Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ewan McNay]

> From: Mark Stone <mark@...>
> Subject: ewan's NICT analysis
> I am going to nitpick on a couple of points though.
>
> Nikophoran Byzantine (HW#2):
> As Ewan says, this is a very well balanced list with good skirmishers, a lot
of
> shooting, solid line troops, and a variety of shock threats. The latter can be
a
> bit deceptive, though. Lance-armed HC are servicable, but hardly overwhelming
> shock troops, and the "faux Romans" (MI HTW,JLS,D,Sh) will spend most of the
> game just trying to reach something they can hurt. The best all around shock
> troop type in this list is the Varangians, and only one such unit is taken.
More
> perplexing is the decision to take 18 figures of Irr C LMI JLS,Sh. These guys
> are, frankly, a waste of points. They do nothing particularly well. As terrain
> holders they don't put out a lot of shooting, they're hard to get into
skirmish,
> and they are prone to rolling short on evades. If they manage an impetuous
> charge, they are brittle, since they're only LMI, and it is hard to get them
> impetous since they're C class. A better choice would be to take 2 units of 12
> figure Varangians rather than an 18 figure unit of Varangians and and 18
figure
> unit of Irr C guys. That's my only major beef with the list. My personal
choice
> would be to take less HC and get a unit of SHC, and I avoid close order foot
> like the plague, but the latter is mainly a matter of playing style. The main
> thing is to max out on the Varangians, as they are the best shock this army
has.
> As configured, I'd rate this as about a 7/10. The list itself has potential to
> be 8/10 or maybe even 9/10.

Dunno how I missed the IrrC LMI - well, I do, just too many lists
- but Mark is right on with that. I note that jon also
advocated putting Varangians into 12-man units, and this may well
be the best use for exactly the reason suggested: that they will
then be too fragile for anything except optimal use. However,
consider that these are also your anti-elephant troops, likely -
although the close fooot will also do fine, I guess - and then
the double-fatigue in hth becomes more relevant.

Scott H commented along the lines of 'EHC don' been gettin' no
respect' - this is how I feel about SHC; I see them as slow,
ponderous, and hugely expensive. On the other hand, Iain McNeil
used Niks for a long time under 7th and was extremely successful,
and he always ran SHC with his generals. So, as ever, I could be
wrong.

> Late Romans:
> Ewan says, "Late Romans come pretty much to a pattern in the US...." I'm not
> disagreeing, I'm just really curious what that means. Is there another
paradigm
> for Late Romans worth considering? If so, I'd like to hear about it.

The UK usage under 7th tended to take legions down to zero,
often, instead using masses of auxilia and LC with a few lancers.
This would seem to fit with your comments about close foot
above, actually, so I'm surprised you wouldn't have considered
it. I think if I were running LIR in a single--list NICT, I'd
strongly consider the approach; investing in legions really
requires one to buy several, and then that's a *lot* of points
that are potentially not going to see combat, or are going to be
magnets for opposing K.

> Gupta:
> I don't necessarily disagree with the analysis here, but I do think it rates
> more than a 5. The elephants are not optimized for fighting other elephants or
> certain anti-elephant troops types, but they will still roll over all cav and
a
> lot of foot. The EHC also do an excellent job of pinning barbarian trash foot
by
> charging them and maybe winning or at least not routing so the elephants can
> come in next bound and clean up. If you're comfortable fighting knight/cav
> armies, and you're comfortable fighting barbarian foot armies, and you have
> chances against other armies, that sounds like more than a 5/10 to me. Give it
a
> 7/10. Oh, and one more subtle point: don't underestimate the value of Irr B
LI.
> These guys hold ground better than other LI because you really can afford, in
> the right situation, to suck up 2 or more CPF from prep and take the waver
test
> rather than opt for the recall move. I've caught more than one opponent off
> guard by having light troops stick around that he assumed would be rallying
back
> behind my line.

I guess we will disagree on the rating here. The point on B
class LI I did note, and agree with.

> Italian Condotta:
> This is a fascinating example of fitting a list to a playing style. In the
hands
> of anyone other than Sean, I'd rate this no more than a 6/10: this army has no
> real strategy against elephants, or massed missile fire (100YW, Derek's
Koreans,
> Midianites), or large amounts of pike-armed infantry. The higher rating Ewan
> gives here really reflects Sean's playing style and comfort with the list.
> There's enough screen of good enough quality for Sean to fill the flanks with
> screen that will last long enough for him to launch the knights at his
intended
> point of attack. Any time I play Sean, I know I'll be rolling large numbers of
> hand to hand dice in Bound 2. I must say it is ironic to see what is arguably
> _the_ most complex list in _any_ book boiled down to such elegant simplicity.
> Me, I look at this list and get hung up trying to figure out how to get the
> pikemen, the Almughuvars, the 2HCT, the skirmishers, and all the knights I
want
> on 1600 points.

I compared it to Imperialists, and the comparison gets even
clearer at 1200 points where I run the Imps with (may be slightly
off but pretty close) 5 smallish units of regular LI, all of whom
I am happy to have die, and ten units of SHK backed by HC.
That's it . I do agree that only Sean would run this, just as
I've never seen anyone else run the Imps.

> Overall, an enjoyable exercise, and I really appreciate the time Ewan put into
this.

Thanks. Anything to avoid work, alas.

> From: "Wanax Andron" <spocksleftball@...>
> Subject: The Wanax Way
>
> Since we are back on one of my favorite topics, I thought I'd push
> out my list for Ewan, Frank and Mark to examin. Here is the 1600
> point list I've been working with for Nikephorian.
>
>
> CNC with 2HC L/B/sh
> 4x2E RgB EHC/HC L/sh
> 4x2E RgC LC B/sh B
> 1x2E RgB SHC L/sh
> 2x6E IrgB LHI 2HCW/J/sh
> 3x4E RgD LMI B/sh B
> 2x6E RgD LI S/sh B
> 1x9E RgD MI LTS/sh B
> 1x4E IrgB HC L/B/sh
> 2x2E IrgA HC L/sh
>
> 20 units at 1616

As noted, too many points, so delete LMI Sh.

I like the Varangians; I'm fine with the LC and LI but would
likely take another small LI unit (or two). SHC as noted above
is not my favourite troop type but may work in this army. I
would agree with Jon that you have too many EHC - which, Scott to
the contrary, I still dislike in general, although again this is
the army for them.

I hate the MI unit; if it's compulsory, split it up and use it to
draw fire, otherwise delete because you don't have enough of a
close foot base for this ever to be a significant part of the
battle. Smaller units would do a better job of your stated aims
of eagerness-provision and missile-drawing.

I would take a couple of units of 2E reg LC JLS, Sh if available
- yes, I should be getting the actual lists at PointCon , and
will then know these things.

> From: jmgarlic@...
> Subject: Re: ewan's NICT analysis
>
> Hi All,
>
> I am biased in the question, but I often hear of benefits of elephants, pike,
> philum, and knights. What is it about Chariots that everyone dislikes, or
> makes them ineffective. Personally, I like them, but don't have enough
> experience with Warrior to judge their effect.

Well, I certainly started some discussions, huh?

I'm not a fan because:

(i) they only have a 120p tactical move, so if I'm playing the K
there's a decent chance that I'm impetuous and you're not

(ii) the horses stop working as soon as you lose, which you
usually do (as you note); this is especially bad against biggish
fooot units, where you will often be routed in second combat
bound having locked the first - or if you avoid combat, that's
just something else that you are unwilling to fight.

(iii) they are more ponderous than cav, which makes them even
more vulnerable to elephants, and this is made even worse by the
inability to enter terrain; that latter is a significant
liability by itself

(iv) Essentially I see them as OK against loose foot, but there
are far better ways of killing loose foot. I *am* a fan of
4hLCh, which are one of the ultimate answers to Aztecs and such.

[scott holder]

The UK usage under 7th tended to take legions down to zero,
often, instead using masses of auxilia and LC with a few lancers.
This would seem to fit with your comments about close foot
above, actually, so I'm surprised you wouldn't have considered
it. I think if I were running LIR in a single--list NICT, I'd
strongly consider the approach; investing in legions really
requires one to buy several, and then that's a *lot* of points
that are potentially not going to see combat, or are going to be
magnets for opposing K.

>When the occasional Brit came over in the late 80s, early 90s to play in the
NICT, and when Jake, Scott McDonald and me went to the "worlds" in Derby in
1990, yes, every Brit LIR army was a clone. Large (8E) units of Auxilia with
lotsa LC. One general, that was it. I think it was a classic case of
inbreeding playing. When they (or we) came up against different army styles,
they didn't cope real well with the seeming American prediliction for knights,
lotsa little units (we're talking 15mm exclusively here) and a setup style of
play that I found totally lacking at Derby. This isn't to slam their playing
style (hardly) but I think the Brit LIR armies were setup to counter X&Y types
of armies and playing styles but when Z showed up, the auxilia-heavy LIR with 1
general didn't adapt too well. The games ground down to low-scoring affairs. I
played my last game at Derby against one of the LIR clones and lost what would
be the equivalent here of 3-2. The armies seemed to be developed so as to not
result in losing too much, but then not winning too much either unless the
entire game depended on taking advantage of opponents mistakes. The LIR as Ewan
describes it has no shock that I can recall, although I await to be corrected on
that:):)

>This changes when you move up in scale. Legionaries obviously have
deficiencies but are great at killing other stuff or at least scaring you off or
forcing a waver test if you want to close. We're back in the cycle again. In
the UK, TOG didn't last long enough for several cycles to occur:):)

scott

[Mark Stone]

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

> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 17:45:22 -0000
> From: "Wanax Andron" <spocksleftball@...>
> Subject: The Wanax Way
>
> Since we are back on one of my favorite topics, I thought I'd push
> out my list for Ewan, Frank and Mark to examin. Here is the 1600
> point list I've been working with for Nikephorian.
>
>
> CNC with 2HC L/B/sh
> 4x2E RgB EHC/HC L/sh
> 4x2E RgC LC B/sh B
> 1x2E RgB SHC L/sh
> 2x6E IrgB LHI 2HCW/J/sh
> 3x4E RgD LMI B/sh B
> 2x6E RgD LI S/sh B
> 1x9E RgD MI LTS/sh B
> 1x4E IrgB HC L/B/sh
> 2x2E IrgA HC L/sh
>
> 20 units at 1616
>

So, first a rules question for Jon. And this is Jon's favorite kind: "I don't
have my rules in front of me so I'm going to make Jon answer for me."

In TOG, the stipulation was that you could not exceed the point total (1600 in
this case) by more than the cost of the cheapest element. In this case that'd be
Reg D LI B, so could not exceed 1600 by more than 4 points.

I believe those of us that still think that way are clinging to an anachronism.
If I remember, what Warrior actually says is that if you exceed the point total
then the amount by which you exceed it is points automatically scored to the
enemy. So you can run 1616, but you're giving your opponent a 16 point handicap
and assuring that he scores at least 1 point against you. Jon?

Now to the list:
As Jon said, you don't need to take, and shouldn't take so much Byzantine
EHC/HC. Once you take the SHC you only have to take 4 stands of EHC/HC (plus
generals). So take less cav, and use the points somewhere else.

Do take the SHC. Yes, they are expensive, but they do certain things well that
other troops in the army can't do at all (such as face Midianites or Derek's
"wall of bow"). And I _love_ the tactic of crashing into, and disordering some
sort of foot with the Varangians, and then following up with the SHC next bound
who now fight 6 figures at a 7 on a single element's frontage (L vs. foot = 4,
+1 charging, +2 vs. disordered foot =7).

I think some of your EHC/HC are required to be Cs in this list. Not sure as I
don't have it in front of me, but I don't think you can upgrade all of them to
Bs.

You take 2 16 figure units of LMI B. I'd take 2 24 figure units. First, more
shooting is better, and second, 24 is a better size for these units for two
reasons:
(1) It allows you to start out in column and then in an approach move a full
120p, expand a full 2 elements' to either side, and potentially go into
skirmish. That gives these guys a _huge_ threat zone if in a 6 element column
going into approaches.
(2) You want to make your opponent commit 2 cavalry units, not 1, against one of
these to be assured of doing a CPF. Consider a 2 element unit of SHK against a
24 figure LMI B,Sh unit. I should be able to assure doing at least 1 CPF in
prep, meaning that if he charges me impetuously he'll hit tired (knights take 4
CPF for charging impetuously). I should be able to do 1 CPF to him at least in
support shooting. 16@-1 is 12; even if I roll down 1 I still do a CPF. So
realistically he can only count on hitting me as 5@5=20. Not 24, and not a CPF.

Overall these are pretty minor points, though. Nikophoran is one of the elite
lists these days, and you have a reasonable configuration here.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/1/2004 12:13:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mark@... writes:

> So, first a rules question for Jon. And this is Jon's favorite kind: "I don't
> have my rules in front of me so I'm going to make Jon answer for me.">>

Anything for you, Mark...

> In TOG, the stipulation was that you could not exceed the point total (1600 in
> this case) by more than the cost of the cheapest element. In this case that'd
be
> Reg D LI B, so could not exceed 1600 by more than 4 points.>>

This is true in Warrior IF you are using 14.0. The rule says: "Competition
armies can only exceed this points total by less than the value of their
cheapest element."


> (2) You want to make your opponent commit 2 cavalry units, not 1, against one
of
> these to be assured of doing a CPF. Consider a 2 element unit of SHK against a
> 24 figure LMI B,Sh unit. I should be able to assure doing at least 1 CPF in
> prep, meaning that if he charges me impetuously he'll hit tired (knights take
4
> CPF for charging impetuously). I should be able to do 1 CPF to him at least in
> support shooting. 16@-1 is 12; even if I roll down 1 I still do a CPF. So
> realistically he can only count on hitting me as 5@5=20. Not 24, and not a
CPF. >>

The above is superb. Mark, I have been looking at switching my archers to 6E at
least in one or two units for this reason. I knew it, but thought it wouldn't
be a big deal and it turned out I wanted it a couple of key times.

Jon

Mark, thanks for the commentary. Here are a few housekeeping
points. I deleted the Sh from the LMI in order to come down in
points. Forgot about the exceed limit :)

Other points discussed below:

> Now to the list:
> As Jon said, you don't need to take, and shouldn't take so much
Byzantine
> EHC/HC. Once you take the SHC you only have to take 4 stands of
EHC/HC (plus
> generals). So take less cav, and use the points somewhere else.

I conceed this point. Having forgotten the SHC rule, I would now
probably take the close order foot up to 12E and buy another LC
unit. Most likely 4E IrgC LC J/B/sh. I might buy another general,
but this isn't a big need outside of going impetuous :)

>
> Do take the SHC. Yes, they are expensive, but they do certain
things well that
> other troops in the army can't do at all (such as face Midianites
or Derek's
> "wall of bow"). And I _love_ the tactic of crashing into, and
disordering some
> sort of foot with the Varangians, and then following up with the
SHC next bound
> who now fight 6 figures at a 7 on a single element's frontage (L
vs. foot = 4,
> +1 charging, +2 vs. disordered foot =7).

Absolutely. Nothing says loving like SHC riding down a disordered
infantry unit . Wish I could set a SubG on the SHC frankly, as
that would be a decent savings and get them impetuous for another +1.


>
> I think some of your EHC/HC are required to be Cs in this list. Not
sure as I
> don't have it in front of me, but I don't think you can upgrade all
of them to Bs.

You are right, so after going down to 2x4E one element will be "c".
Seems dumb.

>
> You take 2 16 figure units of LMI B. I'd take 2 24 figure units.

Actually Mark, I took 3x4E it has the same effect but is more
flexible in responding to enemy manuvers, can be in more places at
once (1 with the mounted, 1 with the LHI, and 1 with the SHC for
example), and they can concentrate for even more firepower and share
returning bowfire. :)


The beauty of running the 3 smaller units is that mounted simply
don't bother coming near. Too much shooting, so you end up with
enemy units that deal with LMI B well, which in turn is exactly what
the SHC want to play with :)


> Overall these are pretty minor points, though. Nikophoran is one of
the elite
> lists these days, and you have a reasonable configuration here.


Thanks.

I used to run it with no close order foot, but alas the new list
allows far fewer LMI B. In TOG I ran all LMI B, LI s/sh B, Reg LC
B/sh, Ireg LC J/B/sh and EHC L/B/sh. Just pin with the LI, strip the
flanks with the mounted, and shoot shoot shoot until some enemy unit
takes and fails a second disorder waver somewhere. Slow but steady
game. But the heyday of LI keeping a battline pinned for the
duration are gone. Now you have to have something for the enemy to
focus on if you expect any form of ruse and schwerpunkt combination.

Wanax

[Ed Forbes]

I understand 11.214 as meaning that support shooting can not make you tired for
the first round of combat.

The SHK in the given example would not take the -1 for tired if I am reading
11.214 correctly.Is this in error?


11.214: If sufficient CPF are from secondry shooting alone, then disorder ( but
not fatigue ) precedes hand-to-hand combat.

Ed

> (2) You want to make your opponent commit 2 cavalry units, not 1, against one
of
> these to be assured of doing a CPF. Consider a 2 element unit of SHK against a
> 24 figure LMI B,Sh unit. I should be able to assure doing at least 1 CPF in
> prep, meaning that if he charges me impetuously he'll hit tired (knights take
4
> CPF for charging impetuously).

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/1/2004 2:06:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,
eforbes100@... writes:

> I understand 11.214 as meaning that support shooting can not make you tired
for the first round of combat.
>
> The SHK in the given example would not take the -1 for
> tired if I am reading 11.214 correctly.Is this in error?>.

That's right, but it seemed to me he was saying that in prep he shot the SHC for
1 FP.

Then in the charge, the SHC takes 4 more FP: charge, mtd charge, SHC and
impetuous. *This*, not support shooting, would make the SHC tired at contact.

Jon