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: Sun Dec 10, 2006 5:40 am    Post subject: Playtest report (very long)

First, thank you to the powers that be for considering more list rules for Dark Age armies. Our group has played some of these armies for a few years now and they are great fun in period (and mostly cannon fodder out of period).

I play-tested the Barbarian foot theme rules with Dennis of OMM. We played 15mm & 1600 pts on a 6ft x 4 ft table. I played Vikings and Dennis played Early Saxons with a Welsh ally. This was the first time (I believe) that Dennis played Early Saxons. It was certainly the first time I played against them.

We’ve enjoyed Dark Age armies many times in the past and find they make great games in period. The armies we’ve played (Viking, Anglo-Dane, Norman, Later Frank) have always fought battles that come to a bloody and definite conclusion. No 1-0 battles ever.

I attached my Viking Army list as an Excel spreadsheet for those interested (comments are welcome). I organized the army into as many 12 element combat units as practical in a 3 element wide by 4 element deep block. I also tried to use as many 2HCW as possible because I expected to face HI/LHI and/or HC. I also tried to use 2 ranks of LHI or HI as often as practical because I expected to be fighting disordered a lot. I used only one general and combined it into a Hirdsmen unit of 10 LHI (2HCW) with an attached detachment of berserks (2 HCW only) in the last rank of the unit(easily detachable). I had another Hirdsmen unit with 6 LHI and 4 LMI (2 HCW) and rear attached berserks. My 3rd berserk unit was similarly attached to a Warrior unit 3 LHI (2HCW), 6 LMI (JLS), 1 LMI (2HCW). I like attaching berserks because I have so few prompting points available.

I also had bow armed Hirdsmen 6 elements (2HCW, B) with 3 HI (2HCW only) in the front rank and 3 MI (2HCW) in the rear. I had another HI/MI 12 element block of Warriors and 12 elements of LMI (JLS, B). Finally I had 10 elements of LI (JLS) and 5 elements of LMI Ir A Gall Gael.

In summery, 5x12 element attacking blocks with 1x12 element Bow-armed skirmishable block as my attack force.

Dennis had 5xHI/MI 12 element blocks with many double-armed HTW & JLS. He also had the Welsh ally with a 12 element LMI (JLS) unit and 3x2 element HC (JLS). In addition there were 2x12 elements of LMI Ir E units and 1x 10 element LI (JLS). Dennis used 3 Saxon generals and the Welsh general.

The battle was very bloody as expected. Following are my comments regarding the theme rules pertaining to our play test.

Movement

Irr Loose march 3 segments: This did not occur during the game. Dennis had wait order on his troops and had flank marched a close order block. The Vikings had to set up first (less scouting pts. plus only one general) so I put my general’s unit in the center with close order units on either side then loose order next to them. In this battle I wanted to keep my troops adjacent to each other with <120 paces between the blocks. It did seriously tempt me to flank march the Gall Gael (but I did not). This rule will make loose order flank marches much more viable especially in 15mm.

Loose/Open force march for only 1 FP: The Vikings force marched the LI unit and Dennis force marched his Welsh LMI, both LMI Ir E and his LI units. I would have force-marched my unit without the rule. It made no difference in our game. I think the rule makes sense for open order and I don’t see the justification for loose order. Question: How does this rule affect close or loose order arriving early or late from a flank march?

Combat Related:

Counter charge v. enemy foot may be impetuous: This did not occur in our game. We discussed this before the game. It was stated earlier in the thread that the conditions for the impetuous charge must exist for the counter charge to occur. We interpreted that a close order unit could not impetuously countercharge a loose order unit beginning its charge from over 80 paces away. This needs further clarification. This is VERY powerful against any army with regular foot. Fewer generals are required to prompt units to charge. Probe orders would now be viable with irregular commands.

+1 for each pair of elements…: This is VERY, VERY powerful and is why both Dennis and I set up 12 element units. My loose order units with 2HCW charging impetuously are at a “more” factor before the dice roll. Axe men and double armed JLS/HTW are more concerned about rolling down than rolling up. That’s one reason I used so many “B” morale troops and Dennis used so many generals. The applicability to “following up” (especially when combined with the 3rd & 4th ranks eligible) means that if you lose the initial combat your unit WILL BE SLAUGHTERED in the 2nd round of combat. No unit survived to pursuit combat in our battle.

I believe this needs to be scaled back. I would apply this to ALL (regular and irregular) STEADY loose and close order (NOT OPEN ORDER) troops, charging or countercharging (NOT FOLLOWING UP). I did not like the look or feel of this rule when the units were 6 or 5 el wide x 2 deep. I think that more depth in the unit ought to be required. It somehow looks better to me. Finally I’d just make it a +1 max for 12 elements.

Question: Should “D” and/or “E” troops be allowed to contribute for the bonus?

3rd and 4th ranks…: Too many weird things happened within formations with this. It's VERY, VERY powerful. This is why I used so many 2HCW in the 3rd and 4th ranks including berserks. When combined with the element pair rule the Viking C-in-C unit would do 240 casualties even when rolling down 1 (20 @ more) and 235 when down 2 (18 @more & 2 @ 9).
Think hard whether you even want this at all but it certainly encourages depth in formations.[/u]

Only 1 FP per CPF in the 1st round: After playing many Dark Ages games, victorious units with 2HCW in the front rank would generally be exhausted after defeating an opponent in the 2nd round of combat. With this rule they survive to the next combat with a few CPF left. I liked the effects of this rule.

Morale

Bodies are eager while any friends are in combat…: We chose to use the 120 pace distance. The Vikings used this on at least two occasions. It certainly helped a C morale unit go impetuous in the main battle line and was important in a loose order Hirdsmen unit impetuously charging and routing a Welsh HC unit. It’s another powerful morale advantage for Barbarians to charge impetuously.

Bodies test for seeing routers only if they are the same nationality…: Did not occur that I recall for the Saxons or Welsh. I believe this also needs further clarification. Is this only applicable for Allied commands or any foreign units in an army? If this is implemented I think the former rather than the latter.

General killed in combat…: This did not happen in our battle. It happens so rarely in any battle that I feel it has minimal impact on the game.

I hope this helps in making your decisions on the effects of the various rule changes. I look forward to answers and/or clarifications to my questions. I've enjoyed the debate so far.

Rich
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: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:25 pm    Post subject:

Rich: Thanks, and I do mean thanks, for the detailed playtesting report. Now to answer (or not) your questions:

Loose/Open force march for only 1 FP: The Vikings force marched the LI unit and Dennis force marched his Welsh LMI, both LMI Ir E and his LI units. I would have force-marched my unit without the rule. It made no difference in our game. I think the rule makes sense for open order and I don’t see the justification for loose order. Question: How does this rule affect close or loose order arriving early or late from a flank march?

Currently, it doesn't. Play the rules at they are stated, thus, if a flank marcher arrives early or late, it takes FP as per the rules regardless of it's order.

Counter charge v. enemy foot may be impetuous: This did not occur in our game. We discussed this before the game. It was stated earlier in the thread that the conditions for the impetuous charge must exist for the counter charge to occur. We interpreted that a close order unit could not impetuously countercharge a loose order unit beginning its charge from over 80 paces away. This needs further clarification. This is VERY powerful against any army with regular foot. Fewer generals are required to prompt units to charge. Probe orders would now be viable with irregular commands.

You interpreted that correctly. Again, I'm not passing judgement on these but your comments are noted and will weigh into any final determinations on this.

I believe this needs to be scaled back. I would apply this to ALL (regular and irregular) STEADY loose and close order (NOT OPEN ORDER) troops, charging or countercharging (NOT FOLLOWING UP). I did not like the look or feel of this rule when the units were 6 or 5 el wide x 2 deep. I think that more depth in the unit ought to be required. It somehow looks better to me. Finally I’d just make it a +1 max for 12 elements.

For now, go with it as written. The steady aspect is an important distinction and I'm glad you brought it up. Same with following up. These might be mechanics that result in something too many deltas (or is that sigmas) out of what we're trying to do.

Question: Should “D” and/or “E” troops be allowed to contribute for the bonus?

Currently, if the list allows for such mixing, yes. Others have brought up the idea of morale dependency on this and right now, I don't think we've got enough playtest data and follow-up commentary to make any judgement.

Bodies test for seeing routers only if they are the same nationality…: Did not occur that I recall for the Saxons or Welsh. I believe this also needs further clarification. Is this only applicable for Allied commands or any foreign units in an army? If this is implemented I think the former rather than the latter.

Yeah, as this one currently stands, it would be the former.

scott

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


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

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 6:46 pm    Post subject:

Quote:
Counter charge v. enemy foot may be impetuous: This did not occur in our game. We discussed this before the game. It was stated earlier in the thread that the conditions for the impetuous charge must exist for the counter charge to occur. We interpreted that a close order unit could not impetuously countercharge a loose order unit beginning its charge from over 80 paces away. This needs further clarification. This is VERY powerful against any army with regular foot. Fewer generals are required to prompt units to charge. Probe orders would now be viable with irregular commands.

Quote:
You interpreted that correctly. Again, I'm not passing judgement on these but your comments are noted and will weigh into any final determinations on this.


Scott--

This is not how I read the initial Barbarian rules. I thought the "conditions' referred to in the clarifying post meant if the unit could be impetuous or not--causes of unease impacting this determination mainly--not the distances involved. Example, SHC can countercharge --granted not impetuously--a KN unit that starts outside its charge range.

So to summarize--the countercharging unit must meet be in charge reach of its opponents and meet the conditions that would allow him to be impetuous.

Tim[/quote]

_________________
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: Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:08 pm    Post subject:

Tim: I'm wrong, you are right. Sorry bout that.

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: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:30 pm    Post subject:

I did some limited playtesting of the Barbarian foot rules last night: my Shang Chinese vs. Rich Gagliasso's Middle Imperial Romans. Only one rule really factored in, though I spent some time thinking about another in deciding my deployment.

What mattered: my Northern Barbarian ally general ended up in h-t-h combat with some legions, charging impetuously and then taking 2 CPF in combat. Not having this doubled to 4 mattered, as it meant I came out of the first bound of combat without being tired, and came out of the second bound of combat without being exhausted. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it did have an impact on the battle as I was able to barely hold the line in the one place where Rich had a chance to punch through, buying time for me to collapse his flank elsewhere.

I also spent some time thinking about the waver test rule. On this version of Shang I have 1 12-stand block of Irr D MI B. I gave serious consideration to deploying my ally general's command behind this unit, since the allied troops wouldn't test for it routing. My thinking was that at 73 points it is fairly expendable, but also not easy to take out, and that having some ferocious 2HCW,JLS guys waiting in the wings who wouldn't test for the routing unit could be a useful combination.

In the end I didn't deploy that way -- terrain placement dictated a different approach with my limited loose order troops -- but it did strike me as an interesting tactic, putting a bunch of low morale but fairly tough to kill guys of one nationality near strike troops of a different nationality so that the strike troops don't have to waver. Again, not sure if this is the intended effect of this rule, but it is an aspect to consider.


-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: Sun Dec 17, 2006 2:47 pm    Post subject: Another playtesting report

Hi,

This week at Derek's garage we tried Burmese against Burgundian Ordnance. Joe, Steve, Derek and I were there and we tried Burmese because Joe has the army and was hoping that it would be a decent army in a game. Derek, Steve, and I were pessimistic that the current list would produce a decent army on the table but we gave it a try. This is not meanst as a slam at the current list, rather that the list seems very much in line with current historical knowledge but it's difficult to make a competitive army from it.

The playtest rules we used were +2 for 12 element units of barbarian foot, irregular LMI marches on 3 instead of two, and not doubling the fatigue for the first bound in hand to hand. The Burgundian army had not irregular foot and the Burmese army was as follows:

CinC and an elelphant
3 2 model elephant units
4 12 element units of ID (1 IC) LMI JLS Sh
8 element unit ID LMI B
2 4 element units of ID LI B
2 2 element units of RB LMI JLS Sh
2 Sub generals, 1/2 HC, 1/2 MC
1 2 element MC unit
1 4 element unit LC
1 2 element unit RB LMI CB 1HCW Sh

Joe and I lined up the elephants and javelinman in large line and went straight at the Burgundians. Initially, the wave had great success, the javelinmen even beating one mixed knight/HC unit that charged too close to an elephant, got disordered, and then was crushed. So the +2 for 12 element units worked as everyone expected and I think everyone was happy with that part. Just need to define more clearly which troop types will be eligible for the bonus. Soon however, the elephants and javelinmen were rallying from their charges though and the expected happened. The large bands of javelinmen had to take waver tests, they failed them (shot by hand guns, charged in the open, charged when shaken, etc.), and routed off the table. The elephants failed soon after, either failing waver tests or being shot into next week as javelinmen escorting them had left.

+2 rule - worked fine, needs refinement on which troops are eligible for this bonus
irrregular LMI marches on 3 - ok, nice rule
fatigues not doubled on first bound - Needs more tinkering, we lost all our javelinmen to waver tests basically. If the unit routs due to being charged while shaken, that is the first bound of combat but the fatigues aren't doubled?

Thanks,

Jamie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 5:51 pm    Post subject: specific analysis: theme rule of 3rd and 4th ranks eligible

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

a) It benefits a narrow column of only 4 elements of barbarian troops, as earlier mentioned, contrary to how we are trying to depict "Barbarian" foot.

In conjunction with the +1 for each pair of elements over 8 this extra figures fighting rule, while encouraging deep masses of foot, has some problems.

Testing fights using a unit of 36 Irr D or C(perhaps 1 element of higher morale) LMI JLS,Sh at 97 to 139 points, 3 elements wide and 4 deep.

This unit charges impetuously against certain targets.
i) 32 Reg C MI P,Sh 4 wide 2 deep that have to stand to receive
The Barbarians have 20 figures fighting at a factor of 7 after the application of both special rules for a no dice result of 120 casualties while the pike have 24 at a factor of 3 for 60 casualties. Thus the pike block starts out routing in this circumstance. I don't believe this is a desirable result.

ii) 32 Reg C MI P,Sh 2 wide 4 deep that got close enough to charge
The barbarians have 13 figures fighting at a factor of 7 for 78 casualties while the pike have 24 at 4 for 72 casualties. The pike are disordered while the Barbarians are neither disordered nor tired given size and the only 1 FP per CPF 1st round rule (barring bad die rolls for the Barbs.) Round 2 the Barbarians recoil the pike. Round 3 they rout the pike. Also not a desirable result as the 'average' case before die rolls.

Under what circumstances were the main line of Macedonian infantry routinely routed by unarmored javelin armed irregulars frontally?

iii) 16 Reg C HI HTW,Sh (romans) 2 wide 2 deep charge or counter-charge
The barbarians have 13 figures at a factor of 8 for 98 casualties while the Romans have 12 at 6 for 60. Romans recoil tired and disordered while the barbarians follow-up neither tired nor disordered. Round 2, unless the Romans have another unit to contribute (which in general, they will not, given figure cost, density, frontage coverage, and the ability of barbarians to move through terrain or skirmish and evade the slower Romans where such have local superiority), the poor Roman infantry rout.

Thus the pride of Rome is in the main driven from the table by troops they normally defeated in straight up combat. Also an undesirable result.

Now modify the above Barbarian unit by using one of Spanish foot with HTW in addition to JLS...36 more points expensive, yes, but such a unit of awesome might routs pike and legion at contact nearly every time!

I would suggest that the potential rule #3 be highly modified or dropped entirely.

One modification could be that the extra troops from ranks 3 and 4 only fight with "other" foot factor and not using a JLS plus or HTW. A quick look at the numbers, however, suggests that this is not quite enough to prevent most of the above troubling results.

If this rule makes it through to the theme substantially unchanged, I would recommend no one play any legions or pike.

The goal should be to give the barbarians a better chance, allow them a little staying power and ability to extend good fortune (a + die roll) into victory, not routinely rout troops who cost as much or more than they and who historically performed well against them.
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 20, 2006 1:22 pm    Post subject:

Frank, as always, thanks for the analysis. You too Mark.

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: Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:28 pm    Post subject:

Will these Barbarian foot rules, or some variant of them, be in effect for Cold Wars? If so, the sooner we know the better, since this will have a major impact on both choice of armies and choice of tactics.


-Mark Stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


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

PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:48 pm    Post subject:

Some variant will be in effect. I'll have something out in mid-January which will be a refinement based on the playtesting reports.

Yes, things could be a little chaotic on the player's side but I ask everybody's patience on that. It'll help us 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
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


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

PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 2:24 am    Post subject:

Alex and I had a chance for another playtest game over the holidays. Irregular foot didn't factor into this one in a big way, but the places where they did factor in were interesting.

We played Mongols vs. Later Crusaders. This turns out to be quite a good matchup. First of all, it is within the realm of what I call "hypothetical historical": there is some plausible sequence of historical alternatives that could have caused these two armies to meet. Second, Mongols bear some reasonable resemblance to actual opponents that the Later Crusaders faced.

Here's where the proposed irregular foot rules factor in. The dilemma in constructing a Later Crusaders list is what to do with the required close order foot. Generally I take them as follows:
    * one unit of 6 stands Irr D MI CB, parked behind a ditch
    * three units of 2 stands Reg C HI LTS,Sh


The CB unit serves to anchor a delaying flank for at least a few bounds, and at 49 points it is expendable. The LTS units work in concert with the knights, threatening flanks and overlaps of units the knights charge into.

With the irregular foot rules, I reconfigured this into one big 12 stand unit of 6 stands Irr C HI LTS,Sh and 6 stands Irr D MI CB. It spent most of the game in a 4 stand wide, 3 rank deep formation thus:
    * front rank HI LTS,Sh
    * second rank 2 stands of HI LTS,Sh on the end, and 2 stands of MI CB in the middle
    * third rank MI CB


In that formation, none of the Mongol cavalry really wants to deal with this unit frontally, and with the irregular foot rules in play none of the Mongol foot or dismounted Mongol cavalry wants to deal with it either.

I have to say, this struck me as odd. Historically, these foot troops were sturdy against enemy missile fire and while not helpless in hand to hand, they were rather brittle. Yet here they were, strolling around the battlefield against reasonably historical opponents, absolutely fearless. I used them to lead the attack, with some knights casually following along behind.

Now, these guys still suffered from the usual close order foot problem of being too slow to force a hand to hand confrontation. But they did create a path the Mongols had no choice but to fall back from. There was a point where, absent the irregular foot rules, the Mongols would simply have dismounted a cav unit and taken their chances in a fairly even engagement. Under these circumstances, though, that just wasn't an option.

This is a case where I felt the Later Crusaders got reasonable historical performance out of these foot troops before the proposed irregular foot rules. With the irregular foot rules the army definitely felt skewed from its historical performance. Having a dis-incentive to upgrade to regular seemed odd, and having the most dangerous unit in the army become the irregular close order foot also seemed odd, particularly in a fairly historical matchup.

Food for thought.


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


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

PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 11:19 pm    Post subject:

Since Scott is contemplating an update to the irregular foot rules some time this month, I thought I'd summarize my reflections on the rules based on a bit of play testing and analysis. I'll also note that we'll get in a bigger boost to play testing here on the West Coast when we run The Shield convention in a few weeks.

1. Overall, these rules seem like a good thing. I know that JLS-armed infantry is and should be the lowliest form a shock troop, but when we fail to see any of the standard barbarian armies in tournament play, things have gotten a little out of balance. Warrior needs room for the "warband" effect, and these rules can do that.

2. There is a distinction between foot who are irregular simply because they are unprofessional and disorganized, and foot who are irregular because they prefer single combat to formation combat. I'd argue these rules should not apply to irregulars clearly in the former category:
* Irr E troops should not get the benefits of these rules;
* Many irregulars whose irregularity simply indicates a lack of skill and/or training should not get the benefits of these rules. It felt really odd having the Later Crusader foot sergeants acquire sudden power through these rules; that just seemed wrong. On the other hand, the 1st Crusade foot seems to finally get proper representation with these rules. Obviously there's a judgment call to be made here, but somehow this distinction has to be made, and these rules applied only to some irregular foot. In my opinion.

3. I don't think it makes sense to give missile-armed troops the benefit of these rules. Some care has to be applied in defining missile-armed troops, however. I would make the restriction something like this:
* a body composed entirely of troops armed with a missile weapon other than JLS, and no hand to hand weapon other than side arm, does not receive the benefits of the irregular foot rules.

This means that JLS,B,Sh troops (which can show up on some of the Scots lists), or dart-armed Galloglaich, or the JLS,S,Sh Later Moorish, could still benefit from these rules (which seems appropriate), as could mixed units that included some missile troops, such as Rus with a rear rank of bow. That also seems appropriate, and indeed might encourage people to use Rus in historical formations. Previously, the rear rank bow were, on balance, a waste of points.

4. Some clarification is needed regarding what it means to be of a higher or lower morale class than another body. I can picture a unit of Irr B Galwegians watching some Irr A/C Galwegians rout in front of them, and the argument being made that what the Bs see routing is Cs, and so do not test. Anyway, a little extra clarity here would help.

5. Some clarification is also needed regarding who is of the same and who is of a different nationality. I think it makes sense to say all bodies in the same command are treated as of the same nationality. Even if some foreigners are in such a command, they report to the same general, which would seem to put them in a different class from foreigners reporting to their own ally general. Then there's the added problem that not all ally generals signify a difference in nationality. So some clarification is in order.

Anyway, hope this helps, Scott. I'm looking forward to the next iteration of these rules.


-Mark Stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


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

PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:37 pm    Post subject:

Quote:
3. I don't think it makes sense to give missile-armed troops the benefit of these rules. Some care has to be applied in defining missile-armed troops, however. I would make the restriction something like this:
* a body composed entirely of troops armed with a missile weapon other than JLS, and no hand to hand weapon other than side arm, does not receive the benefits of the irregular foot rules.

This means that JLS,B,Sh troops (which can show up on some of the Scots lists), or dart-armed Galloglaich, or the JLS,S,Sh Later Moorish, could still benefit from these rules (which seems appropriate), as could mixed units that included some missile troops, such as Rus with a rear rank of bow. That also seems appropriate, and indeed might encourage people to use Rus in historical formations. Previously, the rear rank bow were, on balance, a waste of points.


Mark, in your view then, how does this blend in with your earlier analysis on double-armed troops not getting the bonus? For example, the Spanish Celtiberians? Playtesting reports here and sent to me directly make it clear that giving the +2 for a 12E unit of Spanish is well, not advisable. Smile

scott

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


Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 86

PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 10:01 pm    Post subject:

I think it should be restricted to troops that are only armed with JLS. Any foot that hit at a more factor before the dice are rolled would, in my view, be game unbalancing.
Steve Rawls
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
jamiepwhite
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 213
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:37 pm    Post subject: Tying bonus to morale grade and size

Capping the bonus by morale grade might be helpful too.

A or B troops can get the full +2
C troops can get +1
D or E troops get 0

Mixed units could either go by the individual element or the morale grade of the worse element in the unit. The latter would be to prevent min maxing with a unit of 11 ID elements and 1 IA unit.

Thanks,

Jamie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
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 3 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