Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

--- On November 28 Greg Regets said: ---

> Looking over lists and reading various old posts, it seems like most
> people that play knight-based armies are most interested in the
> massed destructive power of the knights, and choose to match them
> with an array of inexpensive support troops. For lack of a better
> term, lets call that either the "Everyone is a Teutonic", or
> the "Mark Stone/Sean Patrick Scott" approach. ;-)

Well, I had to laugh at this one. Sean and I learned miniatures at about the
same time almost 20 years ago, while both students at the University of
Rochester (Sean an undergrad, me working on my PhD). I think everyone in our
circle of gamers back then (Frank Gilson, Dave Stier, Jevon Garrett, Christian
Cameron, Greg Hauser, Bill Chamis, Chris Schulitz, to name a few) would say
that Sean and I had completely opposite playing styles. At the risk of
oversimplifying, Sean was more of a hammer and I was more of a rapier.

I did run Serbians in the NICT with something like 54 figures of lance-armed
cavalry. But that was unusual for me; that was much more of a Sean-like army.
My typical style is to fret a great deal about the quality of my support
troops, their ability to stop elephants, and their ability to set knights up to
do the rest.

> Has anyone had much luck with taking a limited number of knights,
> matched with more serious support troops, and using the knights as a
> force multiplier for these troops?

The tournament we just had out here I ran Knights of Saint John with only 18
figures of knights. The "heavy lifting" was done by the Marinii, Reg LHI
CB,2HCT,Sh. That's much more representative of the style of army I like to
play.

I've spent a long time agonizing over the Italian Condotta list, being one of
the few lists on which you can get:
- adequate LI
- decent LC
- SHK
- Almughuvars
- Swiss

In the end I've given up on it, and have settled on Knights of Saint John as
being a better knight army, precisely because I prefer the support troops.
Almughuvars are not what they used to be in open competition where Alexandrian
pike are no longer halted by them. And the Swiss, lacking shields, are too
precarious to use in my opinion. So right now I see Knights of Saint John as
being the best of the lot in the style that Greg describes.

There are some other contenders among knight armies. Wallachians gives you a
superb range of light troops, and is one of the few lists that can have both
Mongol loose order cav and SHK.

Frank Gilson and Dave Stier have demonstrated through their repeated success at
Cold Wars how well the support troops work on 100 Years War English. It's the
longbowmen and the Brigans that shape their battles, not the knights.

And Later Paleologan Byzantines remains one of my favorites, both in terms of
playability and in terms of historical interest. There the primary support
troop is Reg C LMI JLS,B,Sh.

To some extent it depends on the luck of the draw. If I'm up against another
mounted army, I probably want the Knights of Saint John, where both crossbow
and 2HCT will serve me well. If I'm up against an elephant army, then I
probably want the LP Byzantines, where JLS,B,Sh is just about the optimal
weapon configuration.


-Mark Stone

Hi

I quite like some of the German Medieval armies (Holy roman Imperial or
medieval german princes). I had reasonable success in competition with
HRI using only 4 units of SHK (2 of which were RegC)but 4 units of 24
pike (1/2 of whom were EHI) and 2 of 24 close order CB (1/2 sh). Other
than that it was just a couiple of units of LC,b and various LI. I
found the close order foot pretty formidable. They definitely made up
for the small numbers of relatively second rate knights.

Martin

Hi

I quite like some of the German Medieval armies (Holy roman Imperial or
medieval german princes). I had reasonable success in competition with
HRI using only 4 units of SHK (2 of which were RegC)but 4 units of 24
pike (1/2 of whom were EHI) and 2 of 24 close order CB (1/2 sh). Other
than that it was just a couiple of units of LC,b and various LI. I
found the close order foot pretty formidable. They definitely made up
for the small numbers of relatively second rate knights.

Martin

[Greg Regets]

Thanks for the response Mark ... :-)

I think the comment I was referring to, was one you made a long time
ago when we were discussing KofStJ offline, where you indicated that
six units of knights was your minimum. I sort of settled into
the "four of everything" approach with that army and it worked well
for me for quite some time.

I feel your pain on the Italian Condotta. It's just not point
effective to play the Swiss. For that matter, the Militia make
matters difficult as well. I've opted for the mercenary pikemen. I
really like the army ... sure the KofStJ is probably better, but
after playing that exclusively for all of the 21st Century, I thought
a change was in order, until I got those crummy Byzantines
finished. ;-)

The Alexandrian pikemen are going to be a serious problem, but I
think in the tournament setting they may end up a victim of the
ultimate unwritten rule ... there are so few things that can deal
with them, good players will pin and forget them. One thing they
didn't get, is appreciably faster. What do you want to bet that the
Alexandrian gets a lot of draws.

Thanks ... g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
>
> --- On November 28 Greg Regets said: ---
>
> > Looking over lists and reading various old posts, it seems like
most
> > people that play knight-based armies are most interested in the
> > massed destructive power of the knights, and choose to match them
> > with an array of inexpensive support troops. For lack of a better
> > term, lets call that either the "Everyone is a Teutonic", or
> > the "Mark Stone/Sean Patrick Scott" approach.
>
> Well, I had to laugh at this one. Sean and I learned miniatures at
about the
> same time almost 20 years ago, while both students at the
University of
> Rochester (Sean an undergrad, me working on my PhD). I think
everyone in our
> circle of gamers back then (Frank Gilson, Dave Stier, Jevon
Garrett, Christian
> Cameron, Greg Hauser, Bill Chamis, Chris Schulitz, to name a few)
would say
> that Sean and I had completely opposite playing styles. At the risk
of
> oversimplifying, Sean was more of a hammer and I was more of a
rapier.
>
> I did run Serbians in the NICT with something like 54 figures of
lance-armed
> cavalry. But that was unusual for me; that was much more of a Sean-
like army.
> My typical style is to fret a great deal about the quality of my
support
> troops, their ability to stop elephants, and their ability to set
knights up to
> do the rest.
>
> > Has anyone had much luck with taking a limited number of knights,
> > matched with more serious support troops, and using the knights
as a
> > force multiplier for these troops?
>
> The tournament we just had out here I ran Knights of Saint John
with only 18
> figures of knights. The "heavy lifting" was done by the Marinii,
Reg LHI
> CB,2HCT,Sh. That's much more representative of the style of army I
like to
> play.
>
> I've spent a long time agonizing over the Italian Condotta list,
being one of
> the few lists on which you can get:
> - adequate LI
> - decent LC
> - SHK
> - Almughuvars
> - Swiss
>
> In the end I've given up on it, and have settled on Knights of
Saint John as
> being a better knight army, precisely because I prefer the support
troops.
> Almughuvars are not what they used to be in open competition where
Alexandrian
> pike are no longer halted by them. And the Swiss, lacking shields,
are too
> precarious to use in my opinion. So right now I see Knights of
Saint John as
> being the best of the lot in the style that Greg describes.
>
> There are some other contenders among knight armies. Wallachians
gives you a
> superb range of light troops, and is one of the few lists that can
have both
> Mongol loose order cav and SHK.
>
> Frank Gilson and Dave Stier have demonstrated through their
repeated success at
> Cold Wars how well the support troops work on 100 Years War
English. It's the
> longbowmen and the Brigans that shape their battles, not the
knights.
>
> And Later Paleologan Byzantines remains one of my favorites, both
in terms of
> playability and in terms of historical interest. There the primary
support
> troop is Reg C LMI JLS,B,Sh.
>
> To some extent it depends on the luck of the draw. If I'm up
against another
> mounted army, I probably want the Knights of Saint John, where both
crossbow
> and 2HCT will serve me well. If I'm up against an elephant army,
then I
> probably want the LP Byzantines, where JLS,B,Sh is just about the
optimal
> weapon configuration.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>

[Tim Grimmett]

Pikes are not Romans, which can countercharge as long as they are eager. Pikes
just don't have charges automatically cancelled by impetous foot.

Pikes caught at a halt by Mughs or Celtiberians are still toast.

It's a question of staying outside 80p.

T

Greg Regets <greg.regets@...> wrote:
Thanks for the response Mark ... :-)

I think the comment I was referring to, was one you made a long time
ago when we were discussing KofStJ offline, where you indicated that
six units of knights was your minimum. I sort of settled into
the "four of everything" approach with that army and it worked well
for me for quite some time.

I feel your pain on the Italian Condotta. It's just not point
effective to play the Swiss. For that matter, the Militia make
matters difficult as well. I've opted for the mercenary pikemen. I
really like the army ... sure the KofStJ is probably better, but
after playing that exclusively for all of the 21st Century, I thought
a change was in order, until I got those crummy Byzantines
finished. ;-)

The Alexandrian pikemen are going to be a serious problem, but I
think in the tournament setting they may end up a victim of the
ultimate unwritten rule ... there are so few things that can deal
with them, good players will pin and forget them. One thing they
didn't get, is appreciably faster. What do you want to bet that the
Alexandrian gets a lot of draws.

Thanks ... g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
>
> --- On November 28 Greg Regets said: ---
>
> > Looking over lists and reading various old posts, it seems like
most
> > people that play knight-based armies are most interested in the
> > massed destructive power of the knights, and choose to match them
> > with an array of inexpensive support troops. For lack of a better
> > term, lets call that either the "Everyone is a Teutonic", or
> > the "Mark Stone/Sean Patrick Scott" approach.
>
> Well, I had to laugh at this one. Sean and I learned miniatures at
about the
> same time almost 20 years ago, while both students at the
University of
> Rochester (Sean an undergrad, me working on my PhD). I think
everyone in our
> circle of gamers back then (Frank Gilson, Dave Stier, Jevon
Garrett, Christian
> Cameron, Greg Hauser, Bill Chamis, Chris Schulitz, to name a few)
would say
> that Sean and I had completely opposite playing styles. At the risk
of
> oversimplifying, Sean was more of a hammer and I was more of a
rapier.
>
> I did run Serbians in the NICT with something like 54 figures of
lance-armed
> cavalry. But that was unusual for me; that was much more of a Sean-
like army.
> My typical style is to fret a great deal about the quality of my
support
> troops, their ability to stop elephants, and their ability to set
knights up to
> do the rest.
>
> > Has anyone had much luck with taking a limited number of knights,
> > matched with more serious support troops, and using the knights
as a
> > force multiplier for these troops?
>
> The tournament we just had out here I ran Knights of Saint John
with only 18
> figures of knights. The "heavy lifting" was done by the Marinii,
Reg LHI
> CB,2HCT,Sh. That's much more representative of the style of army I
like to
> play.
>
> I've spent a long time agonizing over the Italian Condotta list,
being one of
> the few lists on which you can get:
> - adequate LI
> - decent LC
> - SHK
> - Almughuvars
> - Swiss
>
> In the end I've given up on it, and have settled on Knights of
Saint John as
> being a better knight army, precisely because I prefer the support
troops.
> Almughuvars are not what they used to be in open competition where
Alexandrian
> pike are no longer halted by them. And the Swiss, lacking shields,
are too
> precarious to use in my opinion. So right now I see Knights of
Saint John as
> being the best of the lot in the style that Greg describes.
>
> There are some other contenders among knight armies. Wallachians
gives you a
> superb range of light troops, and is one of the few lists that can
have both
> Mongol loose order cav and SHK.
>
> Frank Gilson and Dave Stier have demonstrated through their
repeated success at
> Cold Wars how well the support troops work on 100 Years War
English. It's the
> longbowmen and the Brigans that shape their battles, not the
knights.
>
> And Later Paleologan Byzantines remains one of my favorites, both
in terms of
> playability and in terms of historical interest. There the primary
support
> troop is Reg C LMI JLS,B,Sh.
>
> To some extent it depends on the luck of the draw. If I'm up
against another
> mounted army, I probably want the Knights of Saint John, where both
crossbow
> and 2HCT will serve me well. If I'm up against an elephant army,
then I
> probably want the LP Byzantines, where JLS,B,Sh is just about the
optimal
> weapon configuration.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>






---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

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.


---------------------------------






---------------------------------
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

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

[Greg Regets]

Obviously ... but getting, and staying in that narrow window of 80p
to 120p with irregular foot, will probably be somewhat tricky against
a quality player.


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Tim Grimmett <grimmetttim@y...>
wrote:
>
> Pikes are not Romans, which can countercharge as long as they are
eager. Pikes just don't have charges automatically cancelled by
impetous foot.
>
> Pikes caught at a halt by Mughs or Celtiberians are still toast.
>
> It's a question of staying outside 80p.
>
> T
>
> Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...> wrote:
> Thanks for the response Mark ...
>
> I think the comment I was referring to, was one you made a long
time
> ago when we were discussing KofStJ offline, where you indicated
that
> six units of knights was your minimum. I sort of settled into
> the "four of everything" approach with that army and it worked well
> for me for quite some time.
>
> I feel your pain on the Italian Condotta. It's just not point
> effective to play the Swiss. For that matter, the Militia make
> matters difficult as well. I've opted for the mercenary pikemen. I
> really like the army ... sure the KofStJ is probably better, but
> after playing that exclusively for all of the 21st Century, I
thought
> a change was in order, until I got those crummy Byzantines
> finished.
>
> The Alexandrian pikemen are going to be a serious problem, but I
> think in the tournament setting they may end up a victim of the
> ultimate unwritten rule ... there are so few things that can deal
> with them, good players will pin and forget them. One thing they
> didn't get, is appreciably faster. What do you want to bet that the
> Alexandrian gets a lot of draws.
>
> Thanks ... g
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> >
> > --- On November 28 Greg Regets said: ---
> >
> > > Looking over lists and reading various old posts, it seems like
> most
> > > people that play knight-based armies are most interested in the
> > > massed destructive power of the knights, and choose to match
them
> > > with an array of inexpensive support troops. For lack of a
better
> > > term, lets call that either the "Everyone is a Teutonic", or
> > > the "Mark Stone/Sean Patrick Scott" approach.
> >
> > Well, I had to laugh at this one. Sean and I learned miniatures
at
> about the
> > same time almost 20 years ago, while both students at the
> University of
> > Rochester (Sean an undergrad, me working on my PhD). I think
> everyone in our
> > circle of gamers back then (Frank Gilson, Dave Stier, Jevon
> Garrett, Christian
> > Cameron, Greg Hauser, Bill Chamis, Chris Schulitz, to name a few)
> would say
> > that Sean and I had completely opposite playing styles. At the
risk
> of
> > oversimplifying, Sean was more of a hammer and I was more of a
> rapier.
> >
> > I did run Serbians in the NICT with something like 54 figures of
> lance-armed
> > cavalry. But that was unusual for me; that was much more of a
Sean-
> like army.
> > My typical style is to fret a great deal about the quality of my
> support
> > troops, their ability to stop elephants, and their ability to set
> knights up to
> > do the rest.
> >
> > > Has anyone had much luck with taking a limited number of
knights,
> > > matched with more serious support troops, and using the knights
> as a
> > > force multiplier for these troops?
> >
> > The tournament we just had out here I ran Knights of Saint John
> with only 18
> > figures of knights. The "heavy lifting" was done by the Marinii,
> Reg LHI
> > CB,2HCT,Sh. That's much more representative of the style of army
I
> like to
> > play.
> >
> > I've spent a long time agonizing over the Italian Condotta list,
> being one of
> > the few lists on which you can get:
> > - adequate LI
> > - decent LC
> > - SHK
> > - Almughuvars
> > - Swiss
> >
> > In the end I've given up on it, and have settled on Knights of
> Saint John as
> > being a better knight army, precisely because I prefer the
support
> troops.
> > Almughuvars are not what they used to be in open competition
where
> Alexandrian
> > pike are no longer halted by them. And the Swiss, lacking
shields,
> are too
> > precarious to use in my opinion. So right now I see Knights of
> Saint John as
> > being the best of the lot in the style that Greg describes.
> >
> > There are some other contenders among knight armies. Wallachians
> gives you a
> > superb range of light troops, and is one of the few lists that
can
> have both
> > Mongol loose order cav and SHK.
> >
> > Frank Gilson and Dave Stier have demonstrated through their
> repeated success at
> > Cold Wars how well the support troops work on 100 Years War
> English. It's the
> > longbowmen and the Brigans that shape their battles, not the
> knights.
> >
> > And Later Paleologan Byzantines remains one of my favorites, both
> in terms of
> > playability and in terms of historical interest. There the
primary
> support
> > troop is Reg C LMI JLS,B,Sh.
> >
> > To some extent it depends on the luck of the draw. If I'm up
> against another
> > mounted army, I probably want the Knights of Saint John, where
both
> crossbow
> > and 2HCT will serve me well. If I'm up against an elephant army,
> then I
> > probably want the LP Byzantines, where JLS,B,Sh is just about the
> optimal
> > weapon configuration.
> >
> >
> > -Mark Stone
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.
>
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Pikes charging impetuous moogs are still toast verses scutarii and moogs.
k

Tim Grimmett <grimmetttim@...> wrote:
Pikes are not Romans, which can countercharge as long as they are eager.
Pikes just don't have charges automatically cancelled by impetous foot.

Pikes caught at a halt by Mughs or Celtiberians are still toast.

It's a question of staying outside 80p.

T

Greg Regets <greg.regets@...> wrote:
Thanks for the response Mark ... :-)

I think the comment I was referring to, was one you made a long time
ago when we were discussing KofStJ offline, where you indicated that
six units of knights was your minimum. I sort of settled into
the "four of everything" approach with that army and it worked well
for me for quite some time.

I feel your pain on the Italian Condotta. It's just not point
effective to play the Swiss. For that matter, the Militia make
matters difficult as well. I've opted for the mercenary pikemen. I
really like the army ... sure the KofStJ is probably better, but
after playing that exclusively for all of the 21st Century, I thought
a change was in order, until I got those crummy Byzantines
finished. ;-)

The Alexandrian pikemen are going to be a serious problem, but I
think in the tournament setting they may end up a victim of the
ultimate unwritten rule ... there are so few things that can deal
with them, good players will pin and forget them. One thing they
didn't get, is appreciably faster. What do you want to bet that the
Alexandrian gets a lot of draws.

Thanks ... g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
>
> --- On November 28 Greg Regets said: ---
>
> > Looking over lists and reading various old posts, it seems like
most
> > people that play knight-based armies are most interested in the
> > massed destructive power of the knights, and choose to match them
> > with an array of inexpensive support troops. For lack of a better
> > term, lets call that either the "Everyone is a Teutonic", or
> > the "Mark Stone/Sean Patrick Scott" approach.
>
> Well, I had to laugh at this one. Sean and I learned miniatures at
about the
> same time almost 20 years ago, while both students at the
University of
> Rochester (Sean an undergrad, me working on my PhD). I think
everyone in our
> circle of gamers back then (Frank Gilson, Dave Stier, Jevon
Garrett, Christian
> Cameron, Greg Hauser, Bill Chamis, Chris Schulitz, to name a few)
would say
> that Sean and I had completely opposite playing styles. At the risk
of
> oversimplifying, Sean was more of a hammer and I was more of a
rapier.
>
> I did run Serbians in the NICT with something like 54 figures of
lance-armed
> cavalry. But that was unusual for me; that was much more of a Sean-
like army.
> My typical style is to fret a great deal about the quality of my
support
> troops, their ability to stop elephants, and their ability to set
knights up to
> do the rest.
>
> > Has anyone had much luck with taking a limited number of knights,
> > matched with more serious support troops, and using the knights
as a
> > force multiplier for these troops?
>
> The tournament we just had out here I ran Knights of Saint John
with only 18
> figures of knights. The "heavy lifting" was done by the Marinii,
Reg LHI
> CB,2HCT,Sh. That's much more representative of the style of army I
like to
> play.
>
> I've spent a long time agonizing over the Italian Condotta list,
being one of
> the few lists on which you can get:
> - adequate LI
> - decent LC
> - SHK
> - Almughuvars
> - Swiss
>
> In the end I've given up on it, and have settled on Knights of
Saint John as
> being a better knight army, precisely because I prefer the support
troops.
> Almughuvars are not what they used to be in open competition where
Alexandrian
> pike are no longer halted by them. And the Swiss, lacking shields,
are too
> precarious to use in my opinion. So right now I see Knights of
Saint John as
> being the best of the lot in the style that Greg describes.
>
> There are some other contenders among knight armies. Wallachians
gives you a
> superb range of light troops, and is one of the few lists that can
have both
> Mongol loose order cav and SHK.
>
> Frank Gilson and Dave Stier have demonstrated through their
repeated success at
> Cold Wars how well the support troops work on 100 Years War
English. It's the
> longbowmen and the Brigans that shape their battles, not the
knights.
>
> And Later Paleologan Byzantines remains one of my favorites, both
in terms of
> playability and in terms of historical interest. There the primary
support
> troop is Reg C LMI JLS,B,Sh.
>
> To some extent it depends on the luck of the draw. If I'm up
against another
> mounted army, I probably want the Knights of Saint John, where both
crossbow
> and 2HCT will serve me well. If I'm up against an elephant army,
then I
> probably want the LP Byzantines, where JLS,B,Sh is just about the
optimal
> weapon configuration.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>






---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

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.


---------------------------------






---------------------------------
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

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



SPONSORED LINKS
Miniature wargaming Wargaming Four horsemen Warrior

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

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.


---------------------------------






---------------------------------
Yahoo! Personals
Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
Lots of someones, actually. Yahoo! Personals

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

That still doesn't matter. Look at the math. Being able to charge still will not
help the pikes. Sadly, this is the case. A 16 fig unit that gets trashed by that
of a 6 figure unit.

k

Greg Regets <greg.regets@...> wrote:
Obviously ... but getting, and staying in that narrow window of 80p
to 120p with irregular foot, will probably be somewhat tricky against
a quality player.


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Tim Grimmett <grimmetttim@y...>
wrote:
>
> Pikes are not Romans, which can countercharge as long as they are
eager. Pikes just don't have charges automatically cancelled by
impetous foot.
>
> Pikes caught at a halt by Mughs or Celtiberians are still toast.
>
> It's a question of staying outside 80p.
>
> T
>
> Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...> wrote:
> Thanks for the response Mark ...
>
> I think the comment I was referring to, was one you made a long
time
> ago when we were discussing KofStJ offline, where you indicated
that
> six units of knights was your minimum. I sort of settled into
> the "four of everything" approach with that army and it worked well
> for me for quite some time.
>
> I feel your pain on the Italian Condotta. It's just not point
> effective to play the Swiss. For that matter, the Militia make
> matters difficult as well. I've opted for the mercenary pikemen. I
> really like the army ... sure the KofStJ is probably better, but
> after playing that exclusively for all of the 21st Century, I
thought
> a change was in order, until I got those crummy Byzantines
> finished.
>
> The Alexandrian pikemen are going to be a serious problem, but I
> think in the tournament setting they may end up a victim of the
> ultimate unwritten rule ... there are so few things that can deal
> with them, good players will pin and forget them. One thing they
> didn't get, is appreciably faster. What do you want to bet that the
> Alexandrian gets a lot of draws.
>
> Thanks ... g
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> >
> > --- On November 28 Greg Regets said: ---
> >
> > > Looking over lists and reading various old posts, it seems like
> most
> > > people that play knight-based armies are most interested in the
> > > massed destructive power of the knights, and choose to match
them
> > > with an array of inexpensive support troops. For lack of a
better
> > > term, lets call that either the "Everyone is a Teutonic", or
> > > the "Mark Stone/Sean Patrick Scott" approach.
> >
> > Well, I had to laugh at this one. Sean and I learned miniatures
at
> about the
> > same time almost 20 years ago, while both students at the
> University of
> > Rochester (Sean an undergrad, me working on my PhD). I think
> everyone in our
> > circle of gamers back then (Frank Gilson, Dave Stier, Jevon
> Garrett, Christian
> > Cameron, Greg Hauser, Bill Chamis, Chris Schulitz, to name a few)
> would say
> > that Sean and I had completely opposite playing styles. At the
risk
> of
> > oversimplifying, Sean was more of a hammer and I was more of a
> rapier.
> >
> > I did run Serbians in the NICT with something like 54 figures of
> lance-armed
> > cavalry. But that was unusual for me; that was much more of a
Sean-
> like army.
> > My typical style is to fret a great deal about the quality of my
> support
> > troops, their ability to stop elephants, and their ability to set
> knights up to
> > do the rest.
> >
> > > Has anyone had much luck with taking a limited number of
knights,
> > > matched with more serious support troops, and using the knights
> as a
> > > force multiplier for these troops?
> >
> > The tournament we just had out here I ran Knights of Saint John
> with only 18
> > figures of knights. The "heavy lifting" was done by the Marinii,
> Reg LHI
> > CB,2HCT,Sh. That's much more representative of the style of army
I
> like to
> > play.
> >
> > I've spent a long time agonizing over the Italian Condotta list,
> being one of
> > the few lists on which you can get:
> > - adequate LI
> > - decent LC
> > - SHK
> > - Almughuvars
> > - Swiss
> >
> > In the end I've given up on it, and have settled on Knights of
> Saint John as
> > being a better knight army, precisely because I prefer the
support
> troops.
> > Almughuvars are not what they used to be in open competition
where
> Alexandrian
> > pike are no longer halted by them. And the Swiss, lacking
shields,
> are too
> > precarious to use in my opinion. So right now I see Knights of
> Saint John as
> > being the best of the lot in the style that Greg describes.
> >
> > There are some other contenders among knight armies. Wallachians
> gives you a
> > superb range of light troops, and is one of the few lists that
can
> have both
> > Mongol loose order cav and SHK.
> >
> > Frank Gilson and Dave Stier have demonstrated through their
> repeated success at
> > Cold Wars how well the support troops work on 100 Years War
> English. It's the
> > longbowmen and the Brigans that shape their battles, not the
> knights.
> >
> > And Later Paleologan Byzantines remains one of my favorites, both
> in terms of
> > playability and in terms of historical interest. There the
primary
> support
> > troop is Reg C LMI JLS,B,Sh.
> >
> > To some extent it depends on the luck of the draw. If I'm up
> against another
> > mounted army, I probably want the Knights of Saint John, where
both
> crossbow
> > and 2HCT will serve me well. If I'm up against an elephant army,
> then I
> > probably want the LP Byzantines, where JLS,B,Sh is just about the
> optimal
> > weapon configuration.
> >
> >
> > -Mark Stone
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.
>
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>






---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

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.


---------------------------------






---------------------------------
Yahoo! Personals
Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
Lots of someones, actually. Try Yahoo! Personals

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

[Ewan McNay]

Greg Regets wrote:
> The Alexandrian pikemen are going to be a serious problem, but I
> think in the tournament setting they may end up a victim of the
> ultimate unwritten rule ... there are so few things that can deal
> with them, good players will pin and forget them. One thing they
> didn't get, is appreciably faster. What do you want to bet that the
> Alexandrian gets a lot of draws.

I think this will likely be true, in decent level play; the problem is
that the opponent is not going to benefit from the draw either.

[This year's NICT a case in point: the first Alex I faced, OK, I can take
my 2-1 win. But facing a second, I could not afford another 2-1 or even
3-1 win, hence had to go where my usual subgeneral suicide gave me the
loss. Of course, if there are lots around, they get to play each other,
too. So overall, I don't think it's that big a problem. Sorry for the
ramble there!]