Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Frank Gilson]

I think Mark Stone may chime in, as he has pointed out and fought
using configurations of Chinese armies recently.

In my limited experience, your units of 24 figures of MI LTS,Sh/1HCW
(firelance for the LTS) are worse than 16 figures of HI/MI
LTS,Sh/LTS all with firelance.

Uparmoring the front rank is of significant value. Having entirely
LTS is valuable against armored cavalry opponents. Also, if you are
able to charge or counter-charge, your entirely LTS with firelance
will fight two full ranks!

Using the gigantic Stone Throwers implies your will be fighting from
a static position, as they are not moving if you wish to fire them.

I'd make my list decision as follows:
Definitely want to use the huge Stone Throwers? Go Ming
Otherwise, Go Later Tang

With the Ming, try a list that does not use the Burmese for
comparison against the one you developed.

Frank

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Becker" <JonBecker@m...>
wrote:
>
> Hello All!
>
> Looking for advice and suggestions on these three lists as well as
which one
> folks would choose over the other 2. Be brutal. Thanks!
>
> YUAN
> CINC 1e EHC PA L B SH REG A; 1e HC L B REG C
> GUARD 1e EHC L B SH REG A; 1e HC L B REG C
> 2X MONGOL 2e LC JLS B SH; 2e LC B REG C
> 3X KOREAN 6e MI LTS B SH IRR D
> 2X CHINESE 3e MI LTS 1shFIREL SH; 3e MI 1HCW SH REG D
> 2x STONETHR 3e ART 3 Talent REG C
> 3x CHINESE 1e HC L B 1shFIREL SH; 1e HC L B 1shFIREL REG C
> 2X CHINESE 6e LI B REG D
> 1601 40Scout 16Units
>
> MING
> CINC 1e EHC PA L B 1shFIREL SH REG A; GUARD 1e EHC L B 1shFIREL SH
REG B
> MING 1e HC L B 1shFIREL SH; 1e HC L B 1shFIREL REG C
> 2X MING 3e MI LTS 1shFIREL SH; 3e MI 1HCW SH REG D
> 2x STONETHR 3e ART 3 Talent REG C
> 2X MING 4e LI B REG D
> BURMESE SG 1e EL 3xJLS B 3xB P IRR B; 1e EL 3xJLS B 3xB P IRR C
> BURMESE 3e EL 3xJLS B 3xB IRR C
> BURMESE 1e MC JLS SH IRR C; 1e MC JLS IRR D
> 2x BURMESE 1e LI JLS SH IRR C; 5e LI JLS SH IRR D
> 2x BURMESE 1e LMI JLS B SH IRR C; 2e LMI JLS B SH IRR D; 3e LMI
JLS B SH IRR
> D
> MING 4e LC B REG C
> 1600 28Scout 17Units
>
> LTANG
> CINC 1e HC PA L B SH REG A; 1e HC L B REG B
> PROV 1e HC L B SH; 1e HC L B REG C
> 5x JIANER 1e LTS B SH REG C; 3e LTS B SH REG D; 4e LTS B REG D
> 4x TIBETAN 1e SHC L B SH IRR B; 1e HC L B IRR C
> 3x PROV 1e L SH; 1e L REG C
> 2x STEPPE 4e LC JLS B SH IRR C
> 1601 49Scout 16Units
>
> And in particular 25mm. And which is "best" for OPEN tourney play.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[Mark Stone]

--- On October 30 Jon Becker said: ---

> Hello All!
>
> Looking for advice and suggestions on these three lists as well as which one
> folks would choose over the other 2. Be brutal. Thanks!

OK, some general comments on the use of firelance. First, I think that firelance
as a cavalry weapon is something that people haven't looked at closely enough,
and it's a lot more powerful than one might think.

Example 1: EHC firelancers vs. EHK or HK. Normally a good matchup for the
knights: L vs. EHC is a 4, and L vs. EHK or HK is only a 2. But firelance adds
a +1 to this, and if you can prep shoot the knights for even 1 CPF then you'll
be even: L vs. EHC = 4 +1 (charging) +2 (impetuous) -1 (tired, because the
knights took 1 in prep, 1 for knights charging, 2 for mounted charge, and 1 for
impetous charge = 5) = 6. The EHC are L vs. EHK/HK = 2 + 1 (charging) + 2
(impetuous) + 1 (firelance) = 6.

Example 2: EHC firelancers vs. LTS (or could be Romans in fulcrum). The LTS guys
are LTS vs. EHC = 3 +1 (receiving impetuous mtd charge) = 4. 6@4 = 18. The EHC
is L vs. HI/MI = 4 +1 (charging) +2 (impetuous) +1 (firelance) -2 (facing LTS)
= 6. 5@6=25. A win for the EHC, even if the LTS guys roll up or the EHC roll
down.

Note that in Example 2, being EHC instead of HC really helps. More on that theme
in a moment.

So in my opinion, Chinese EHC with L and B (or even just L) go from being
mediocre support troops to interesting strike troops with the addition of
firelance.

Firelance can also be a potent foot weapon, but you have to use it carefully.
First of all, you need to up-armor your foot guys to HI. Otherwise, you're
frequently giving back the +1 you just paid for with firelance. P/LTS/Other
Foot are all a 3 vs. MI, and only a 2 vs. HI. So in these sorts of matchups,
being MI with firelance isn't much different from being plain old HI without
firelance. If you aren't excited about the prospect of buying generic HI LTS,
then you probably shouldn't be excited about the prospect of buying MI LTS with
firelance.

Another point: foot armed with firelance are strike troops, not line troops, and
thus should be in smaller units behind or in the gaps between your main battle
line. Take them as 2 stand or 4 stand units (4 stand is probably best). On 10
Independent States I take them as half HI and half MI, starting in a 1 x 4
column, but prepared to expand out to 2 x 2 and still be entirely HI in the
front rank. Configured thus, these guys are quite tough, and a good challenge
against the currently fashionable Hypaspists and Alexandrian pike.

Now, some specifics on your lists:

Yuan

Very solid list overall. I wouldn't take the stone throwers as they are too
static, too slow, and don't present dense enough firepower. There's no reason
to take a mix of LTS and 1HCW. Take all LTS and you get 2 more figures fighting
(frequently), and with firelance you're at the same factor as 1HCW. With the
Koreans, there's no reason _not_ to take them as front rank Pa, back rank Sh.
At first contact you'll count shielded regardless because of LTS, and if you
get recoiled your front rank can fall back through the second rank so that
you're still fighting shielded the second bound. And since these guys are there
primarily to shoot, having Pa in the front is a big help.

Ming

This is a really frustrating list. I have stared at it over and over, trying to
come up with a viable variation on 1600 points. On 2000 points for the team
tourney at Cold Wars, I think this list could be awesome. But at 1600 it may
not be workable. You get a number of very appealing options, but you run out of
points to get them all:
- more firelance cav than any other list;
- tons of cheap, effective bowmen;
- the highest density, best artillery in the game;
- Burmese elephants.

My guess is you can have any two of the above four, but don't have enough points
for all four. And if you take both the artillery and the Burmese, then you have
real problems covering enough frontage. Don't take the artillery unless you're
going to fully upgrade it (which gets expensive). And while the Burmese
elephants are awesome, they come with a lot of wasted points on this list (like
the required MC). I think this is probably not the list I'd go with.

Later Tang

This is a very nice list, and you've put it together in a reasonable way. Your
Jianer offer 5 units of 4 elements' frontage, and if you figure 2 elements' gap
between them you've got 28 elements' frontage just with those units. Given that
an 8x5 25mm table is only 40 elements wide, you should have no trouble covering
the frontage. You've got enough scouting points not to get pinned back, and
enough shock power with the Tibetans to exploit the disruptions created by your
wall of shooters. Something of a negative here is the lack of LI. I think a few
2 stand LI units can be very useful for force marching and a bit of screening
(you can get 4 such units for a mere 76 points), but otherwise I think this
list looks very solid.


-Mark Stone

[Steve Hollowell]

"Given that an 8x5 25mm table is only 40 elements wide, you should have no
trouble covering the frontage."

Interesting... has anyone ever figured out the frontage on a 15mm table?


---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

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

[Mark Stone]

--- On November 1 I said: ---

>>
>> "Given that an 8x5 25mm table is only 40 elements wide, you should have no
>> trouble covering the frontage."
>>

--- To which Steve Hollowell replied: ---

>
> Interesting... has anyone ever figured out the frontage on a 15mm table?
>

A 6x4 15mm table is 45 elements wide.

In my opinion, this sort of information is part of "Warrior Fundamentals", part
of the basics of figuring out your strategy and tactics that every Warrior
player should be going through.

I always do an analysis of how much frontage I think any army I'm putting
together can comfortably cover, and what my plan is if the answer to how much
frontage is less than the whole table. Similary, I think carefully about how
much frontage a given piece of terrain occupies, along with the likelihood of
getting that terrain in a helpful place.

From these considerations it isn't too difficult to take the analysis to the
next step and figure out if you're going to be able to play an army
aggressively, or if it will have to counter-punch from a more defensive
posture.

With an answer to that question, you can return to looking at the composition of
the army list and see if it is well suited to being aggressive vs.
defensive/counter-punching, and then have a sense of whether you should really
pursue putting together the army in question.

And a footnote to all this: in my experience, the most vulnerable points in any
army are the seams and the flanks. A flank is where your troops end and
unoccupied terrain begins. A seam is where two components of your line meet,
such as open terrain and rough terrain troops, or close/loose order troops and
light troops.


-Mark Stone

[Steve Hollowell]

Thanks Mark, very cool analysis.

Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:--- On November 1 I said: ---

>>
>> "Given that an 8x5 25mm table is only 40 elements wide, you should have no
>> trouble covering the frontage."
>>

--- To which Steve Hollowell replied: ---

>
> Interesting... has anyone ever figured out the frontage on a 15mm table?
>

A 6x4 15mm table is 45 elements wide.

In my opinion, this sort of information is part of "Warrior Fundamentals", part
of the basics of figuring out your strategy and tactics that every Warrior
player should be going through.

I always do an analysis of how much frontage I think any army I'm putting
together can comfortably cover, and what my plan is if the answer to how much
frontage is less than the whole table. Similary, I think carefully about how
much frontage a given piece of terrain occupies, along with the likelihood of
getting that terrain in a helpful place.

From these considerations it isn't too difficult to take the analysis to the
next step and figure out if you're going to be able to play an army
aggressively, or if it will have to counter-punch from a more defensive
posture.

With an answer to that question, you can return to looking at the composition of
the army list and see if it is well suited to being aggressive vs.
defensive/counter-punching, and then have a sense of whether you should really
pursue putting together the army in question.

And a footnote to all this: in my experience, the most vulnerable points in any
army are the seams and the flanks. A flank is where your troops end and
unoccupied terrain begins. A seam is where two components of your line meet,
such as open terrain and rough terrain troops, or close/loose order troops and
light troops.


-Mark Stone


SPONSORED LINKS
Miniature wargaming Wargaming Four horsemen Warrior

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

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.


---------------------------------





---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

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

[Mike Turner]

Mark, I'd like your opinion as you seem to have done more analytical
study than most.

I've been trying to make LIR's work for a while and recently I did
very well in a 15mm 1600 pt tourney. I took the Hun allies giving me
3x2EIrrB,HC,L,B, Sh and 2x4EIrrC,LC, JLS, B, Sh. This force seemed
to compliment the Roman MI, LMI, LI mix the best. My question is how
well will this convert over to 25mm?

Mike



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
>
> --- On November 1 I said: ---
>
> >>
> >> "Given that an 8x5 25mm table is only 40 elements wide, you
should have no
> >> trouble covering the frontage."
> >>
>
> --- To which Steve Hollowell replied: ---
>
> >
> > Interesting... has anyone ever figured out the frontage on a 15mm
table?
> >
>
> A 6x4 15mm table is 45 elements wide.
>
> In my opinion, this sort of information is part of "Warrior
Fundamentals", part
> of the basics of figuring out your strategy and tactics that every
Warrior
> player should be going through.
>
> I always do an analysis of how much frontage I think any army I'm
putting
> together can comfortably cover, and what my plan is if the answer
to how much
> frontage is less than the whole table. Similary, I think carefully
about how
> much frontage a given piece of terrain occupies, along with the
likelihood of
> getting that terrain in a helpful place.
>
> From these considerations it isn't too difficult to take the
analysis to the
> next step and figure out if you're going to be able to play an army
> aggressively, or if it will have to counter-punch from a more
defensive
> posture.
>
> With an answer to that question, you can return to looking at the
composition of
> the army list and see if it is well suited to being aggressive vs.
> defensive/counter-punching, and then have a sense of whether you
should really
> pursue putting together the army in question.
>
> And a footnote to all this: in my experience, the most vulnerable
points in any
> army are the seams and the flanks. A flank is where your troops end
and
> unoccupied terrain begins. A seam is where two components of your
line meet,
> such as open terrain and rough terrain troops, or close/loose order
troops and
> light troops.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>

[joncleaves]

48, I think

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Hollowell <sholl202000@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 10:54:10 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Advice on 3 Lists - Ming, Yuan, LTang


"Given that an 8x5 25mm table is only 40 elements wide, you should have no
trouble covering the frontage."

Interesting... has anyone ever figured out the frontage on a 15mm table?


---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

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





Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Derek Downs]

In a message dated 11/4/2005 7:27:27 AM Eastern Standard Time,
JonBecker@... writes:
Some really good observations provided by Mark and Frank. I'm trying to
prepare for this sizable purchase of lead for the entire army...any one else
have any thoughts on the three armies? Or the long standing debate about
buying HI vs MI?
In my opinion, which Mark my actually agree with this time is that you should
buy any f those armies. But instead buy 5 Dynasties / 10 States Chinese.

Derekcus


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

[Mark Stone]

--- On November 4 Derek Downs said: ---

>
> In my opinion, which Mark may actually agree with this time is that you should
> buy any f those armies. But instead buy 5 Dynasties / 10 States Chinese.
>
> Derekcus

Of the three mentioned, I'd lean towards Later Tang. But I do agree with Derek
here, that the best choice for this style of army is 10 Independent States.

I thought long and hard about which army to bring to the NICT, and though my
performance with 10IS was disappointingly mediocre, I blame that on the player,
not the army. Derek did quite well with the same army, finishing 2nd.

The Tang have Tibetan SHC, which is certainly a potent troop type. And their
LTS,B guys are regular, making them somewhat more maneuverable and able to
absorb casualties. The Tang can also get some LC, which helps keep them from
getting outscouted (I had 8 scouting points when I ran 10IS). In the end, those
all struck me as minor points.

The Irr D LTS,B guys that 10IS are cheap and plentiful. On 1600 points I had
over 300 missile troops. And you get firelance-armed foot, giving you some real
foot shock troops, something the Tang lack. Furthermore -- and this was the
clincher for me -- elephants and non-impetuous foot can charge together, where
as SHC and non-impetuous foot have to charge separately. Do the math on a 2
elephant unit in column and a 4 stand HI LTS,Firelance unit in column charging
together at.... well, heck, charging together at just about anything.

The choice is ultimately one of playing style: do you want elephants or SHC? In
the end, I just think the elephants work better with the rest of the army.


-Mark Stone

[Derek Downs]

In a message dated 11/4/2005 9:56:32 AM Eastern Standard Time,
JonBecker@... writes:
Why 5 Dyn/10 States over the other 3 lists?
It is better .
It has elephants.
and
Mr. Stone said so.

Derek


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

[Derek Downs]

In a message dated 11/4/2005 11:47:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
mark@... writes:
The choice is ultimately one of playing style: do you want elephants or SHC?
In
the end, I just think the elephants work better with the rest of the army.
Plus SHC is only one step better than EHC. :)

Derekcus


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

[Ewan McNay]

Tell you what. You can take LMI auxilia, I'll take Sassanid SHC. Good
deal? :)

On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 darnd022263@... wrote:

> In a message dated 11/4/2005 11:47:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> mark@... writes:
> The choice is ultimately one of playing style: do you want elephants or SHC?
> In
> the end, I just think the elephants work better with the rest of the army.
> Plus SHC is only one step better than EHC.
>
> Derekcus
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Derek Downs]

In a message dated 11/4/2005 10:56:37 PM Eastern Standard Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:
You can take LMI auxilia, I'll take Sassanid SHC. Good
deal?
I didn't say any bad about SHC.
Actually with some decent dice RB Auxilia would tired out SHC as well. Not
from fighting but the SHC charging themselves to death. A good player as you are
Ewan would not allow this to happen. I have had players charge there SHC and
K into exhaustion chasing Auxilia.

Derekcus


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

[Todd Schneider]

Jon,

Do you really need the 3 Sub Generals?

With only 17 scouting points, I can see the reasoning
behind deploying 2, or even 3 of them, in single
commands, but other than promtping for a 2nd charge,
do you really need that many "prompt" points out
there?

If you went with just one Sub Gen instead of 3, you
could make the Spearmen regular, and all the LI
Regular as well, and make the Cav EHC.

I had a 10 states list bumping round somehwere, when I
was looking at what to play for next year. If I find
it I'll post it.

Todd



--- Jon Becker <JonBecker@...> wrote:

> Thoughts on this 10 states list?
> 10 STATES
> 1X CINC 1E HC L B SH PA REG A; 1E LINE HC L B REG C
> 3X SUBG 1E HC L B SH P REG A; 1E LINE HC L B REG C
> 3X SPEAR 6E MI LTS B SH; 6E MI LTS B IRR D
> 2X EL 3XB IRR C
> 4X TRIBE 1E LMI 2HCW SH; 1E LMI JLS SH IRR A
> 1X TRIBE 2E LMI 2HCW SH; 2E LMI JLS SH IRR A
> 3X SKIRM 2E LI B IRR D
> 1X SKIRM 6E LI B REG C
> 1600 17SCOUT 18 UNITS
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
> darnd022263@...
> Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 5:17 AM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Advice on 3 Lists -
> Ming, Yuan, LTang
>
>
> In a message dated 11/4/2005 10:56:37 PM Eastern
> Standard Time,
> ewan.mcnay@... writes:
> You can take LMI auxilia, I'll take Sassanid SHC.
> Good
> deal?
> I didn't say any bad about SHC.
> Actually with some decent dice RB Auxilia would
> tired out SHC as well. Not
> from fighting but the SHC charging themselves to
> death. A good player as you
> are
> Ewan would not allow this to happen. I have had
> players charge there SHC and
> K into exhaustion chasing Auxilia.
>
> Derekcus
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com

[Mark Stone]

--- On November 4 Derek Downs said: ---

>
> Why 5 Dyn/10 States over the other 3 lists?
> It is better. It has elephants. and
> Mr. Stone said so.
>

That's Dr. Stone to you (PhD, University of Rochester, 1987), but yes, it is
better and the elephants really are the key.


-Mark