Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

Caveat: what follows is strictly from a tourney gamer's point of view, and has
nothing to do with history or accuracy of historical representation.

I've spent a lot of time looking at Oriental Warrior list #25, Later Tang
Chinese, and the more I look at it the more impressed I am. From a game
balance/game mechanics point of view, this represents one of the very best
lists that FHE has presented us to date. I expect to see Later Tang showing up
in tournaments with some frequency, as it represents a very competitive list,
probably in the top echelon. But the more I look at it, the more I realize it
presents the list designer with hard choices that require a lot of thought.

In short, you can have just about anything on this list, but you certainly can't
have everything.

We see a lot of lists offered up here as a "finished product" for review. I'm
not going to do that here. I do have a version of Tang worked up that I'm quite
happy with, but hey, I'm not going to tip my hand. What I thought might be
interesting is to take the process back a step earlier, and walk through the
analysis of the army that precedes actually putting together a list.

Most of the Chinese armies in Oriental Warrior have an abundance of solid line
troops, some of the very best in the game. Durable close order foot, often with
a missile weapon, and with a choice of hand to hand weapons that can range from
1HCW to 2HCW to 2HCT to LTS. That's great, but you can't win big with line
troops alone. Ultimately you have to have some shock troops to exploit
opportunities that emerge as your line pressures the enemy. Typically this
means shock foot, often but not always irregular, shock cavalry, or elephants.
Tang can get you any of these but elephants.

The possible shock troops:
- SHC L,B,Sh (the Tibetans)
- HI 2HCW,B,Sh/1HCW,B,Sh (Jian'er Swordsmen)
- Irr A LMI 2HCW or JLS,Sh (various: Bandits, Southern Tribesmen, or Nanzhao-led
Tribesmen)

As primarily a cavalry player the thing that drew me to the list was the
Tibetans. As is often the case, a desirable troop type gets better support
troops on some other list than its "home" list. So it is here: if you want to
play Tibetan cataphracts, this is a better list to support them with than the
Tibetan list.

Right away, however, you're going to be confronted with some interesting
choices. Unlike other cataphracts, Tibetans can mix with HC or MC, not just
EHC. Thus instead of getting just 2 cataphract units here that are SHC/EHC, you
can actually get 4 units that are either SHC/HC or SHC/MC. There are drawbacks,
however. If you back your SHC with MC, you don't ever want to get disordered or
charged in the flank, and you have to be careful about expanding in a follow-up.
Further, the HC/MC can only be Irr C which, as a back rank, won't hurt your
ability to go impetous, but will make you twice as likely to fail a waver test.

It would be nice to balance the Tibetans with some shock foot, but that involves
difficult choices as well. While the notes don't explicitly forbid combining
Tibetans with Nanzhao, I suspect this is a slip up, as the climate notes point
out that "If Nanzhao, Tropical, if Tibetans used, Cold." I would conclude from
that that you can't use both Nanzhao and Tibetans. The notes also preclude
combining Tibetans with Southern Tribesmen, meaning if you want Irr A foot
you're going to have to go with the Bandits.

This isn't so bad. Take all 24 stands of Irr E Bandits, and upgrade half to Irr
A, armed with JLS,Sh. You're stuck with 12 stands of Irr E IPW guys, but in one
unit that's only 43 points. Put them in cover somewhere on a flank (in a woods
or a town), and it will take several bounds for your opponent too clear out a
unit that nobody waver tests for anyway. Alternatively, send them on a flank
march. They'll likely cause at least 43 points of distraction.

The more serious problem is this line in the notes: "If Bandits are present, no
allies may be present, Militia must be all Irr and no Reg Chinese troops can
receive morale upgrades." I wouldn't worry about allies, as the Nanzhao ally is
the only one worth thinking about and can't be taken with Tibetans. Nor is Irr
Militia that big a deal; probably I wouldn't take any Militia anyway.

But no morale upgrades for the Reg Chinese foot definitely hurts. The Jain'er
Swordsmen start as Reg D MI, but potentially can be upgraded to Reg C, with one
unit upgraded to Reg B or Reg A. As Reg Ds these guys don't make very impressive
shock troops. Reg Cs would do, and it would be great to have one unit of Reg A
that could counter effectively and pass waver tests.

So there's the dilemma: You can get shock foot to accompany the SHC, but you
have to choose between regular Jian'er Swordsmen as your shock foot vs. Irr A
Bandits as your shock foot.

The altnerative is to not take the Tibetans at all. Then you can take 12 stands
of Southern Tribesmen as Irr As, and you don't get stuck with any Irr E troops.
Your Jian'er can be fully upgraded, giving you very sturdy shock regular foot to
go with your impetous Tribesmen. If you want more than 12 stands of Irr A, you
can take the Nanzhao ally, giving you another 6 stands of Irr A LMI. This too
comes at a price, however: you have to have any ally general (never an ideal
thing), and your ally general has to be either MC or HC without lance.

As a side note, the Nanzhao contingent gives you the only shielded light
infantry you can get on this list, in my opinion a very good thing. You can get
8 stands of Reg C LI B, half shielded, probably good for 2 units of 4 stands.

Overall the light troops are decent, but not optimal. Lots of regular LI with
bow or CB, but only the Nanzhao can have shields. You get some Reg C LC with
bow, and some Irr with JLS,B,Sh. Both are useful, but the points aren't very
optimized buying all those javelins and shields for the rear ranks of the Irr
unit(s).

Keep in mind, however, that this isn't an army in particular need of light
troops. You can get up to 48 stands of Jian'er Spearmen. These guys start as
Reg D MI LTS,B. Any can have shields. Any can be C. 3 units can be B. Half can
be HI. These guys will make a very sturdy line whether you have light troops or
not, and at a very efficient point cost. If you take an 8 stand unit of these
guys, upgrade one stand to C, and give half of them shields, that's a 126 point
unit.

Obviously the Irr A guys make good rough terrain troops, but they aren't "hold
the line" rough terrain troops. For that you'll want Jian'er Javelinmen or
Bowmen, who start as Reg D LMI, can get morale upgrades, can get armor
upgrades, and can be given shields.

If you haven't figured it out by now, wrestling over which Jian'er to take and
how to take them is going to be the hardest part of list construction here.
These guys have tremendous flexibility, and the army takes on a very different
flavor depending on how you put them together. My own inclination would be to
buy the spearmen in large units (say, 8 stands), and to have several such
units. Buy the Swordsmen in small units (probably 2 stands), and make the front
rank HI. Skip the Javelinmen, but take 2 of the 6 stand units of LMI Bowmen
(half with shields). The list allows a choice of B or CB, but here on the West
Coast I spend so much time shooting at elephants that I'd never seriously
consider CB given the choice.

There are plenty of choices here, none of them bad, but all of them involving
some significant tradeoffs. In my opinion, from a game balance perspective, I
think this sets a new standard for how well a list can be designed. In the
hands of a patient and clever list designer, what will emerge from this should
be fully competitive with Sassanid, Timurid, or any of the other top tier
armies. At the same time no one can complain that this is out and out a
"killer" list. It is masterfully balanced.


-Mark Stone

[Ewan McNay]

I was going to - indeed, started to - post voluminously in detailed
response. But I got bored .

Instead, I'll just note that if we see an increase in the number of OW
armies, we may well see an increase in LIR. Legions would just *love* a
line of MI with LTS (or 2HCT, even better!) and B, and the supporting
light troops are as good as you could want.

LIR has always had two basic problems: vulnerability to knights and lack
of non-close foot assault troops. The latter is less true in 25mm NICT
format, where the legions have a chance to get to a target (although still
hard) and it seems as though there may be an upswing (hoplites, pikes, OW,
elephants, whatever) in things that legions kill. Cataphracts are a
problem, as well as knights, granted, and that may still be too high a
hurdle, but the balance is shofting, perhaps. If only they could get some
El...

[[And I think that legions may be a counterpoint to the 'OW foot are too
good for the money' suggestion; for 134 points I can get a 6E unit w/ HTW,
JLS, D, Sh and one element of C class that'll just eat alive Mark's
126-point line unit below. Now, it's a *lot* more vulnerable to very
heavy cav - but on reflection, the discrepancy in game utility may not be
*that* big.]]

Mark Stone wrote:

> Caveat: what follows is strictly from a tourney gamer's point of view, and has
> nothing to do with history or accuracy of historical representation.
>
> I've spent a lot of time looking at Oriental Warrior list #25, Later Tang
> Chinese, and the more I look at it the more impressed I am. From a game
> balance/game mechanics point of view, this represents one of the very best
> lists that FHE has presented us to date. I expect to see Later Tang showing up
> in tournaments with some frequency, as it represents a very competitive list,
> probably in the top echelon. But the more I look at it, the more I realize it
> presents the list designer with hard choices that require a lot of thought.
>
> In short, you can have just about anything on this list, but you certainly
can't
> have everything.
>
> We see a lot of lists offered up here as a "finished product" for review. I'm
> not going to do that here. I do have a version of Tang worked up that I'm
quite
> happy with, but hey, I'm not going to tip my hand. What I thought might be
> interesting is to take the process back a step earlier, and walk through the
> analysis of the army that precedes actually putting together a list.
>
> Most of the Chinese armies in Oriental Warrior have an abundance of solid line
> troops, some of the very best in the game. Durable close order foot, often
with
> a missile weapon, and with a choice of hand to hand weapons that can range
from
> 1HCW to 2HCW to 2HCT to LTS. That's great, but you can't win big with line
> troops alone. Ultimately you have to have some shock troops to exploit
> opportunities that emerge as your line pressures the enemy. Typically this
> means shock foot, often but not always irregular, shock cavalry, or elephants.
> Tang can get you any of these but elephants.
>
> The possible shock troops:
> - SHC L,B,Sh (the Tibetans)
> - HI 2HCW,B,Sh/1HCW,B,Sh (Jian'er Swordsmen)
> - Irr A LMI 2HCW or JLS,Sh (various: Bandits, Southern Tribesmen, or
Nanzhao-led
> Tribesmen)
>
> As primarily a cavalry player the thing that drew me to the list was the
> Tibetans. As is often the case, a desirable troop type gets better support
> troops on some other list than its "home" list. So it is here: if you want to
> play Tibetan cataphracts, this is a better list to support them with than the
> Tibetan list.
>
> Right away, however, you're going to be confronted with some interesting
> choices. Unlike other cataphracts, Tibetans can mix with HC or MC, not just
> EHC. Thus instead of getting just 2 cataphract units here that are SHC/EHC,
you
> can actually get 4 units that are either SHC/HC or SHC/MC. There are
drawbacks,
> however. If you back your SHC with MC, you don't ever want to get disordered
or
> charged in the flank, and you have to be careful about expanding in a
follow-up.
> Further, the HC/MC can only be Irr C which, as a back rank, won't hurt your
> ability to go impetous, but will make you twice as likely to fail a waver
test.
>
> It would be nice to balance the Tibetans with some shock foot, but that
involves
> difficult choices as well. While the notes don't explicitly forbid combining
> Tibetans with Nanzhao, I suspect this is a slip up, as the climate notes point
> out that "If Nanzhao, Tropical, if Tibetans used, Cold." I would conclude from
> that that you can't use both Nanzhao and Tibetans. The notes also preclude
> combining Tibetans with Southern Tribesmen, meaning if you want Irr A foot
> you're going to have to go with the Bandits.
>
> This isn't so bad. Take all 24 stands of Irr E Bandits, and upgrade half to
Irr
> A, armed with JLS,Sh. You're stuck with 12 stands of Irr E IPW guys, but in
one
> unit that's only 43 points. Put them in cover somewhere on a flank (in a woods
> or a town), and it will take several bounds for your opponent too clear out a
> unit that nobody waver tests for anyway. Alternatively, send them on a flank
> march. They'll likely cause at least 43 points of distraction.
>
> The more serious problem is this line in the notes: "If Bandits are present,
no
> allies may be present, Militia must be all Irr and no Reg Chinese troops can
> receive morale upgrades." I wouldn't worry about allies, as the Nanzhao ally
is
> the only one worth thinking about and can't be taken with Tibetans. Nor is Irr
> Militia that big a deal; probably I wouldn't take any Militia anyway.
>
> But no morale upgrades for the Reg Chinese foot definitely hurts. The Jain'er
> Swordsmen start as Reg D MI, but potentially can be upgraded to Reg C, with
one
> unit upgraded to Reg B or Reg A. As Reg Ds these guys don't make very
impressive
> shock troops. Reg Cs would do, and it would be great to have one unit of Reg A
> that could counter effectively and pass waver tests.
>
> So there's the dilemma: You can get shock foot to accompany the SHC, but you
> have to choose between regular Jian'er Swordsmen as your shock foot vs. Irr A
> Bandits as your shock foot.
>
> The altnerative is to not take the Tibetans at all. Then you can take 12
stands
> of Southern Tribesmen as Irr As, and you don't get stuck with any Irr E
troops.
> Your Jian'er can be fully upgraded, giving you very sturdy shock regular foot
to
> go with your impetous Tribesmen. If you want more than 12 stands of Irr A, you
> can take the Nanzhao ally, giving you another 6 stands of Irr A LMI. This too
> comes at a price, however: you have to have any ally general (never an ideal
> thing), and your ally general has to be either MC or HC without lance.
>
> As a side note, the Nanzhao contingent gives you the only shielded light
> infantry you can get on this list, in my opinion a very good thing. You can
get
> 8 stands of Reg C LI B, half shielded, probably good for 2 units of 4 stands.
>
> Overall the light troops are decent, but not optimal. Lots of regular LI with
> bow or CB, but only the Nanzhao can have shields. You get some Reg C LC with
> bow, and some Irr with JLS,B,Sh. Both are useful, but the points aren't very
> optimized buying all those javelins and shields for the rear ranks of the Irr
> unit(s).
>
> Keep in mind, however, that this isn't an army in particular need of light
> troops. You can get up to 48 stands of Jian'er Spearmen. These guys start as
> Reg D MI LTS,B. Any can have shields. Any can be C. 3 units can be B. Half can
> be HI. These guys will make a very sturdy line whether you have light troops
or
> not, and at a very efficient point cost. If you take an 8 stand unit of these
> guys, upgrade one stand to C, and give half of them shields, that's a 126
point
> unit.
>
> Obviously the Irr A guys make good rough terrain troops, but they aren't "hold
> the line" rough terrain troops. For that you'll want Jian'er Javelinmen or
> Bowmen, who start as Reg D LMI, can get morale upgrades, can get armor
> upgrades, and can be given shields.
>
> If you haven't figured it out by now, wrestling over which Jian'er to take and
> how to take them is going to be the hardest part of list construction here.
> These guys have tremendous flexibility, and the army takes on a very different
> flavor depending on how you put them together. My own inclination would be to
> buy the spearmen in large units (say, 8 stands), and to have several such
> units. Buy the Swordsmen in small units (probably 2 stands), and make the
front
> rank HI. Skip the Javelinmen, but take 2 of the 6 stand units of LMI Bowmen
> (half with shields). The list allows a choice of B or CB, but here on the West
> Coast I spend so much time shooting at elephants that I'd never seriously
> consider CB given the choice.
>
> There are plenty of choices here, none of them bad, but all of them involving
> some significant tradeoffs. In my opinion, from a game balance perspective, I
> think this sets a new standard for how well a list can be designed. In the
> hands of a patient and clever list designer, what will emerge from this should
> be fully competitive with Sassanid, Timurid, or any of the other top tier
> armies. At the same time no one can complain that this is out and out a
> "killer" list. It is masterfully balanced.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Funny, I was going to make the same point, but can only access my e-mail
after work! If the OW armies increase in usage at the big tourneys, the LIR
could become the unwitting equalizers of the Warrior universe. To a lesser
extent, a well rounded Macedonian army could as well (these are rarely used
these days). Indeed, on the way home tonight, I was even contemplating
finally rebasing that 25nm LIR army I bought on e-bay years ago. . .

I think the real question is, at least as far as the big tourneys go, is
just how many people are going to be able to put together 25mm tang armies
and the like anytime soon. It's one thing to talk about them on this chat
board, but its quite another to put together a 25mm army. In this equation,
I'm not really counting the Khmer's and Burmese, which have always been
around in some quantity. The real question is if we start seeing increases
mass foot Chinese/Korean armies roaming the battlefield. If played
correctly, these could make things difficult for the SHK/ B armies. If
there are less SHK/ B armies, LIR have that much more room to excel. . .

Dave.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ewan McNay" <ewan.mcnay@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] considering Tang (long)


>
> I was going to - indeed, started to - post voluminously in detailed
> response. But I got bored .
>
> Instead, I'll just note that if we see an increase in the number of OW
> armies, we may well see an increase in LIR. Legions would just *love* a
> line of MI with LTS (or 2HCT, even better!) and B, and the supporting
> light troops are as good as you could want.
>
> LIR has always had two basic problems: vulnerability to knights and lack
> of non-close foot assault troops. The latter is less true in 25mm NICT
> format, where the legions have a chance to get to a target (although still
> hard) and it seems as though there may be an upswing (hoplites, pikes, OW,
> elephants, whatever) in things that legions kill. Cataphracts are a
> problem, as well as knights, granted, and that may still be too high a
> hurdle, but the balance is shofting, perhaps. If only they could get some
> El...
>
> [[And I think that legions may be a counterpoint to the 'OW foot are too
> good for the money' suggestion; for 134 points I can get a 6E unit w/ HTW,
> JLS, D, Sh and one element of C class that'll just eat alive Mark's
> 126-point line unit below. Now, it's a *lot* more vulnerable to very
> heavy cav - but on reflection, the discrepancy in game utility may not be
> *that* big.]]
>
> Mark Stone wrote:
>
>> Caveat: what follows is strictly from a tourney gamer's point of view,
>> and has
>> nothing to do with history or accuracy of historical representation.
>>
>> I've spent a lot of time looking at Oriental Warrior list #25, Later Tang
>> Chinese, and the more I look at it the more impressed I am. From a game
>> balance/game mechanics point of view, this represents one of the very
>> best
>> lists that FHE has presented us to date. I expect to see Later Tang
>> showing up
>> in tournaments with some frequency, as it represents a very competitive
>> list,
>> probably in the top echelon. But the more I look at it, the more I
>> realize it
>> presents the list designer with hard choices that require a lot of
>> thought.
>>
>> In short, you can have just about anything on this list, but you
>> certainly can't
>> have everything.
>>
>> We see a lot of lists offered up here as a "finished product" for review.
>> I'm
>> not going to do that here. I do have a version of Tang worked up that I'm
>> quite
>> happy with, but hey, I'm not going to tip my hand. What I thought might
>> be
>> interesting is to take the process back a step earlier, and walk through
>> the
>> analysis of the army that precedes actually putting together a list.
>>
>> Most of the Chinese armies in Oriental Warrior have an abundance of solid
>> line
>> troops, some of the very best in the game. Durable close order foot,
>> often with
>> a missile weapon, and with a choice of hand to hand weapons that can
>> range from
>> 1HCW to 2HCW to 2HCT to LTS. That's great, but you can't win big with
>> line
>> troops alone. Ultimately you have to have some shock troops to exploit
>> opportunities that emerge as your line pressures the enemy. Typically
>> this
>> means shock foot, often but not always irregular, shock cavalry, or
>> elephants.
>> Tang can get you any of these but elephants.
>>
>> The possible shock troops:
>> - SHC L,B,Sh (the Tibetans)
>> - HI 2HCW,B,Sh/1HCW,B,Sh (Jian'er Swordsmen)
>> - Irr A LMI 2HCW or JLS,Sh (various: Bandits, Southern Tribesmen, or
>> Nanzhao-led
>> Tribesmen)
>>
>> As primarily a cavalry player the thing that drew me to the list was the
>> Tibetans. As is often the case, a desirable troop type gets better
>> support
>> troops on some other list than its "home" list. So it is here: if you
>> want to
>> play Tibetan cataphracts, this is a better list to support them with than
>> the
>> Tibetan list.
>>
>> Right away, however, you're going to be confronted with some interesting
>> choices. Unlike other cataphracts, Tibetans can mix with HC or MC, not
>> just
>> EHC. Thus instead of getting just 2 cataphract units here that are
>> SHC/EHC, you
>> can actually get 4 units that are either SHC/HC or SHC/MC. There are
>> drawbacks,
>> however. If you back your SHC with MC, you don't ever want to get
>> disordered or
>> charged in the flank, and you have to be careful about expanding in a
>> follow-up.
>> Further, the HC/MC can only be Irr C which, as a back rank, won't hurt
>> your
>> ability to go impetous, but will make you twice as likely to fail a waver
>> test.
>>
>> It would be nice to balance the Tibetans with some shock foot, but that
>> involves
>> difficult choices as well. While the notes don't explicitly forbid
>> combining
>> Tibetans with Nanzhao, I suspect this is a slip up, as the climate notes
>> point
>> out that "If Nanzhao, Tropical, if Tibetans used, Cold." I would conclude
>> from
>> that that you can't use both Nanzhao and Tibetans. The notes also
>> preclude
>> combining Tibetans with Southern Tribesmen, meaning if you want Irr A
>> foot
>> you're going to have to go with the Bandits.
>>
>> This isn't so bad. Take all 24 stands of Irr E Bandits, and upgrade half
>> to Irr
>> A, armed with JLS,Sh. You're stuck with 12 stands of Irr E IPW guys, but
>> in one
>> unit that's only 43 points. Put them in cover somewhere on a flank (in a
>> woods
>> or a town), and it will take several bounds for your opponent too clear
>> out a
>> unit that nobody waver tests for anyway. Alternatively, send them on a
>> flank
>> march. They'll likely cause at least 43 points of distraction.
>>
>> The more serious problem is this line in the notes: "If Bandits are
>> present, no
>> allies may be present, Militia must be all Irr and no Reg Chinese troops
>> can
>> receive morale upgrades." I wouldn't worry about allies, as the Nanzhao
>> ally is
>> the only one worth thinking about and can't be taken with Tibetans. Nor
>> is Irr
>> Militia that big a deal; probably I wouldn't take any Militia anyway.
>>
>> But no morale upgrades for the Reg Chinese foot definitely hurts. The
>> Jain'er
>> Swordsmen start as Reg D MI, but potentially can be upgraded to Reg C,
>> with one
>> unit upgraded to Reg B or Reg A. As Reg Ds these guys don't make very
>> impressive
>> shock troops. Reg Cs would do, and it would be great to have one unit of
>> Reg A
>> that could counter effectively and pass waver tests.
>>
>> So there's the dilemma: You can get shock foot to accompany the SHC, but
>> you
>> have to choose between regular Jian'er Swordsmen as your shock foot vs.
>> Irr A
>> Bandits as your shock foot.
>>
>> The altnerative is to not take the Tibetans at all. Then you can take 12
>> stands
>> of Southern Tribesmen as Irr As, and you don't get stuck with any Irr E
>> troops.
>> Your Jian'er can be fully upgraded, giving you very sturdy shock regular
>> foot to
>> go with your impetous Tribesmen. If you want more than 12 stands of Irr
>> A, you
>> can take the Nanzhao ally, giving you another 6 stands of Irr A LMI. This
>> too
>> comes at a price, however: you have to have any ally general (never an
>> ideal
>> thing), and your ally general has to be either MC or HC without lance.
>>
>> As a side note, the Nanzhao contingent gives you the only shielded light
>> infantry you can get on this list, in my opinion a very good thing. You
>> can get
>> 8 stands of Reg C LI B, half shielded, probably good for 2 units of 4
>> stands.
>>
>> Overall the light troops are decent, but not optimal. Lots of regular LI
>> with
>> bow or CB, but only the Nanzhao can have shields. You get some Reg C LC
>> with
>> bow, and some Irr with JLS,B,Sh. Both are useful, but the points aren't
>> very
>> optimized buying all those javelins and shields for the rear ranks of the
>> Irr
>> unit(s).
>>
>> Keep in mind, however, that this isn't an army in particular need of
>> light
>> troops. You can get up to 48 stands of Jian'er Spearmen. These guys start
>> as
>> Reg D MI LTS,B. Any can have shields. Any can be C. 3 units can be B.
>> Half can
>> be HI. These guys will make a very sturdy line whether you have light
>> troops or
>> not, and at a very efficient point cost. If you take an 8 stand unit of
>> these
>> guys, upgrade one stand to C, and give half of them shields, that's a 126
>> point
>> unit.
>>
>> Obviously the Irr A guys make good rough terrain troops, but they aren't
>> "hold
>> the line" rough terrain troops. For that you'll want Jian'er Javelinmen
>> or
>> Bowmen, who start as Reg D LMI, can get morale upgrades, can get armor
>> upgrades, and can be given shields.
>>
>> If you haven't figured it out by now, wrestling over which Jian'er to
>> take and
>> how to take them is going to be the hardest part of list construction
>> here.
>> These guys have tremendous flexibility, and the army takes on a very
>> different
>> flavor depending on how you put them together. My own inclination would
>> be to
>> buy the spearmen in large units (say, 8 stands), and to have several such
>> units. Buy the Swordsmen in small units (probably 2 stands), and make the
>> front
>> rank HI. Skip the Javelinmen, but take 2 of the 6 stand units of LMI
>> Bowmen
>> (half with shields). The list allows a choice of B or CB, but here on the
>> West
>> Coast I spend so much time shooting at elephants that I'd never seriously
>> consider CB given the choice.
>>
>> There are plenty of choices here, none of them bad, but all of them
>> involving
>> some significant tradeoffs. In my opinion, from a game balance
>> perspective, I
>> think this sets a new standard for how well a list can be designed. In
>> the
>> hands of a patient and clever list designer, what will emerge from this
>> should
>> be fully competitive with Sassanid, Timurid, or any of the other top tier
>> armies. At the same time no one can complain that this is out and out a
>> "killer" list. It is masterfully balanced.
>>
>>
>> -Mark Stone
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Mark Stone]

--- On March 7 Dave Markowitz said: ---

> I think the real question is, at least as far as the big tourneys go, is
> just how many people are going to be able to put together 25mm tang armies
> and the like anytime soon. It's one thing to talk about them on this chat
> board, but its quite another to put together a 25mm army. In this equation,
> I'm not really counting the Khmer's and Burmese, which have always been
> around in some quantity. The real question is if we start seeing increases
> mass foot Chinese/Korean armies roaming the battlefield. If played
> correctly, these could make things difficult for the SHK/ B armies. If
> there are less SHK/ B armies, LIR have that much more room to excel. . .

Dave makes a good point here. I embarked on the "paint a new army from scratch"
program, and with OW armies it's not a trivial undertaking. By the time we get
to Cold Wars, I will have purchased and painted 520 figures. As we speak I have
116 figures to go (all purchased, just not yet painted).

I have one army I plan on playing at Cold Wars (just bought my airline tickets
today), and another under consideration for Historicon. Neither army is Tang,
nor Han, nor Timurid.... and I do intend on making things very difficult for
SHK/B armies, and for El armies. Of course it all comes down to skill and
execution, and I'm not going to claim I have much to boast about there.

As for LIR: I think what Dave and Ewan are overlooking is that these guys can't
have close order foot any more heavily armored than MI, nor can they use
testudo. In my opinion, that leaves them vulnerable to missile fire in ways
that Chinese armies are primed to exploit. What a will give a Chinese army fits
is HI legionaries in testudo. And those same HI legionaries have the fulcrum and
interpenetration rules that give them new life against cavalry armies.

So I'm going to disagree with Dave and Ewan here (heh; not the first time) and
say that the resurgence will be earlier Roman armies, and not LIR.


-Mark Stone

[Ewan McNay]

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Mark Stone wrote:
> I have one army I plan on playing at Cold Wars (just bought my airline tickets

Now there's another reason to try to make this. I don't have a doubles
partner, though Scott may get roped into it if (i) I make it and (ii)
there's no other sucker...

> As for LIR: I think what Dave and Ewan are overlooking is that these guys
can't
> have close order foot any more heavily armored than MI, nor can they use
> testudo. In my opinion, that leaves them vulnerable to missile fire in ways
> that Chinese armies are primed to exploit. What a will give a Chinese army
fits
> is HI legionaries in testudo. And those same HI legionaries have the fulcrum
and
> interpenetration rules that give them new life against cavalry armies.

See... Mark may, of course, be right. But unless the incoming bowfire is
from loose order foot in skirmish (in which case even Roman cav can find a
role in chasing it down), it's either from >80p (in which case, big deal)
or <80p (in which case if it's from opposing foot or close cav, they're
going to be too scared to fire for fear of darts coming back, and if it's
from LC/LI that's still probably true plus, big deal). Which is the whole
reason for rating LIR - the ability to fire back and hence scare e.g. MI
LTS, B, Sh into keeping their shields up - at which point they die anyway.

[For newer folk: scared into keeping shields up because if they don't the
LIR shoot them at factor 5, and 6@5 is 24 per element, which is both
disorder and a waver for taking 2cpf while unshielded.]

> So I'm going to disagree with Dave and Ewan here (heh; not the first time) and
> say that the resurgence will be earlier Roman armies, and not LIR.

Wanna bet? :)

E

[Bill Chriss]

> --- On March 7 Dave Markowitz said: ---
>
> > I think the real question is, at least as far as the big tourneys go,
> is
> > just how many people are going to be able to put together 25mm tang
> armies
> > and the like anytime soon. It's one thing to talk about them on this
> chat
> > board, but its quite another to put together a 25mm army. In this
> equation,
> > I'm not really counting the Khmer's and Burmese, which have always been
> > around in some quantity. The real question is if we start seeing
> increases
> > mass foot Chinese/Korean armies roaming the battlefield. If played
> > correctly, these could make things difficult for the SHK/ B armies. If
> > there are less SHK/ B armies, LIR have that much more room to excel. .
> .


This is one of the things I like about this game...rock, paper,
scissors....rock, paper, scissors...


Moral: stick to what you know and like.

Greek

Speaking of a resurgence in Early Roman Armies, anyone have any
thoughts of how the Republican Romans will be handled in Classical
Warrior? I was wondering how Scipio's army would fare - would they
have similar rules to the later legions, could they take Numidian,
Macedonian and Spanish allies, etc?

Peter

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> --- On March 7 Dave Markowitz said: ---
>
> As for LIR: I think what Dave and Ewan are overlooking is that these
guys can't
> have close order foot any more heavily armored than MI, nor can they use
> testudo. In my opinion, that leaves them vulnerable to missile fire
in ways
> that Chinese armies are primed to exploit. What a will give a
Chinese army fits
> is HI legionaries in testudo. And those same HI legionaries have the
fulcrum and
> interpenetration rules that give them new life against cavalry armies.
>
> So I'm going to disagree with Dave and Ewan here (heh; not the first
time) and
> say that the resurgence will be earlier Roman armies, and not LIR.
>
>
> -Mark Stone

[Greg Regets]

It seems to me that part of the unpopularity of LIR is the one army
list tournament format.

With a two list format, you are more than able to make an effective
anti-knight list, or at least a list that makes the knights life
difficult.

Thanks ... g




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, ewan.mcnay@y... wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Mark Stone wrote:
> > I have one army I plan on playing at Cold Wars (just bought my
airline tickets
>
> Now there's another reason to try to make this. I don't have a
doubles
> partner, though Scott may get roped into it if (i) I make it and
(ii)
> there's no other sucker...
>
> > As for LIR: I think what Dave and Ewan are overlooking is that
these guys can't
> > have close order foot any more heavily armored than MI, nor can
they use
> > testudo. In my opinion, that leaves them vulnerable to missile
fire in ways
> > that Chinese armies are primed to exploit. What a will give a
Chinese army fits
> > is HI legionaries in testudo. And those same HI legionaries have
the fulcrum and
> > interpenetration rules that give them new life against cavalry
armies.
>
> See... Mark may, of course, be right. But unless the incoming
bowfire is
> from loose order foot in skirmish (in which case even Roman cav can
find a
> role in chasing it down), it's either from >80p (in which case, big
deal)
> or <80p (in which case if it's from opposing foot or close cav,
they're
> going to be too scared to fire for fear of darts coming back, and
if it's
> from LC/LI that's still probably true plus, big deal). Which is
the whole
> reason for rating LIR - the ability to fire back and hence scare
e.g. MI
> LTS, B, Sh into keeping their shields up - at which point they die
anyway.
>
> [For newer folk: scared into keeping shields up because if they
don't the
> LIR shoot them at factor 5, and 6@5 is 24 per element, which is both
> disorder and a waver for taking 2cpf while unshielded.]
>
> > So I'm going to disagree with Dave and Ewan here (heh; not the
first time) and
> > say that the resurgence will be earlier Roman armies, and not LIR.
>
> Wanna bet?
>
> E

[Ewan McNay]

Greg Regets wrote:

>
> It seems to me that part of the unpopularity of LIR is the one army
> list tournament format.
>
> With a two list format, you are more than able to make an effective
> anti-knight list, or at least a list that makes the knights life
> difficult.

Maybe - if so, I think it's a good thing, even though then we get into the
'Mongols are better in one-list' argument. As a well-known abuser of the
two-list environment, though, I think the balance has pretty clearly been
shown to be in favour of only one.

[While we were discussing tournament formats, though, what I would
*really* like is a knockout format, where you lose any troops that were
destroyed/routed, maybe have a morale downgrade for those ending the game
shaken, but get to use some portion of defeated foes for the remainder of
the tournament in addition to your army as an unreliable ally.]

[Mike Turner]

Ewan,
Did I read that bottom portion correctly? Are you volunteering to
run a tournament at Cold Wars or Historicon?

Mike

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:
>
>
> Greg Regets wrote:
>
> >
> > It seems to me that part of the unpopularity of LIR is the one
army
> > list tournament format.
> >
> > With a two list format, you are more than able to make an
effective
> > anti-knight list, or at least a list that makes the knights life
> > difficult.
>
> Maybe - if so, I think it's a good thing, even though then we get
into the
> 'Mongols are better in one-list' argument. As a well-known abuser
of the
> two-list environment, though, I think the balance has pretty
clearly been
> shown to be in favour of only one.
>
> [While we were discussing tournament formats, though, what I would
> *really* like is a knockout format, where you lose any troops that
were
> destroyed/routed, maybe have a morale downgrade for those ending
the game
> shaken, but get to use some portion of defeated foes for the
remainder of
> the tournament in addition to your army as an unreliable ally.]

[Greg Regets]

I would be all for single list tournaments, if army lists ALL had
roughly the same, and high, minimums ... and players couldn't make
lists that spent 75% of the available points on elephants, or
knights, or chariots.

Just my opinion ... g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:
>
>
> Greg Regets wrote:
>
> >
> > It seems to me that part of the unpopularity of LIR is the one
army
> > list tournament format.
> >
> > With a two list format, you are more than able to make an
effective
> > anti-knight list, or at least a list that makes the knights life
> > difficult.
>
> Maybe - if so, I think it's a good thing, even though then we get
into the
> 'Mongols are better in one-list' argument. As a well-known abuser
of the
> two-list environment, though, I think the balance has pretty
clearly been
> shown to be in favour of only one.
>
> [While we were discussing tournament formats, though, what I would
> *really* like is a knockout format, where you lose any troops that
were
> destroyed/routed, maybe have a morale downgrade for those ending
the game
> shaken, but get to use some portion of defeated foes for the
remainder of
> the tournament in addition to your army as an unreliable ally.]

[Ewan McNay]

Oh, sure; I've volunteered such in the past, also. It would have to be
opposite the Theme at H'Con.

turner1118 wrote:

>
> Ewan,
> Did I read that bottom portion correctly? Are you volunteering to
> run a tournament at Cold Wars or Historicon?
>
> Mike
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Greg Regets wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It seems to me that part of the unpopularity of LIR is the one
>
> army
>
>>>list tournament format.
>>>
>>>With a two list format, you are more than able to make an
>
> effective
>
>>>anti-knight list, or at least a list that makes the knights life
>>>difficult.
>>
>>Maybe - if so, I think it's a good thing, even though then we get
>
> into the
>
>>'Mongols are better in one-list' argument. As a well-known abuser
>
> of the
>
>>two-list environment, though, I think the balance has pretty
>
> clearly been
>
>>shown to be in favour of only one.
>>
>>[While we were discussing tournament formats, though, what I would
>>*really* like is a knockout format, where you lose any troops that
>
> were
>
>>destroyed/routed, maybe have a morale downgrade for those ending
>
> the game
>
>>shaken, but get to use some portion of defeated foes for the
>
> remainder of
>
>>the tournament in addition to your army as an unreliable ally.]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Mark Stone]

Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:

> From: ewan.mcnay@...
> Subject: Re: re: considering Tang (long)
>
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Mark Stone wrote:
> > I have one army I plan on playing at Cold Wars (just bought my airline
> tickets
>
> Now there's another reason to try to make this. I don't have a doubles
> partner, though Scott may get roped into it if (i) I make it and (ii)
> there's no other sucker...

Ewan, we can certainly find you a doubles partner. Of course, maybe you're just
looking for excuses to duck my mighty Chinese... ;-)

>
> > As for LIR: I think what Dave and Ewan are overlooking is that these guys
> can't
> > have close order foot any more heavily armored than MI, nor can they use
> > testudo.
>
> See... Mark may, of course, be right. But unless the incoming bowfire is
> from loose order foot in skirmish (in which case even Roman cav can find a
> role in chasing it down), it's either from >80p (in which case, big deal)
> or <80p (in which case if it's from opposing foot or close cav, they're
> going to be too scared to fire for fear of darts coming back, and if it's
> from LC/LI that's still probably true plus, big deal). Which is the whole
> reason for rating LIR - the ability to fire back and hence scare e.g. MI
> LTS, B, Sh into keeping their shields up - at which point they die anyway.
>
> [For newer folk: scared into keeping shields up because if they don't the
> LIR shoot them at factor 5, and 6@5 is 24 per element, which is both
> disorder and a waver for taking 2cpf while unshielded.]

Well, Ewan, your math is impeccable here, but the logic is suspect. A couple of
points.

First, the LIR legionaries have the ability to deal out that kind of damage only
if they match up against the Chinese spear element for element in frontage. That
seems unlikely to happen across the board, given the huge disparity in cost.
Consider: an 8 stand unit of Chinese spear holds 4 elements' frontage, it's Reg
D MI LTS,B and half shielded. Very efficient use of points. That's 126 points.
It will take 12 stands of Romans, presumably in 2 units, to equal this
frontage, given the usual configuration of HTW,JLS,D,Sh guys in the front two
ranks and a third rank of bow. The Romans are going to be 130 points per unit,
so a committment of 260 points -- more than double -- to hold the same
frontage.

Second, getting charged by the legionaries isn't the disaster it might seem.
Remember, the minimally acceptable performance by a line unit is to not get
routed at contact when faced with a frontal charge by enemy shock units.
Avoiding disorder, or even winning, are simply bonuses. So let's look at what
happens if a single legionary unit, 24 figs in the typical 2x3 formation,
charges into a 32 figure unit of Chinese LTS,B,Sh guys.

The Chinese will, of course, counter charge. They also get to support shoot,
with 12 @ 2 -2 (in contact) = 12 @ 0 for 12. In hand to hand the Romans do 12 @
5 +1 (JLS) +1 (charging) = 12 @ 7 for 72 casualties. The Chinese do 16 @ 3 +1
(charging) = 16 @ 4 = 48. Combined with the 12 support shooting, that's enough
to do 3 CPF to the Romans (48+12=60, and 3 deep the Romans count as a 20 figure
unit). So the Romans win, but don't do twice as many, so they get to follow up,
but still aren't going to be very happy about it. In bound 2 they are 12 @ 3 +1
(following up) -2 (disordered) = 12 @ 2 = 24. The Chinese are 18 @ 3 = 45. The
Romans recoil tired and disordered.

Of course the interaction won't happen in isolation like this. More likely the
Roman will charge two legionary units together, or one after the other. The
Chinese player should be perfectly happy with this, however. He's tied up more
than double his point value in Roman shock units in an interaction where his
line unit's risk of routing is two or three bounds away, and assuming he has
the
inevitable numerical superiority that comes from cheaper units, and the wits to
use his very regular army effectively, he should have somebody nearby (an SHC
unit, Swordsmen, Irr A LMI) to either threaten the flanks of the engaged
legionary units, or threaten the flank support for the engaged legionary units,
or both.

This whole interaction becomes a very different proposition if you're talking
about HI HTW guys who can use testudo and revert to 1HCW after HTW. These guys
are at the same factor differential at contact as the LIR guys (no JLS, but
they are HI), less vulnerable to shooting, and much tougher in combat on
subsequent bounds. And they have better support troops.


-Mark Stone

[Ewan McNay]

I had assumed legions w/out archers, but otherwise Mark's points are quite
valid. Just for my own curiosity, though, let's assume that the 134-point
legion (now 3-wide; if the rear rank were archers it would be a bit
cheaper but I still don't think it's good value) hits the spear block in
the same way. And this way we're comparing essentially identical point
values (which was my original intent with using LIR legions as a line
troop able to be almost as cheap as the Chinese).

Now the legion hits w/ 18@7 = 108, or 3cpf to the spear block. They
receive 16 in support and 72 in hth so take 3 themselves also. Bound 2,
the legion gets 18@2 = 36, while the spears get 24 (giving them the
overlap of course) at 1 = 36 also, and from then on the spears win. Huh -
I admit, I'm surprised, and a little shocked. Mark's analysis is clearly
better than my ill-informed assumption. Call myself a scientist indeed.

Scary.

Mark Stone wrote:
> Ewan, we can certainly find you a doubles partner. Of course, maybe you're
just
> looking for excuses to duck my mighty Chinese... ;-)

Yeah, I'm just chicken. Keep thinking that, Mark... ;)

Greetings

Granted that LIR can't use the interpenetration, fulcum etc they can
be heavier than MI can't they? About line 36 or so 'Extra to upgrade
Legionaries not with HTW to HI and/or Auxilia to LHI@8 points any'?

Regards

Edward

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> --- On March 7 Dave Markowitz said: ---
>

> As for LIR: I think what Dave and Ewan are overlooking is that
these guys can't
> have close order foot any more heavily armored than MI, nor can
they use
> testudo. In my opinion, that leaves them vulnerable to missile fire
in ways
> that Chinese armies are primed to exploit. What a will give a
Chinese army fits
> is HI legionaries in testudo. And those same HI legionaries have
the fulcrum and
> interpenetration rules that give them new life against cavalry
armies.
...

> -Mark Stone