Warrior Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules
A Four Horsemen Enterprises Rules Set
 
  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups AlbumAlbum   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

More Thoughts on Tournement Options...

 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Egroup Archives
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Chris Damour
Legionary
Legionary


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 444

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2001 7:05 pm    Post subject: More Thoughts on Tournement Options...


On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 ellisonlegal@... wrote:
***SNIP***
I do not have Bob's longevity in the hobby, I started playing 12
years ago with 7th. I do agree with some of his points, but I do believe
that he is "overstating" the issue. Because I of my playing style, I
often go for "quality over quantity" (no snide comments please
Mr. Brown...) but I do often upgrade Bondi to LHI in my Viking list, and
if I am running a "pike heavy" Successor army I give serious consideration
to upgrading the phlangites to HI. That usually depends on what opponents
I anticipate seeing. All of which is just a way of saying that I think
the the costs are still fairly well balanced.

> Does anyone out their tournament play with Early Greeks, or Republican
> Romans and win? I doubt it - in competition games you need maximum bang for
> your dollar and you don't find it in armies of antiquity. I'm sure these
Again, I am kinda of two minds on this point. I believe that Bob is
correct that these are "weak" tournament armies, and are rarely seen at a
competition because of that. However, I am pretty sure that Sean-Patrick
won an open with Camillan Romans 3-5 years ago and if John Green could
roll anything other than a "1" on a sixsided die his "Camillan" era (one
of the new WRG book lists, I forgot which he was playing) he would have
done fine.
Finally, on the reg-irreg issue, this is another point that I see why
Bob makes the statement, I just have to respectfully disagree. I believe
that the maneuverability of the regular troops are worth the
points. However, you have to use the maneuverability of your
army. If you just line up and go forward, you are going to have a
tough time with that barbarian foot opponent. And the doubled HTH fatigue
of the irr foot is a good balance to their impetuous charge. I have lost
count of the times that I have killed everything in Jamie White's Roman
army and then his auxilia proceed to destroy my Early
Hebrews/Vikings/Spanish/whatever the heck trash foot I am playing
today. I believe that it is more difficult to play a regular army and win
consistently. Because of the size, it is unforgiving and it is difficult
to recover from an error or misfortune, but it can be done. Again,
Sean-Patrick was getting damn good with his Italian Condotta, and that was
before the rank and a half lance rule and when the poor guy had the
averaging dice where the "red" die was marked 2-2-3-3-4-5!

--
Chris Damour

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message [ Hidden ]
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Egroup Archives All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group