Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/28/2004 14:52:17 Central Standard Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:
(c) Is this list actually any good? Seems like sufficient troops for
a 2000-pt army and excellent in some ways, but missing real mounted
punch and I suspect would have trouble with large numbers of enemy
mounted or impetuous foot that couldn't be shot at very well
(luckily, most of those very types tend to be in small shooting-
vulnerable units). On the other hand it can beat most foot and
skirmish what it can not beat and the Spanish allies give it some
real heavy mobile anti-armor firepower as well as a bit of fun
mounted units to play with.>>

John, I am not the expert on New World history, but I can tell you that I
have a Tlax army in 15's with a Spanish CINC and find it to be very competitive
at 1600. It is not an army for the faint of heart if the other guy has more
than about 5-6 SHK, but then not many are....
I take all the spanish goodies - I just LOVE that foot. Talk about someone
who is not scared of knights....
The Tlax foot I take as 1HCW D front, B back. I use them like a poor man's
longbowman - with the additional neat effects that they are shielded when they
shoot and are 16 figures at close range....
The HK are 'closers' - you don't use them to start a fight unless it is
versus his shock LMI. And with 144+ figs that have a missile weapon, there will
be
plenty of disordered stuff for the HK to charge.

Juan Cleahvez


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/28/2004 16:11:02 Central Standard Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:
I guess the main question in response is would you take the front
rank 2HCT instead of 1HCW if you had the points to spend on it?>.

Sure - if I had the points to spend on it. But I'm plumb out...lol

I have taken them as 1HCW because the factors aren't far from what you get
with 2HCT against the people you should be fighting (MI, LMI) and 2HCT won't
help you with the people you shouldn't be fighting (K). Both weapons are good
against HC/MC, but they won't mess with you anyway due to your missiles. The
interesting thing is HI, which 1HCW loses a factor against but 2HCT stays at 5.
However, most comp players shun HI due to cost.....
For me, the issue is the shielded second bound against those troop types I
would actually accept hand to hand with.

J


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/28/2004 17:23:51 Central Standard Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:
That is a +3 differential against HI/HC and +2 against
MI/MC, although admittedly only for the front rank but they are going
to score at least 2/3 maybe 3/4 of the casualties.
True. But, these don't fight HC as HC would be dead to missiles before it
charges. And, HI is far less of a worry as 1. comp players don't take a lot of
it and 2. if he paid for armor, he is short elsewhere in his list.
So, that leaves us with the difference of +2 in the initial bound, which I am
not worried about because I'll shoot it away in many cases and I also rather
face that than give the +3 for shieldless in the second bound. These are
support troops, which means I don't want them a point more expensive than they
have to be and they are there to hold up enemy units, not kill them. 2HCT is an
attack weapon, designed to get it done in one bound. Personally, I give
weapons like 2HCT to my shock troops, not my support troops.
But that is just me.....lol

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/28/2004 19:05:33 Central Standard Time,
Scott.Holder@... writes:
So what are the shock troops? I don't see anything in the Spanish sub-
list that really qualifies although there is plenty of good firepower
there and the HK provide a bit of support. Do you use some variety of
Tlaxcallan Irr foot for this or what?
Yes, and also the war dogs and the spanish foot. I know it does not 'seem'
like they are, but you should see what they can do...lol Also, their points
cost has to make them justify themselves as shock troops.
The HK are my closers: very little I want to get into a fight with with them
unless disordered, flank, second unit in, etc.

J


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

[John Murphy]

Yet another "what about this list" post. This one on Conquistadors.
An interesting army which I decided to look at since I have a bunch
of unpainted 25mm lead for it. Also, the research done on New World
Warrior and the incredible historical notes in this army list make
anyone want to play it.

Hey, Sunday is a slow day on this list anyway so it is as good a time
as any to chew up some bandwidth. And a slow day here too except I
really should be cracking the books - makes an easy excuse for
procrastination.

There are four parts / questions to this post.

(a) Not so much for this list, but what Nigel Davies work was
consulted in preparing New World Warrior for the Toltecs,
particularly the prequel Teotihuacans? What works of those mentioned
were the most used for the Aztecs?

(b) Is this list even legal? It seems to adhere to the letter of the
rules but can you (1) have Huexotzincan allies and Spanish within the
same Tlaxcallan army list (you can't have Spanish with your
Tlaxcallans as allies in a Huexotzincan list but this way around has
no restriction that I see), and (2) have only Novice Warriors and
Peasants (plus generals) in your Tlaxcallans and Cholultecans (once
again a real evasion of the spirit but not that I can see the letter
of the list).

(c) Is this list actually any good? Seems like sufficient troops for
a 2000-pt army and excellent in some ways, but missing real mounted
punch and I suspect would have trouble with large numbers of enemy
mounted or impetuous foot that couldn't be shot at very well
(luckily, most of those very types tend to be in small shooting-
vulnerable units). On the other hand it can beat most foot and
skirmish what it can not beat and the Spanish allies give it some
real heavy mobile anti-armor firepower as well as a bit of fun
mounted units to play with.

(d) Given that it already barely meets the non-Spanish minimums, what
might be the best way to cut it to 1600 points without changing too
much of the flavor of the list? One thing which might help is being
able to halve all the non-Spanish minimums as permitted in the list
notes. You could use this to maybe drop a unit of Tlaxcallan Peasants
and one of the Huexotzincan all-Knight units and replace the
Tlaxcallan Novice Warriors with Knights instead. But that only shaves
off about 100 points or so.

Here is the list...

New World Warrior, list #1: Aztec, Tlaxcallan (Spanish C-in-C)
Climate: Dry. Boats: Yes.
Historical Opponents:
New World: 1, 2, 3, 7 (Successor States Epilogue); Feudal: 34.

18 units @ 1,997 pts (least E @ 12 pts)
(12 Spanish mounted, 42 Spanish foot, 160 Amerindian foot + porters)

Spanish contingent (8 units @ 843 pts)
1x CinC & Lancers
w/ P standard 2E Reg A HK L, Sh @ 200 pts
1x Lancers
2E Reg A HK L, Sh @ 94 pts
4x Infantry
2E Reg A LHI 1HCW, HG, Sh @ 82 pts
1x Wheeled Guns
2E Bombards 4 Reg A crew& native porters @ 106 pts
1x War Dogs
2E w/ Irr A armed handler @ 115 pts

Tlaxcallan contingent (3 units @ 270 pts)
1x Ally-general & Novice Warriors
w/ P standard 4E ¼ Reg A ¾ Reg D LMI 1HCW, B, Sh @ 154 pts
2x Peasants
4E Reg D LMI B, Sh @ 58 pts

Cholultecan contingent (1 unit @ 148 pts)
1x Ally-general & Novice Warriors
w/ P standard 4E ¼ Reg C ¾ Reg D LMI 1HCW, D, Sh @ 148 pts

Huexotzincan contingent (6 units @ 736 pts)
1x Ally-general & Jaguar or Eagle Knights
w/ P standard 4E ¼ Reg A ¾ Reg B LMI 1HCW, D, Sh @ 178 pts
1x Jaguar or Eagle Knights
4E ¼ Reg A ¾ Reg B LMI 1HCW, D, Sh @ 110 pts
2x Jaguar or Eagle Knights & Warriors
4E ¼ Reg A ¾ Reg B LMI ½ 2HCT, D, Sh ½ 1HCW, D, Sh @ 118 pts
2x Jaguar or Eagle Knights & Warriors
4E ¼ Reg A ¾ Reg C LMI ½ 2HCT, D, Sh ½ 1HCW, D, Sh @ 106 pts

[John Murphy]

I guess the main question in response is would you take the front
rank 2HCT instead of 1HCW if you had the points to spend on it? Looks
like a big bonus to me but I have not run any 1HCW troops yet (maybe
this will seem better after the Roman theme, but they do have HTW).

I hadn't thought of using the Tlaxcallans with half-bow and half-
dart. Seems obvious now but I was so focused on all the other
interesting things with this list that that one slipped past.

Of course, I also attempted to shift more out of the Tlaxcallan
troops and into the Huexotzincan troops to get the morale benefits
(really for the Tlaxcallans just the 1/4 A knights to distribute, its
the Cholultecans that were more problematic in this regard) - and
doing that meant _most_ of the army was all D-armed instead having a
B-option.

Looking at it in this light, I am tempted to believe the advantages
of having back-rank B versus D outweigh the loss of the A-morale
knight element in each unit. Only downside I see is sheildless while
skirmishing, though there are a lot of opponents that I would happy
to forego skirmishing in front of with these guys anyway.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> I can tell you that I
> have a Tlax army in 15's with a Spanish CINC
> I take all the spanish goodies
> The Tlax foot I take as 1HCW D front, B back. I use them like a
poor man's
> longbowman - with the additional neat effects that they are
shielded when they
> shoot and are 16 figures at close range....

[John Murphy]

Let's see, just for sake of discussion (so don't take any of this too
seriously) for just the front rank with 2HCT you are 1 more against
MI or MC (5 vs 4) and 2 more against HI or HC (5 vs 3). Plus the
other guy is down 1 unless steady HTW. And the 2HCT rank restriction
doesn't mattter because you have back rank 1HCW and can fight at half
figures. That is a +3 differential against HI/HC and +2 against
MI/MC, although admittedly only for the front rank but they are going
to score at least 2/3 maybe 3/4 of the casualties.

All of which you obviously are aware of but typing it out will maybe
stick it in my memory.

And to me that almost seems like enough to put them over the top or
save their butt depending on circumstances, and for only 8 points per
16-fig unit. So my guess is one does not even get an entire extra
unit out of not taking the 2HCT when it makes such a difference
factors-wise.

I guess when you already have the list worked out and you are
comfortable with it spending 8 points per unit seems impossible
because you have to give up something you have grown accustomed to.
Maybe being still in the planning stage has its advantages, or maybe
you just know something I have not yet learned regarding this.

The idea would be, as I visualize it under the best circumstances, to
have enough units to replace in HtH in the second bound so shieldless
would not matter (maybe run about 1/3 of the Amerindian LMI as a
second line). And of course that means the other guy has to survive
the first bound. But then again the best laid plans... and your point
is taken the unshielded for LMI is a lot to deal with if you wind up
stuck that way (why I pay to run my skirmishing longbows LHI). Though
why does that bother you here but not in the case of skirmishing
since you have bows?

Not that anything I put forth would work out better than the way you
are running them, in fact I agree with the mantra that it is the
player not the army which makes a big difference here too. But I'd
like to know if I was competitively way off base here (like I expect
I was in ignoring the benefits of Tlaxcallan back-rank bows) or if
the 2HCT-1HCW decision is mostly just a matter of prefernce.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> I have taken them as 1HCW because the factors aren't far from what
you get
> with 2HCT against the people you should be fighting (MI, LMI) and
2HCT won't
> help you with the people you shouldn't be fighting (K).
> most comp players shun HI due to cost.....
> For me, the issue is the shielded second bound against those troop
types I
> would actually accept hand to hand with.

[John Murphy]

So what are the shock troops? I don't see anything in the Spanish sub-
list that really qualifies although there is plenty of good firepower
there and the HK provide a bit of support. Do you use some variety of
Tlaxcallan Irr foot for this or what?

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> I give weapons like 2HCT to my shock troops

[scott holder]

That's what I do, fwiw. I have little 2E units of them running around waiting
to slam into someone, assuming I get my orders and spacing down correctly. I
play the Spanish/Tlax in 25mm. Haven't played it much so am terribly rusty with
it. But like Jon, I see loads of potential in it.

-----Original Message-----
From: J. Murphy [mailto:jjmurphy@...]
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 5:51 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Conquistadors


So what are the shock troops? I don't see anything in the Spanish sub-
list that really qualifies although there is plenty of good firepower
there and the HK provide a bit of support. Do you use some variety of
Tlaxcallan Irr foot for this or what?

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> I give weapons like 2HCT to my shock troops





Yahoo! Groups Links