Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[scott holder]

The following is the current draft of shieldwall. In a follow-up to this post, I'll discuss some of the items that remain potentially iffy, mainly the concept of letting loose order troops adopt the formation.


SHIELDWALL

The following applies to troops in Lists X-X not armed with HTW or LTS and generals’ elements incorporated into a unit with such troops:

Shieldwall has the same characteristics as a block and must be marked or made obvious to the opponent in some way. Shieldwall must be entered using a maneuver (Change of Formation, 6.12). Shieldwall must be left using a maneuver (Change of Formation, 6.12) except in the following circumstances:

· When a unit breaks.
· When a unit begins rallying.

When any of these circumstances occurs, the unit involuntarily leaves Shieldwall and reverts to a block of the same dimensions as it was when in Shieldwall and then breaks or rallies depending on the circumstances.

Shieldwall cannot be formed if any portion of the unit is in Difficult or Impassible terrain.

Movement in Shieldwall:·
A unit can change its frontage by up to two (2) elements when entering but not leaving Shieldwall.

Units in Shieldwall may:
1) Make a tactical move no greater than 40p which can include a wheel but NOT droop back elements to pass a gap or revert to a block (Basic Tactical Move, 6.111)
2) Charge non-impetuously or countercharge no greater than 40p; they do not roll for variable distance when charging.

Units in Shieldwall may not:
Pursue.

Morale in Shieldwall:·

Loose order troops in Shieldwall do not take a waver test for being charged by mounted if BOTH of the following apply:
1) They are steady.
2) The charge contacts them frontally.

Combat in Shieldwall:
1) Bodies firing at units in Shieldwall suffer a -1 Shooting Tactical Factor (8.93) unless artillery or handguns or shooting at a shieldless part of the body.
2) Units not armed with HTW and fighting against a body in Shieldwall suffer a -1 on their HTH factors if fighting to the body’s front.
3) Units in Shieldwall that normally count shieldless in HTH (for example 2HCW) are always considered shielded while in the formation if fighting to the unit’s front.
4) Units in Shieldwall do NOT get the 3rd/4th rank benefits if using Barbarian Foot Rules.
5) Units in Shieldwall do NOT get any List Rule 1.5 rank fighting capability.
6) Units in Shieldwall can NOT shoot with any weapons from the 1st or 2nd ranks.

[scott holder]

The main thing I want to discuss is the inclusion of loose order foot in the draft shieldwall rule. It's very clear to me now that armies whose infantry component is classified as loose order formed shieldwall (with all the usual caveats, being the open, etc).

Now, one way to approach this would be to include a close order foot option for such loose order foot armies. I'm loathe to do this because it just grates on me as a historian and it potentially gives the army a totally different flavor that what we're trying to model.

Thus, if we keep loose order foot as loose order foot but give it the shieldwall option, does that really screw things up? As Jon has pointed out to me:

[Tibor]

I think any difference to close order needs to be kept simple.

Eg - all rules apply as written but that loose order (because they are naturally further apeart and harder to form up into the tighter formation) are disordered until the end of the bound they began the formation and likewise are disordered on leaving it.

THis provides a time delay that simulates the different troop order and provides a deterrrent effect that prevents 'casual' use and changing the army flavour - shieldwall becomes a crucial response to a significant threat rather than a new tactic that the army might be able to use to effect.

Anyway - my 2 cents worth?!?>!?

Tibor

[scott holder]

Thanks for the input. A very interesting approach to the issue. Getting into the formation could be hard. Getting out? Hmmmmmm.

scott

[John Murphy]

okay, despite all the agony that has gone into the generation of this rule, I just have to throw my 2 cents into this one...

let me say first that hey wahtever you think works you have undoubtedly looked at far more closely and would probably know better than me, so take all the following, including my occasional hyperbole, with a grain of salt... but...

i see two better options to handle this, if indeed handling is needed, in my opinion of course...
a) just let the types X-X be bought as close order, maybe on a battle-by-battle basis to handle oddities of one-list tournies if you like though I think that may be unnecessary
b) if you must have the rule as stated then at least, please, pleeeeaze, make the suckers count it as an entire dang approach move to go into or out of shieldwall, not just a normal formation/facing change.

here is the basis for my statement, such as it is...

if granted armies with loose foot sometimes formed "shieldwall" (and we are talking about hairy barbarians here, not Prussians) then is that not somewhat by definition just "close order" with shields?

1) foot counting shielded to shooters already have a very significant waver test benefit (especially if they are not particularly in need of mobility anyhow)
2) close order foot charged by mounted already have a very significant waver test benefit

do you really want "shieldwall" to be formed as a counter when threatened by cavalry, a la Napoleonic rules where you check to see if they form square? does that fit with the parade ground sophistication of hairy barbarian armies? (okay, forgive hyperbole there for certain, but hey that is essentially allowed as near as I see)

rather than have a special rule does not permitting _some_ troops normally classsed in the army lists as loose order to be bought as close order instead... do essentially what the shieldwall rule does anyhow (much decreased manuever and no waver test against mount... sounds like close order foot in effect to me)?

if you wanted you could say something about _tournament_ armies being allowed to change from loose to close oder for a particular round of a one-list tourney, but I know that would be counter to stated philosphies to address that particular issue.

but then you also do not have to worry about the effect on balance in the in-period army matchups from a free list rule or anything else.

it is my belief, fopr what incredibly little that is worth, that there are things much more in need of addressing in the Dark Age lists than this little bit of chrome that can be resolved without creation of any special new rule. in-period in-book there are plenty of under-powered troops relative to barbarian close order foot (especially now with the barbarian foot rules) and in fact many of these more under-powered troops are only going to get much worse in-period when faced with said hairy barbarians who can pop (unrealisticially in my opinion) in and out of shieldwall with no more difficulty than drilled Romans going into and out of testudo.

[scott holder]

[John Murphy]

<quote>I should also point out that the way shieldwall is written, troops don't "pop in and out of shieldwall like drilled Romans". That's certainly not the intent and if you think that's the case, then either you've misread the draft or the draft needs tightening up.</quote>

as stated you only use a formation change to pop in or out of shieldwall, and since shieldwall already limits you to 40p the fact that irregular foot are limited to 40p for a fomration change (the only drawback really as opposed to drilled Romans) is hardly a difference is it?

also as stated there is nothing that prevents this being done after enemy approaches as a counter, which to me seems just way to much tactical flexibility to ascribe to these troops.

making it take an entire approach move rather than simple formation change therefore removes this as an unplanned quick response but still provides the option without much difference (40p of movement) and without making the rule more complicated.


<quote>Okay, care to share those? Details? You can always email me if you prefer not to post stuff here. Or post stuff here.

But we can't look at something that might be of concern unless we get *specifics* out of those with a different perspective.</quote>

i'm gonna have to put a bit more mental energy into that... but i will try to post something in the next couple days, wife nagging me to get out of the house and go run around with the family right now so gotto go.

anyhow, i _do_ recognize you are giving this the best you can, just concerned (as you are too I am sure) over how this combined with the barbarian foot rules is going to turn out in balance.

[scott holder]

Thanks for the explanation. That helps. And I'm looking forward to whatever else you want to impart.

scott

[Tim Grimmett]

Scott--

I know nothing about the history surrounding this topic.

But if you want to somehow balance the cost of LMI/LHI going into this formations and getting the benefits you've outlined, you may want to require the formation to be 3 ranks deep. The formation is then roughly commiting 9 figures into this enterprise, which is the same as 2 ranks of close formation foot.

Tim

[scott holder]

Tim: Interesting. One thing your suggestion does highlight is that the draft needs to be tweaked so that loose order foot in shieldwall can't expand on a follow up.

scott

[Mark Stone]

[scott holder]

Mark: Which part? The "can't expand on follow up" (which definitely needs to go in there) or the "has to be at least 3 ranks deep" part?

scott

[Ed Kollmer]

Yo Scott
Just came into this discussion. Just a couple of questions and forgive me if these are common Knowledge.
Will Shieldwall relate only to Dark Age Warrior or across the spectrum?
Is it being created to help which particular troop type. Only Loose Order? Or Irreg Loose Order?
I know that close order can use it but Loose Order seem to be the biggest beneficiary.

Ed the unknowing

[scott holder]

Ed:

First, whenever you post a reply and get the error message, you don't need to keep reposting. It's a bug in the open source software we use. Just post the one time, ignore the error message if you get it.

For background on the whole Shieldwall/Dark Age concept:

http://www.fourhorsemenenterprises.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16847

scott

[Mark Stone]