Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[John Murphy]

Okay. Here are my Later Polish with all the list issues from un-
careful reading fixed.

I would welcome comments, keeping in mind that this is an attack out
of the box army and not my more strictly opportunistic but probably
better HYWE army.

I am hoping (?) it is comparable to Sean's Italian Condotta NICT army
about which Ewan had so many nice things to say. Unfortunately I will
not give it the same level of generalship right away but maybe with
time...

I kind of fell into a decent command structure totally by accident.
The Lithuanians can be given orders more suitable for LC while the
Poles get Attack/Rush orders or something like that. Losing
Lithuanians, unlikely but possible, does not impact the ability of
the Polish commands to stay in the battle - except of course for the
loss of all that LC support.

I did manage to eek out 2 more knight units. There are now 9 lance-
armed mounted units in the army, so it is conceivable that against LB
if I can find a way to avoid being prep-shot I would just send in
enough knights, mounted and impetuous if required and in 2
consecutive bounds if required, to break a LB unit keeping friends to
the flanks to collect shaking enemy who see their flank support rout.
Sure I "use up" knights first charge but I have played plenty of
games where I get 2-3 charges out of them. A pretty, if perhaps
difficult to execute, picture. Of course, if a better attack looms
elsewhere along the line or on a flank then that is preferable - but
the point is I think the k-niggits can handle longbowmen. After all
look at Crecy and Agincourt! (speaking of which after the lecture on
Brigans I went back and re-evaluated my Early Medieval French list
which is now also very interesting)

Now, this scares me a bit as longbow player who had imagined being
impervious to SHK...

Elephants remain a problem if the desire is to tackle them. So it is
not a luxury I have with this army and I pin them while I hunt for
their more vulnerable friends, hopefully out of elephant-stink range.

(Middle Period) Later Polish
19 units @ 1,595 points
82 scouting points

2 Polish Commands (total 14 units @ 1,166 points):
1x CinC/Retainers 2E Irr B/C SHK/HK L,Sh (PA) @ 181
1x Sub/Retainers 2E Irr B/C SHK/HK L,Sh (P) @ 121
6x Knights/Retainers 2E Irr B/C SHK/HK L,Sh @ 109
1x Mounted Crossbowmen 2E Irr C LC CB @ 41
1x Bowmen 4E Irr C LI B @ 49
4x Tartar Cavalry 2E Reg D LC B @ 30

1 Lithuanian Command (5 units @ 429 points):
1x Lithuanian Sub-general 2E Irr B HC L,JLS,Sh (P) @ 105
4x Lithuanian Cavalry 4E Irr B LC JLS,Sh @ 81

[Ewan McNay]

J. Murphy wrote:
> I am hoping (?) it is comparable to Sean's Italian Condotta NICT army
> about which Ewan had so many nice things to say.

> (Middle Period) Later Polish
> 19 units @ 1,595 points
> 82 scouting points
>
> 2 Polish Commands (total 14 units @ 1,166 points):
> 1x CinC/Retainers 2E Irr B/C SHK/HK L,Sh (PA) @ 181
> 1x Sub/Retainers 2E Irr B/C SHK/HK L,Sh (P) @ 121
> 6x Knights/Retainers 2E Irr B/C SHK/HK L,Sh @ 109
> 1x Mounted Crossbowmen 2E Irr C LC CB @ 41
> 1x Bowmen 4E Irr C LI B @ 49
> 4x Tartar Cavalry 2E Reg D LC B @ 30

I assume that the LC CB and LI are both compulsory; and that the
LI cannot be shielded? Even so, I'd increase the size of their
unit. One way to get the points for this would be to reduce 3 of
the 4E Lithuanian LC to 2 x 6E.

> 1 Lithuanian Command (5 units @ 429 points):
> 1x Lithuanian Sub-general 2E Irr B HC L,JLS,Sh (P) @ 105
> 4x Lithuanian Cavalry 4E Irr B LC JLS,Sh @ 81

Otherwise, yes, I think you have a fair shot at getting your
punch in first, and - as you note - even using dismounted K
against targets that are unhappy for mounted.

[I have offered no comment on your Teut lists because I couldn't
think of anything pleasant to say ]

[John Murphy]

Ewan,

Yes, the mounted CB 2E are compulsory. They can be LC, MC or HC.
Taking as LC seems not only the best use but also the cheapest.

I goofed on the LI, they in fact _must_ have Sh. I had the points
right for them being shielded just didn't list it out.

The LI are compulsory, but have more options. As LI they can't be
given any more weapons. They can, however, be upgraded to LMI in
which case half of them can get JLS or 2HCW. I figured that they were
nice as LI and with only half getting the extra weapon might be a
stretch for a lot of points to make them more useful as LMI.

I admit I now understand the distinction between the kind of LC
support offered here and the kind of LC fair-weather support in the
Teut lists I posted. While having a few Reg Knights and a few Irreg A
Knights would be nice I think I prefer this Polish list vastly over
the Teut abominations I posted.

Working on the interaction between knights and the two types of LC in
the Polish army is going to be tactically interesting.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:

> I assume that the LC CB and LI are both compulsory; and that the
> LI cannot be shielded? Even so, I'd increase the size of their
> unit. One way to get the points for this would be to reduce 3 of
> the 4E Lithuanian LC to 2 x 6E.

> Otherwise, yes, I think you have a fair shot at getting your
> punch in first, and - as you note - even using dismounted K
> against targets that are unhappy for mounted.

> [I have offered no comment on your Teut lists because I couldn't
> think of anything pleasant to say ]

[John Murphy]

Fixed the archers.

Is it really worth changing the Lithuanians to 2 6E and 1 4E LC plus
the 2E HC general, totalling an even number of 4 units, just to add
another 2E or 4E (can't quite make another 6E for 10E total) more to
the existing LI unit?

I think if was going that direction I would also drop the rear 1E of
the Lithuanian general and use the points to get to that 10E LI unit
plus more importantly bulk the 3rd Lithuanian unit up to 6E also.

So maybe something like this, with an LI unit that has a bit of
staying power if not pushed beyond its meager capabilities...

(Middle Period) Later Polish 1387-1453
17+ units @ 1,604 points
88 scouting points

2 Polish Commands (total 14 units @ 1,202 points):
1x CinC/Retainers 2E Irr B/C SHK/HK L,Sh (PA) @ 181
1x Sub/Retainers 2E Irr B/C SHK/HK L,Sh (P) @ 121
6x Knights/Retainers 2E Irr B/C SHK/HK L,Sh @ 109
1x Mounted Crossbowmen 2E Irr C LC CB @ 41
1x Archers 10E Irr C LI B,Sh @ 85
4x Tartar Cavalry 2E Reg D LC B @ 30

1 Lithuanian Command (3+ units @ 402 points):
1x Lithuanian Sub-general 1E Irr B HC L,JLS,Sh (P) @ 75
3x Lithuanian Cavalry 6E Irr B LC JLS,Sh @ 109

After dropping two units in this manner I'd also think about moving
some or all of the Tartars into the Lithuanian command. I think this
is legal since the Lithuanian is a sub-general and there are actually
no restrictions I see in the notes.

But not certain on that one.

[Ewan McNay]

J. Murphy wrote:

> Fixed the archers.
>
> Is it really worth changing the Lithuanians to 2 6E and 1 4E LC plus
> the 2E HC general, totalling an even number of 4 units, just to add
> another 2E or 4E (can't quite make another 6E for 10E total) more to
> the existing LI unit?

Well... I guess this is hubris, but I think worrying too m uch
about even numbers of units in a command is generally overrated;
if you're losing commands, something is generallly wrong in any
case .

> I think if was going that direction I would also drop the rear 1E of
> the Lithuanian general and use the points to get to that 10E LI unit
> plus more importantly bulk the 3rd Lithuanian unit up to 6E also.

Fair enough. Also a good choice. It's not like you need the HC
to be acting as shock cav here!

> So maybe something like this, with an LI unit that has a bit of
> staying power if not pushed beyond its meager capabilities...
>
> (Middle Period) Later Polish 1387-1453
> 17+ units @ 1,604 points
> 88 scouting points
>
> 2 Polish Commands (total 14 units @ 1,202 points):
> 1x CinC/Retainers 2E Irr B/C SHK/HK L,Sh (PA) @ 181
> 1x Sub/Retainers 2E Irr B/C SHK/HK L,Sh (P) @ 121
> 6x Knights/Retainers 2E Irr B/C SHK/HK L,Sh @ 109
> 1x Mounted Crossbowmen 2E Irr C LC CB @ 41
> 1x Archers 10E Irr C LI B,Sh @ 85
> 4x Tartar Cavalry 2E Reg D LC B @ 30
>
> 1 Lithuanian Command (3+ units @ 402 points):
> 1x Lithuanian Sub-general 1E Irr B HC L,JLS,Sh (P) @ 75
> 3x Lithuanian Cavalry 6E Irr B LC JLS,Sh @ 109
>
> After dropping two units in this manner I'd also think about moving
> some or all of the Tartars into the Lithuanian command. I think this
> is legal since the Lithuanian is a sub-general and there are actually
> no restrictions I see in the notes.

I think it's legal also; and if you're doing this, I might well
shift everything non-knight in there, expecting to deploy that
command in front and knights behind. That would give you
something like a big LC command of 9 units plus Sub, and then
something like CinC + 4 other K units, SHK Sub + 2 other SHK
units. Seems pretty viable to me.

>
> But not certain on that one.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/5/2004 2:26:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

> but I think worrying too much about even numbers of units in a command is
generally overrated;
> if you're losing commands, something is generallly wrong in any case .>>

Ewan, I think you totally nailed this one.

In addition, remember that commands are chosen AFTER you see the terrain. Too
many players prepare command structures before the tourney starts and then
'live' with it in each game, despite the fact that it may be inappropriate to
the situation.

J

[John Murphy]

Okay, this is falling into place I think.

So two questions now become important:

1. What is the best scale in which to play this list? I could see
either 15mm because of all the LC and mobility, or 25mm because,
well, don't all SHK armies like 25mm?

2. Who makes good figures for this list, in the above-selected scale?
I presume, unfortunately, that this is too early for "winged
Hussars"! Too bad, one of the best-looking troops on a minis table.
Does anyone make a decidedly better line of figures appropriate for
this list - especially the knights/retainers and tartars/lithuanians?
I guess the rest I could scrounge up from somewhere if need be.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 5/5/2004 2:26:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ewan.mcnay@y... writes:
>
> > but I think worrying too much about even numbers of units in a
command is generally overrated;
> > if you're losing commands, something is generallly wrong in any
case .>>
>
> Ewan, I think you totally nailed this one.
>
> In addition, remember that commands are chosen AFTER you see the
terrain. Too many players prepare command structures before the
tourney starts and then 'live' with it in each game, despite the fact
that it may be inappropriate to the situation.
> J

This continues to be a problem for me since I have only the CNC and
there are many times I want to flank march an entire command!
Hey, we're IrgA HK...Orders?....we don't need no stinking orders.
Wanax

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "J. Murphy" <jjmurphy@s...>
wrote:

> (Middle Period) Later Polish 1387-1453
> 17+ units @ 1,604 points
> 88 scouting points
>
> 2 Polish Commands (total 14 units @ 1,202 points):
> 1x CinC/Retainers 2E Irr B/C SHK/HK L,Sh (PA) @ 181
> 1x Sub/Retainers 2E Irr B/C SHK/HK L,Sh (P) @ 121
> 6x Knights/Retainers 2E Irr B/C SHK/HK L,Sh @ 109
> 1x Mounted Crossbowmen 2E Irr C LC CB @ 41
> 1x Archers 10E Irr C LI B,Sh @ 85
> 4x Tartar Cavalry 2E Reg D LC B @ 30
>
> 1 Lithuanian Command (3+ units @ 402 points):
> 1x Lithuanian Sub-general 1E Irr B HC L,JLS,Sh (P) @ 75
> 3x Lithuanian Cavalry 6E Irr B LC JLS,Sh @ 109

One thing is for sure here: You are going to have a fun time playing
win or loose. These should be fairly quick games too, since you will
need to move fast with LC to pin the enemy's ears to the baseline,
then even faster with SHK to get the LC out of waver trouble at some
point. Essentially that LI is there to fire up elephants or screen
enemy foot archers. Otherwise, everything else is a target of
opportunity ;)

Wanax

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Wanax Andron"
<spocksleftball@y...> wrote:
> One thing is for sure here: You are going to have a fun time
playing
> win or loose.

That is the idea behind this one. A throwback to the edgier side of
my long-ago days of Maurikian Byz EHC/HC with Hun Irg LC support. But
now oh, so, very much better (thank God, couldn't get any worse - but
let's not even go there).

Thanks for pointing me in this direction. And there is some
historical interest for me here too (wife is part Polish), all though
I know a lot more about Polish armies in the 17th century than in the
14th-15th centuries.

> These should be fairly quick games too

More time for shopping at the cons!

[Mark Stone]

So, there are several things I reall don't like about this take on the Later
Polish.

First, I think that taking lots of knight units with Irr C in the back rank,
particularly units with generals, is a _huge_ mistake. Given the intended
strategy, you're going to be taking waver tests as some of your knight charges
pan out and others don't. Doubling your chance of failing a waver doesn't seem
like a good idea.

Second, I think the Lithuanian ally is a tremendous waste of points. Given the
intended strategy you can probably get by with 2 generals rather than 3. An
ally general is expensive, and the Lithuanian ally is both expensive and
ineffective.

Finally, if I'm going to go to the trouble of having Irr B LC then it damn well
better have bow. I agree you want _some_ Irr B LC. There are times your lights
are going to need to suck that waver test for taking 2 CPF in prep rather than
leave your knights exposed. But some would be fine; the majority of the light
cav force can be lower morale and overall more effective guys.

So here's my proposed version, given that the intent is a massed Sean
Scott-style SHK rush:

CinC w/2 stands Irr B SHK/EHK L,Sh
Sub w/2 stands Irr B SHK/EHK L,Sh
4x 2 stands Irr B SHK/EHK L,Sh
2x 2 stands Irr B SHK/Irr C HK L,Sh
1x 2 stands Irr C LC CB
1x 6 stands Irr C LI B,Sh
4x 2 stands Reg D LC B
2x 4 stands Irr B LC JLS,B,Sh
1x 4 stands Irr C LC JLS,B,Sh/B
1x 4 stands Irr C LC JLS,B,Sh

18 units, 8 units of front rank Irr B SHK, 81 scouting points, 1596 points. For
this style of play I still prefer the 100YWE list I posted yesterday.


-Mark Stone

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:

I am not suprised you find this list not to your liking. Not much
missile capability or LI. No real terrain troops. Can't do squat
against elephants. Okay, it's a bit different. I still like it even
in the harsh light of your comments. But thanks for your honesty and
imparted wisdom in any case.

> First, I think that taking lots of knight units with Irr C in the
back rank,
> particularly units with generals, is a _huge_ mistake. Given the
intended
> strategy, you're going to be taking waver tests as some of your
knight charges
> pan out and others don't. Doubling your chance of failing a waver
doesn't seem
> like a good idea.

Now, let's be perfectly clear here, we are talking about a difference
of what happens on a "2", as with the front rank eager "IrrB" it is
easy (though not automatic) to keep them from being uneasy. So I can
pay all those points (something like 72 or 96 over the whole army) to
upgrade to EHK and B class, on the off chance of rolling exactly
a "2" on waver tests that may not happen that frequently, or leave
them HK and C class. I will take the naive attitude that if I am
rolling a lot of wavers for them I am doing something wrong anyway
and deserve punishment and the sooner I pay for my misdeeds and get
it over with the better - and roll Chris Damour waver dice that only
come up 1, 3, 4, 5 or 6!

To me, the back-rank HK (like HYWE) is a bigger hurt than the back-
rank C class, because of getting shot while disordered which sucks
with these. Can't have everything.

Also, referring back to Sean's highly thought of list, I think he had
a few Reg C SHK units, without the benefit of eager B's or shields.

Nah, I know you are a wise soul Mark but I have to go my own perilous
way on this one. I've played quite a few games comfortably with all
knights/sergeants mixed - even some where the knights are C class too
(stinkin Cypriots). It just is not an issue for me like for some
people. Generally in my experience in an army where I am coming out
on bound-zero slingin' lancer k-nigits it is better to have more
units than have higher-morale units.

> Second, I think the Lithuanian ally is a tremendous waste of
points. Given the
> intended strategy you can probably get by with 2 generals rather
than 3. An
> ally general is expensive, and the Lithuanian ally is both
expensive and
> ineffective.

He is not an ally, he is a sub. If you do not take him you lose the
ability to take signifigant numbers of IrrB LC. He is there to allow
you take the 18E of IrrB LC, his only purpose (actually at first
glance the L/JLS was cute but it really isn't a very good lancer
unit). Not ideal, but that is the way the list is written. See below
for why the large number of IrrB LC.

> Finally, if I'm going to go to the trouble of having Irr B LC then
it damn well
> better have bow.

Why? An honest question, I do not follow your statement here. It does
not seem that automatic to me.

I have bows with the RegD Tartars. The Lithuanians can fire JLS and
stay shielded, they can soak up punishment, pass wavers, take out
pretty much _any_ enemy lights, even be impetuous if needed which
would be weird. All without bows. The only advantage I see to the
bows is going into skirmish at longer ranges and, okay, but I have
the Tartars for that too.

> I agree you want _some_ Irr B LC. There are times your lights
> are going to need to suck that waver test for taking 2 CPF in prep
rather than
> leave your knights exposed. But some would be fine; the majority of
the light
> cav force can be lower morale and overall more effective guys.

Unfortunately, it would be a good trick to know exactly which 2 4E
units (and that is a pretty small unit for sucking up enemy fire) are
going to need to be B class. This to me is a much more worthwhile
expenditure than making the knight rear-rankers B's.

> For
> this style of play I still prefer the 100YWE list

I am still trying to figure that one out, since it makes a nice alter-
ego to my competition HYWE list. I just do not see the same gung-ho
attack-out-the-box ability with them yet. They still feel to me,
probably mistakenly, like an army with which you sit back and wait
for opportunities to be created by the foot troops - and that is
waste of 8-9 SHK when 4-6 units will do quite well. Maybe as I become
better-educated this will dawn on me. Note this is not a comment on
your list just on my own probably-faulty perception of it. You, with
better tactical acumen as you have displayed in your posts, can
probably make better sense out of it. But heck if I am gonna play it
I better have an excellent grasp of why my army is attacking rather
than opportunity-charging.

[Larry Essick]

> > Finally, if I'm going to go to the trouble of having Irr B LC then
> > it damn well better have bow.
>
> Why? An honest question, I do not follow your statement here. It
does
> not seem that automatic to me.
>
> I have bows with the RegD Tartars. The Lithuanians can fire JLS and
> stay shielded, they can soak up punishment, pass wavers, take out
> pretty much _any_ enemy lights, even be impetuous if needed which
> would be weird. All without bows. The only advantage I see to the
> bows is going into skirmish at longer ranges and, okay, but I have
> the Tartars for that too.

IMO, you are better having B with the Lithuanians and not with the
Tartars. Reg D LC are the perfect skirmish troop in 6E units as they
can move to JLS range and skirmish.

OTOH, the Lithuanians will struggle to get into skirmish order and
will be on the receiving end of shooting from cheaper LC armed only
with B. You will be stuck taking waiver tests or forced to rally
back/evade. It is fine to put confidence in an Irr B unit, but it
stops being eager when tired and becomes uneasy with only a single
cause of unease. You take a lot of risk.

Still, if you are planning an immediate impetuous charge in the first
bound or two, with the game being over decisively one way or the
other, then your list certainly provides that. ;-)

Larry

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, <larryessick@b...> wrote:
> IMO, you are better having B with the Lithuanians and not with the
> Tartars. Reg D LC are the perfect skirmish troop in 6E units as
they
> can move to JLS range and skirmish.

Tartars got to have bows, though I could upgrade the wole lot to RegC
just to give them half JLS,Sh. That is a lot of points.


> OTOH, the Lithuanians will struggle to get into skirmish order and
> will be on the receiving end of shooting from cheaper LC armed only
> with B. You will be stuck taking waiver tests or forced to rally
> back/evade. It is fine to put confidence in an Irr B unit, but it
> stops being eager when tired and becomes uneasy with only a single
> cause of unease. You take a lot of risk.

Why struggle to get into skirmish? The factors are the same wether
you are shieldess skirmishers shooting bows or non-skirmish shielded
JLS. And you can evade wether in skirmish or not - in fact not being
in skirmish actually gives you a choice you do not otherwise have.

If you can work to get into skirmish and the situation warrants then
fine. If not, don't sweat it, hang tough and protect the k-niggits as
they go in.

All that said, Mark is usually dead on and I am sure he will have
a "John, you ignorant ___" post <g> on why he is right, which he
usually is. So be it, but I'd like to call him on the carpet on this
one and have him back up and explain his statement.

Oh, and the non-B IrrB LC JLS,Sh absoultely, definitely, kill every
enemy light troop that sticks it neck out there. Points is points and
if someone is going to try to screen off my SHK and give me free
bunch of LI/LC then fine.

In fact, to elaborate further, is there a rule of some kind that
missile troops (i.e. JLS,B-armed vs just-JLS) have to be prompted to
charge under attack? Something like that anyway?

> Still, if you are planning an immediate impetuous charge in the
first
> bound or two, with the game being over decisively one way or the
> other, then your list certainly provides that. ;-)

And that _is_ the general idea here. You don't pay for 8 SHK units
and plan on waiting until bound 5-6 to begin using them. The game may
last that long anyway but I plan on being on my 2nd or 3rd charge by
then!

[Mark Stone]

--- On May 5 J. Murphy said: ---

>> Finally, if I'm going to go to the trouble of having Irr B LC then it damn
well
>> better have bow.
>
> Why? An honest question, I do not follow your statement here. It does
> not seem that automatic to me.
>

There's a short answer and a long answer. I'll try to give the short answer and
a "middling" answer, though the larger issue is very complicated.

Short answer: these guys (Irr B LC) are there to draw fire away from the knights
as they ride along side them towards targets of opportunity for the knights.
The best way for them to draw fire is to be "shooters directly to front" and
the best way for them to achieve that status is by having bows.

Middling answer: Skirmisher interactions are more complicated than you think.
Merely giving your LC JLS,Sh does not give them a decisive advantage against
shielded LI with bow. I actually have a rather longish document I've been
working on regarding exactly this thesis, but the key rule here is this one:
"6.166, Charge Responses: "Troops already in hand-to-hand combat cannot evade.
As an exception to this, non-impetuous pursuers still in contact with broken
enemy may make charge responses."
In other words, light troops in pursuit of routers, and in particular light
cavalry in pursuit of routers, may still make an evade move if opposing troops
charge through the routers to replace them in combat, provided the pursuers
original charge was not impetuous.

Let me summarize the interactions as briefly as I can:
1. Assume you have equal frontage (say, 2 6 stand units) of LI B,Sh and LC
JLS,Sh, that the did not take 2 CPF in prep, that the LC charge the LI in the
open, and the LI pass their waver test and choose to take the charge at the
halt.
2. Either the LC was impetuous or not. If it was impetuous, it will likely rout
the LI, but then is vulnerable to getting charged by support troops behind the
LI without any ability to evade. The likely result is that next bound the LC
will be routed. So one player has a routing LI unit that costs less than the LC
and that no one waver tests for, and one player has a routing LC unit that
costs more and that everyone waver tests for. Thanks, but I'll take the LI in
that situation.
3. If the LC was not impetuous, then it will likely _not_ rout the LI (do the
math; don't forget support shooting by the LI). Then the LC is merely following
up, rather than pursuing. Since it is merely following up, 6.166 does not
apply, and when the LI's support troops charge through, again the LC has no
response other than to sit there and get routed. Now one player is trading a
disordered LI unit for a routed LC unit. Again, I'll take the LI in that
situation.
4. To tip this balance, you need the LC to have both bows and JLS. Then the
likely outcome is they can rout the LI without having to be impetuous, and any
support troops trying to charge through next bound will be looking at evading
LC.

There are a lot of ifs in the above scenario. The LC could take 2 CPF. The LI
could fail their waver test. The LI could evade. But the key point is that if
both you and your opponent know that even under best of circumstances for the
LI -- they pass their waver and you charge non-impetuously -- that the LI are
still going to likely rout, then that changes the _whole_ dynamic between your
lights and his dramatically.

And that's the "middling" answer. One of these days I'll finish writing it up
and give the long answer.


-Mark Stone