Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

I've revised a Norman list based upon a combination of the Texas Caroligian
maniple concept and the expendable farmer theory. The list below represents a
doctrine of letting the pesants draw the enemy into a killzone where the MI can
hold off the counter-counter stroke while the HC deliver the killing blow to
whatever expended the farmers. The LHI and LI are there for EL, the MI are
there to draw and absorb missile fire, and the HC are there to do there IrrgA
thing.
Wanax



CNC +5 IrgA HC L/sh 165
Sub +5 IrgA HC L/sh 105
Sub +5 IrgA HC L/sh 105
2E IrgA HC L/sh 85
2E IrgA HC L/sh 85
2E IrgA HC L/sh 85
2E IrgA HC L/sh 85
4E IrgC MI J/sh 65

4E IrgC MI J/sh 65

4E IrgC MI J/sh 65

4E IrgC LC J/sh 53

6E IrgC LHI J/sh 115
2E IrgE LMI IPW 31

2E IrgE LMI IPW 31

8E IrgC LI SS/CB 57
15 units 1197




Lord of the Meadehall of men! Aknowledged professional sack lounger. Creator
of semi-lifeforms in their millions. The good looking twin, though sinister in
thought and deed. He who would produce but for 7 years of inactivity punctuated
by frenzied finger touching. Smooth.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/9/2003 10:17:36 AM Eastern Standard Time,
spocksleftball@... writes:

> The list below represents a doctrine of letting the pesants draw the enemy
into a killzone where the MI can hold off the counter-counter stroke while the
HC deliver the killing blow
> to whatever expended the farmers.>>

What would make the other guy get 'drawn into the kill zone'? What if the thing
that kills the peasants is a small unit of LI? How does HC deliver a killing
blow to missile armed foot?

Reactive tactics require a cooperative enemy. As Ewan points out, if you are
out to win, you are playing guys who are winning every game 5-1. Such are noted
for a lack of cooperation.

J

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> Reactive tactics require a cooperative enemy. As Ewan points out,
if you are out to win, you are playing guys who are winning every
game 5-1. Such are noted for a lack of cooperation.
>
> J

So how does a Norman army win? You seem to suggest that to win in
Warrior you can't be a counter-puncher. Active rather than reactive
tactics are required?

This is an interesting exchange, but could some more detailed
tactical discussion be included in the critiques?

JFM

Excellent points Jon. I don't have answers. I am, like the fellow who posted
about his Byz theories, trying to reach that next level. I win often, I
usually place in the top quarter, but I rarely bring home the big win. My track
record has always been the one big loss against someone who goes on to play for
the championship :)

It is not easy to bend my mind to some of the concepts, and with Normans I will
get too close and be forced (irrgA) to charge something anyway. To answer your
question directly, I'm now thinking the pesants should move with the MI followed
by the HC as a second rank. I considered the LI opponant as a real possibility
for the farmers, yet most LI units cost more than 31pt so a trade I'll take.
The pursuit of the HC passed the MI line would cause me a problem if the HC came
screaming back through the gap in the next bound as a routing unit, so I'm still
pondering a way to make this work. On the surface, it is problematic, yet
something tells me if I'm patient (usually not the case) I will find something
to put the pesants in front of that I want to kill with HC.

Bottom line, I've never looked at running normans any way other than screen the
HC until I can mass charge something. It works, but there is little control to
make it work consistently. Trust me when I tell you that commentaries such as
your, Ewans, and the others are helping me to understand that hump I need to get
over in Warrior. I'm starting to see layers of probabilities that I basically
ignored previously in order to get my thrills with the thundering charge, and it
is those layers I am focusing on. Thank you and everyone for being patient with
my threads.
Wanax

JonCleaves@... wrote:
In a message dated 7/9/2003 10:17:36 AM Eastern Standard Time,
spocksleftball@... writes:

> The list below represents a doctrine of letting the pesants draw the enemy
into a killzone where the MI can hold off the counter-counter stroke while the
HC deliver the killing blow
> to whatever expended the farmers.>>

What would make the other guy get 'drawn into the kill zone'? What if the thing
that kills the peasants is a small unit of LI? How does HC deliver a killing
blow to missile armed foot?

Reactive tactics require a cooperative enemy. As Ewan points out, if you are
out to win, you are playing guys who are winning every game 5-1. Such are noted
for a lack of cooperation.

J

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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



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


Lord of the Meadehall of men! Aknowledged professional sack lounger. Creator
of semi-lifeforms in their millions. The good looking twin, though sinister in
thought and deed. He who would produce but for 7 years of inactivity punctuated
by frenzied finger touching. Smooth.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

[joncleaves]

This mail is both in 'response' to Boyd and John M.

> So how does a Norman army win?>>

By having a good general. I am from the school that says that the army is not
the most important aspect of competitive play and even that it is overrated as
to how much of an aspect it is. I would give myself smaller chances vs a Dave S
or Frank G or Chris D with Sea Peoples than a middle of the packer with Medieval
Spanish or Khmer.

<< You seem to suggest that to win in Warrior you can't be a counter-puncher.>>

I did not, actually. I asked Boyd some questions about the assumptions upon
which his army/plan was based. I also don't have a working definition of
'counter-puncher' and think it is a misunderstood term precisely because there
is no common, precise definition. Maybe a proposal for that would help this
discussion?

<<Active rather than reactive tactics are required?>>

I don't know about required, but I don't remember ever getting beat by someone
who played a reactive game unless *I* made a mistake. And I am not going to
base my plan to win against a consistent 5-1 player on the assumption he makes
mistakes. The more a specialist plays a game over my own playing time, the far
more likely it is I will make a mistake before he does and I play other things
than Warrior (but no other ancients...lol) and only ever get 25mm games in at
the larger cons. Reactive will beat a rook, but is a problematic strategy at
the higher level of play we are talking about.

> This is an interesting exchange, but could some more
> detailed tactical discussion be included in the critiques?>>

This is hard for me for two reasons. One, I HATE 'cyclical kibbitzing' -
meaning 'well, I will do this with my that and kill you every time...oh yeah?
well my this will beat your that and where are you then, huh?' etc, etc...
Can't stand it. lol

The second reason is, even if we chose one specific army to talk about (like
Boyd's Norman list), there are 276 potential opponents' armies. Even if you
reduced the list to the top 16 or 8 or 4 from last year's NICT, you are talking
a lot of combinations of possibilities.

One of the reasons Boyd isn't getting more than about two people to answer
specifically is that in order to answer his question, you have to:
-care to in the first place
-be someone who posts here and not just listen, such posters being the vast
*minority* of group members
-know the Norman list
-decide, get told or assume what opponent(s) you are talking about and know
those lists as well

Not a lot of folks to choose from.

However, if you want to ask, what would you do with this particular list vs this
particular army (or army type), then I suppose I could answer.

Jon

Jon,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I am not and never will be a regular
tournament gamer. (Nothing against tournaments per se.) Too much real
life and not enough travel budget. I'm still slowly working back up
to Warrior-sized armies. My only contender is a DBM Nikephorian
Byzantine that is horribly mis-based for the Warrior list. (And it is
so well secured to the current bases that I'd have a lot of footless
wonders if I tried to rebase.)

I have a fair number of Carthaginians, Gauls, and Polybian Romans,
certainly enough for Fast Warrior. I might even have enough to put
together some kind of Warrior army.

So, what I'm trying to get a handle on is how the battle dynamics in
Warrior work. I find battle reports and tactical discussions about
specific situations really help because they are tied to concrete
situations rather than generalizations.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> This mail is both in 'response' to Boyd and John M.
>
> << You seem to suggest that to win in Warrior you can't be a
counter-puncher.>>
>
> I did not, actually. I asked Boyd some questions about the
assumptions upon which his army/plan was based. I also don't have a
working definition of 'counter-puncher' and think it is a
misunderstood term precisely because there is no common, precise
definition. Maybe a proposal for that would help this discussion?
>

My apologies for reading more than you wrote. It read to me like the
kind of question intended to point out a flaw. For my part, I see a
counter-puncher as one that builds battle tactics around the idea of
getting the other guy to commit to or launch his main attack before
launching your own major thrust. Often, I think, that means trying to
soak up that attack with some sort of rigid or absorbant defensive
line. I'm sure there are other ideas.

These are ideas without any basis in experience from rules sets
sanctioned on this list.

John Meunier

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/9/2003 1:52:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jmeunier@... writes:

> So, what I'm trying to get a handle on is how the battle dynamics in Warrior
work. I find battle reports and tactical discussions about specific situations
really help because they are tied to concrete situations rather than
generalizations.>>

And I am here to help. If you posit some, I know I will be among those who
answer.

[scott holder]

I'm still slowly working back up
to Warrior-sized armies. My only contender is a DBM Nikephorian
Byzantine that is horribly mis-based for the Warrior list.

>Consider playing this in Fast Warrior, good looking list in that game.

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> This mail is both in 'response' to Boyd and John M.

Under the presumption that I am the John M you mean...

<big snip>

> However, if you want to ask, what would you do with this
particular list vs this particular army (or army type), then I
suppose I could answer.

Makes it difficult, since it can further trivialize a question
already irrelevant to most, but after all beggars for advice can't
be choosers.

Okay, for example if you don't mind then let's start by taking my
Byzantine units and possible tactics from the earlier post and ask
how one could adopt them (or adapt them) against my next opponent.
He won't mind I assure you since he's something like literally 7-0
against me.

Won't mention names or armies just in case it is a prep game for his
Historicon tourney list but let's just say a very "off the beaten
track" colorful army - old list yet to be superceded by FHE - with
irreg jav/bow shieldless (?) hc, a mixture of irregular bow-armed
lc, hordes of reg & irr jav/bow armed close order foot (maybe also
some trash regs with spears) and could even be some camels or
scythed chariots thrown in for flavor. Apt enough description?

What were you saying about Chris Damour with Sea Peoples?

- jm

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/9/2003 3:03:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

> Under the presumption that I am the John M you mean...
>
Actually I thought John Meunier was the other poster

> Okay, for example if you don't mind then let's start by taking my
> Byzantine units and possible tactics from the earlier post and ask
> how one could adopt them (or adapt them) against my next
> opponent. >>

I could not make heads or tails of what followed this, so if this is a serious
question please ask it again, would you?

Jon

[Todd Kaeser]

John,

I've been watching the posts about the Normans and I
thought I'd throw in my 2 cents.

I've used Normans a few times and I've been successful
w/ choosing an area that I feel my cav will be
effective and launching almost the entire kit and
kaboodle (sp?) at it. With some light infantry and
light cavalry you can pin you opponent and pick your
area and go at it.

Just a thought. Got to hope the rest of your army
HI?MI ect doesn't get swept away w/ your onslaught.

Todd K

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Holder, Scott"
<Scott.Holder@f...> wrote:
> I'm still slowly working back up
> to Warrior-sized armies. My only contender is a DBM Nikephorian
> Byzantine that is horribly mis-based for the Warrior list.
>
> >Consider playing this in Fast Warrior, good looking list in that
game.

I have even done so, but only in solo play. Once I get my Bedouins
back from the painter I think I'll have enough for a matched pair of
Fast Warrior armies.

John Meunier (the other John M. )

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/9/2003 3:32:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,
hailkaeser@... writes:

> I've used Normans a few times and I've been successful
> w/ choosing an area that I feel my cav will be
> effective and launching almost the entire kit and
> kaboodle (sp?) at it. With some light infantry and
> light cavalry you can pin you opponent and pick your
> area and go at it.>>

My opinion follows this closely. The problem is that the enemy may not present
you with a part of his army that 4-8 Irr A HC units can kill. I know my I can
easily prevent this with most of the armies I play, mostly due to the
vulnerability of HC to missile fire and the lack of anything in Boyd's norman
list that can split that fire and allow HC charges.

>
> Just a thought. Got to hope the rest of your army
> HI?MI ect doesn't get swept away w/ your onslaught.>>

The other issue. That's a lot of Irr C MI J/Sh, and hope will not help them.

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> I could not make heads or tails of what followed this, so if this
is a serious question please ask it again, would you?

Ah forget it. Too much trouble for an underemployed miniatures
fanatic like me to ask, and definitely too much trouble for someone
like yourself with less time and more questions on their hands to
answer.

Maybe I'll send in a battle report afterward. Or maybe not.

And my hat is off to you if you actually have a full time job and
manage to keep track of all this cr_p on the side besides!

Cheers,
- jm

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/9/2003 4:22:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

> And my hat is off to you if you actually have a full time
> job and
> manage to keep track of all this cr_p on the side besides!>>

Being connected to the internet 24/7 by both pro and hobby requirements plus not
needing sleep has both its advantages and disadvantages....lol