Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Todd Schneider]

In putting together an LIR list for the upcoming Open
in KC, I have a question I am hoping many of the more
expierenced guys can answer.

Why, when you have a choice would you elect to take
EHC over HC if they are similarily armed?

I have two LIR lists I am looking at. One is Reg EHC,
L, B, Sh.
The Other is Irr B HC, L, B, Sh.

I lose some overall maneuverability with the Irr HC,
but I gain the ability to skirmish and charge
impetuously. I'll get shot by B at a 4, but if I so
Skirmish, that goes down to a 2, or a 3 if I shoot
back.

These units aren't Shock troops, but closers in my
list, so in most cases being 1 worse in the Hand to
Hand categories (IE, Other foot is 1 against EHC, 2
against HC), isn't that a big of a deal, yet :-)

Is there something in the EHC vs. HC comparison I am
missing?

Thanks for the replies,
Todd

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Schneider <thresh1642@s...>
wrote:
> In putting together an LIR list for the upcoming Open
> in KC, I have a question I am hoping many of the more
> expierenced guys can answer.

I am far from expert. I've just been playing a long time.

>
> Why, when you have a choice would you elect to take
> EHC over HC if they are similarily armed?
>
> I have two LIR lists I am looking at. One is Reg EHC,
> L, B, Sh.
> The Other is Irr B HC, L, B, Sh.
>
> I lose some overall maneuverability with the Irr HC,
> but I gain the ability to skirmish and charge
> impetuously. I'll get shot by B at a 4, but if I so
> Skirmish, that goes down to a 2, or a 3 if I shoot
> back.

you've answered your own question here Todd. The regular EHC move
around in the backfield waiting to find an exploitable opening. If
you are temped to use the HC or the EHC as a shooting platform, then
I would question your tactics. As your infantry will not be
shooters, this means that any shooting by your mounted will draw away
all the enemy shooting. In other words, chances are you would be in
a dual with enemy archers who will shoot you on an element frontage
of 8@3 or 4@3 to your 6@2 or 3@2. IOW you will loose this contest.
As 6 figures you will take massive casualties fighting 16 man or even
12 man foot units.

no the shooting from these mounted units is for shooting only at
enemy mounted knights and as support shooting to your own charges.

>
> These units aren't Shock troops, but closers in my
> list, so in most cases being 1 worse in the Hand to
> Hand categories (IE, Other foot is 1 against EHC, 2
> against HC), isn't that a big of a deal, yet :-)

Well looking at the difference between 6@1 and 6@2 looks like enough
to take 2 CPF instead of 1 for your mounted. Again IMO the more
manuverable EHC will be able to get itself into a position as a
second charge or get off a flank charge where the HC will not unless
well prepared planning took place for them.

>
> Is there something in the EHC vs. HC comparison I am
> missing?

EHC look cool :)

>
> Thanks for the replies,
> Todd

[scott holder]

I pondered this over and have an opinion. Keep in mind it's from someone who
still can't run armies like this worth a damn.

Your usage really depends on how they are to be employed. As Boydax indicated,
the fundamental purpose of the "cavalry arm" as you've described it should
dicate how to use them.

If you go with the HC guys, they are a bit more of a shock troop because of the
ease in which they go impetuous. You're given the added flexibility of
skirmishing with them. However, because they *can* be used in a more aggressive
manner, you really want them to operate in conjunction with other like units. I
frequently refer to the "pod system" lately. With a HC unit like this (again
assuming it's to be more of an aggressive unit), it really needs to be teamed
with at least 1 LC unit and another HC unit. These then work together to soak
off opposing fire while having something threatening to charge with. For
example, for years I've been playing with Mongol cav in 2-4 unit pods. This
consists of 1-2 LC units, one at 6E, another at 2E. Along with them is a 2E HC
unit and a 4E HC unit. These things are tough to coordinate well but man do
they work if you know what you're doing. It would also appear that lately, a LI
unit might be good to have in that pod. Wait, I've now spent half my army
points:) All this assumes a 1600 pt game. Things change somewhat at 1200
points depending on the army. I think how I'd purchase LIR at 1600 and 1200
would be very different.

But again, the above assumes the HC is used more for shock, albeit not great,
and that's because as a closer, it's potential shock value might be outweighed
by the fact it needs to be perfectly positioned in order to help. Otherwise,
you might be a bound behind and in my games, that's usually a bound too late.

That's cause you're paying for shock you may or may not need from a closer. If
using the cav strictly as a closer, then I agree with Boydax's assessment in
that the Reg EHC provides you with many more options because it's so
manueverable. Plus, chances are the EHC will be closing against a disordered
target, preferably foot, hence no need for an ability to go impetuous. OTOH, if
the EHC is essentially there as flank support for your foot, then, hmmmmmm, the
ability to go impetuous might be better. Of course against most other mounted
targets, you're gonna get hosed, assuming an open tourney environment. EHC vs
most mounted is a lose-lose proposition mainly because of the cost-benefit of
purchasing something that doesn't enhance your cav-on-cav options. Okay, it's
better against shooting but as was pointed out by Jonax in his Byzantine
commentary, unless you're careful, you might find your EHC facing some
mongoassed size shooter block and the better factors are outweighed by a skyfull
of arrows screaming down at you.

For years, EHC has been seen as the red-headed bastard stepchild of this game
system. It appears that in the last year, that perception is being reassessed
somewhat.

So, if you're using these guys strictly as closers and figure on needing the
maneuverability to plug holes in the dike, then the EHC are the way to go. If
you are playing a slightly more agressive game, then the HC might be more
suited. But again, having these units out there aggressive means they'll need
good supporting friends, otherwise, they'll get hammered.

Thorax

I always prefer EHC over HC in regard to combat. Yet, the EHC is no
better then HC when it comes to being shot at. I believe the EHC
should be at least one factor better agains the bow.

Jack
--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Schneider <thresh1642@s...>
wrote:
> In putting together an LIR list for the upcoming Open
> in KC, I have a question I am hoping many of the more
> expierenced guys can answer.
>
> Why, when you have a choice would you elect to take
> EHC over HC if they are similarily armed?
>
> I have two LIR lists I am looking at. One is Reg EHC,
> L, B, Sh.
> The Other is Irr B HC, L, B, Sh.
>
> I lose some overall maneuverability with the Irr HC,
> but I gain the ability to skirmish and charge
> impetuously. I'll get shot by B at a 4, but if I so
> Skirmish, that goes down to a 2, or a 3 if I shoot
> back.
>
> These units aren't Shock troops, but closers in my
> list, so in most cases being 1 worse in the Hand to
> Hand categories (IE, Other foot is 1 against EHC, 2
> against HC), isn't that a big of a deal, yet
>
> Is there something in the EHC vs. HC comparison I am
> missing?
>
> Thanks for the replies,
> Todd

[scott holder]

I always prefer EHC over HC in regard to combat. Yet, the EHC is no
better then HC when it comes to being shot at. I believe the EHC
should be at least one factor better agains the bow.

>Um, how about 2? >grin> JLS, D, B shoot EHC at a 2 instead of a 4 against HC.

>Yes, S, SS and LB don't change but that's deliberate, the S being an impact
weapon and the assumption being horse barding and some uparmoring of the rider
doesn't degrade it's characteristics. LB is the same except the trajectory
theories that have floated around for 20 years.

>Keep in mind the historical context of EHC development. It was designed to
counter the affects of bowfire, which is taken into account in the rules.

scott

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/1/2004 10:10:22 AM Eastern Standard Time,
captainjack75040@... writes:

> I always prefer EHC over HC in regard to combat. Yet, the EHC is no
> better then HC when it comes to being shot at. I believe
> the EHC
> should be at least one factor better agains the bow.
>
> Jack>.

Someone may have addressed this already but this is not true. B v EHC is a 2,
vs HC it is a 4. All the difference in the world charging a dart-armed roman...