Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Looking for a reason to paint up my ever expanding box of left over
figs, I think I found a use for most of them. However, after
building this list I don't think I can afford the "extra" lead it
would require to build it from my left overs :)

CNC 2E RgA EHC L/B/sh
2x sub 2E RgA EHC L/B/sh

3x9E IrgD MC L/B/sh B B
3x6E IrgA/C LC J/B/sh
3x12E IrgD LMI B
2x4E IrgC LMI 2HCW/sh JLS/sh
1x4E IrgD LI S/sh

15 units
1602 points
74 scouting points


The purpose here is obvious. Shoot, shoot, and shoot. The MC give
and take shooting, but have a front rank with L/sh in case something
needs charging. The three generals are basically there as closers
after much shooting. The Azab archers add to and work iwth the MC to
absorb shooting away so that the MC can get in a charge or two before
routing. the IrgA front edge of the LC is moderated by puting them
in front of illeagal targets and await their becoming legal through
disorder.

Each MC unit in skirmish can produce 18 shooting. At 2E blocks of
SHK this gives 4 CPF. At 2E elephant/disordered gives 2CPF. At 6E
LC in skirmish give 4CPF.

No I do not have all the details worked out, but I've been toying off
and on with the Edge Gibson method of Turks since I first saw it many
many moons ago.

I would have bought more MC and less LMI, but I at 1600 points I
damned near bought out the list completely. At 2000 points, I think
you'd have to buy everything on it.

Wanax

[Ewan McNay]

Wanax Andron wrote:
> CNC 2E RgA EHC L/B/sh
> 2x sub 2E RgA EHC L/B/sh
>
> 3x9E IrgD MC L/B/sh B B

There are another 5E of these available . I'd definitely buy
at least a 4E unit to max them out. You may also want an element
of C class in each unit to allow for the (admittedly maybe
unlikely) prompted charge. Not sure that 1/3 L is the way to go
given 1.5 rank rule - but maybe make some no-L and some 2/3?

> 3x6E IrgA/C LC J/B/sh

I think you mean JLS, B, Sh, as I don't see L-armed Ghazis, so
these may be a bit cheaper with only the back rank having B. You
can also only upgrade up to 1/3.

> 3x12E IrgD LMI B

No no no no no no no.

I know that you know that really, right?

:)

Some quick math on the above: CinC is 207, Subs are 135 each 270
(and note that they cannot be A class, as there is no
general-cost upgrade allowed; an erratum, sure, but it hasn't
been added so this is true). That's 477.

Each 9E MC, 1E C class unit as above is 136, so 3 units = 408.
The 4E unit assuming all-L, 1/2 Sh, 1E C is 88. Total to date 973.

I begin to see your problem with buying enough troops!

The LC are 115, 115, 103 for 3 units, 1/2 of 2 being A class.
That's 333, for a total of 1306.

So... assume 3 units of 12E Azab LI, @49 = 147. That's 1453. I
would ***MUCH*** rather take some more Reg HC L,B,Sh, or some Irr
LMI JLS, Sh, or some LI ditto, or, well, anything than take these
as LMI. More Ghazis. Hell, buy a Turkoman ally rather than take
IrrD LMI B, shieldless. Or even some Solaks.

Brutish as ever.

> 2x4E IrgC LMI 2HCW/sh JLS/sh
> 1x4E IrgD LI S/sh
>
> 15 units
> 1602 points
> 74 scouting points
>
>
> The purpose here is obvious. Shoot, shoot, and shoot. The MC give
> and take shooting, but have a front rank with L/sh in case something
> needs charging. The three generals are basically there as closers
> after much shooting. The Azab archers add to and work iwth the MC to
> absorb shooting away so that the MC can get in a charge or two before
> routing. the IrgA front edge of the LC is moderated by puting them
> in front of illeagal targets and await their becoming legal through
> disorder.
>
> Each MC unit in skirmish can produce 18 shooting. At 2E blocks of
> SHK this gives 4 CPF. At 2E elephant/disordered gives 2CPF. At 6E
> LC in skirmish give 4CPF.
>
> No I do not have all the details worked out, but I've been toying off
> and on with the Edge Gibson method of Turks since I first saw it many
> many moons ago.
>
> I would have bought more MC and less LMI, but I at 1600 points I
> damned near bought out the list completely. At 2000 points, I think
> you'd have to buy everything on it.
>
> Wanax
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

[Mark Stone]

--- On April 26 Wanax Andron said: ---

>
> CNC 2E RgA EHC L/B/sh
> 2x sub 2E RgA EHC L/B/sh

I'd save 18 points here and leave the back ranks as HC. I can't see that the
upgrade is really worth 6 pts a unit given that it'll almost never matter that
they are HC. And you'll need those points to buy more lances; see below.

>
> 3x9E IrgD MC L/B/sh B B
> 3x6E IrgA/C LC J/B/sh
> 3x12E IrgD LMI B
> 2x4E IrgC LMI 2HCW/sh JLS/sh
> 1x4E IrgD LI S/sh
>
> The purpose here is obvious. Shoot, shoot, and shoot. The MC give
> and take shooting, but have a front rank with L/sh in case something
> needs charging.

So, a front rank of L doesn't help that much. You need them configured thus:
front rank L,B,Sh/second rank L,B/third rank B.

> The three generals are basically there as closers
> after much shooting. The Azab archers add to and work iwth the MC to
> absorb shooting away so that the MC can get in a charge or two before
> routing. the IrgA front edge of the LC is moderated by puting them
> in front of illeagal targets and await their becoming legal through
> disorder.

Dude, you REALLY don't like LI, do you? Geez.

Buy all 6 stands of the slingers. They're the only shielded LI shooters you get,
and you're going to need them. And I really don't think the Azabs are going to
do anything but get you in trouble as LMI since they can't have shields.

I know your argument, because you've made it here before: troops like the Azabs
don't need shields because they will spend most of their time in skirmish. My
counter-arument is this: wishful thinking. Inevitably you're going to take 2
CPF, make a a recall move, find yourself rallying not in skirmish and have to
make a counter as Irr Ds to get back into skirmish. Failing that, someone will
be shooting you at a factor of 5, needing to do only 2 CPF to invoke a waver
test. Heck, LI at long range could pull that off with a little bit of an
overlap and an up 1 roll. Anything more substantial will just blow your Azabs
away, invoking waver tests galor right in the middle of your army.

>
> Each MC unit in skirmish can produce 18 shooting. At 2E blocks of
> SHK this gives 4 CPF. At 2E elephant/disordered gives 2CPF. At 6E
> LC in skirmish give 4CPF.
>

Well, no self-respecting knight player will let you get a 3-1 matchup in
frontage on his knights, so don't even build a battle plan on the assumption
you can pull that off. And if that 2E elephant unit has LI on the base (as
Indian, Burmese, and Khmer often do these days) then not only will they not
take 2 CPF, they'll likely return fire with enough to do some real damage.
Sultanate of Delhi elephants put out 6 figures' shooting on an element's
frontage; Burmese elephants put out 9 figures' shooting on an element's
frontage. If you don't anticpate these contingencies then you're not building a
battle plan, you just engaging in some wishful thinking.

I'd also be careful about making the front rank of LC Irr A, particularly when
that LC has to be part of your battle line. One enemy LI or LC unit held in
reserve waiting to see where you commit those guys can ruin your whole day, as
it marches up on bound 2 and provokes a charge exactly when/where you don't
want it.

Early Ottoman is an interesting list because the Sipahis MC start out so cheap
and can be upgraded pretty much any way you want without wasting points.
Unfortunately the LC and the LI do not follow suit. With the Ghazi LC, you have
back rank guys carrying both JLS and Sh to no real purpose, wasting 6 points a
stand there. And with the LI you really want the bow-armed guys to have
shields, and they just don't.

As for the Azabs... like I said, just don't buy them as LMI.

Oh, and those Mountain Turks on your list -- the Irr C LMI guys. Who exactly
were you planning to beat with them?? Really, they aren't worth the points. I
know, I know, you have dreams of disordering something with shooting that they
can charge into. It won't happen often enough to win you battles.

Look at the Later Ottoman Turk list instead. The LC and LI are much more
flexible, and the Sipahis are still quite flexible (they start as Irr C instead
of Irr D, which is probably a good thing anyway). Really, LOTurk gives you much
the same feel with a much better overall list.


-Mark Stone

[Ewan McNay]

Comments interspersed.

Mark Stone wrote:

> --- On April 26 Wanax Andron said: ---
>
>
>>CNC 2E RgA EHC L/B/sh
>>2x sub 2E RgA EHC L/B/sh
>
>
> I'd save 18 points here and leave the back ranks as HC. I can't see that the
> upgrade is really worth 6 pts a unit given that it'll almost never matter that
> they are HC. And you'll need those points to buy more lances; see below.

Agreed.

>>3x9E IrgD MC L/B/sh B B
>>3x6E IrgA/C LC J/B/sh
>>3x12E IrgD LMI B
>>2x4E IrgC LMI 2HCW/sh JLS/sh
>>1x4E IrgD LI S/sh
>>
>>The purpose here is obvious. Shoot, shoot, and shoot. The MC give
>>and take shooting, but have a front rank with L/sh in case something
>>needs charging.
>
> So, a front rank of L doesn't help that much. You need them configured thus:
> front rank L,B,Sh/second rank L,B/third rank B.

...kinda as I said, except that Mark would make them all thus,
and I'd assume that at least some are going to be shooting things
that they do not wish to charge, and so need neither L nor Sh.
But either approach is OK. Depends on your confidence to get the
matchups as you desire.

> Dude, you REALLY don't like LI, do you? Geez.
>
> Buy all 6 stands of the slingers. They're the only shielded LI shooters you
get,
> and you're going to need them. And I really don't think the Azabs are going to
> do anything but get you in trouble as LMI since they can't have shields.
>
> I know your argument, because you've made it here before: troops like the
Azabs
> don't need shields because they will spend most of their time in skirmish. My
> counter-arument is this: wishful thinking. Inevitably you're going to take 2
> CPF, make a a recall move, find yourself rallying not in skirmish and have to
> make a counter as Irr Ds to get back into skirmish. Failing that, someone will
> be shooting you at a factor of 5, needing to do only 2 CPF to invoke a waver
> test. Heck, LI at long range could pull that off with a little bit of an
> overlap and an up 1 roll. Anything more substantial will just blow your Azabs
> away, invoking waver tests galor right in the middle of your army.

...etc. But I think we've been here before . Seriously, Boyd,
you cannot have this many shieldless LMI in an army and expect to
win a game. Especially when it's at the cost of having almost no
LI, and hence giving up the initiative a large fraction of the
time. And especially (even more especially) with a non-terrain
force.

> Well, no self-respecting knight player will let you get a 3-1 matchup in
> frontage on his knights, so don't even build a battle plan on the assumption
> you can pull that off. And if that 2E elephant unit has LI on the base (as
> Indian, Burmese, and Khmer often do these days) then not only will they not
> take 2 CPF, they'll likely return fire with enough to do some real damage.
> Sultanate of Delhi elephants put out 6 figures' shooting on an element's
> frontage; Burmese elephants put out 9 figures' shooting on an element's
> frontage. If you don't anticpate these contingencies then you're not building
a
> battle plan, you just engaging in some wishful thinking.

I wouldn't stress the elephants, actually - Mark has different
experiences of base-mounted LI than do I - but lots of things are
going to shoot back effectively and then charge you (or more
likely have their friends charge you) as you rally and fail to
counter.

> Early Ottoman is an interesting list because the Sipahis MC start out so cheap
> and can be upgraded pretty much any way you want without wasting points.
> Unfortunately the LC and the LI do not follow suit. With the Ghazi LC, you
have
> back rank guys carrying both JLS and Sh to no real purpose, wasting 6 points a
> stand there. And with the LI you really want the bow-armed guys to have
> shields, and they just don't.
>
> As for the Azabs... like I said, just don't buy them as LMI.
>
> Oh, and those Mountain Turks on your list -- the Irr C LMI guys. Who exactly
> were you planning to beat with them?? Really, they aren't worth the points. I
> know, I know, you have dreams of disordering something with shooting that they
> can charge into. It won't happen often enough to win you battles.

Did he have those? Missed that .

> Look at the Later Ottoman Turk list instead. The LC and LI are much more
> flexible, and the Sipahis are still quite flexible (they start as Irr C
instead
> of Irr D, which is probably a good thing anyway). Really, LOTurk gives you
much
> the same feel with a much better overall list.

I actually prefer the MC as IrrD. But otherwise, agreed.
Especially as you can now have all the IrrD LC B you want
instead, and at least they can run away after failing their
counters .

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:
> Wanax Andron wrote:
> > CNC 2E RgA EHC L/B/sh
> > 2x sub 2E RgA EHC L/B/sh
> >
> > 3x9E IrgD MC L/B/sh B B
>
> There are another 5E of these available . I'd definitely buy
> at least a 4E unit to max them out. You may also want an element
> of C class in each unit to allow for the (admittedly maybe
> unlikely) prompted charge. Not sure that 1/3 L is the way to go
> given 1.5 rank rule - but maybe make some no-L and some 2/3?

I considered the "C" element since I may not be able to charge first
chance (probably won't anyway). Yes, I didn't think through the
second rank of L actually. Just an after thought. Perhaps 3 ranks
B, or first rank L/B/sh, second L/B, third B. Seriously I wanted
these guys to be super cheap.

My initial thought from which I drifted once I realized I'd have to
buy the entire list was to buy all MC B in 12E blocks, then surround
them with high morale HC and LC to ward off and cancel charges
against the MC. The MC act as shooting platforms but also as missile
absorbers (since the factors are so good against them who would split
fire on an EHC unit?) In any event, once I started running the
factors I realized the MC WILL charge or waver right away, so I
tacted on the L. Needs some refinement to be sure. I've never tried
running any beast like this before. I mean look....no close order
foot! :)


>
> > 3x6E IrgA/C LC J/B/sh
>
> I think you mean JLS, B, Sh, as I don't see L-armed Ghazis, so
> these may be a bit cheaper with only the back rank having B. You
> can also only upgrade up to 1/3.

They all come with Jls. There is no L noted above. I priced them as
1/3 bow running them in 2E wide columns, the B is there to get the
right to skirmish and still return fire outside of 40p. Perhaps a
dumb idea. :)


> > 3x12E IrgD LMI B
>
> No no no no no no no.
>
> I know that you know that really, right?
>
> :)

You guys are so hateful to the poor poor Azabs :)

Seriously running these guys in a 3E column next to the MC means a
massive amount of firepower to be split and absorbed by two worthless
units. I'm trying to configure an army that will soak up all missile
fire, return similar, have more mobility than most missile armies,
and have a few shock mounted to deal out an impetuous charge or two.

One thing I'm trying to avoid, as usual, is the trendy CW troop
types; rather, I'm trying to make worthless troop types work well.
IrgD LMI B are fairly worthless :)



> I begin to see your problem with buying enough troops!

Yes, this is certianly a challenge for this list, because essentially
the entire list is nothing but cheap crap. I'm redoing my list for
later today.


>Hell, buy a Turkoman ally rather than take
> IrrD LMI B, shieldless. Or even some Solaks.

Boyd buying Ally = Boyd loosing :)

Math can be simple at times.


Wanax

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> --- On April 26 Wanax Andron said: ---
>
> >
> > CNC 2E RgA EHC L/B/sh
> > 2x sub 2E RgA EHC L/B/sh
>
> I'd save 18 points here and leave the back ranks as HC. I can't see
that the
> upgrade is really worth 6 pts a unit given that it'll almost never
matter that
> they are HC. And you'll need those points to buy more lances; see
below.


I considered this actually Mark, but rather I wanted to avoid any
vaible troop type if possible. If you noticed, this army contains
nothing anyone would normally buy: shieldless MC, LC Jls, EHC,
shieldless LMI. I am attempting to learn to run terrible armies
rather than high performance armies. This has been a theme for me
for some time, but everyone fails to remember this when critiqueing
my lists. I certainly can put together the typically *high speed,
low drag* Warrior army full of SHK, regular LMI, LI of every ilk, "B"
grade regular LC, etc. For me, it isn't much of a challenge to run
saftey armies. Now you let me see someone run the army I've listed
and win....now there is a champion :)


>
> So, a front rank of L doesn't help that much. You need them
configured thus:
> front rank L,B,Sh/second rank L,B/third rank B.

Yes this was an oversight to be sure. I've never tried to put
together such monster units, so I forgot about the second rank. As I
told Ewan, first rank L/B/sh, second L/B, third B. Or perhaps just
leave them all B and buy more EHC type units.


> Dude, you REALLY don't like LI, do you? Geez.
>

Dude, I love LI, but it isn't going to make this list. I bought 4E
of LI only to shoot at SHK :)


> I know your argument, because you've made it here before: troops
like the Azabs
> don't need shields because they will spend most of their time in
skirmish. My
> counter-arument is this: wishful thinking. Inevitably you're going
to take 2
> CPF, make a a recall move, find yourself rallying not in skirmish
and have to
> make a counter as Irr Ds to get back into skirmish. Failing that,
someone will
> be shooting you at a factor of 5, needing to do only 2 CPF to
invoke a waver
> test. Heck, LI at long range could pull that off with a little bit
of an
> overlap and an up 1 roll. Anything more substantial will just blow
your Azabs
> away, invoking waver tests galor right in the middle of your army.

Mark, you are right essentially if a unit were allowed to get such a
margin. Consider the MC, LMI, LC all in 3E frontages. This gives
me, after closing an edge down, wall to wall shooting. I'm trying to
develop a manipular shooting system whereby you shoot up this unit
while the other rallies, then they switch. Most people do not bring
enough shooting to keep this up for more than 3 bounds.

I'm not trying to be difficult Mark, but I think you and Ewan are
failing to see the main premiss here of taking worthless troops and
make them work. You help in that vien would be most welcome since I
encourage and respect your opinions.

Consider this segment of battle. 12E in 3E frontage of LMI next to
3E frontage of MC shooting at 6E regular LMI and a partial LI B/sh
unit. Everyone but the reg LMI and LI are in skirmish.

2E of reg LMI and 4E of LI B shoot at the MC for 6@4 and 6@4 or 36.
This gives 2 CPF, the MC will charge. MC shoot back with 6@3 on the
LMI and 12@1 on the LI for 15 and 18. The LMI take nothing the LI
take 1 CPF. The C grade LMI and LI now test waver. both pass and the
MC hit the LMI with 5@7 -support shot and the LI with 9@8 - support
shot. The LMI or LI shake and they are gone, but they didn't so let
us say the support is 18@3 from the LMI for 45 or 2 CPF. MC hit with
5@5 for 20 or 1 CPF, with a support shot of 5@3 for another 13. The
LMI fight with 4@3 or 10. The LMI go back disordered. The LI go by
by as the -2 from support shot still leaves 9@6 or 45 which is 3+ CPF
and they rout. Now in the next bound the EHC or even the IrgA LC
trundle up and slam the LMI to rout them. On the other flank more LC
move up to provoke the enemy counter punch into shooting/charging
them rather than the MC unit.

Just one of the scenarios I'm trying to run through fully. The
straight math per element doesn't tell enough of a story here, since
it is the combine efforts of LMI, MC and LC that I'm trying to work
into a cohessive combat team. I would certainly appriciate your
refinement along these lines. How can I best minimize the
counterpunch against the MC?


> Well, no self-respecting knight player will let you get a 3-1
matchup in
> frontage on his knights, so don't even build a battle plan on the
assumption
> you can pull that off.


This is absolute, but only a fool would try to run some regular LMI
CB up to dual with the MC, LMI B combo. CB is the only weapon that
gives MC virtually even odds on factors. If using LB, then use LC to
absorb missiles instead. Real K armies are weakest where the
infantry can be pinned. And if using 4E and 6E LC units, then all
the better for targeting.



And if that 2E elephant unit has LI on the base (as
> Indian, Burmese, and Khmer often do these days) then not only will
they not
> take 2 CPF, they'll likely return fire with enough to do some real
damage.
> Sultanate of Delhi elephants put out 6 figures' shooting on an
element's
> frontage; Burmese elephants put out 9 figures' shooting on an
element's
> frontage. If you don't anticpate these contingencies then you're
not building a
> battle plan, you just engaging in some wishful thinking.

3E shooting at close range vs 9E MC. This is 18@4 vs 18@3. MC take
54 or 3 CPF. elephants take 45 or 3 CPF. Elephants halt
disordered. MC rally back disordered. Up comes now the skirmishing
LMI for a long range shot on the elephants given the maden guard or
something isn't nearby to take 18@ or 14@.

12E LMI B in skirmish on 3E frontage shooting 3E elephants. 14@3 or
35. Up 1 makes 3 CPF again. elephants shoot back with 15@3 for 38 or
1 CPF. Less favorable, but this is a chance that may happen and not
so bad if the LMI don't roll down on the evade. It gets real nasty
if the LMI evade, as now the elephant is rallying forward.


>
> I'd also be careful about making the front rank of LC Irr A,
particularly when
> that LC has to be part of your battle line. One enemy LI or LC unit
held in
> reserve waiting to see where you commit those guys can ruin your
whole day, as
> it marches up on bound 2 and provokes a charge exactly when/where
you don't
> want it.

This is very true. I'm actually counting on running the LC as the
second rank to lure off and/or deflect from the MC when they are
rallying.

> As for the Azabs... like I said, just don't buy them as LMI.
>
> Oh, and those Mountain Turks on your list -- the Irr C LMI guys.
Who exactly
> were you planning to beat with them?? Really, they aren't worth the
points. I
> know, I know, you have dreams of disordering something with
shooting that they
> can charge into. It won't happen often enough to win you battles.

Actually I started running out of options without an ally general :)

My plan here was to either unload form boats from a waterway or
ambush. Besides once the MC disorder the elephants, perhaps I can get
them in to charge impetuously and rout the elephants on contact! ;)

Wanax

> -Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/27/2004 8:58:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
spocksleftball@... writes:

> I am attempting to learn to run terrible armies
> rather than high performance armies. >>

I admire this concept and am looking at Spartacus in the same vein...lol

<< For me, it isn't much of a challenge to run
> saftey armies. >>

Oh, really? Then why are you giving Mark and Ewan advice and not the other way
around..? lol Just joshing around here, mostly, Boyd, but I do think the idea
is good but putting it that way is overly simplistic. A multiple NICT winner
would be very believable saying, hey, I'm going to try Silla Korean, but for the
rest of us, those 'safety armies' are neither so easily dismissed nor
necessarily anything more than our style, or, and I think this is VERY
overlooked, the collest thing in the last published list book...

I actually agree with you that one could make the early ott list work and I
think you are on the right track.
J

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
> A multiple NICT winner would be very believable saying, hey, I'm going to try
Silla Korean,

On a different note: how many multiple 7th/Warrior NICT winners
are there? I can only think of a couple of folks of whom I might
expect it, and I don't *know* for any of them.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/27/2004 12:15:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

> On a different note: how many multiple 7th/Warrior NICT winners
> are there? I can only think of a couple of folks of whom I
> might
> expect it, and I don't *know* for any of them.>>

Counting both 7th and Warrior, Derek Downs and Dave Stiers have both won
multiple times. I am not sure myself who else falls in that category, but Scott
may know.

[scott holder]

On a different note: how many multiple 7th/Warrior NICT winners
are there? I can only think of a couple of folks of whom I might
expect it, and I don't *know* for any of them.

>Derek has one at least 4 times that I can recall. He's done it with Bactrian
Greek, Han Chinese (twice) and Silla Korean. I'm guessing I've forgotten a
time, maybe two.

>I *think* Dave Stier has won twice but can I remember the specifics?
Nooooooooo. He's won strictly with medieval armies.

>I also *think* that Bob Andriola might have won more than one "NICT" back in
the days of 6th although you didn't ask for that info.

>If you go waaaaay back to the 70s and when a "national" championship wasn't
really that, Steve Herndon (he plays Armati these days) and Tom Haslett usually
alternated who won the "big" ancients tourney (5th Ed) at Origins from around
76-77 up to sometime in the early 80s. But then I was in a college daze during
much of that time frame so wasn't up to date on current ancients events.

scott

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/27/2004 12:29:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Scott.Holder@... writes:

> >Derek has one at least 4 times that I can recall. He's done it with Bactrian
Greek, Han Chinese (twice) and Silla Korean. I'm guessing I've forgotten a
time, maybe two.
>
> >I *think* Dave Stier has won twice but can I remember the specifics?
Nooooooooo. He's won strictly with medieval
> armies.>>

I do believe it is more than that for both of them...

[scott holder]

> >Derek has one at least 4 times that I can recall. He's done it with Bactrian
Greek, Han Chinese (twice) and Silla Korean. I'm guessing I've forgotten a
time, maybe two.
>
> >I *think* Dave Stier has won twice but can I remember the specifics?
Nooooooooo. He's won strictly with medieval
> armies.>>

I do believe it is more than that for both of them...

>That could very well be. I'd hafta go back thru all the Spearpoints to check,
not that I have the time or inclination to do so:) However, I'm fairly
sure that they're the only multiple champeens.

>Oh, and my NICT page is updated. The NASAMW Warrior NICT qualifier page is NOT
updated but I have an email into Zorn with the requisite info so I'm guessing
it'll be updated fairly soon.

scott

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/27/2004 8:58:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
spocksleftball@y... writes:
>
> > I am attempting to learn to run terrible armies
> > rather than high performance armies. >>
>
> I admire this concept and am looking at Spartacus in the same
vein...lol
>
> << For me, it isn't much of a challenge to run
> > saftey armies. >>
>
> Oh, really? Then why are you giving Mark and Ewan advice and not
the other way around..? lol Just joshing around here, mostly, Boyd,
but I do think the idea is good but putting it that way is overly
simplistic. A multiple NICT winner would be very believable saying,
hey, I'm going to try Silla Korean, but for the rest of us,
those 'safety armies' are neither so easily dismissed nor necessarily
anything more than our style, or, and I think this is VERY
overlooked, the collest thing in the last published list book...

I didni't say I would be successful ;)

Certainly we have all run those types of armies that help us out.
Reg B troops rolling wavers, super heavy armor, reg lMI shooting
factors. All of these high performance types are "safety" in that
they enhance our plans by being able to neutralize our own luck
and/or mistakes. I didn't mean that playing some armies is a sinch,
but I do see how reading my statement above might present that. no,
i'm just saying anyone can expect a reasonable about of success with
reasonable amount of skill playing a certain set of troop types.
Nothing in the way I'm looking at Early Otts contains those troops :)

>
> I actually agree with you that one could make the early ott list
work and I think you are on the right track.
> J

It adds and entirely new dimention to the effort IMO.

Wanax

[John Murphy]

Well, actually (and what do I know...), I think in your quest for a
non-viable army you are finding ways to make it a very viable one.
This army has such over-optimized troops for cheap points to cover
the board it is no less competitive than the armees du jour.

Looking through the NICT lists there are plenty of very good lists
with a bunch of D class down-armored troops. What you do _not_ see
many of is armies without a lot of mobility or missile power.

I would think one who is serious about running "crap troops" would
not be running a bunch of cheapo D class mobile shooters optimized to
fit exactly within the game system. Anyone can win with that... <g>

Try running a bunch of uparmored hi-morale close-order foot without
any missile capability or any HtH "wonder weapons". Try doing it
without a real significant mounted support arm, and _certainly_ no
stinkin' rank-and-a-half lances, strictly JLS! Maybe take away the
mounted shields (all of 'em, not just back-rankers) to really sock it
to them. Then remove as many skirmishers or light troops as possible
from the army.

Greeks and Romans come to mind immediately. I think Romans even with
the list rules are going to take a lot of skill to play and I'd
actually be suprised to see a single non-missile Roman army in the
NICT even this year. And any hoplite "fix" is still years away so you
still have a couple shots to win the NICT with Spartans before they
become the next armee du jour! Go Leonidas!



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Wanax Andron"
<spocksleftball@y...> wrote:
> I considered this actually Mark, but rather I wanted to avoid any
> vaible troop type if possible. If you noticed, this army contains
> nothing anyone would normally buy: shieldless MC, LC Jls, EHC,
> shieldless LMI. I am attempting to learn to run terrible armies
> rather than high performance armies. This has been a theme for me
> for some time, but everyone fails to remember this when critiqueing
> my lists. I certainly can put together the typically *high speed,
> low drag* Warrior army full of SHK, regular LMI, LI of every
ilk, "B"
> grade regular LC, etc. For me, it isn't much of a challenge to run
> saftey armies. Now you let me see someone run the army I've listed
> and win....now there is a champion :)

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "J. Murphy" <jjmurphy@s...>
> Try running a bunch of uparmored hi-morale close-order foot without
> any missile capability or any HtH "wonder weapons". Try doing it
> without a real significant mounted support arm, and _certainly_ no
> stinkin' rank-and-a-half lances, strictly JLS! Maybe take away the
> mounted shields (all of 'em, not just back-rankers) to really sock
it
> to them. Then remove as many skirmishers or light troops as
possible
> from the army.

Actually, this isn't far from First Crusaders the way I run it. Of
course I do spoil myself with 2x2E RgC LC J/B/sh and lances for the
HC. But as anyone will tell you, HC die like flies once in combat :)



>
> Greeks and Romans come to mind immediately. I think Romans even
with
> the list rules are going to take a lot of skill to play and I'd
> actually be suprised to see a single non-missile Roman army in the
> NICT even this year. And any hoplite "fix" is still years away so
you
> still have a couple shots to win the NICT with Spartans before they
> become the next armee du jour! Go Leonidas!

I am looking at Marians as my next painting task. I will be running
almost all close order legionares, some LI J/sh, some HC/LC combos
and some El. Basically I want to run the historical army of Scipio
Africanus...the only true Roman general in the period. I see great
difficulty mainly becuase of the mechanics of getting terrain. If
anything I feel the Romans should get an automatic terrain bonus. %^D

Greeks, greeks, greeks! I love them like no other, but they present
one very large problem in this or any system. Someone will have to
paint the damned things! To buy $250 worth of hoplites, then spend a
year painting them....ugh! Just too old to start that project now.
Besides, I did my time in hoplite panolpy back in TOG of the early
90s.

At least I can spraypaint, dry brush and dip the Romans ;)

Wanax