Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mike Turner]

Peter,
I started the earlier thread and I think LIR are competitive, you
just have to think through your choices. The Army has what it takes
to fight Elephants and Pike, but you have to develop a tactic for
Knight Armies and the Elephant/SHC armies.

My last list that did well:

2E Rg A/B HC JLS/Sh CNC
2E Irr B HC L, B, Sh, AG
2E Irr B HC L, B, Sh
2E Irr B HC L, B, Sh
4E Irr C LC JLS, B, Sh
4E Irr C LC JLS, B, Sh
2E Reg B HC JLS, Sh
4E Reg C LC JLS, Sh
6E RgC MI HTW/D/JLS/Sh 2EB
6E Reg B LMI JLS/D/Sh 2EB
2E Reg B EHC L, B, Sh
2E Reg B EHC L, B, Sh
2E Reg B EHC L, B, Sh
4E Reg C LMI B, Sh
4E Reg C LMI B, Sh
2E Reg C LI JLS, Sh
2E Reg C LI JLS, Sh

The Irr horsemen are Huns who provide great LC (1 1/2 ranks!)and the
lancers do well backing up the LC and the LI. I like to place the
EHC on the flanks of the Auxillia/Legions with the Aux Bow backing
them up. Next time I think I will drop one EHC to gain more LI or
Bowmen.

Mike

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Celella" <pcelella@c...>
wrote:
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> >
> > I'm with Ewan here. Late Romans and Patrician Romans have never
held the
> > slightest appeal to me. I don't find anything appealing about
Roman
> history in
> > these periods, and from a competitive standpoint these armies are
> memorable
> > only as the soft, squishy stuff under my horses' hooves when I'm
> playing a
> > knight army.
> >
>
> Okay guys, discouraging points well taken. But I do intend to
soldier
> on with this list.
>
> Actually Mark, my historical perspective is just the opposite to
> yours. I've always been fascinated with 5th century Roman history as
> opposed to the typical 1 century BCE stuff you see in Hollywood
epics.
> Something about the 5th century does it for me - maybe the scarcity
of
> sources, the hordes of barbarians, the struggle to keep the lights
on,
> I don't know, (did you ever read 'The Latern Bearers' by Rosemary
> Sutcliffe when you were young) makes it a period I keep reading
about
> and researching.
>
> Thanks for the help though - short of ditching an army that I really
> want to make work, your comments have been very useful.
>

[Derek Downs]

In a message dated 11/2/2005 2:38:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mark@... writes:
but armies with substantial shock
mounted -- even just EHC -- should roll you over.
Mark,

What are you thinking? Auxilia will kill EHC.

Derek


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

[joncleaves]

<< But, as I've said (and Jon has said) before, it takes time to think through
all
the implications of the Roman list rules, and players just haven't progressed
very far with that yet (that I can see).>>

I am actually very much into this problem - long term - my biggest concern is
that someone will break out with the Romans before me!! lol


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

[joncleaves]

Peter, hang in there. Obviously given the performance of these armies it is
possible to make them work. When I get a chance I will share some thoughts -
but the primary one is -

if you're a tourney player who is unconstrained by having historical preferences
and want as efficient a solution as possible, it is often too easy to skip over
these guys because you will indeed have to work to have an answer for a knight
army in an open. but the work is where the fun is for some of us.

if you're a tourney player who has clear preferences as to historical periods
and this isn't one of them you are even less likely to have good things to say
about this army....

hence some of the 'discouraging' tone of recent posts.

they obviously can be made winners. and I would commend you to start with the
comments on the LI....and use the negative comments as warnings on problem areas
and not reasons to abandon the army wholesale.

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Celella <pcelella@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:04:18 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Comments on 25 mm late Roman lists


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
>
> I'm with Ewan here. Late Romans and Patrician Romans have never held the
> slightest appeal to me. I don't find anything appealing about Roman
history in
> these periods, and from a competitive standpoint these armies are
memorable
> only as the soft, squishy stuff under my horses' hooves when I'm
playing a
> knight army.
>

Okay guys, discouraging points well taken. But I do intend to soldier
on with this list.

Actually Mark, my historical perspective is just the opposite to
yours. I've always been fascinated with 5th century Roman history as
opposed to the typical 1 century BCE stuff you see in Hollywood epics.
Something about the 5th century does it for me - maybe the scarcity of
sources, the hordes of barbarians, the struggle to keep the lights on,
I don't know, (did you ever read 'The Latern Bearers' by Rosemary
Sutcliffe when you were young) makes it a period I keep reading about
and researching.

Thanks for the help though - short of ditching an army that I really
want to make work, your comments have been very useful.










Yahoo! Groups Links






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

Jon:

Thanks for the words of encouragement. I'll be looking forward to
hearing your thoughts.

And guys - I hope I didn't sound offended by the negative remarks
about this army. As I said, I really do appreciate all your thoughts
and am not offended in the least.

One thing I can say about Warrior is that for all the beatings I've
taken in the last year or so, there hasn't yet been a game that I
haven't enjoyed immensely and come out of feeling that I really
learned something.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> Peter, hang in there. Obviously given the performance of these
armies it is possible to make them work. When I get a chance I will
share some thoughts - but the primary one is -
>
> if you're a tourney player who is unconstrained by having historical
preferences and want as efficient a solution as possible, it is often
too easy to skip over these guys because you will indeed have to work
to have an answer for a knight army in an open. but the work is where
the fun is for some of us.
>
> if you're a tourney player who has clear preferences as to
historical periods and this isn't one of them you are even less likely
to have good things to say about this army....
>
> hence some of the 'discouraging' tone of recent posts.
>
> they obviously can be made winners. and I would commend you to
start with the comments on the LI....and use the negative comments as
warnings on problem areas and not reasons to abandon the army wholesale.
>

I thought the same thing - especially if some sling armed LI get to
have a go as well!

ANW

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, darnd022263@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 11/2/2005 2:38:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> mark@d... writes:
> but armies with substantial shock
> mounted -- even just EHC -- should roll you over.
> Mark,
>
> What are you thinking? Auxilia will kill EHC.
>
> Derek
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[Derek Downs]

Mark

I will bring my Auxilia army as soon as you bring your EHC army to Lancaster.

Derek :)


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

[Mark Stone]

In a message dated 11/2/2005 2:38:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, mark@... writes:

>>
>> but armies with substantial shock mounted -- even just EHC -- should roll you
>> over.
>>

To which Derek replied:

> Mark,
>
> What are you thinking? Auxilia will kill EHC.

Derek,

Glad you feel that way. Please bring all the auxilia you can to future Lancaster
tournaments.


-Mark Stone

[Derek Downs]

This is crazy. I have played a few games of ancients in my time and can't
believe what I am reading.
My usual Late Roman list has 80 RB Auxilia.
With their ability to counter and prep fire few things can fight them.

EHC suck. Even if they somehow recoil the Auxilia they loose the second turn.
The army standard keeps these RB Auxilia eager. So they counter and pass
waivers on 2's.

Even with the folks at "Warrior Inc." toning down the Late Roman list it is
still very good.

RB Auxilia and triple armed Roman foot are a great one two punch.

Mark. By the way. The small handful of EHC you are running are most likely
hiding behind some real foot units. While the Auxilia, men that they are,
hide from no one.

Let me say it again. EHC suck. Except in Derekcon's of course. Where they
are allowed to skirmish.

Derekcus "EHC hater"




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

Okay - I just ran some numbers on Auxilia versus EHC, and I don't see
why they would necessarily be toast. I figured this in a vacuum, and I
know that actual game combats don't always play out this way. Also,
don't hesitate to point out my obvious errors. So here goes:

Assume a two stand, 6 figure unit of EHC attacking the 6 stand, 24
figure unit of Auxilia, 4 JLS, D, Sh and 2 B, Sh. The Auxilia have
just moved up to 80 paces in approaches.

Assuming that the Auxilia prep shooting is split, then between the
darts and rear rank bows there's 8@2 which would be 16 or 2 CPF to the
EHC.

Now, assuming the Auxilia pass wavers when being charged, then the
support shooting would be 16@2 -2 (in contact) =0 for another 16 and
two more 2 CPF. The EHC would take 2 more fatique for a mounted charge
for a total of 6 - so they would hit tired, right?

For the combat, the EHC would now be 5@4 +1 (mounted charge) -2 from
support shooting -1 (tired) = 2 for 10 casualties and no CPF to the
Auxilia. The Auxilia would be 6@1 +1 (using JLS) = 2 for 12 casualties
and another 2 CPF to the EHC who would now have to either break off or
recoil.

Why would this be so horrendous for the Auxilia? Am I missing something?

Peter

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
>
> In a message dated 11/2/2005 2:38:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, mark@
writes:
>
> >>
> >> but armies with substantial shock mounted -- even just EHC --
should roll you
> >> over.
> >>
>
> To which Derek replied:
>
> > Mark,
> >
> > What are you thinking? Auxilia will kill EHC.
>
> Derek,
>
> Glad you feel that way. Please bring all the auxilia you can to
future Lancaster
> tournaments.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>

[Mike Turner]

Pete, as a LIR player I am sympathetic, but here are some additional
facts,

The EHC guy is not going to "let" you get to 80 paces from him, he
will have something supporting that slows you. So most likely darts
in prep shooting.

He is doing things to help you fail the waver test, most likely bring
up his Elephant as a cause of unease, and/or other things. You can
help this by taking B's. Did you count that the EHC will be
impetuous?

I'd look at a Lancer on your Auxillia's flank, or a 4E LMI B, Sh,
that is a nice little deterent, that will provide prep fire.

Mike

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Celella" <pcelella@c...>
wrote:
>
> Okay - I just ran some numbers on Auxilia versus EHC, and I don't
see
> why they would necessarily be toast. I figured this in a vacuum,
and I
> know that actual game combats don't always play out this way. Also,
> don't hesitate to point out my obvious errors. So here goes:
>
> Assume a two stand, 6 figure unit of EHC attacking the 6 stand, 24
> figure unit of Auxilia, 4 JLS, D, Sh and 2 B, Sh. The Auxilia have
> just moved up to 80 paces in approaches.
>
> Assuming that the Auxilia prep shooting is split, then between the
> darts and rear rank bows there's 8@2 which would be 16 or 2 CPF to
the
> EHC.
>
> Now, assuming the Auxilia pass wavers when being charged, then the
> support shooting would be 16@2 -2 (in contact) =0 for another 16 and
> two more 2 CPF. The EHC would take 2 more fatique for a mounted
charge
> for a total of 6 - so they would hit tired, right?
>
> For the combat, the EHC would now be 5@4 +1 (mounted charge) -2 from
> support shooting -1 (tired) = 2 for 10 casualties and no CPF to the
> Auxilia. The Auxilia would be 6@1 +1 (using JLS) = 2 for 12
casualties
> and another 2 CPF to the EHC who would now have to either break off
or
> recoil.
>
> Why would this be so horrendous for the Auxilia? Am I missing
something?
>
> Peter
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 11/2/2005 2:38:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mark@
> writes:
> >
> > >>
> > >> but armies with substantial shock mounted -- even just EHC --
> should roll you
> > >> over.
> > >>
> >
> > To which Derek replied:
> >
> > > Mark,
> > >
> > > What are you thinking? Auxilia will kill EHC.
> >
> > Derek,
> >
> > Glad you feel that way. Please bring all the auxilia you can to
> future Lancaster
> > tournaments.
> >
> >
> > -Mark Stone
> >
>

[Todd Schneider]

Thats assuming your opponent will let you get to 80p
before he charges.

If the EHC is at 120 to 160 paces, your prep shot is
worse (2@2 for the B, right?), and if the auxilia
passes it's waver, the support shot is 16, and the EHC
will be 5@3 unless it's impetuos.

So, on even dice the EHC will be winning, pushing back
the auxilia disordered.

Todd

--- Peter Celella <pcelella@...> wrote:

> Okay - I just ran some numbers on Auxilia versus
> EHC, and I don't see
> why they would necessarily be toast. I figured this
> in a vacuum, and I
> know that actual game combats don't always play out
> this way. Also,
> don't hesitate to point out my obvious errors. So
> here goes:
>
> Assume a two stand, 6 figure unit of EHC attacking
> the 6 stand, 24
> figure unit of Auxilia, 4 JLS, D, Sh and 2 B, Sh.
> The Auxilia have
> just moved up to 80 paces in approaches.
>
> Assuming that the Auxilia prep shooting is split,
> then between the
> darts and rear rank bows there's 8@2 which would be
> 16 or 2 CPF to the
> EHC.
>
> Now, assuming the Auxilia pass wavers when being
> charged, then the
> support shooting would be 16@2 -2 (in contact) =0
> for another 16 and
> two more 2 CPF. The EHC would take 2 more fatique
> for a mounted charge
> for a total of 6 - so they would hit tired, right?
>
> For the combat, the EHC would now be 5@4 +1 (mounted
> charge) -2 from
> support shooting -1 (tired) = 2 for 10 casualties
> and no CPF to the
> Auxilia. The Auxilia would be 6@1 +1 (using JLS) = 2
> for 12 casualties
> and another 2 CPF to the EHC who would now have to
> either break off or
> recoil.
>
> Why would this be so horrendous for the Auxilia? Am
> I missing something?
>
> Peter
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone
> <mark@d...> wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 11/2/2005 2:38:47 PM Eastern
> Standard Time, mark@
> writes:
> >
> > >>
> > >> but armies with substantial shock mounted --
> even just EHC --
> should roll you
> > >> over.
> > >>
> >
> > To which Derek replied:
> >
> > > Mark,
> > >
> > > What are you thinking? Auxilia will kill EHC.
> >
> > Derek,
> >
> > Glad you feel that way. Please bring all the
> auxilia you can to
> future Lancaster
> > tournaments.
> >
> >
> > -Mark Stone
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>




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

[Derek Downs]

In a message dated 11/3/2005 4:40:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:
Who is this Derek guy anyway? Is he any good? Sounds like a newbie, right?
Well Mr. Ewan,

I don't have your creditals, but I do have a Late Roman army I am dusting
off.
Auxilia or bust !!!

Derekcus


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

[Derek Downs]

In a message dated 11/3/2005 5:42:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
greg.regets@... writes:
To me, LIR and PTR are armies without any serious, "money in the
bank" shock troops. There are lots of good things, but nothing that
screams at you to build a whole army around ... so you are encouraged
to place greater emphasis on optimization of the assets you do
have ... high morale, light troops with somewhat unique weapons
combinations, artillery on carts, Huns, wide variety of close, loose
and open troops, high unit count ... and use them in such a way that
your opponent never quite gets a read on what you're going to do.
What is your definition of shock troops. Mounted? Late Roman Legions are
probably the most all around feared unit in the game. They destroy foot of all
types, all but the very heaviest foot, and are one of the few troop types that
welcome fighting elephants.

They are few armies with any type of loose foot that can match Auxilia.

Light troops seldom if ever win a game.

Artilery on carts is an expensive gimmick

Huns are over priced LC

Run 80 RB auxilia
a number of large legions
and a handful of LI and the minimum cav
throw some terrain to anchor the flanks
hold in the center with the legions
give on one flank with the cav and LI
and turn the other flank with 80 RB Auxilia

Learn how to counter the Auxilia and the LI and you will be winning in no time

Derek


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

[joncleaves]

Some issues.

1. The EHC would be impetuous or it would not be able to reliably push back a
6E auxilia.

2. I would use 2x 2E EHC on a 6E (or even 4E) auxilia. Too often I see someone
try and use 300 men to kill 1200 men and then wonder why it doesn't go well...

3. B class auxilia in 6E units are pricey. Its probably a C. In any case, I
(and others) will often charge a couple such units just because of the
likelihood of a failed waver - and you don't need many to start the ball
rolling...

4. If the EHC player lets an aux get to 80p he deserves what he gets. This
example should have been at 120p - no dart in prep.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Celella <pcelella@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 17:04:03 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Comments on 25 mm late Roman lists


Okay - I just ran some numbers on Auxilia versus EHC, and I don't see
why they would necessarily be toast. I figured this in a vacuum, and I
know that actual game combats don't always play out this way. Also,
don't hesitate to point out my obvious errors. So here goes:

Assume a two stand, 6 figure unit of EHC attacking the 6 stand, 24
figure unit of Auxilia, 4 JLS, D, Sh and 2 B, Sh. The Auxilia have
just moved up to 80 paces in approaches.

Assuming that the Auxilia prep shooting is split, then between the
darts and rear rank bows there's 8@2 which would be 16 or 2 CPF to the
EHC.

Now, assuming the Auxilia pass wavers when being charged, then the
support shooting would be 16@2 -2 (in contact) =0 for another 16 and
two more 2 CPF. The EHC would take 2 more fatique for a mounted charge
for a total of 6 - so they would hit tired, right?

For the combat, the EHC would now be 5@4 +1 (mounted charge) -2 from
support shooting -1 (tired) = 2 for 10 casualties and no CPF to the
Auxilia. The Auxilia would be 6@1 +1 (using JLS) = 2 for 12 casualties
and another 2 CPF to the EHC who would now have to either break off or
recoil.

Why would this be so horrendous for the Auxilia? Am I missing something?

Peter

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
>
> In a message dated 11/2/2005 2:38:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, mark@
writes:
>
> >>
> >> but armies with substantial shock mounted -- even just EHC --
should roll you
> >> over.
> >>
>
> To which Derek replied:
>
> > Mark,
> >
> > What are you thinking? Auxilia will kill EHC.
>
> Derek,
>
> Glad you feel that way. Please bring all the auxilia you can to
future Lancaster
> tournaments.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>









Yahoo! Groups Links






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