Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

In a message dated 5/22/2004 08:51:13 Central Daylight Time,
jjendon@... writes:

IIRC, 2HCT does not count when
used mounted. >>
It does - as L.

I missed where this is written. Can you point me please? It seems like it
would be a help to the Japanese HC.>>
It is not written in the rules. There are certain lists where the cavalry
weapon rated as L in the list will dismount as 2HCT due to its unique nature.
We were mixing apples and oranges there for a few posts - sorry.
J

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

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

In a message dated 5/22/2004 09:47:12 Central Daylight Time,
larryessick@... writes:

Well, Jon seems to be operating with some prior knowledge of what
Oriental Warrior will contain.>>
Mostly because I knew where John's question came from. It is true we were
mixing apples and oranges to some extent.

He is basing his position on having defined the HC Cb as HC L,Cb.>>
Only the ptential use of them as closers. All the rest of the stat analysis
of the 3d rank not actually being worth it has nothing to do with them being
armed with L.
J

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

John Garlic · Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 4:09 pm Post subject: Re: 2HCT as L

Hi All,

Yes, my question dealt with Han Chinese. I asked about the HC CB since there
are up to 4E allowed and I was looking at ways to make an Early Han list
viable. I like the Convicts, but had fear of knights and was looking at HC CB
for
capability to skirmish and punish them a bit. I had not honestly thought of
them in three ranks. There are also the LC skirmishers which can take CB
instead of B as an option as well.

John

> Well, Jon seems to be operating with some prior knowledge of what
> Oriental Warrior will contain.>>
> Mostly because I knew where John's question came from. It is true we were
> mixing apples and oranges to some extent.
>
>
>
> He is basing his position on having defined the HC Cb as HC L,Cb.>>
> Only the ptential use of them as closers. All the rest of the stat
> analysis
> of the 3d rank not actually being worth it has nothing to do with them
> being
> armed with L.

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

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

In a message dated 5/22/2004 12:27:21 Central Daylight Time,
jmgarlic@... writes:

Hi All,

Yes, my question dealt with Han Chinese. I asked about the HC CB since
there
are up to 4E allowed and I was looking at ways to make an Early Han list
viable. I like the Convicts, but had fear of knights and was looking at HC
CB for
capability to skirmish and punish them a bit. I had not honestly thought of
them in three ranks. There are also the LC skirmishers which can take CB
instead of B as an option as well.

John>>
John, I would have sworn I sent you the draft Han list to look at for us,
and based my answer on that - my fault. Would you like it? In about five
months those lists you are using will be superceded.... and i would also like
your thoughts as a long time Han player..
Jon

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

Don Coon · Imperator Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2742

IIRC, 2HCT does not count when
used mounted. >>
It does - as L.

I missed where this is written. Can you point me please? It seems like it
would be a help to the Japanese HC.

Don

Larry Essick · Legionary Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 461

> I missed where this is written. Can you point me please? It seems
like it
> would be a help to the Japanese HC.

Well, Jon seems to be operating with some prior knowledge of what
Oriental Warrior will contain.

He is basing his position on having defined the HC Cb as HC L,Cb.

Larry

John Garlic · Posted: Sat May 22, 2004 5:18 pm Post subject: Re: 2HCT as L

Sure! Also I went back through archives looking for discussion of uses of
chariots. Found one in mid-3500s, but it only briefly discussed chariot ideas
before slipping off into who had ever done the most CPF at a whack. Midianites
seemed to have been the winner. Was there another discussion? I still
haven't gotten through messages between 4200 and 9200.

Long-time Han player! Yes, unfortunately also long time Han loser. Steve
Herndon introduced me to them in a demonstration game at WVU back in Spring 1980
and I still don't have a clue. Brings back fond memories of trying to paint
my first figures with oil paints. Don't know what happened to the figures,
but I bet they're still not dry :-)

John G.

> Yes, my question dealt with Han Chinese. I asked about the HC CB since
> there
> are up to 4E allowed and I was looking at ways to make an Early Han list
> viable. I like the Convicts, but had fear of knights and was looking at HC
>
> CB for
> capability to skirmish and punish them a bit. I had not honestly thought
> of
> them in three ranks. There are also the LC skirmishers which can take CB
> instead of B as an option as well.
>
> John>>
> John, I would have sworn I sent you the draft Han list to look at for us,
> and based my answer on that - my fault. Would you like it? In about five
> months those lists you are using will be superceded.... and i would also
> like
> your thoughts as a long time Han player..

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

Larry Essick · Legionary Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 461

> He is basing his position on having defined the HC Cb as HC L,Cb.>>
> Only the ptential use of them as closers. All the rest of the stat
analysis
> of the 3d rank not actually being worth it has nothing to do with
them being
> armed with L.

Well, maybe it should!

I notice a number of players with predetermined viewpoints on unit
sizes. As a result they fail to obtain optimum efficiency from their
army.

In this case a Reg C HC Cb is 24 points. The same Reg C HC Cb with L
is 30 points. That is a 6 point per element difference in cost.

A 2E Cb,L unit is 70 points. A 3E Cb unit is 84 points.

Now, 3 2E Cb,L units is 210 points. Putting those 6E into a single
unit of Cb only is 154 points, it is 164 points if they are 2 3E
units. A savings of 46 to 56 points.

The Cb,L unit is of limited use as a shooting platform and its
tactical role is to skirmish at long range in front of mounted in
order to trigger 1st charges and perhaps tire them thru futile
charges.

The Cb unit is of similar use but also presents a meaningful shooting
danger. Because of the points saved there is no need to give up total
units.

The initial question was regarding the use of HC Cb as a shooting
force. Jon's advice applies to HC that happens to have Cb, but whose
tactical role is not one of shooting.

Larry

Don Coon · Imperator Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2742

> I missed where this is written. Can you point me please? It seems like
it
> would be a help to the Japanese HC.>>
> It is not written in the rules. There are certain lists where the
cavalry
> weapon rated as L in the list will dismount as 2HCT due to its unique
nature.
> We were mixing apples and oranges there for a few posts - sorry.
> J

Peace.

Don

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

In a message dated 5/23/2004 22:02:27 Central Daylight Time,
redcoat24@... writes:

I'll say one more thing, new guy to new guy who also does Han Chinese. I'm
waiting to see the new army list before I make more changes to my list. I
think (think) I've heard that it might be available as of Historicon, which is
only 2 months away now. I sure hope so, but I don't want them to rush it.>>
Oriental Warrior is not due out at Historicon, it is due in the fall. We
keep our production scehdule on the website.

At any rate, I've been pestering the e-group about tactics and such for a
little while now and finally concluded that when the Oriental Warrior book
comes out alot of this discussion will be moot.>>
That is very true. I have no doubt you will be pleased with this list.
Jon

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

Legionary Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 307

I knew it! I'm in the same boat. I'll say one more thing, new guy to new guy who
also does Han Chinese. I'm waiting to see the new army list before I make more
changes to my list. I think (think) I've heard that it might be available as of
Historicon, which is only 2 months away now. I sure hope so, but I don't want
them to rush it. At any rate, I've been pestering the e-group about tactics and
such for a little while now and finally concluded that when the Oriental Warrior
book comes out alot of this discussion will be moot. I didn't realize at first
how many WRGisms the old list has. The old list may or may not have made sense
in WRG play, but there is alot that doesn't work well in Warrior. The new Han
list may well change everything about the way I play. In the mean time, I'm
having lots of fun being friends with Hsiung-nu. Why did we ever fight them?
They're so nice to have around.

Of course if you are actually playing at Historicon then the new list won't be
much help. If that is the case, then I still say take a good look at the Irreg
LC/HC options in the list. They are solid multi-purpose troops.The Irreg Cav are
nice because one unit can do two jobs; Shoot and charge.

But you said you want to make the early period viable, so, the Reg LC/HC
work too, but you have to be more carefull. Now that I've played a little
more, I can see how you could make some effective combined arms teams out of LC,
B and HC, L. For one thing you can position the LC, B in the enemy's face, and
work the HC into a possible flank charge position. The LC do all the shooting,
and the HC can Cancel the enemy's charge. The LC is doing exactly what it wants
to do and is tying the enemy up so the otherwise useles HC gets into the coolest
charging position ever. Both of your units are completely safe, and the neat
part is, while one part of the team does one job, the other part can be off
doing something else. You couldn't do that if you were relying on a singe Irreg
Cav unit.
You could do it with the HC, CB, but as I said in an earlier post, the LC work
better.

However, all of that is easier said than done and takes practice. I'm just
geting to be able to do that now. Further, I think the veteran tourney players
will say that a tournament army needs to be able to "Drop the Hammer" and I'm
taking about finessing the enemy to death. I don't play to win tournaments
though.

Allan
----- Original Message -----
From: jmgarlic@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] 2HCT as L

Hi All,

Yes, my question dealt with Han Chinese. I asked about the HC CB since there
are up to 4E allowed and I was looking at ways to make an Early Han list
viable. I like the Convicts, but had fear of knights and was looking at HC CB
for
capability to skirmish and punish them a bit. I had not honestly thought of
them in three ranks. There are also the LC skirmishers which can take CB
instead of B as an option as well.

John

> Well, Jon seems to be operating with some prior knowledge of what
> Oriental Warrior will contain.>>
> Mostly because I knew where John's question came from. It is true we were
> mixing apples and oranges to some extent.
>
>
>
> He is basing his position on having defined the HC Cb as HC L,Cb.>>
> Only the ptential use of them as closers. All the rest of the stat
> analysis
> of the 3d rank not actually being worth it has nothing to do with them
> being
> armed with L.

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

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

Legionary Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 307

I should stop listening to rumours. Thanks for the clarification.

Allan
I
think (think) I've heard that it might be available as of Historicon, which
is
only 2 months away now. I sure hope so, but I don't want them to rush it.>>
Oriental Warrior is not due out at Historicon, it is due in the fall. We
keep our production scehdule on the website.

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

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

In a message dated 5/24/2004 07:25:51 Central Daylight Time,
Scott.Holder@... writes:

I spent less time in graduate school than on the Warrior lists.>>
No worries everyone - school was never Scott's big thing anyway...lol
Jon

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

scott holder · Posted: Mon May 24, 2004 3:20 pm Post subject: RE: 2HCT as L

I knew it! I'm in the same boat. I'll say one more thing, new guy to new guy who
also does Han Chinese. I'm waiting to see the new army list before I make more
changes to my list. I think (think) I've heard that it might be available as of
Historicon, which is only 2 months away now. I sure hope so, but I don't want
them to rush it.

>Who has been spreading this malicious rumour? OW work has been *much* slower
than expected. The target date for publication is Fall In (November) not Hcon.
We'll be fortunate to make that date.

>Why? Well, I'm in contact with some of the few western scholars with a serious
knowledge of Chinese and steppe nomadic military systems. They've been able to
read stuff (in Chinese) that will never, in our lifetimes, get translated into
English. So, I've been plodding along more plodding than usual vis a vis these
lists. It's not unlike the approach Bill and I ended up taking with NWW.

>I'm only starting on List 20 at the moment. I spent less time in graduate
school than on the Warrior lists.

scott

Legionary Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 307

Scott, That's great to hear. As I said, There's no rush, we all want a good
result and it's good to see some original research being done. It's sad how
little there is in english isn't it?
Allan
----- Original Message -----
From: Holder, Scott
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 8:20 AM
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] 2HCT as L

I knew it! I'm in the same boat. I'll say one more thing, new guy to new guy
who also does Han Chinese. I'm waiting to see the new army list before I make
more changes to my list. I think (think) I've heard that it might be available
as of Historicon, which is only 2 months away now. I sure hope so, but I don't
want them to rush it.

>Who has been spreading this malicious rumour? OW work has been *much* slower
than expected. The target date for publication is Fall In (November) not Hcon.
We'll be fortunate to make that date.

>Why? Well, I'm in contact with some of the few western scholars with a
serious knowledge of Chinese and steppe nomadic military systems. They've been
able to read stuff (in Chinese) that will never, in our lifetimes, get
translated into English. So, I've been plodding along more plodding than usual
vis a vis these lists. It's not unlike the approach Bill and I ended up taking
with NWW.

>I'm only starting on List 20 at the moment. I spent less time in graduate
school than on the Warrior lists.

scott

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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