Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 02:53:24 -0000
> From: "hrisikos8" <hrisikos@...>
> Subject: SHK
>
> Since I know next to nothing about knights, can someone enlighten me
> on the cost/benefit ratio of SHK shielded vs. shieldLESS? what is
> the consensus on whether to buy the SH?
>
>
> Greek
>

I don't have any detailed analytical analysis to provide you here, just a
decade+ experience playing knight armies. My instinct, which seems to be born
out in competition, is to buy the knights as cheaply as possible or as
expensive as possible, but nothing in between.

So, for example, at 15 points a figure, Irr B EHK L,Sh are probably the least
efficient use of points. They get shot up by too many things just like HK
(longbow, crossbow), they aren't tough enough to throw against the toughest
infantry (pikemen), and the combination of a bit of missile vulnerability and a
bit of hand to hand vulnerability actually moves them from the "just ride down
Romans" category to the "must think carefully about Romans" category.

For a mere 3 points a figure, you can upgrade to SHK, greatly simplifying life.
No, you don't get as many knights, but yes, they become MUCH more durable. They
drool over Romans. They ignore CB (mostly). They can challenge LB
(selectively). And they just crush barbarian foot.

Take away the shields, and you turn these guys into EHK that cost a point a
figure more. Not a good deal.

If you want bargain knights, go with HK. They fight against other lance armed
cav as well as EHK, they dismount exactly the same as EHK, and while they are
slightly more vulnerable to barbarian foot (because the JLS+ applies to them)
usually it isn't by enough to turn a winning melee into a losing melee. And at
11 points a figure (for Irr B) you can get A LOT of these guys.

Look at the way Sean Scott puts together the Feudal French list, for example.
Probably more knights than I've ever seen on a single list.

So go with shielded SHK, or mere HK. Nothing in between will do.

(He says, knowing that his intended NICT list has two EHK generals....)


-Mark Stone

I second that analysis.

All my Crusader lists I am writing now don't venture above HK. It is
amazing how many more guys you get than with EHK

Adrian Williams

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> > Message: 8
> > Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 02:53:24 -0000
> > From: "hrisikos8" <hrisikos@D...>
> > Subject: SHK
> >
> > Since I know next to nothing about knights, can someone
enlighten me
> > on the cost/benefit ratio of SHK shielded vs. shieldLESS? what is
> > the consensus on whether to buy the SH?
> >
> >
> > Greek
> >
>
> I don't have any detailed analytical analysis to provide you here,
just a
> decade+ experience playing knight armies. My instinct, which seems
to be born
> out in competition, is to buy the knights as cheaply as possible
or as
> expensive as possible, but nothing in between.
>
> So, for example, at 15 points a figure, Irr B EHK L,Sh are
probably the least
> efficient use of points. They get shot up by too many things just
like HK
> (longbow, crossbow), they aren't tough enough to throw against the
toughest
> infantry (pikemen), and the combination of a bit of missile
vulnerability and a
> bit of hand to hand vulnerability actually moves them from
the "just ride down
> Romans" category to the "must think carefully about Romans"
category.
>
> For a mere 3 points a figure, you can upgrade to SHK, greatly
simplifying life.
> No, you don't get as many knights, but yes, they become MUCH more
durable. They
> drool over Romans. They ignore CB (mostly). They can challenge LB
> (selectively). And they just crush barbarian foot.
>
> Take away the shields, and you turn these guys into EHK that cost
a point a
> figure more. Not a good deal.
>
> If you want bargain knights, go with HK. They fight against other
lance armed
> cav as well as EHK, they dismount exactly the same as EHK, and
while they are
> slightly more vulnerable to barbarian foot (because the JLS+
applies to them)
> usually it isn't by enough to turn a winning melee into a losing
melee. And at
> 11 points a figure (for Irr B) you can get A LOT of these guys.
>
> Look at the way Sean Scott puts together the Feudal French list,
for example.
> Probably more knights than I've ever seen on a single list.
>
> So go with shielded SHK, or mere HK. Nothing in between will do.
>
> (He says, knowing that his intended NICT list has two EHK
generals....)
>
>
> -Mark Stone

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Adrian Williams"
<fredthebaddy@h...> wrote:
> I second that analysis.
>
> All my Crusader lists I am writing now don't venture above HK. It
is
> amazing how many more guys you get than with EHK
>
> Adrian Williams

As a rabid 1st Crusader player I don't even bother with HK, since my
main target of choice is often enemy LC. To chase LC with HC/LC
combination means to roll long 1/3 of the time. To chase LC with HK
means to be tired after the first charge/rear shot combination. HK
play well vs other kniggits, but for the money I just use HC and put
the extra points into cool stuff like pesants :)

Wanax

btw, I agree with everyone that EHK are in the same realm as EHC:
cost problematic. That being said, I am currently running an army
full of EHC ;)