Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Hi all

This is the first ever Warrior army I have put together. I am still
waiting for the rulebook and did this using a mates army book. If
there are any errors please let me know. I have broken it up by
elements and each line is a unit with '+' meaning that the line below
the general is part of his unit. Let me know what you all think.

1 x C-in-C SHK L with PA Std + 2 Reg A SHK L = 168pts
+ 3 x Men-at-Arms Reg A L = 171pts

1 x Ally-general SHK L with P Std + 2 Reg B SHK L = 121pts
+ 1 Currours Reg B HC L = 27pts

1 x Sub-general (Unreliable) SHK L with P Std + 2 Reg B SHK L = 96pts
+ 1 Currours Reg B HC L = 27pts

4 x Household Longbowmen Reg B LHI LB, 2 Sh, 2 Stakes, RCF = 118pts

6 x Retinue Billmen Reg C EHI 2HCT, 3 Sh, RCF = 214pts

8 x Retinue Longbowmen Reg C LMI LB, 4 Sh, 4 Stakes, RCF = 130pts

6 x Retinue Billmen Reg C HI 2HCT, 3 Sh, RCF = 166pts

6 x Shire Levy Bowmen Reg D LMI LB, 3 Sh, 3 Stakes, RCF = 76pts

6 x Shire Levy Bowmen Reg D LMI LB, 3 Sh, 3 Stakes, RCF = 76pts

6 x Shire Levy Billmen Reg D MI 2HCT, 3 Sh, RCF = 94pts

5 x Mercenary Handgunners Reg C LHI HG, RCF = 110pts

2 x Organ Guns, RCF = 50pts

Army Total = 1644pts
Units = 12

All advice welcome, as stated before I am a newbie and can use all
the help I can get.

Regards

Michael

[Ewan McNay]

Hi Michael - welcome.

Probably better than 90% of first army lists . Unsurprisingly,
though, somethings that range from dubious to wrong, at least in my
opinion...

ranaghar2000 wrote:
> 1 x C-in-C SHK L with PA Std + 2 Reg A SHK L = 168pts
> + 3 x Men-at-Arms Reg A L = 171pts

SHK should be in 2E units. Much too expensive otherwise, especially
as this is the CinC and hence you want to avoid fighting with him
unless a certainty - having 4E of strike troops tied up is too much.

It's good that you have obviously considred having back ranks of
sergeants. Arguments both ways.

> 1 x Ally-general SHK L with P Std + 2 Reg B SHK L = 121pts
> + 1 Currours Reg B HC L = 27pts

Ally generals are overpriced vs. Subs. IIRC, you may only have one
sub available, in which case fair enough, but it's a cost disadvantage
vs. other lists. On the other hand, putting a general into a unit of
SHK is pretty cheap (so the 4E unit you have with the CinC should be
2x2E, and probably consider another general). Incidentally, 1650 is
an odd amount - 1600 would be more tournament-normal.

> 1 x Sub-general (Unreliable) SHK L with P Std + 2 Reg B SHK L = 96pts
> + 1 Currours Reg B HC L = 27pts

Following my comment above about considering HC/HK back ranks, realise
that being shieldless makes your SHK *extremely* vulnerable to
shooting. Avoid at all costs, *especially* with HC back ranks - if
you become disordered, the enemy fights you as HC!

> 4 x Household Longbowmen Reg B LHI LB, 2 Sh, 2 Stakes, RCF = 118pts

These are hugely expensive, and not really any more effective than Reg
D LMI except in making counters (and some shooting battles, but those
you should win anyway). Consider how many of these expensive guys you
really want, and consider taking them in 2E units as follow-up/flank
troops.

> 6 x Retinue Billmen Reg C EHI 2HCT, 3 Sh, RCF = 214pts

Dump these. Seriously. If compulsory, take the minimum and use them
in 2E blocks, but they're essentially useless (yeah, this is
oveerstated, but it's a strong opinion!).

> 8 x Retinue Longbowmen Reg C LMI LB, 4 Sh, 4 Stakes, RCF = 130pts

These should probably be in 6E units, at least mostly. Allows you to
approach in column and expand out 3 wide, for maximum shooting
flexibility. And take more of them;; this is the core of the army.

It is possible to run the army as more of a static infantry line, in
which case the smal billmen units are more useful as support for the
bowmen. My preferred style is to do a lot of countering and manouvre
with the LB blocks in support of SHK, hence the close foot are a
liability. Consider how you want to play in general.

> 6 x Retinue Billmen Reg C HI 2HCT, 3 Sh, RCF = 166pts

Is there a list rule to give billmen 1.5 ranks? My guess is yes,
which makes them a lot better, and these guys are better value than
the EHI, but still overpriced and slow, and I would again take only
the minimum in 2E units.

> 6 x Shire Levy Bowmen Reg D LMI LB, 3 Sh, 3 Stakes, RCF = 76pts
>
> 6 x Shire Levy Bowmen Reg D LMI LB, 3 Sh, 3 Stakes, RCF = 76pts

Excellent. A mix of these with a few more of the retinue LB will give
very impressive missile power. Shields are good.

> 6 x Shire Levy Billmen Reg D MI 2HCT, 3 Sh, RCF = 94pts

If you have to have billmen, these are the guys to have - cheap enough
to be viable. But again, smaller units, designed to support and come
in on flanks (e.g. of enemy K who are stuck on your LB :)

> 5 x Mercenary Handgunners Reg C LHI HG, RCF = 110pts

Dump. First, 5E is an impossible size for a regular unit, as it means
fighting either in a line 5 wide or a column 5 deep (so 4E or 6E would
be better). Second, LB is a more flexible weapon, and the fact that
you have so many means that in general you want to maintain ~200p
sepration from the enemy for as long as possible while shooting, so
having a unit that only shoots 80p (and only 1 rank unless in
skirmish) is a bad idea, especially when shieldless. Just bad.

> 2 x Organ Guns, RCF = 50pts

These are so totally not my style that I'm not going to comment, but I
have never yet seen artillery used well (expect maybe by Eric's Yuan
Mongol).

> Army Total = 1644pts
> Units = 12

That's too few units, basically. You want to be aiming for maybe 18.
There are many cases where a unit - any unit - can hold up one of
yours. If the enemy has 6 or more units left over when that's all set
up.... well, that's bad .

Take any regular LI you can get, in tiny units. Spend a lot of time
thinking about how you are going to deal with (i) being outscouted
every game, and (iii) enemy light troops.

> All advice welcome, as stated before I am a newbie and can use all
> the help I can get.

Basic game plan: shoot for 5 rounds, then charge in the SHK against a
disordered and tired oppponent . Try to get one or two more K units
with the points gained by dumping the close foot and HG, but you
probably want at least 6x6E loose LB guys.

Good luck! And welcome.

Ewan

[joncleaves]

Some comments to add...

<<Is there a list rule to give billmen 1.5 ranks? >>

Yes there is. And in fact, that rule will be 'universal' in the revised
rulebook as it is already effectively so.

<<> 2 x Organ Guns, RCF = 50pts

These are so totally not my style that I'm not going to comment, but I
have never yet seen artillery used well (expect maybe by Eric's Yuan
Mongol).>>

Hmmm, interesting. Artillery was a key component of Mike Turner and my 15mm
team championship two three years ago... and I do believe it has a place.
However, as with Eric's famous Yuan, it is hard to use unless you have a lot of
it, which this is not. Also note that there is a reason organ guns are cheaper
- they have a much reduced range. Based on *those* issues, I'd leave these out
of your early lists.

<<> Army Total = 1644pts
> Units = 12

That's too few units, basically. You want to be aiming for maybe 18. >>

This is a major area where Ewan and I disagree. He is generally looking to win
a 'battle of the lights' and to use his lights to make sure his critical shock
attack goes in exactly where he wants it with no effective answer to it by the
opponent. I do not have this style, preferring to use the enemy's lights
against him. On that basis, I would agree that you have too few units, but for
different reasons. I advise new players to take a hard look at any list they
write that does not have 1 unit (not body) per 100 points in the list. Fewer
and you need to have an answer for how you are going to cover your flanks. More
and you might have too many light/nonfighting units to keep a player with my
style from using your lights against you. Again, this is a matter of opinion
and style. You will need to find your own, of course.

One thing we definitely agree on - there's no 1650 point tourneys that we are
aware of - the 'standard' near that size is 1600.

And I resoundingly second his welcome!
Jon

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:

>> Units = 12
>
>
> That's too few units, basically. You want to be aiming for maybe 18.
> >>
>
> This is a major area where Ewan and I disagree. He is generally
> looking to win a 'battle of the lights' and to use his lights to make
> sure his critical shock attack goes in exactly where he wants it with
> no effective answer to it by the opponent. I do not have this style,
> preferring to use the enemy's lights against him. On that basis, I
> would agree that you have too few units, but for different reasons. I
> advise new players to take a hard look at any list they write that does
> not have 1 unit (not body) per 100 points in the list. Fewer and you
> need to have an answer for how you are going to cover your flanks.
> More and you might have too many light/nonfighting units to keep a
> player with my style from using your lights against you. Again, this
> is a matter of opinion and style. You will need to find your own, of
> course.

I may not have been clear enough: this is not an army with which you *can*
win any light battle - you effectively have no lights. So you *have to*
(a) cope with and (b) preferably destroy the enemy lights. [[Or in other
words, I think that this is a case where the army dictates style, and that
that is generally the case, where Jon it seems is more in favour of
molding the army to a given play style.]] The unit/100 points is not bad
as a guide for balanced forces. I think at 1600 my extremes for
tournament play (counting generals wth bodyguards as units) are something
like 14 and 24.

[joncleaves]

<<I may not have been clear enough: this is not an army with which you *can*
win any light battle - you effectively have no lights. >>

I think we are in agreement, but language might be hurting us.

I see the term 'battle of the lights' as an engagement between the light troops
of both armies. One player is seeking to neutralize the other player's lights
and also to do so with his own light forces.

Ewan is correct that I do not do this. I prefer to defeat the enemy's light
troops with non-light troops that are essentially 'dual-purpose' as line troops,
so that when the initial exchange is over, his light troops are either
shaken/broken or evaded/recalled into positions where they are negatively
affecting the opponent's maneuver. Also, the judicious slaying of certain light
troops builds towards the demoralization of enemy commands, which is the
clearest path to 5 tourney points.

Now, the key to that is to have the initial exchange with the enemy light troops
end without also taking such fatigue on critical line troops that they cannot
also play a role later in the battle. This is where the 'kibbitzing'
starts...lol

I think it is very interesting what Ewan said about letting army dictate style
vs. molding an army to a player's style. Certainly there are armies that fit my
style better than others and some where the troops just aren't there to win the
defeat enemy lights with dual purpose troops. But I do very much think that
each player has a fundamental style that he or she cannot ignore when making
army choices, even if mentally they plan to go with the style they think the
army itself dictates.

But hey, that's just me...

Jon

[Greg Preston]

Dear Michael,

1650 is the point value selected by the guys from Canberra for the
Australian 15mm tournament this year. (I notice you have an -au-
email address).

Note that the comments about protecting flanks gain increased
importance if you are preparing for this comp as in 15mm on 6 by 4
tables there is generally plenty of space to get around the edges.


Greg Preston

On 08/12/2004, at 2:11, JonCleaves@... wrote:

> Some comments to add...
>
> <<Is there a list rule to give billmen 1.5 ranks? >>
>
> Yes there is.  And in fact, that rule will be 'universal' in the
> revised rulebook as it is already effectively so.
>
> <<> 2 x Organ Guns, RCF = 50pts
>
> These are so totally not my style that I'm not going to comment, but I
> have never yet seen artillery used well (expect maybe by Eric's Yuan
> Mongol).>>
>
> Hmmm, interesting.  Artillery was a key component of Mike Turner and
> my 15mm team championship two three years ago... and I do believe it
> has a place.  However, as with Eric's famous Yuan, it is hard to use
> unless you have a lot of it, which this is not.  Also note that there
> is a reason organ guns are cheaper - they have a much reduced range. 
> Based on *those* issues, I'd leave these out of your early lists.
>
> <<> Army Total = 1644pts
> > Units = 12
>
> That's too few units, basically.  You want to be aiming for maybe 18.
> >>
>
> This is a major area where Ewan and I disagree.  He is generally
> looking to win a 'battle of the lights' and to use his lights to make
> sure his critical shock attack goes in exactly where he wants it with
> no effective answer to it by the opponent.  I do not have this style,
> preferring to use the enemy's lights against him.  On that basis, I
> would  agree that you have too few units, but for different reasons. 
> I advise new players to take a hard look at any list they write that
> does not have 1 unit (not body) per 100 points in the list.  Fewer and
> you need to have an answer for how you are going to cover your
> flanks.  More and you might have too many light/nonfighting units to
> keep a player with my style from using your lights against you. 
> Again, this is a matter of opinion and style.  You will need to find
> your own, of course.
>
> One thing we definitely agree on - there's no 1650 point tourneys
> that we are aware of - the 'standard' near that size is 1600.
>
> And I resoundingly second his welcome!
> Jon
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <image.tiff>
> <image.tiff>
>
> 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.
>
>


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

[joncleaves]

1650 is the point value selected by the guys from Canberra for the
Australian 15mm tournament this year. >>

Aha! All good.... forgive our NA bias.....

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> 1650 is the point value selected by the guys from Canberra for the
> Australian 15mm tournament this year. >>
>
> Aha! All good.... forgive our NA bias.....

Hi all

Just wanted to thank everyone for responding so quickly. I'll go
through the messages and post a revised list soon.

Regards

Michael

[Greg Regets]

The only issue I have ever had with the "soften up the enemy and hit
him with your knights" tactic, is the assumptions that a) you have an
opponent you can soften up, b) you have a target suitable for your
knights, c) the opponent is going to cooperate long enough to allow
this to happen. At least for me, this tactic has also had an
irritating habit of limiting your attack point to areas that have
been softened up, and as such tipping your attack point to the
opposition.

Speaking only for myself, I have had much more luck purchasing
limited numbers of knights (3 or 4 units) in all knight units, and
tying them tactically to units that will act as a force multiplier on
the battlefield. I prefer the all SHK units, because of how they
dismount, and considering the limited numbers you are purchasing, the
cost is not overly high. What you tie to these knight units is
dictated by what is available. The best mix becomes obvious with play
experience.

On this same thought, my best experiences with this sort of army have
come when I purchased all inexpensive "D" moral units in 16 or 24
figure units, and purchased all others in two-stand units. This gives
the ability to come up with very diverse "combat teams" involving
knights and other unit types. I played Knights of St. John this way
for about six years, and did not have the worst results imaginable.

Hope this helps ... g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "ranaghar2000"
<mikendannigeld@o...> wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> This is the first ever Warrior army I have put together. I am
still
> waiting for the rulebook and did this using a mates army book. If
> there are any errors please let me know. I have broken it up by
> elements and each line is a unit with '+' meaning that the line
below
> the general is part of his unit. Let me know what you all think.
>
> 1 x C-in-C SHK L with PA Std + 2 Reg A SHK L = 168pts
> + 3 x Men-at-Arms Reg A L = 171pts
>
> 1 x Ally-general SHK L with P Std + 2 Reg B SHK L = 121pts
> + 1 Currours Reg B HC L = 27pts
>
> 1 x Sub-general (Unreliable) SHK L with P Std + 2 Reg B SHK L =
96pts
> + 1 Currours Reg B HC L = 27pts
>
> 4 x Household Longbowmen Reg B LHI LB, 2 Sh, 2 Stakes, RCF = 118pts
>
> 6 x Retinue Billmen Reg C EHI 2HCT, 3 Sh, RCF = 214pts
>
> 8 x Retinue Longbowmen Reg C LMI LB, 4 Sh, 4 Stakes, RCF = 130pts
>
> 6 x Retinue Billmen Reg C HI 2HCT, 3 Sh, RCF = 166pts
>
> 6 x Shire Levy Bowmen Reg D LMI LB, 3 Sh, 3 Stakes, RCF = 76pts
>
> 6 x Shire Levy Bowmen Reg D LMI LB, 3 Sh, 3 Stakes, RCF = 76pts
>
> 6 x Shire Levy Billmen Reg D MI 2HCT, 3 Sh, RCF = 94pts
>
> 5 x Mercenary Handgunners Reg C LHI HG, RCF = 110pts
>
> 2 x Organ Guns, RCF = 50pts
>
> Army Total = 1644pts
> Units = 12
>
> All advice welcome, as stated before I am a newbie and can use all
> the help I can get.
>
> Regards
>
> Michael