Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[OGS-Vintage]

Good morning to all.

I have just perused the older versions of the rules (WRG and Warrior) and have a question.

Under the old WRG 6th edition (boo hiss) caltrops - whenever you crossed these you took casualties as if you shot yourself with bow - e.g. if you had 24 figures of shielded MI, you took 24 x 2
this applied if you were foot or mounted

stakes were a hazard (less effective) and cost far less

7th kept the same costs for each but changed caltrops to a penalty of -1 if mounted charged across them

and changed stake to an obstacle - disorder to cross, delaying, -2 to fight across etc

meaning stakes were now far more effective than caltrops (and a gosh darn cheaper)


I may have missed some of the specifics but I am curious that warrior seemed to have kept the costing - I know economics etc etc caltrops cost far more to make than stakes (though costs vary depending if user is reg or irreg)


just wondering if anyone could shed some light

I know I'd rather pay 2 pts for a stake and make ALL of my opponents fight at -2 (except elephants), disorder close formation and delay them,
than pay more for a caltrop that applies a -1 only to mounted opponents.

Makes for some colourful battles and definitely favours the stake.

Just considering game balance than a carry forward oversight.
(personally i'd hate to charge across caltrops on foot, let alone mounted - can I buy some of the impenetrable boots the foot sloggers in the game use?)

Thanking you

Have a good day y'all

[joncleaves]

Welcome to Warrior!

I'm Jon - the designer and the guy who answers your rules questions.

Its not our policy to answer questions relative to other ancients games - they are what they are.

You have the cost for stakes and caltrops correct. Warrior cost does take into account availability - and there is also the issue that a + to the player (caltrops) is not the same as a - to his opponent (port. obstacle).

J

[OGS-Vintage]

Thankyou for you reply Jon

I just need to get this cleared up in my own head - WRG could be considered other rules but a ford painted another colour is still a ford - the warrior rules are based on phils rules. Warrior is WRG with anew pant job and some extra racing stripes.

Editing can be a pain (correct IS a pain) and sometimes oversights are inevitable.

Hence stake vs caltrop.

Apart from socio economic surveys as to the cost of one over the other, how about a survey as to who actually uses one over the other.

If i remove 2 factors for obstacle, then minimum 1 factor for disorder on follow up, how does that counter the other 1 factor for hazard.


I'd like a discussion based on game balance (rather prevalent) than wether a pound of iron costs more than a cord of wood.

Show me a 100 YW english army who doesn't use stake and show me a roman who ever bothers with caltrop.

I don't want a return to the old combat rules but I would like a correction of costs to reflect reduced capacity.

I know some players would rather they gain a bonus vs opponents rather than see their opponents suffer a penalty but please have a real think.

[joncleaves]

Again, I am not being rude and it is nothing personal, but this topic is for rules questions. Debates between players may be had all day long on virtually any other topic in this forum. But we need to keep the rules topic clear so that a player knows that if he sees a new post it is either a question from a player or an answer from me. Yes, this does make it different from our other topics which are essentially free play within the limits of the subject and decent communication.

"I just need to get this cleared up in my own head - WRG could be considered other rules but a ford painted another colour is still a ford - the warrior rules are based on phils rules. Warrior is WRG with anew pant job and some extra racing stripes. "

That is both untrue and directly counter to our view. WRG Ancients Edition 7.6 was indeed the underlying engine for Warrior and we hold a license thereto. However with the amount of work done and changes made it is de facto its own game in this industry. Also, nothing in WRG 7 was or is used as a reason to have it in Warrior and nothing in Warrior is there just because it was there in WRG 7.
We are also not considering changes to the game system.

If you want to be on the cutting edge of FHE Ancients design, please join the Warrior Battles playtest group here next month and help us with that project. WB is the simple to play and quicker to resolve version of Warrior, easier to learn and play than FoG or DBM yet still making use of the richness of our army lists.

Thanks for your support.

Jon

[womble_17]

I agree with OGS - I have older copies of WRG (6th and 7th) and I can see where the errors occurred with stake and caltrop.

Under 6th ed it was as if you shot yourself in the foot - e.g. a 24 figure unit would take casualties, whilst stake would be a minor obstacle.

&th had caltrops as a -1 for mounted charging and no other penalties, while stake was -2, crossing obstacle etc.

I believe OGS had something there. Think about it.

[joncleaves]

I have - thanks!