Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[John Garlic]

Hi All,

Looking at a couple lists and had a couple questions.

1. Does anyone have any thoughts on units that are organized as loose order
foot with front rank HTW, Sh and back rank JLS, Sh?

2. Does anyone have any experience/advice for units with front rank 2SA, Sh?

Thanks,
John Garlic


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

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 18/10/2005 16:40:52 GMT Standard Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

Mark Stone wrote:
> Regarding 2SA: I encourage my opponents to take as many of these guys as
they
> can, and put them prominently in the front rank. There are very few winning
> battle plans in Warrior that begin with "first I'm going to take my
infantry
> that will count shieldless at contact...."

:)

On the other hand, *if* you are fighting lightly-armoured opponents, these
make superb troops in tiny units for hitting flanks in post-contact rounds
of melee.

Which is so limited as to be useless (ok, not quite, but under-useful) in
an Open context, but potentially great in period (Vikings being an
excellent example; their berserkers are almost always seen - ok, if the
Vikings were ever actually seen these days at all - with axes because of
the likelihood that the flank they're trying to hit is SHK or something
where SA even doubled up struggle to make a dent). When your basic factor
is already goood - like, for example, a shieldless MI flank - then having
twice as many 'men' is better than increasing it with a better weapon.

e



*** All true, but not so important on games of a longer timeframe or of a
campaign nature. Yes these units will almost certainly be destroyed, but they
can help you win the battle should it actually be fought to the end and with
proper skirmishing. There have been several guys in our occasional group that
have fielded vikings* , or have at least tried to. Most eventually added
figures to field a russ army tho!

*There is a very strong viking link with West Cumbria in northern England.

mark mallard

***



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

[Mark Stone]

--- On October 17 John Garlic said: ---

> Hi All,
>
> Looking at a couple lists and had a couple questions.
>
> 1. Does anyone have any thoughts on units that are organized as loose order
> foot with front rank HTW, Sh and back rank JLS, Sh?
>
> 2. Does anyone have any experience/advice for units with front rank 2SA, Sh?

I've used HTW/JLS units on occaision. They are an exception to my usual approach
of putting front line units into 6 stand units. Instead I take these guys as 4
stand units, and have them start as a 1 x 4 column. The idea is this: HTW is
better at first contact, while JLS is (sometimes) better on subsequent bounds.
Hit the guy with two ranks of HTW on the first bound, and assuming you win,
expand on follow up to have HTW in the front and JLS in the back. Even only 1
element wide, you're going to do at least a CPF to just about anything, given
HTW's first contact factors.

Regarding 2SA: I encourage my opponents to take as many of these guys as they
can, and put them prominently in the front rank. There are very few winning
battle plans in Warrior that begin with "first I'm going to take my infantry
that will count shieldless at contact...."


-Mark Stone

[Ewan McNay]

Mark Stone wrote:
> Regarding 2SA: I encourage my opponents to take as many of these guys as they
> can, and put them prominently in the front rank. There are very few winning
> battle plans in Warrior that begin with "first I'm going to take my infantry
> that will count shieldless at contact...."

:)

On the other hand, *if* you are fighting lightly-armoured opponents, these
make superb troops in tiny units for hitting flanks in post-contact rounds
of melee.

Which is so limited as to be useless (ok, not quite, but under-useful) in
an Open context, but potentially great in period (Vikings being an
excellent example; their berserkers are almost always seen - ok, if the
Vikings were ever actually seen these days at all - with axes because of
the likelihood that the flank they're trying to hit is SHK or something
where SA even doubled up struggle to make a dent). When your basic factor
is already goood - like, for example, a shieldless MI flank - then having
twice as many 'men' is better than increasing it with a better weapon.

e

Mark,

Thanks for the advice on the HTW dudes, I hadn't thought of four deep
and expanding. You probably have a point with the 2SA guys as well,
but its' a tough call with so many 'cool' points to be had :-)

John Garlic

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
>
> --- On October 17 John Garlic said: ---
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Looking at a couple lists and had a couple questions.
> >
> > 1. Does anyone have any thoughts on units that are organized as
loose order
> > foot with front rank HTW, Sh and back rank JLS, Sh?
> >
> > 2. Does anyone have any experience/advice for units with front
rank 2SA, Sh?
>
> I've used HTW/JLS units on occaision. They are an exception to my
usual approach
> of putting front line units into 6 stand units. Instead I take
these guys as 4
> stand units, and have them start as a 1 x 4 column. The idea is
this: HTW is
> better at first contact, while JLS is (sometimes) better on
subsequent bounds.
> Hit the guy with two ranks of HTW on the first bound, and assuming
you win,
> expand on follow up to have HTW in the front and JLS in the back.
Even only 1
> element wide, you're going to do at least a CPF to just about
anything, given
> HTW's first contact factors.
>
> Regarding 2SA: I encourage my opponents to take as many of these
guys as they
> can, and put them prominently in the front rank. There are very few
winning
> battle plans in Warrior that begin with "first I'm going to take my
infantry
> that will count shieldless at contact...."
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>