to fight. I'm unsure about what qualifies as "ineligible". The only circumstance to me is a 3rd or 4th rank of bow behind non-bow 1st & 2nd rank firing support in the 2nd and later rounds of combat. I'm sure there must be other instances.

Please help me with the following examples:

Does LMI with IPW or 2HCW fight 1st rank all figs, 2nd rank no figs, 3rd rank 1 fig and 4th rank 1 fig?

Same example but close order 1 element wide x 4 elements deep, does 1st rank fight all figs, 2nd rank no figs, and 3rd and 4th ranks contributing 3 figs total?

Thanks for your patience,
Rich Pichnarczyk

_________________
Rich Pichnarczyk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2102
Location: Buckley, WA

PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:09 pm    Post subject:

This is a longish post. Proceed with due caution.

Here in California, we are getting ready to embark on several months' of playtesting for the proposed irregular foot rules. Our big tournament, at "The Shield" convention, comes up in February. As the person running that tournament, I will be allowing (some) irregular foot rules, and I'm encouraging our local contingent to playtest these rules beforehand.

A few comments and observations, not yet based on any actual playtesting.

First, with all due respect to FHE, I'm not really interested in spendin months playtesting rules that will only be used for one day. So rules specific to Historicon's theme event will not be playtested; instead, we'll focus on rules that Scott has indicated might make their way into general play as list rules. This basically means these four proposed rules:
* +1 for each pair of elements over 8 in a body in HTH if charging,
counter-charging, pursuing or following up
* Only 1 FP per CPF in first round of HTH
* Bodies are eager while any friendly body within [240] [160] [120]
paces can be seen to be in combat but not shaken/broken friends
* Bodies test for seeing routers only if they are of the same
nationality [and not of a lower morale grade]

Of these, the first and the last seem likely to have the greatest impact on game play. The last is hard to speculate about absent actual game situations, but the first does allow a certain level of analysis away from the game table.

Currently these rules are proposed to apply to all irregular foot. That makes sense, to get the widest possible sampling of playtest data. Presumably, at some future point, the scope will be narrowed to specific army lists where irregular foot are both prevalent and have a historical track record of being effective. I'm guessing that, at a minimum, whatever rules FHE settles on will apply to armies like Gauls, Vikings, and Scots Isles and Highlanders (three traditionally popular armies that seldom, if ever, make an appearance in tournament Warrior).

Here are a few questions that have occurred to me; I'll provide the questions, and then some discussion.

* Should these rules apply to E-class troops?
* Should these rules apply to open order troops?
* Should these rules apply to double-armed troops?

First, a philosophical question: why might we need these rules? FHE will, of course, have their own answer (which it would be great if they would actually share with us at some point...). But from my point of view, the need is as follows:

Pre-gunpowder warfare is characterized by two general modes of training. On the one hand, there is what I'd call "formation training". This is the effort to get large groups of soldiers to behave in a cohesive manner: march in step, march in formation, turn in formation, obey commands, etc. On the other hand, there is what I'd call "prowess at arms". This is the effort to develop a high degree of individual proficiency with one or more weapons. One rare occaisions, you find troops who are adept at both: Greek Hoplites, Roman Legionaries, English Longbowmen. Most armies however, are characterized by some ability in either formation training or prowess at arms, but not both.

Getting one miniatures rules system to simulate both formation armies and prowess at arms armies is extremely difficult. Warrior emphasizes formation armies. For the most part, this is not an issue. The problem with prowess at arms, historically, is that it doesn't scale. For a manpower-challenged army like 100 Year's War English, it made sense. But it is rare to see large armies where prowess at arms is broadly featured throughout the army and the army does not also have the regularity we associate with formation armies. Think about it: name a major battle where (a) both sides had at least 25,000 soldiers in the field, and (b) one side featured an irregular army with high prowess at arms common throughout the army.

Since Warrior deals primarily in larger scale battles, the simulation of prowess at arms as the preiminent feature of an army does not really have to be addressed. That can be relegated to a future rules set for smaller scale actions, which Jon has already said is in the works.

There are exceptions, however. There are armies where prowess at arms factors large into the army as a whole, and army sizes often exceed, say, 25,000. These fall into two general categories.

On the one hand, there are armies where a smaller number of high prowess individual fighters is systematically worked into a larger group of less skilled individual fighters to stiffen the army as a whole. Vikings is a good example of such an army, and one that is difficult to accurately simulate. In my opinion, the entire purpose of the "boar's head" formation used by the larger Viking armies (as distinct from small raiding parties) was to cause two armies to collide in a manner explicitly designed to break down formations and reduce melee to a series of individual engagements. When the Vikings did this successfully, they won. When the opponent resisted and stayed in formation, the Vikings invariably lost.

On the other hand, there are armies that are near-aboriginal, where warfare is just an extension of hunting, and where, since every able-bodied man is expected to be a skilled hunter, these same men are reasonably skilled individual warriors. Gauls would be a good example of this kind of army, or Picts.

Now, there's nothing wrong with FHE simply saying "that isn't the focus of our rules system, and therefore we don't simulate that kind of warfare particularly well." But experience has shown us all just how much can be accomplished with list rules, and I think it is fair to assume that the full range of possibilities that list rules can allow was not envisioned by FHE when the early army list books (like Dark Age Warrior) came out. So these books, where irregular foot figure prominently, have some catching up to do in terms of the state of the art in list rules.

Hence our current position, and hence the current opportunity to rethink irregular foot. At least that's my take on it; official FHE views may differ. Now to the questions I posed earlier.

I think about answers to these questions from two points of view:
* How does game balance affect the question?
* How does proper simulation of prowess at arms fighting affect the question?

Should these rules apply to E-class troops?

My hunch is "no". Historically, E-class are the very definition of guys who lack any discernable prowess at arms. And from a game balance point of view, these guys present real problems if endowed with irregular foot rules. Consider: several lists can get LMI E-class with some JLS, and some Sh. At least one medieval German list can also get them with 2HCW. Let's look at the JLS case (the 2HCW case is similar).

12 stands of Irr E LMI with 2 stands JLS,Sh, 2 stands JLS, and 8 stands IPW costs 49 points. With the +2 for extra stands, these guys are pretty tough if you get them into an impetuous charge. Assume they slam into a 2-model unit of P-armed elephant, and roll down 1 (a common outcome, given die roll modifiers for E-class).

The elephants get: 10@3= 25, plus crew of 2@2=4 and 2@3=5. Total: 34.
The Es get other foot vs. el = 1 -1 (facing el pike) -1 (die roll) +2 (JLS) +2 (impetuous) +2 (big unit) = 5. 9@5 = 36. The Es win, and should keep on winning at that point.

Now, there are some big assumptions here. The Es have to get off an impetuous charge, which involves putting your army standard close to harm's way. The charge against the elephants has to be the first eligible charge opportunity for the Es unless you want to prompt them and watch them waver,

But: they only cost 49 points, and if they fail and rout, nobody cares. At a minimum, they'll tie up the elephants for several bounds, which seems like a pretty good use of 49 points.

This seems like too much clout for a bunch of E-class guys to have.

Should these rules apply to open order troops?

The answer here is "I don't know". My first inclination was to say "no", that large blobs of 12-stand LI getting a +2 for size seemed a bit silly. My hesitation has to do with a particular army (though there are probably other similar armies I haven't thought of). The army in question is Irish, and the troop type in question is Kerns.

You see, Kerns can be detachments of Galloglaich. And a 4-stand unit of Galloglaich with an 8-stand Kern detachment makes a lot of sense. It might actually encourage people to use Kerns, and to use them in something like a historical manner. The Kerns sit in front of the Galloglaich until the enemy commits, then evade back behind the Galloglaich and join. If the resulting unit gets the +2 bonus for being a 12-stand unit, then it will be truly ferocious. Note, however, that this is probably historical, and that it is also not trivial to orchestrate. It means that if a skilled Irish player can get his Galloglaich/Kern combo in the right place at the right time, he can be devestatingly effective. Personally, I have no problem with that. This seems both historical and reasonably balanced to me. It isn't going to make any of the Irish armies instant "killer armies", but it is going to make them a lot more playable, and it is going to make them operate with more historical tactics on the table.

One question, though: do we really want guys who are armed with 2HCW and JLS to get an additional +2 as part of a large unit? Which leads us to:

Should these rules apply to double-armed troops?

First, let's define what we mean by double-armed. I consider that to be any troop type that pays 2 points for its hand to hand weapons. So:
* HTW + JLS
* 2HCW + JLS
* 1HCW + JLS
* LTS + JLS
* 2HCT

From a game mechanics perspective, giving these guys an additional +2 for being in a 12-stand unit could really throw things out of whack. I note, for example, that Fujiwara Japanese can set up some very efficient units that are, say, 2 stands of Irr A LEHI 2HCT,B in the front rank, 2 stands of Irr B LEHI 1HCW,B in the second rank, and then 4 ranks of Irr D LMI LTS. More relevant to the pending theme tourney, various armies with Spanish can get two front ranks of high morale HTW, JLS,Sh guys backed by lower morale single-armed guys. A 12-stand unit of such getting an additional +2 for size may be too much.

From a historical perspective I have questions about this approach as well. Here's one way of viewing the evolution of weapons and tactics. Every nationality started out with a short, pointy stick (JLS). Warrior showcases the full range of attempts to do something better with hand to hand weapons. One way to make guys with short, pointy sticks more effective was to put them in a large, impetuous mob. But this approach was abandoned as soon as anything better was found in terms of either weapons, tactics, or training. Thus double-armed troops represent some degree of evolution beyond the "put them in a big mob" way of thinking, and hence should not benefit from the +2 for being in a 12-stand unit.

The problem is that there are certain armies where you probably want troops to be both double-armed and benefiting from large unit size. I'm thinking in particular of the various Dark Age/Feudal/Medieval Scots and Irish armies.

With Scots Isles and Highlands, for example, Islemen can only be single-armed, but Galwegians can be double-armed. If the Islemen get the +2 for being in 12-stand units, it is hard to see why the Galwegians would not. There aren't substantial tactical differences in the way the two fought, they just happened to have somewhat different armament.

The problem is even worse on the Irish lists. Bonnachts can be single-armed with shield, or double-armed (2HCW+JLS) with no shield. Do we want to say they get the +2 if single-armed, but not if double-armed? Probably not; that seems arbitrary. And Bonnachts are a perfect example of guys who showed up to battle in large mobs; they should be encouraged to fight in greater than 8-stand units to get historical tactics out of them on the table.

Lurking in the background here is a question I've always had about Warrior. Somewhere in one of WRG army list books (I think it's the "grey book"), Phil Barker says in the notes that the 2HCW+JLS combo does not represent two weapons, but is an attempt to represent the size and power of the Scottish claymore. So it is in some ways similar to 2HCT, just giving the wielder an added plus instead of giving the opponent an added minus. What I don't know is whether FHE shares this view of why Scottish (and some other) troops are double-armed, or whether FHE believes that some Scots carried both a sword and a javelin.

Anyway, it seems to me that if any double-armed troops get the large unit plus, then it is hard to see why there should be a general prohibition on other double-armed troops getting the larg unit plus. I suspect this is a matter that playtesting will have to resolve.

One final note: when these irregular foot rules are narrowed down to be list rules that apply only to particular lists, I'd like to make a personal plea for Northern Barbarians from Oriental Warrior to be included. As I have read further into Oriental history, I'm realizing that it is only our western-centric point of view that prevents us from seeing these guys as the ferocious barbarians over the border that we normally associate with Gauls, Galatians, Goths and the like. From the point of view of the early Chinese dynasties (Shang, Zhou, Qin) these guys were just as feared.

It would be a substantial expense and a substanial investment in painting time to augment my Chinese figures so that I could play this army, but I think I'd make that investment if they benefited from the irregular foot rules.

That's all for now.


-Mark Stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
jamiepwhite
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 213
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:03 pm    Post subject: Rephrasing the play test rules?

Hi,

Would restating the playtest rules like this be any better?

* +1 for each pair of elements over 8 in a body in HTH if charging,
counter-charging, pursuing or following up provided the elements are armed with melee weapons and are not E class. Dismounted troops may qualify if sufficient foot elements exist.

* Only 1 FP per CPF in first round of HTH Change to
* Only 1 FP per CPF while the unit is fresh (1 to 5), CPF on tired or past 5 CPF are doubled for fatigue points.

For the first rule, large LI JLS units would get the bonus but not LI B which seems reasonable, similarly ID LMI B would not get it but ID MI LTS B Sh would get the bonus. Mixed chinese foot units of half LTS and half B would not qualify either. But, most if not all of the Viking, Irish, and other fun foot armies would qualify for the bonus. I put the last sentence in there to cover dismounting Japanese and any knight units running around 12 element units. 12 IC SHI 2HCW?

The second rule the intent is to make fresh irregular units durable, but after crossing the threshold to go back to being fragile. This matters for regular vs. irregular foot battles, an extreme example would be viking berserkers with two side arms charging late roman legionarries, a unit taking 10 CPF or more in one bound should be doubling some of the CPF.

Thanks

Jamie White
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6032
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:28 pm    Post subject: Re: Barb. theme playtest

Rich Pichnarczyk wrote:

Does LMI Ir D or better with IPW or 2HCW fight 1st rank all figs, 2nd rank no figs, 3rd rank 1 fig and 4th rank 1 fig?


By that we mean where the element is in relation to the opponent. Thus, if it qualifies as an overlap element, or if it's directly behind an element eligible to fight. And you are correct in theexample you've shown. And yes, it doesn't make sense and is a good catch.

Rich Pichnarczyk wrote:

Same example but close order 1 element wide x 4 elements deep, does 1st rank fight all figs, 2nd rank no figs, and 3rd and 4th ranks contributing 3 figs total?


Correct.

scott

_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6032
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:43 pm    Post subject:

Mark:

Cherry pick the Barbarian rules as you see fit. I'm sorry you don't feel the need to support a "one day" event, I kinda understand but I also feel that the rules pertaining to that might, if playtested, reveal themselves to be better than how we percieve them going into this exercise. That's always the kicker in this, what we think on paper might work best, usually doesn't!

Many of your points are well taken. At present, because of the desire to see how these will impact the game, I hesitate to even give a hint as to what kind of restrictions might be imposed in the long run, be they limits on which Irr troops get them (class, type, morale grade or even list-by-list) or whether or not they're limited to certain weapons (or just single-armed guys).

Jamie:

Your wording is great, *if* we determine those types of restrictions are warranted. In the meantime, everybody should play with as many of the test rules as they are written--they're broader than they should be but that way, we'll get more worst case outcomes which will make determining final restrictions easier. Better to start broad, then whittle down, then put y'all thru something that has minimal impact and doesn't really tell us much.

I'm keeping a close eye on all the comments posted here and appreciate the fact that folks are willing to go thru a certain amount of game goofiness in working thru these. It'll make Warrior a better product in the long run.


scott

_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
chrisbump
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 62

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 7:10 pm    Post subject:

played last night and had a few observations.

1. Bodies do not test for seeing a general in line of command killed; rather, they are eager in the subsequent round of HTH combat [does not apply if general is only routed or wounded and carried off the field].

We thought that this should be a possibility as opposed to an absolute. Certainly not every unit would react this way to seeing their general killed. So we are thinking that when taking a waiver test for this event, if the unit rolls a 1 then this rule will kick in. Will report back on how that works.

2. 3rd and 4th ranks of troops eligible to fight count 1/3 figures if charging, counter-charging, pursuing or following up.

This rule was used by a body of 4 elements of Varangians attacking in a 1x4 column. So the unit hit 7@8 and that seemed to work nicely. We wondered if this ought to be only offered to units of a minimum size to reduce the possibilty of unrealistic assault columns and reserved for large warbands. Will leave that to the designers.

3. Counter-charge vs. enemy foot may be impetuous.

We thought that this offered too much flexibility to the Irregular foot and so we played requiring those units that wanted to counter charge impetuously had to pass a waiver test. if they failed they could still counter charge, just not impetuously. This was decided upon because the rule as written allows Irr D to go impetuous without having to pass a waiver for being prompted to charge. We thought that too liberal for Irr D's and thought that the likelihood of irr's being able to counter charge impetuously would be more likely based on their morale caliber.

We assumed that in order to counter charge impetuously, all requirements for charging impetuously had to be in place. is that your intention? Or can all irr units eligible to counter charge do so impetuously?

4. Bodies test for seeing routers only if they are of the same nationality [and not of a lower morale grade].

This one worked as designed, but we wondered why Irr's were any more exempt than regulars. So we've decided to just add a +1 to the waiver test of units of higher morale when they test for seeing units of lower morale rout. Our method essentially ensures that A's and B's will not fail for seeing lower morale units rout, but also does not let C's off the hook for seeing D's run.

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


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 7:13 pm    Post subject:

Note to Scott so i don't forget -

I think in the case of #2, we ought to have an 8E minimum for this to take effect.

_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6032
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:34 pm    Post subject:

We assumed that in order to counter charge impetuously, all requirements for charging impetuously had to be in place. is that your intention? Or can all irr units eligible to counter charge do so impetuously?

The former is correct.

scott

_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2102
Location: Buckley, WA

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:45 pm    Post subject:

I think we're going to need some clarification on "same nationality". It isn't always clear from the troop type name what counts as same or different nationality. It isn't a bad idea to associate nationality with the nationality of the general in whose command a unit is, because ally general typically denotes a different nationality. Sometimes, however, ally generals represent fractious divisions within the same nationality (War of the Roses English comes to mind).

Anyway, it would really help to have some clarification here.


-Mark Stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
Tim Grimmett
Legionary
Legionary


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 406
Location: Northern Virginia

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:51 pm    Post subject: Am I missing something?

The barbarian rules Scott Holder state:

3) 3rd and 4th ranks of troops eligible to fight count 1/3 figures if charging, counter-charging, pursuing or following up

Mark Stone's example of J-armed E troops does not apply since the back rank (and hence the 3rd and 4th rank) is NOT eligible to fight.

Hence, my question about Vikings.

Imagine a 4-E unit of berserkers--1E 2hcw, 3 E 2sa. Now that will hit--shielded for the first bound I might add--3@2HCW factors, and 8@ other infantry factors, because the list rule states beserkers armed with non-J get rank and 1/2.

Scott, if I've missed something please chime in. I'm wavering between Gauls and Vikings for our next area tournament.

Tim

_________________
Tim
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message [ Hidden ]
chrisbump
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 62

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:03 pm    Post subject:

We assumed that in order to counter charge impetuously, all requirements for charging impetuously had to be in place. is that your intention? Or can all irr units eligible to counter charge do so impetuously?

The former is correct.

scott

I understand what the words mean and apologize for being redundant, but just so we are sure that there was no confusion or brain fart as you were typing because you had not had your morning caffine yet....

You are saying that in order for an Irr body to counter charge impetuously , all of the required conditions for charging impetuously have to be in place.
Am I understanding you correctly?
Thanks,
Chris
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Tim Grimmett
Legionary
Legionary


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 406
Location: Northern Virginia

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 12:26 am    Post subject:

Maybe Chris, like me, is busy looking at army's with either chariots or the IA foot required to never be uneasy----or both.
_________________
Tim
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message [ Hidden ]
Tim Grimmett
Legionary
Legionary


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 406
Location: Northern Virginia

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 12:37 am    Post subject: Another note to Mark and question for Jon

6.164 states "E" class troops are incapable of declaring impetous charges

Which leads to the next question, and I think it is relevant as there are lists with A/E mix (Crusader pilgrims?):

Can a mixed A/E unit declare an impetuous charge? Me thinks yes.

If it can, do the Es get the +2 for impetuous charging? Me thinks not.

Tim

_________________
Tim
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message [ Hidden ]
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6032
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:51 pm    Post subject:

Tim: This is technically a plain ole rules question since there are a couple of instances where you can have Irr A/E troops in the same body. Therefore, I'll defer to Jon on this one.

scott

_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2102
Location: Buckley, WA

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:35 pm    Post subject: Re: Am I missing something?

Tim Grimmett wrote:
The barbarian rules Scott Holder state:

Mark Stone's example of J-armed E troops does not apply since the back rank (and hence the 3rd and 4th rank) is NOT eligible to fight.

Tim


My example never referenced additional ranks fighting. That is a prospective rule applicable only to the theme tournament, and therefore not one I've examined. My example was based on "2) +1 for each pair of elements over 8 in a body in HTH if charging, counter-charging, pursuing or following up." No mention of eligibilty to fight is made in this rule.


-Mark Stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Warrior Playtest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
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