Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

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

> Message: 14
> Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 08:42:29 -0500
> From: Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@...>
> Subject: El and LI
>
> Mark (and Frank) brought up the Q of El-based LI. They're right,
> of course, that I omitted any discussion of this.
>
> I don't do it with the Seleucids. A couple of reasons:
>
> (i) it gets expensive....


Ewan makes all good points here, but I want to bring yet another perspective to
bear on this matter.

People, beginners especially, should keep in mind that Ewan is a very, very
skilled player. He can afford to run somewhat more vulnerable elephants because
he is extremely adept at their use, and knows how to both keep them out of
trouble and bring them to bear in the right place at the right time.

That isn't easy to do. For someone who isn't all that experienced in running
elephant armies, I strongly recommend they put LI on the base. This detracts
from some capabilities, yes, but also makes the elephants much more forgiving of
mistakes.

Also, while I agree that using LI detachments is a more efficient and more
flexible way to give the elephants some extra figures, this is another example
of Ewan speaking from the comfort of his considerable experience and skill.

Detachments are hard to use, and fraught with danger. Suppose, for example, that
you have a detachment of LI behind your elephants and you end up in hand to hand
combat with impetuous foot who roll up big. Despite the size of your unit they
manage to do 3 CPF. Next bound he's going to count as fighting the LI. If you
happen to have an overlapping element hanging out, this suddenly becomes a
target that enemy mounted will gleefully charge, whilst the foot are probably
fighting you at a factor of 6 (other vs. LI = 4, +2 for JLS).

From my perspective, as someone who runs armies composed of knights, shooters,
and skirmishers, if I'm up against a fairly inexperienced player with elephants,
but no LI on the base, I breathe a sigh of relief, knowing I'm going to have a
relatively easy game of it. I don't mean that to sound arrogant; I think any of
the other veteran cav players in this group would say the same thing. Elephants
with LI on the base are just a much tougher proposition for me to deal with.

Ewan would be a tough proposition for me to deal with for reasons that have
nothing to do with elephants. Geez, I've watched him mess up a knight army with
Spanish of all things. If that isn't impressive I don't know what is.


-Mark Stone

[Chris Damour]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Mark Stone wrote:
> Ewan would be a tough proposition for me to deal with for reasons that have
> nothing to do with elephants. Geez, I've watched him mess up a knight army
with
> Spanish of all things. If that isn't impressive I don't know what is.
Hey now! There was someone else there besides Ewan! And I think
that I make a much better player of Barbarian foot than Ewan does, he's
got these strange ideas about "tactics" and "skirmishing" and other such
wussy, namby-pamby issues! Heck, when we played teams he would even shave
and complain when I tried to feed him anything except a "healthy"
breakfast!


--
Christopher Damour

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/26/2004 21:31:38 Central Standard Time,
greg.regets@... writes:
Fortunately, I play primarity 15mm, where you can win 80% of you
games by having tons of units, slapping on the full court press, and
watching your enemy hand you the game by mistakes made out of
frustration.>>

This theory will make Call to Arms very interesting....lol


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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Mark is right in this. I will say without any reservation that Ewan is one of
three players I fear for their tactical brilliance. Tim Brown and Greg Regets
(Greg to a lesser extent b/c the beatings I've withstood at the hands of the
former two were no less than spankings!) being the other two.

kelly

Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:

> Message: 14
> Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 08:42:29 -0500
> From: Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@...>
> Subject: El and LI
>
> Mark (and Frank) brought up the Q of El-based LI. They're right,
> of course, that I omitted any discussion of this.
>
> I don't do it with the Seleucids. A couple of reasons:
>
> (i) it gets expensive....


Ewan makes all good points here, but I want to bring yet another perspective to
bear on this matter.

People, beginners especially, should keep in mind that Ewan is a very, very
skilled player. He can afford to run somewhat more vulnerable elephants because
he is extremely adept at their use, and knows how to both keep them out of
trouble and bring them to bear in the right place at the right time.

That isn't easy to do. For someone who isn't all that experienced in running
elephant armies, I strongly recommend they put LI on the base. This detracts
from some capabilities, yes, but also makes the elephants much more forgiving of
mistakes.

Also, while I agree that using LI detachments is a more efficient and more
flexible way to give the elephants some extra figures, this is another example
of Ewan speaking from the comfort of his considerable experience and skill.

Detachments are hard to use, and fraught with danger. Suppose, for example, that
you have a detachment of LI behind your elephants and you end up in hand to hand
combat with impetuous foot who roll up big. Despite the size of your unit they
manage to do 3 CPF. Next bound he's going to count as fighting the LI. If you
happen to have an overlapping element hanging out, this suddenly becomes a
target that enemy mounted will gleefully charge, whilst the foot are probably
fighting you at a factor of 6 (other vs. LI = 4, +2 for JLS).

From my perspective, as someone who runs armies composed of knights, shooters,
and skirmishers, if I'm up against a fairly inexperienced player with elephants,
but no LI on the base, I breathe a sigh of relief, knowing I'm going to have a
relatively easy game of it. I don't mean that to sound arrogant; I think any of
the other veteran cav players in this group would say the same thing. Elephants
with LI on the base are just a much tougher proposition for me to deal with.

Ewan would be a tough proposition for me to deal with for reasons that have
nothing to do with elephants. Geez, I've watched him mess up a knight army with
Spanish of all things. If that isn't impressive I don't know what is.


-Mark Stone


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.

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

[Greg Regets]

Thank you for the kind words Kelly, although I hardly feel deserving
of them.

I seem to have some fatal flaws in my game, in that I tend to pick
armies based on finding awesome and unusual figures to paint. Also,
for some unknown reason, I always end up fielding an army that has a
questionable infantry component. Even now, with a new army in the
works, I seem to be falling once again for that same old "OH MY GOD,
THESE GUYS GET HUNS!", crap that I always fall for.

Fortunately, I play primarity 15mm, where you can win 80% of you
games by having tons of units, slapping on the full court press, and
watching your enemy hand you the game by mistakes made out of
frustration.

I am working on a new 25mm though, based on, you guessed it, Huns
from Foundry. Some people never learn. :-)

g

P.S. There was an actual point to this post, that being new players
should pick armies with a wider variety or combat troops, both
infantry and cavalry.



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> Mark is right in this. I will say without any reservation that Ewan
is one of three players I fear for their tactical brilliance. Tim
Brown and Greg Regets (Greg to a lesser extent b/c the beatings I've
withstood at the hands of the former two were no less than
spankings!) being the other two.
>
> kelly
>
> Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com"
<WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:
>
> > Message: 14
> > Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 08:42:29 -0500
> > From: Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
> > Subject: El and LI
> >
> > Mark (and Frank) brought up the Q of El-based LI. They're right,
> > of course, that I omitted any discussion of this.
> >
> > I don't do it with the Seleucids. A couple of reasons:
> >
> > (i) it gets expensive....
>
>
> Ewan makes all good points here, but I want to bring yet another
perspective to
> bear on this matter.
>
> People, beginners especially, should keep in mind that Ewan is a
very, very
> skilled player. He can afford to run somewhat more vulnerable
elephants because
> he is extremely adept at their use, and knows how to both keep them
out of
> trouble and bring them to bear in the right place at the right time.
>
> That isn't easy to do. For someone who isn't all that experienced
in running
> elephant armies, I strongly recommend they put LI on the base. This
detracts
> from some capabilities, yes, but also makes the elephants much more
forgiving of
> mistakes.
>
> Also, while I agree that using LI detachments is a more efficient
and more
> flexible way to give the elephants some extra figures, this is
another example
> of Ewan speaking from the comfort of his considerable experience
and skill.
>
> Detachments are hard to use, and fraught with danger. Suppose, for
example, that
> you have a detachment of LI behind your elephants and you end up in
hand to hand
> combat with impetuous foot who roll up big. Despite the size of
your unit they
> manage to do 3 CPF. Next bound he's going to count as fighting the
LI. If you
> happen to have an overlapping element hanging out, this suddenly
becomes a
> target that enemy mounted will gleefully charge, whilst the foot
are probably
> fighting you at a factor of 6 (other vs. LI = 4, +2 for JLS).
>
> From my perspective, as someone who runs armies composed of
knights, shooters,
> and skirmishers, if I'm up against a fairly inexperienced player
with elephants,
> but no LI on the base, I breathe a sigh of relief, knowing I'm
going to have a
> relatively easy game of it. I don't mean that to sound arrogant; I
think any of
> the other veteran cav players in this group would say the same
thing. Elephants
> with LI on the base are just a much tougher proposition for me to
deal with.
>
> Ewan would be a tough proposition for me to deal with for reasons
that have
> nothing to do with elephants. Geez, I've watched him mess up a
knight army with
> Spanish of all things. If that isn't impressive I don't know what
is.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Greg Regets]

Probably not ... :-)

A 25% smaller army on a 33% smaller table, should play more like 25mm.

By the way, how many terrain rolls are you planning on?

Thanks ... g


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 3/26/2004 21:31:38 Central Standard Time,
> greg.regets@g... writes:
> Fortunately, I play primarity 15mm, where you can win 80% of you
> games by having tons of units, slapping on the full court press,
and
> watching your enemy hand you the game by mistakes made out of
> frustration.>>
>
> This theory will make Call to Arms very interesting....lol
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]