Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ewan McNay]

> From: JonCleaves@...
> Subject: Re: Aztec Rules - or is that Aztecs Rule?
>
> In a message dated 7/15/2003 10:35:52 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:
> << I still think that the Axtecs are a superior list to
> > the Tlaxcallans, for the available Subs and the saving of points on
> > Spanish.>>
>
> We need to get together when my Spanish led Tlax's are done so we can test
that theory the only way it *can* be tested...until then it is all speculation
and I know I'd sure prefer comments like these were couched as such.

Ah. So you'd prefer some phrase other than "I think" to indicate that
sucha are, um, my *thoughts*?

> From: <spocksleftball@...>
> Subject: Re: Samurai redux
>
> I've revised the Samurai list. Theory is that I scream forward and attack
with Samurai in the front rank, Ashigaru stepped back to charge into gaps and
prevent flank attacks, and HC to skirmish and absorb enemy mounted punishment
>
> Not an elegant list, but certainly another balls up go forward and die for
glory list.
> Now if only I could get the LTS or 2HCT option to work across a palisade
>
> New list:
>
> CNC +2 HC IrgB B/2HCW
> 3x subG +5 IrgB HC B/2HCW
> 7x 12 IrgA/B LHI B/2HCW
> 2x 18 IrgC LHI/LMI 2HCT

This is much better. I think it's 1295 points, though.

For what it's worth, on a quick pass, I came up with (M period):

36 IrrC LMI 2HCT @ 133
24 IrrC LMI B @ 73
ditto 73 (the B units are purely for extra frontage)
Sub w/ 5 HC @ 95
CinC w/ 5 IrrA LHI @ 160 (includes PA std)
18 IrrB LHI @ 133
ditto x 4 @ 133 = 532

total 1203. Ignoring LMI 2HCT, 25 element frontage = 100 cm in 15mm, or
~3.5 feet of a 4' table. Seems pretty doable.

> From: "Holder, Scott" <Scott.Holder@...>
> Subject: RE: Aztec Rules - or is that Aztecs Rule?
>
> We need to get together when my Spanish led Tlax's are done so we can test
> that theory the only way it *can* be tested...until then it is all speculation
> and I know I'd sure prefer comments like these were couched as such.
>
> >I actually have some playing experience with both new lists so much of this
isn't terribly speculative although my data points remain few. Yes, I find the
aztec (and to a lesser extent Tlaxcallan) infantry good infantry. But, they
suffer, at least after the first couple of games, when faced with any late
Medieval army with lotsa LB and SHK/EHK. Why? Regular LBmen routinely skirmish
or counter back to 120p and pepper the warriors at close range and not get shot
at in return. This is mitigated somewhat if you're running Tlax with bow,
however. And don't forget that the 2HCT upgrade is only for up to 1/4 of the
appropriate troops. Right now, I'm running 2E Irr A units with 2HCT in front,
1HCW in back. Great for plowing into pikes but they still suffer against
anything on horseback in armor because the second rank is effectively a non
player. True, the cost effectiveness of a knight unit vs 2E Irr A whackos is
something to consider but, when they die, we're back to the whole philisophical
discussio

I agree with all of this to at least some extent, except that I would
rarely throw the IrrA guys into anything other than El early in the
game. Against LMI LB, though, you should also be in skirmish, in which
case as soon as he fails a counter he is toast because shieldless, and
his shooting at you is pretty ineffective. Yes, then you have to worry
about his K support charging your skirmishers, but you should have at
least as many units as he has. And the Aztecs *do* get 4 16-man units
of the sling guys, who are as good as ever (except C class) at shooting
up K. Plus, in all honesty, most armies have something against which
they are - as the Brits would say - pants. I do think, though, that the
upgrade to combat effectiveness outweighs the reduction in missile
range. I could be wrong .

> >The Tlax list is fascinating because of the choices it forces onto the
players. I mean do you go with the Dart/Bow option for your better morale guys
or all bow? How do you organize the lower morale guys? And the Spanish? They
are wonderful troops and can hold just about anything. So they are great when
you tank your terrain roles, at least they can stick in the open with some
semblance of being able to hold the open. And in my 3 games with em, they
pretty much did that all the time. But then your opponent then tries to beat up
on the rest of your army and keep the Spanish at bay for a while. And yes,
Cortez shook in one game and one of the 4E Conquistador units shook later in the
game. And I lost that game pretty badly.

And I agree with this commentary, too. Putting together Tlax/Aztec
lists for the NICT almost drove me bezerk with the choices. In the end,
I think you take a bit of everything and rely on skill to get the
different units into the right places. It's going to be a nightmare for
both players keeping track of the differently-armed units.

E

[John Murphy]

From: "Holder, Scott" <Scott.Holder@...>
Subject: RE: Aztec Rules - or is that Aztecs Rule?
"Regular LBmen routinely skirmish or counter back to 120p and pepper the
warriors at close range and not get shot at in return"

This is an interesting discussion, by the way. I find the Aztec list
quite intriguing though I had envisioned running almost the entire army
as 4E 1/4 Reg A 3/4 Reg _ LMI 1HCW, D, Sh. However, I am learning to
appreciate the value of a front rank of 4/base 2HCT foot. But Aztecs are
far enough down my list to likely never see the light of day.

So now to the point, or points.

First, I have seen and heard of the above-mentioned tactic for LB, CB or
S Reg LHI/LMI skirmishers. I have especially heard of this against close
foot which only shoot effectively at 80p because of the 2 CPF beyond
charge reach causing a waver test.

My question on this is, against foot which are really deadly shooters at
80p is this a bit risky? Sure you get a 1 FP ding the first turn, but
then the enemy foot approaches and you are stuck with a dilemma. Do you
risk blowing the counter and sitting there within effective shooting
range or do you prompt to retire within charge reach and have to waver
test yourself?

And by "really deadly enemy shooters" I mean something like close order
HG backed by B - or any other weapon/armor/shield/type which is going to
do a lot more CPF to you at that range than your LB are going to do
back.

Which brings me to my second point.

A while back the question was asked about the most effective infantry in
the game, and Reg D LMI B was posited.

Well, my 2 cent opinion is, even more than Moogs, look at the
Janissaries.

In particular I see them as 4 units of 6E Reg B 1/3 HI 2HCT, HG, Sh 1/3
HI CB 1/3 MI B @ 146. They are a bit expensive per frontage at 3 ranks
of high-morale CO foot including dual-armed 2HCT, but it is mitigated a
bit by the rear ranks being single-armed shield-less and the rear being
MI vice HI. Still not a cheap unit but maybe comparable in cost to an 8E
pike unit often of the same frontage.

But look at what they do. The 2HCT 4/base with it's -1 to enemy and high
factors combines with a truly stupendous support shot against even the
best armored troops. And anything within 80p after approaches is going
to get a nasty prep shot to boot.

Also, their typical supports are going to be Irr B/C HC/MC L,B,Sh
Sipahis in the gaps between units which is just the cure for LMI
skirmishers (since if I understand correctly the LMI skirmishers must
waver test and then must evade, not stand, if charged).

Interesting that Moogs raised such a big fuss and nobody seems to have
noticed these Janissary guys.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/16/2003 9:04:28 AM Eastern Standard Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

> Interesting that Moogs raised such a big fuss and nobody
> seems to have
> noticed these Janissary guys.>>

I agree. 1. The 'moog fuss' is way overdone. 2. Janissaries are only good, as
you said, with something to chase away screen, otherwise a 2E unit of LI makes
them worthless.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/16/2003 8:41:25 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

> Ah. So you'd prefer some phrase other than "I think" to
> indicate that
> sucha are, um, my *thoughts*?>>

No, that would be great! :)

[Ewan McNay]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 7/16/2003 8:41:25 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ewan.mcnay@y... writes:
>
> > Ah. So you'd prefer some phrase other than "I think" to
> > indicate that
> > sucha are, um, my *thoughts*?>>
>
> No, that would be great! :)

Then given this exchange:

From: JonCleaves@a...
> Subject: Re: Aztec Rules - or is that Aztecs Rule?
> In a message dated 7/15/2003 10:35:52 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ewan.mcnay@y... writes:
> << I still think that the Axtecs are a superior list to
> the Tlaxcallans, for the available Subs and the saving of points on
> > Spanish.>>
>
> We need to get together when my Spanish led Tlax's are done so we
can test that theory the only way it *can* be tested...until then it
is all speculation and I know I'd sure prefer comments like these were
couched as such.

What exactly were you complaining about, Jon?

> New list:
>
> CNC +2 HC IrgB B/2HCW
> 3x subG +5 IrgB HC B/2HCW
> 7x 12 IrgA/B LHI B/2HCW
> 2x 18 IrgC LHI/LMI 2HCT

>This is much better. I think it's 1295 points, though.


Yes it should have only 2x SubG, sorry. My list above provides a frontage of
17, however, I increase manuverability and the ability of units to work in
tandum: one eats shooting fatigues while the other charges wildly :)

For what it's worth, on a quick pass, I came up with (M period):

36 IrrC LMI 2HCT @ 133
24 IrrC LMI B @ 73
ditto 73 (the B units are purely for extra frontage)
Sub w/ 5 HC @ 95
CinC w/ 5 IrrA LHI @ 160 (includes PA std)
18 IrrB LHI @ 133
ditto x 4 @ 133 = 532

total 1203. Ignoring LMI 2HCT, 25 element frontage = 100 cm in 15mm, or
~3.5 feet of a 4' table. Seems pretty doable.

I count only 20 EE frontage if you ignore the LMI 2HCT. I like the fact that
your list will absorb more punishment, but won't the 6E units of samurai allow 2
enemy units to exchange missile fire with you thus spliting the damage any one
receives? That is unless you are running them 3E deep in which case your
frontage is reduced. What do you do with the ashigaru? I want to place them
out of harm's way. I chose not to go with the LMI in order to get the extra
mounted general; the general gives me a flank march option for the ashigaru as
well :)

I will ponder your list
Wanax




Lord of the Meadehall of men! Aknowledged professional sack lounger. Creator
of semi-lifeforms in their millions. The good looking twin, though sinister in
thought and deed. He who would produce but for 7 years of inactivity punctuated
by frenzied finger touching. Smooth.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Unless the moogs catch and kill the 2E of LI which has been known to happen and
this discounts the LC supports with the moogs and general tactics for that
matter. It's easy to say one troop type will take care of another, but it's the
tactics and the given situation that drives such situations, not necessarily a
particular troop type over another.

Kelly

JonCleaves@... wrote:
In a message dated 7/16/2003 9:04:28 AM Eastern Standard Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

> Interesting that Moogs raised such a big fuss and nobody
> seems to have
> noticed these Janissary guys.>>

I agree. 1. The 'moog fuss' is way overdone. 2. Janissaries are only good, as
you said, with something to chase away screen, otherwise a 2E unit of LI makes
them worthless.

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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