Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

I'm a former 7th edition player who has been kicking around making
the change to "Warrior". When the 7th edition scene died in my
state I started playing DBM (yes, yes, I know) and WAB but still
hold a soft spot in my heart for this system.

Anyway, I have given serious thought to converting my DBM "Early
Crusader" to a state were it can be played in either system. Right
now the most daunting prosoect of doing this is making a whole new
set of elements to represent the Pilgrims. They are based as Hordes
in DBM and this basing is unusable unless you play them as "E" class
troops which are almost useless.

I have several questions:

-In your opinion is this a competative army in "open" play?
-Given that the pilgrims if run as front rank "A" class and the
knights are both never uneasy is taking a sacred standard worth the
cost? (not to mention risk if taken) It would only effect the close
order infantry and the skirmish trash.
-what sort of configuration is best for the close order infantry?
-Do you have an other tips on building an effective "First Crusade"
army? I'm not asking anyone to build an OB for me, just a few
pointers as it's been a LONG time simce I crunched numbers for 7th.

Please keep in mind that I will be building this horde in 15mm. I
have two active Warrior groups to choose from. One to the north of
me prefers 25mm play and to this end I already have a 'medeival
French" army built. The one to the south likes 15s.

Thanks, all.

Martin

[Greg Regets]

Martin Wolverton ... long time, no see.

Where are you living now?

I still remember those tournaments in Kileen that you and Darin Piper
used to run. Talk about the epitomy of playing in the day and
draining the bars of tequila at night!

It's nice to see you back!

Greg

P.S. I believe I have heard Scott Holder mention that he has played
this army.



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Martin" <mwolverton@h...> wrote:
> I'm a former 7th edition player who has been kicking around making
> the change to "Warrior". When the 7th edition scene died in my
> state I started playing DBM (yes, yes, I know) and WAB but still
> hold a soft spot in my heart for this system.
>
> Anyway, I have given serious thought to converting my DBM "Early
> Crusader" to a state were it can be played in either system. Right
> now the most daunting prosoect of doing this is making a whole new
> set of elements to represent the Pilgrims. They are based as
Hordes
> in DBM and this basing is unusable unless you play them as "E"
class
> troops which are almost useless.
>
> I have several questions:
>
> -In your opinion is this a competative army in "open" play?
> -Given that the pilgrims if run as front rank "A" class and the
> knights are both never uneasy is taking a sacred standard worth the
> cost? (not to mention risk if taken) It would only effect the
close
> order infantry and the skirmish trash.
> -what sort of configuration is best for the close order infantry?
> -Do you have an other tips on building an effective "First Crusade"
> army? I'm not asking anyone to build an OB for me, just a few
> pointers as it's been a LONG time simce I crunched numbers for 7th.
>
> Please keep in mind that I will be building this horde in 15mm. I
> have two active Warrior groups to choose from. One to the north of
> me prefers 25mm play and to this end I already have a 'medeival
> French" army built. The one to the south likes 15s.
>
> Thanks, all.
>
> Martin

Hullo, Greg!!

I've been living in Waco now for about two years. I started dating
a woman in Austin last year and am down that way all the time, so a
quick trip to San Antonio is not an issue. I met up with the
historical gaming community in that city and that has gotten me back
into historicals in huge way.

Perhaps we can plan a game some time and let you San Antonio pros
teach me the changes that "Warrior" has brought. Get with me via
email so we don't spam the list with personal stuff.

Martin

[scott holder]

P.S. I believe I have heard Scott Holder mention that he has played
this army.

>Played with it, yes. Done well with it, no.....but that's a reflection on the
player, not on the list.

>I think in an open context, this list would play very well, particularly in a
regional environment. I don't think we'll see it at the NICT but stranger
things have happened.

>There are plenty of posts on this exact army. You'll need to search thru the
archives for em.

scott

I just won a regional event with First Crusader. It has some very
unique and fun options, but you have to be willing to play "balls
forward". It is basically a close order infantry platform from which
to launch IrrgA HC or HK. Plan on taking waver tests, and plan on a
long hard fight. I can give you plenty of examples of why I was
successful, but my style of play is simply to keep moving forward
until I have no units left that will move forward. Here are just a
few pointers that make this army for me:

MI B have JLS option. As a second rank behind HI JLS/Sh, this means
they will shoot anyone down at full effect coming in, then fight as a
second rank of JLS. Very nice and unexpected. Downside is you want
to run the unit big enough so that it won't recoil because then
disorder and shieldless MI trauma will ensue.

Regular LC JLS/B/Sh. These guys run in 2E units are like the perfect
gadfly. You have to get past their friends the IrrgA HC to get at
them, and they absorb all shooting away from their crazy friends.
Very useful also at containing/slowing a weak flank.

Pilgrims. How many ways can you skin this cat? Sky is the limit. I
prefer running one unit as IrgA/C LMI B (perhaps sh front rank), as
this means they will charge rather than take a waver if shot up while
not in skirmish (I never skirmish them), and I push them wherever the
enemy mounted are (they expect no 'A" troops in this scrubby lump) as
they divert enemy energies like a magnet. Again, I'm sort of an
insane player, so I like to cause anxiety in my opponant by charging
with everything...

LI options are the gamit, but I like running pilgrim LI with front
rank JLS/sh as C, and back rank as D with B. This means I can stand
out of skrimish and shoot. The effect is I can confront both
infantry and mounted at the same time with these guys and not worry
about the mounted charging me while in skirmish. Thus I will get a
shot off even if I waver and fail, the mounted with have to fight me
rather than just contact me for a rout. And if he is not smart, I
will catch whatever routed the LI and rout it with, again, IrrgA HC.

Kniggits of the IrrgA variety. Some people avoid this option
prefering the steady nature of "B" morale. Well, not me. I prefer a
huge mounted charge, as statistically someone will fail a waver test
when facing it and/or some of my HC will roll up. Nothing says
loving like routing a flank with massed HC charges, and nothing is
more final than rolling down and routing out with your shock troops.
so it is a crap shoot. Again, I play to win or loose, not tie.

Danes. You get some nice anti-El troops with 2HCW/sh & JLS/sh LHI or
LMI. Outstanding unless fighting cavalry or kniggits.

Just remember to keep your banner within 240 of the enemy and moving
forward to keep the "C" infantry in the fight.

Just some features that make it fun for me.

Wanax




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Holder, Scott"
<Scott.Holder@f...> wrote:
> P.S. I believe I have heard Scott Holder mention that he has played
> this army.
>
> >Played with it, yes. Done well with it, no.....but that's a
reflection on the player, not on the list.
>
> >I think in an open context, this list would play very well,
particularly in a regional environment. I don't think we'll see it
at the NICT but stranger things have happened.
>
> >There are plenty of posts on this exact army. You'll need to
search thru the archives for em.
>
> scott

Wannax and Mark: thanks guys. This is exactly the sort of "sage
advice" I was looking for! The list does seem to have alot of
potential that I hope I can tap into.

I too will be running the "irr A" option on my HC/HK. "irr A" class
troops have always had a big apeal for me. I'm an agressive player
that like to take the fight to the enemy and hates to prompt
charges. The "never uneasy" thing is also great for passing the
waver tests I wind up having to take. It's possible for me to take
my love of "irr A" to silly extremes as the last tournement army I
had for 7th ed. was a Kushite Egyptian force. Oddly enough I did
fairly well with it and managed to eek out a few wins.

A less effective "irr A" army for me was my Later Muramachi Japanese
army (built from the yellow 7th ed. army list book) with units
of "irr A" EHI. That was a horrible mistake.

My Medieval French is another army I look forward to trying out
under "Warrior". Although I was able to beat it's historical
opponents on a regular basis it used to suffer in open competition.
However the option to field meaningful amounts of light infantry and
the better options for the Brigans should make this army far more
effective.

Oh well. I'm off to buy a bunch of peasant figures to paint up as
piglrims now.

Martin

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Martin,

Consider the Scots Common. That list get's better foot and still gets the
AWESOME French Knights! Very nice combination indeed!

kelly

Martin <mwolverton@...> wrote:
Wannax and Mark: thanks guys. This is exactly the sort of "sage
advice" I was looking for! The list does seem to have alot of
potential that I hope I can tap into.

I too will be running the "irr A" option on my HC/HK. "irr A" class
troops have always had a big apeal for me. I'm an agressive player
that like to take the fight to the enemy and hates to prompt
charges. The "never uneasy" thing is also great for passing the
waver tests I wind up having to take. It's possible for me to take
my love of "irr A" to silly extremes as the last tournement army I
had for 7th ed. was a Kushite Egyptian force. Oddly enough I did
fairly well with it and managed to eek out a few wins.

A less effective "irr A" army for me was my Later Muramachi Japanese
army (built from the yellow 7th ed. army list book) with units
of "irr A" EHI. That was a horrible mistake.

My Medieval French is another army I look forward to trying out
under "Warrior". Although I was able to beat it's historical
opponents on a regular basis it used to suffer in open competition.
However the option to field meaningful amounts of light infantry and
the better options for the Brigans should make this army far more
effective.

Oh well. I'm off to buy a bunch of peasant figures to paint up as
piglrims now.

Martin



Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
Click Here

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster.

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

Lord I wonder now if you're dating my ex-wife
Wanax

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Martin" <mwolverton@h...> wrote:
> Hullo, Greg!!
>
> I started dating
> a woman in Austin last year and am down that way all the time, so a
> quick trip to San Antonio is not an issue. > Martin

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> Martin,
>
> Consider the Scots Common. That list get's better foot and
still gets the AWESOME French Knights! Very nice combination indeed!
>
>
kelly

It is indeed!
However table-top effectiveness is not the only issue. I find the
100 years wa French army to be interesting and apealing. I'm just
glad they "fixed" the list. It looks to be more effective now.
Those required sheildless LTS armed HI and almost total lack of
light troops made winning with the French very difficult.

and....

Wannax, I'm 100% certain she is NOT your ex-wife. But if you want
to introduce us..... ;-)

Martin

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Wanax Andron"
<spocksleftball@y...> wrote:
>
> MI B have JLS option. As a second rank behind HI JLS/Sh, this
means
> they will shoot anyone down at full effect coming in, then fight as
a
> second rank of JLS. Very nice and unexpected. Downside is you
want
> to run the unit big enough so that it won't recoil because then
> disorder and shieldless MI trauma will ensue.
> > scott


I could be wrong but i would have thought these guys were never
shieldless frontally, even if disordered. I was under inpression that
if the first rank still counted shielded the shields (or lack
thereof) of the second rank didn't matter (ye olde "armour of the
second, shields of the first" rule) Now if you had 2hcw that would be
a different matter.


Martin