Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

I view LIR as a shooting army, so all of the below analysis misses how I
would approach the match up. Once the legions get into shooting range, the
LTS, B trooops won't be shooting back. It also means that they will likely
be on the defensive. Under those circumstances, I like my chances of
getting overlaps. I don't have a factor chart handy, but my guess is I'd
have a very good chance of shooting the LTS, B unit to a halt or waiver.
Assuming the units choses to halt. . . bloodbath, and victory to the
legions.

So maybe I'll take Frank up on his challenge. But then again, only if Frank
agrees to my challenge that he run Early Lybians!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Stone" <mark@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 11:44 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] re: considering Tang (long)


>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi

I personally would much prefer to fight tang with a barbarian foot
army than a roman one. Most barbarian foot armies care very little
about been shot at (either because of "a's" or sheer numbers)and
butcher regular lts men fairly reliably. Most Tang armies wont have
enough good quality lancers to prevent this happening. I think viking
or various germanic/scottish dark age armies would do just fine (as
long as you avoid the ones that dont have a shield eg many irish) The
problem from a competition point of view is that these armies are
viable against very few other opponents.

Martin

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "David Markowitz"
<markowitzd@n...> wrote:
>
>
> I view LIR as a shooting army, so all of the below analysis misses
how I
> would approach the match up. Once the legions get into shooting
range, the
> LTS, B trooops won't be shooting back. It also means that they
will likely
> be on the defensive. Under those circumstances, I like my chances
of
> getting overlaps. I don't have a factor chart handy, but my guess
is I'd
> have a very good chance of shooting the LTS, B unit to a halt or
waiver.
> Assuming the units choses to halt. . . bloodbath, and victory to
the
> legions.
>
> So maybe I'll take Frank up on his challenge. But then again, only
if Frank
> agrees to my challenge that he run Early Lybians!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Stone" <mark@d...>
> To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 11:44 AM
> Subject: [WarriorRules] re: considering Tang (long)
>
>
> >
> > Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com"
<WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:
> >
> >> From: ewan.mcnay@y...
> >> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

[Derek Downs]

I view LIR as a shooting army, so all of the below analysis misses how I
would approach the match up.
This is why Dave M is one of the best players in the country. He views LIR as
a shooting army. I view it as an Aztec army (shooting ) with mounted support.
I just played my Koreans vs LIR in Derekcon 33. Bow guys have got to get the
Romans stopped or disorrdered before 80 paces or it is all over. I succeed
everywhere except one unit of legionaire. Which in turn routed a bow block armed
with LTS in the center of my army.

Derek


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

[Mark Stone]

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

> From: "martin williams" <martymagnificent@...>
> Subject: Re: considering Tang (long)
>
> Hi
>
> I personally would much prefer to fight tang with a barbarian foot
> army than a roman one. Most barbarian foot armies care very little
> about been shot at (either because of "a's" or sheer numbers)and
> butcher regular lts men fairly reliably. Most Tang armies wont have
> enough good quality lancers to prevent this happening. I think viking
> or various germanic/scottish dark age armies would do just fine (as
> long as you avoid the ones that dont have a shield eg many irish) The
> problem from a competition point of view is that these armies are
> viable against very few other opponents.
>

I don't think that an army of cheap, regular bowmen has anything to fear from a
bunch of Irr LMI. Yes, the bowmen are going to take their lumps, and no doubt
suffer some routed units when the LMI (a) pass wavers and (b) roll up big. But
the odds all favor the bowmen:
- LMI are less dense and less armored than just about any other target
- unless As, they take a waver for 2 CPF in prep
- as irregular foot, they take double fatigue from hand to hand, and that first
bound of combat when support shooting combines with hand to hand causalties for
total CPF will be a painful one

Then there's the four units with SHC in the front rank. Those guys are a
barbarian's worst nightmare.

Now, a barbarian army that does induce some feelings of trepidation would be
Japanese. Lots of Irr A, and all that LEHI is relatively impervious to bowfire.
Sadly (because it's one of our most colorful and recognizable armies) I don't
think we'll see a lot of Japanese armies in tournament play, since:
- LEHI is exactly the same factor against lance as LHI;
- LEHI is actually _more_ vulnerable to elephants than LHI (el is a 3 vs. EHI
compared with a 2 vs. LHI);
- LEHI is also (same factor line) more vulnerable to chariots than LHI;
- OW introduces a number of appealing elephant and chariot armies.

Granted, LEHI is somewhat better in hand to hand than LHI, but also at a
sigificant increase in cost (thus decreasing the number of units/amount of
frontage you hold). And LEHI is very bow-resistant, traditionally a problem for
the TOG Japanese lists.

But on balance LEHI is the same (lance) or worse (el or ch) against the current
crop of shock troops, and expensive to boot. Overall, not very appealing.


-Mark Stone

[Greg Regets]

Providing a player can get one or both of your LTS,B guys prep firing
at something else (not a stretch by any imagination), your garden
variety of Franks wouldn't be the worst matchup in the world ... for
the Franks that is. ;-)

Yes, you have four units of SHC ... I would imagine the Frank can
spot you a few units and still come out fine.

Again, it's not really a stretch to think that someone with Franks
(or other assorted type) and a bit of experience, could get at least
two of your cavalry units matched up on LI, which would be a very bad
point trade, and potentually (probably) one you would give back times
three, when the main battle line throws down the chopsticks and runs
away.

The Tang is interesting, but I wouldn't rate it as one of the top ten
armies even in OW, much less a killer army.

Then again, you may actually be a top player that is not interested
in making killer armies ... in which case my hat's off to you!

Thanks ... g




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com"
<WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:
>
> > From: "martin williams" <martymagnificent@y...>
> > Subject: Re: considering Tang (long)
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I personally would much prefer to fight tang with a barbarian foot
> > army than a roman one. Most barbarian foot armies care very little
> > about been shot at (either because of "a's" or sheer numbers)and
> > butcher regular lts men fairly reliably. Most Tang armies wont
have
> > enough good quality lancers to prevent this happening. I think
viking
> > or various germanic/scottish dark age armies would do just fine
(as
> > long as you avoid the ones that dont have a shield eg many irish)
The
> > problem from a competition point of view is that these armies are
> > viable against very few other opponents.
> >
>
> I don't think that an army of cheap, regular bowmen has anything to
fear from a
> bunch of Irr LMI. Yes, the bowmen are going to take their lumps,
and no doubt
> suffer some routed units when the LMI (a) pass wavers and (b) roll
up big. But
> the odds all favor the bowmen:
> - LMI are less dense and less armored than just about any other
target
> - unless As, they take a waver for 2 CPF in prep
> - as irregular foot, they take double fatigue from hand to hand,
and that first
> bound of combat when support shooting combines with hand to hand
causalties for
> total CPF will be a painful one
>
> Then there's the four units with SHC in the front rank. Those guys
are a
> barbarian's worst nightmare.
>
> Now, a barbarian army that does induce some feelings of trepidation
would be
> Japanese. Lots of Irr A, and all that LEHI is relatively impervious
to bowfire.
> Sadly (because it's one of our most colorful and recognizable
armies) I don't
> think we'll see a lot of Japanese armies in tournament play, since:
> - LEHI is exactly the same factor against lance as LHI;
> - LEHI is actually _more_ vulnerable to elephants than LHI (el is a
3 vs. EHI
> compared with a 2 vs. LHI);
> - LEHI is also (same factor line) more vulnerable to chariots than
LHI;
> - OW introduces a number of appealing elephant and chariot armies.
>
> Granted, LEHI is somewhat better in hand to hand than LHI, but also
at a
> sigificant increase in cost (thus decreasing the number of
units/amount of
> frontage you hold). And LEHI is very bow-resistant, traditionally a
problem for
> the TOG Japanese lists.
>
> But on balance LEHI is the same (lance) or worse (el or ch) against
the current
> crop of shock troops, and expensive to boot. Overall, not very
appealing.
>
>
> -Mark Stone

> >
>
> I don't think that an army of cheap, regular bowmen has anything to
fear from a
> bunch of Irr LMI. Yes, the bowmen are going to take their lumps,
and no doubt
> suffer some routed units when the LMI (a) pass wavers and (b) roll
up big. But
> the odds all favor the bowmen:


This is not my experience at all. If the barbs are Lmi he shouldn't
get a close range shot till support shooting (virtually ensuring no
waver test). Depending on unit sizes the tang might not even get a
cpf in support shooting. If the barbarians are HTW armed they'll have
a good chance of breaking tang foot on contact. Even 2hcw guys will
have a reasonable chance.

> - LMI are less dense and less armored than just about any other
target

Perhaps but many of them can charge impetuos from skirmish. Making
them virtually missile proof on the approach.

> - unless As, they take a waver for 2 CPF in prep
> - as irregular foot, they take double fatigue from hand to hand,
and that first
> bound of combat when support shooting combines with hand to hand
causalties for
> total CPF will be a painful one


No getting around this one

>
> Then there's the four units with SHC in the front rank. Those guys
are a
> barbarian's worst nightmare.


I thought Tang could have 4 elements of SHC (the tibetans)
not 4 units


>
> Now, a barbarian army that does induce some feelings of trepidation
would be
> Japanese. Lots of Irr A, and all that LEHI is relatively impervious
to bowfire.
> Sadly (because it's one of our most colorful and recognizable
armies) I don't
> think we'll see a lot of Japanese armies in tournament play, since:
> - LEHI is exactly the same factor against lance as LHI;
> - LEHI is actually _more_ vulnerable to elephants than LHI (el is a
3 vs. EHI
> compared with a 2 vs. LHI);
> - LEHI is also (same factor line) more vulnerable to chariots than
LHI;
> - OW introduces a number of appealing elephant and chariot armies.
>
> Granted, LEHI is somewhat better in hand to hand than LHI, but also
at a
> sigificant increase in cost (thus decreasing the number of
units/amount of
> frontage you hold). And LEHI is very bow-resistant, traditionally a
problem for
> the TOG Japanese lists.
>
> But on balance LEHI is the same (lance) or worse (el or ch) against
the current
> crop of shock troops, and expensive to boot. Overall, not very
appealing.


I dont think troops with a 2hct and a bow are terribly worried by
elephants. Even if they're a factor higher than usual. Chariots
generally aren't terribly common and the misile fire can still be a
problem for them (though they fare better than the elephants)


>
>
> -Mark Stone

[Todd Schneider]

As a guy who is playing an Army where everything has a
Bow, and the majority of my troops are LTS, B Sh
types, the two Armies I have had the toughest time
against locally have been Jons Han Chinese and Matt
Jonsons HYWE.

Jon's Chinese shoot as hard as I do, and with the 2HCT
he hits harder than I do, and he's both willing and
able to split fire, and do it more effectively than I
am. However,I have noticed I am making him work
harder for the victory, so I have no problems with
that. I do have a couple of units that if I use
correctly and get the right matchups, I can cause him
some problems, but as he knows this, he does a good
job of protecting them.

Matt Johnson has an Army mix that gives me fits on one
area of the board. SHK, Brigans with Pa, and
Longbowmen working together are a tough nut for me to
crack. I did so in one game by my set up with an LI
unit, which was in front of one of my LTS blocks. It
induced his Irr SHK to charge, the LI evaded through
the spearblock, his knight followed up and were shot
to near oblivion, and the combat broke them. Next
time we played however, he was much more careful with
what he did, and fought a very good game, winning 3-2
IIRC.

I suspect that if Armies like the Later Tang do start
becoming the rage, you'll see many players start using
6E blocks with the back rank bow armed troops, not for
the firepower, but to split all that Bow Fire.

Todd
--- Greg Regets <greg.regets@...> wrote:


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

Providing a player can get one or both of your LTS,B
guys prep firing
at something else (not a stretch by any imagination),
your garden
variety of Franks wouldn't be the worst matchup in the
world ... for
the Franks that is. ;-)

Yes, you have four units of SHC ... I would imagine
the Frank can
spot you a few units and still come out fine.

Again, it's not really a stretch to think that someone
with Franks
(or other assorted type) and a bit of experience,
could get at least
two of your cavalry units matched up on LI, which
would be a very bad
point trade, and potentually (probably) one you would
give back times
three, when the main battle line throws down the
chopsticks and runs
away.

The Tang is interesting, but I wouldn't rate it as one
of the top ten
armies even in OW, much less a killer army.

Then again, you may actually be a top player that is
not interested
in making killer armies ... in which case my hat's off
to you!

Thanks ... g




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone
<mark@d...> wrote:
> Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com"
<WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:
>
> > From: "martin williams" <martymagnificent@y...>
> > Subject: Re: considering Tang (long)
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I personally would much prefer to fight tang with
a barbarian foot
> > army than a roman one. Most barbarian foot armies
care very little
> > about been shot at (either because of "a's" or
sheer numbers)and
> > butcher regular lts men fairly reliably. Most Tang
armies wont
have
> > enough good quality lancers to prevent this
happening. I think
viking
> > or various germanic/scottish dark age armies would
do just fine
(as
> > long as you avoid the ones that dont have a shield
eg many irish)
The
> > problem from a competition point of view is that
these armies are
> > viable against very few other opponents.
> >
>
> I don't think that an army of cheap, regular bowmen
has anything to
fear from a
> bunch of Irr LMI. Yes, the bowmen are going to take
their lumps,
and no doubt
> suffer some routed units when the LMI (a) pass
wavers and (b) roll
up big. But
> the odds all favor the bowmen:
> - LMI are less dense and less armored than just
about any other
target
> - unless As, they take a waver for 2 CPF in prep
> - as irregular foot, they take double fatigue from
hand to hand,
and that first
> bound of combat when support shooting combines with
hand to hand
causalties for
> total CPF will be a painful one
>
> Then there's the four units with SHC in the front
rank. Those guys
are a
> barbarian's worst nightmare.
>
> Now, a barbarian army that does induce some feelings
of trepidation
would be
> Japanese. Lots of Irr A, and all that LEHI is
relatively impervious
to bowfire.
> Sadly (because it's one of our most colorful and
recognizable
armies) I don't
> think we'll see a lot of Japanese armies in
tournament play, since:
> - LEHI is exactly the same factor against lance as
LHI;
> - LEHI is actually _more_ vulnerable to elephants
than LHI (el is a
3 vs. EHI
> compared with a 2 vs. LHI);
> - LEHI is also (same factor line) more vulnerable to
chariots than
LHI;
> - OW introduces a number of appealing elephant and
chariot armies.
>
> Granted, LEHI is somewhat better in hand to hand
than LHI, but also
at a
> sigificant increase in cost (thus decreasing the
number of
units/amount of
> frontage you hold). And LEHI is very bow-resistant,
traditionally a
problem for
> the TOG Japanese lists.
>
> But on balance LEHI is the same (lance) or worse (el
or ch) against
the current
> crop of shock troops, and expensive to boot.
Overall, not very
appealing.
>
>
> -Mark Stone




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


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

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

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.