Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Funny, this reaction to mongols. Given that they dismount effectively in
the other world's most popular ancients system, I am surprised this idea would
seem so new - to say nothing of their record.

But Greg sure got that one concept right - you can't please everyone! lol

J


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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Ewan has made me think of something here. Just a thought. Let's say Mongols
dismount and are charged by their foes and break them. . . Do the Mongols have
to pursue? If so, would they remount their horses immediately and give chase or
if not do they count as reg close order foot and are exempt from pursuit?

kelly wilkinson

ewan.mcnay@... wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, eforbes100@... wrote:
> The better players can override these basic tendencies, but this is the same
as traning oneself to bat both left and right handed.

I read this and thought 'Ed plays cricket?!'

Then baseball occurred to me. Oh well .

[On topic: Yes, I understand Ed's point, I just happen to disagree both as
a fact and as an aim. Players may be *taught* a certain style, perhaps,
and I suppose that some - as some generals - may prefer to sit and wait
vs. charge. But I think that the idea of personal style is less common
than often thought, and *definitely* think that it should be eradicated
from oneself if possible. If life hands you Mongols, trying to play like
a hoplite... well, it'll make for short games*. And I have found when
teaching that presenting the concept of what a given troop type is goood
at leads naturally to a flexible approach in terms of what the player
does when handed Gauls ("OK, OK, charge already!") vs. Papal Italian ("If
you wanted enthusiasm, boss, you shoulda gone to France.")]

* Passing up opportunity for cheap shots about mongol dismounts here.

E



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! – Get yours free!

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

[joncleaves]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> Ewan has made me think of something here. Just a thought. Let's
say Mongols dismount and are charged by their foes and break
them. . . Do the Mongols have to pursue? If so, would they remount
their horses immediately and give chase or if not do they count as
reg close order foot and are exempt from pursuit?>>

The answers to these questions are in 6.61 and 11.222. There's
nothing new here.... the ONLY thing about the mongols is that they
dismount more efficiently than other loose order cav - none of the
dismounting rules have been changed.

J

[Kelly Wilkinson]

thanks jon.

Jon <JonCleaves@...> wrote:
--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> Ewan has made me think of something here. Just a thought. Let's
say Mongols dismount and are charged by their foes and break
them. . . Do the Mongols have to pursue? If so, would they remount
their horses immediately and give chase or if not do they count as
reg close order foot and are exempt from pursuit?>>

The answers to these questions are in 6.61 and 11.222. There's
nothing new here.... the ONLY thing about the mongols is that they
dismount more efficiently than other loose order cav - none of the
dismounting rules have been changed.

J




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
document.write('');

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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.




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

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

[Greg Regets]

I can't wait to see the armies of dismounted Mongols ... and rest
assured, we certainly will!

This is the dilema of wargaming ... where you want to make an
army "better" to match it's historical victory quality, but at the
same time try to shoe-horn the desired result into 3.5 hour battles.

If you fought the old Mongol lists in untimed battles on tables with
wide expanses, the army was very tough .... VERY tough indeed. Not a
good tournament army though, primarity because of terrain and timing
considerations.

The people that make army lists have a man's work in front of them,
and a potentually thankless job. They will never please everyone.

The one solice for us "non-Mongol" players, is that the dismounted
Mongols will be pretty expensive, and not in in both "infantry
friendly" and "cavalry friendly" unit sizes. I for one, do not see
this as a killer army.

Thanks ... g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> thanks jon.
>
> Jon <JonCleaves@a...> wrote:
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
> <jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> > Ewan has made me think of something here. Just a thought. Let's
> say Mongols dismount and are charged by their foes and break
> them. . . Do the Mongols have to pursue? If so, would they remount
> their horses immediately and give chase or if not do they count as
> reg close order foot and are exempt from pursuit?>>
>
> The answers to these questions are in 6.61 and 11.222. There's
> nothing new here.... the ONLY thing about the mongols is that they
> dismount more efficiently than other loose order cav - none of the
> dismounting rules have been changed.
>
> J
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> document.write('');
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Greg Regets]

Please not that I didn't say armies of dismounted Mongols would
be "all that" ... just that we would surely see them.

Then again, I think if you came up with Irr Z Flaming Expendable JLS
Catchers with a stand count of 0-350 ... somebody would lovingly
paint an army of them. ;-)

Once again, well done on OW ... a very impressive work!

g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Funny, this reaction to mongols. Given that they dismount
effectively in
> the other world's most popular ancients system, I am surprised this
idea would
> seem so new - to say nothing of their record.
>
> But Greg sure got that one concept right - you can't please
everyone! lol
>
> J
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/8/2005 06:18:20 Central Standard Time,
markowitzd@... writes:

He also got right that the ability to dismount on a 1 to 1 basis does not
make them a killer army. LTS, B MI is generally effective in large units,
but relatively easy to kill in small units. One is paying way too much
points for the Mongols if the game plan is to win dismounted. Just run an
army with cheap MI LTS, B instead.>>
[
Indeed.

<<However, a few other things about the new Mongol lists make them quite
interesting. . . .>>
[
Quite true as well........ :)







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

He also got right that the ability to dismount on a 1 to 1 basis does not
make them a killer army. LTS, B MI is generally effective in large units,
but relatively easy to kill in small units. One is paying way too much
points for the Mongols if the game plan is to win dismounted. Just run an
army with cheap MI LTS, B instead.

However, a few other things about the new Mongol lists make them quite
interesting. . . .
----- Original Message -----
From: <JonCleaves@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Thoughts on Mongols



Funny, this reaction to mongols. Given that they dismount effectively in
the other world's most popular ancients system, I am surprised this idea
would
seem so new - to say nothing of their record.

But Greg sure got that one concept right - you can't please everyone! lol

J


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





Yahoo! Groups Links

[Mark Stone]

--- On February 8 Dave Markowitz said: ---
>
> He also got right that the ability to dismount on a 1 to 1 basis does not
> make them a killer army. LTS, B MI is generally effective in large units,
> but relatively easy to kill in small units. One is paying way too much
> points for the Mongols if the game plan is to win dismounted. Just run an
> army with cheap MI LTS, B instead.
>

Well, the point about dismounting is a little more subtle. Traditionally, the
weakness for cavalry armies is going up against elephant armies. This has been
an integral part of the whole "paper-scissors-rock" phenomenon in both TOG and
Warrior.

The Mongols now get around this problem via dismounting. They will fight mounted
often, and indeed most of the time. But whereas previous renditions of Mongols
lacked _anything_ in the way of respectable anti-elephant troops, now a couple
of 12 figure units of loose order Mongol cav will do quite nicely.

Note that this effect is exagerrated by the current policy of only one list per
army in a tournament. The Mongols in effect get two lists out of one, giving
them a significant advantage over other cavalry armies. For example, as a
cavalry army I quite like the Russ army with Bulgar allies, but you really have
to choose whether it is going to be an anti-cavalry or an anti-elephant army;
hard to put together one list that does both well.

We've seen a number of lists substantially disadvantaged by the one list policy:
Scots, Irish, Vikings, to name a few. Now we're seeing a set of lists -- Mongols
-- that substantially benefits.

Again, I'm not passing judgment on any of this. It may be a good thing or a bad
thing or neither. But it is the way of the world right now.

I will note that the other disadvantage Mongols traditionally have had is the
lack of sufficient shock power from their cav. Regular EHC with L, even when
charging impetuously, just doesn't have the hitting power of heavier cavalry.
Now at least one Mongol list gets around this: Timurids can have SHC (and
elephants).

If you're a cavalry player, then, there are two really stellar lists out there
from the last two books that both give you the capacity to deal with elephants
and give you the shock power needed behind your cavalry charges: Sassanid
Persian and Timurid Mongols. The Sassanids because their cavalry can be
elephant-proofed, and the Timurids because of the dismount rule. I'm still of
the opinion that Timurids outweigh Sassanids slightly as a pure tournament
army, but either would be a "top tier" choice at this point. And no, I'll be
playing _neither_ in the forseeable future.


-Mark Stone

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Mark,

I want to thank you for your list help. I'm still mulling over the Burmese.
I feel the Burmese will most likely be helped in 1600 point tournaments but less
so in 1200 points. I have some questions regarding Reg C Guard Cavalry when all
the guard foot can be Reg B but otherwise I'm happy.
Note on the Timurid list that the SHC does not benefit from the
interpenetration rules. I actually like what has been done with the Timurids b/c
of their fierce rep and real butt kicking that they laid down on their
neighbors.
One thing that I believe we certainly will be seen return will be cavalry
that consisting of 4 or more elements. - - -> Thus making dismounts better for
effect of shooting and survivability.
Please continue with your analysis as I learn more and more from reading
your most excellent posts! :)

kelly

Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
--- On February 8 Dave Markowitz said: ---
>
> He also got right that the ability to dismount on a 1 to 1 basis does not
> make them a killer army. LTS, B MI is generally effective in large units,
> but relatively easy to kill in small units. One is paying way too much
> points for the Mongols if the game plan is to win dismounted. Just run an
> army with cheap MI LTS, B instead.
>

Well, the point about dismounting is a little more subtle. Traditionally, the
weakness for cavalry armies is going up against elephant armies. This has been
an integral part of the whole "paper-scissors-rock" phenomenon in both TOG and
Warrior.

The Mongols now get around this problem via dismounting. They will fight mounted
often, and indeed most of the time. But whereas previous renditions of Mongols
lacked _anything_ in the way of respectable anti-elephant troops, now a couple
of 12 figure units of loose order Mongol cav will do quite nicely.

Note that this effect is exagerrated by the current policy of only one list per
army in a tournament. The Mongols in effect get two lists out of one, giving
them a significant advantage over other cavalry armies. For example, as a
cavalry army I quite like the Russ army with Bulgar allies, but you really have
to choose whether it is going to be an anti-cavalry or an anti-elephant army;
hard to put together one list that does both well.

We've seen a number of lists substantially disadvantaged by the one list policy:
Scots, Irish, Vikings, to name a few. Now we're seeing a set of lists -- Mongols
-- that substantially benefits.

Again, I'm not passing judgment on any of this. It may be a good thing or a bad
thing or neither. But it is the way of the world right now.

I will note that the other disadvantage Mongols traditionally have had is the
lack of sufficient shock power from their cav. Regular EHC with L, even when
charging impetuously, just doesn't have the hitting power of heavier cavalry.
Now at least one Mongol list gets around this: Timurids can have SHC (and
elephants).

If you're a cavalry player, then, there are two really stellar lists out there
from the last two books that both give you the capacity to deal with elephants
and give you the shock power needed behind your cavalry charges: Sassanid
Persian and Timurid Mongols. The Sassanids because their cavalry can be
elephant-proofed, and the Timurids because of the dismount rule. I'm still of
the opinion that Timurids outweigh Sassanids slightly as a pure tournament
army, but either would be a "top tier" choice at this point. And no, I'll be
playing _neither_ in the forseeable future.


-Mark Stone



Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
document.write('');

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/10/2005 20:54:05 Central Standard Time,
markowitzd@... writes:

I see things differently from your logic because I would never use 12 figure
units of mongols as part of a standard list. I've played Mongols quite a
bit in 15mm, and am of the view that they are best fielded in 6 man units --

a discussion for another thread. (Of course, little 8 man MI units don't
scare elephants. And because of the disorder when dismounting rule, it
really strikes me that dismounting would be to avoid disaster in a
particular battlefield region as opposed to plan a victory).>>


Superb, Dave. Truly. A heartfelt thanks.

As far as a two list format, yes I agree that is for another thread. I do
want to point out that tourney format is NOT decided by FHE or dictated by the
Warrior rules. You know who to bug about that.... ;)

J








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

Just got back from being out of town, so this thread has probably been
largely forgotten by now. Nevertheless. . .

I see things differently from your logic because I would never use 12 figure
units of mongols as part of a standard list. I've played Mongols quite a
bit in 15mm, and am of the view that they are best fielded in 6 man units --
a discussion for another thread. (Of course, little 8 man MI units don't
scare elephants. And because of the disorder when dismounting rule, it
really strikes me that dismounting would be to avoid disaster in a
particular battlefield region as opposed to plan a victory).

For that reason, I also disagree with your view that the Mongols benefit
from the 1 list format. In a two list format, I would likely go with an
anti-elephant list with a few 12 man units so that I could dismount. But I
would not include that in my one list because I would not want to sacrifice
what I view as the optimal way to play the mongols. Incidentally, I still
would support going back to a two list format, but that also is for another
thread.

I agree that both Sassanad and Timurid are very powerfull armies, and would
gladly play either in a tournament.

Dave.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Stone" <mark@...>
To: "warrior" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 12:39 PM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Thoughts on Mongols


>
> --- On February 8 Dave Markowitz said: ---
>>
>> He also got right that the ability to dismount on a 1 to 1 basis does not
>> make them a killer army. LTS, B MI is generally effective in large units,
>> but relatively easy to kill in small units. One is paying way too much
>> points for the Mongols if the game plan is to win dismounted. Just run an
>> army with cheap MI LTS, B instead.
>>
>
> Well, the point about dismounting is a little more subtle. Traditionally,
> the
> weakness for cavalry armies is going up against elephant armies. This has
> been
> an integral part of the whole "paper-scissors-rock" phenomenon in both TOG
> and
> Warrior.
>
> The Mongols now get around this problem via dismounting. They will fight
> mounted
> often, and indeed most of the time. But whereas previous renditions of
> Mongols
> lacked _anything_ in the way of respectable anti-elephant troops, now a
> couple
> of 12 figure units of loose order Mongol cav will do quite nicely.
>
> Note that this effect is exagerrated by the current policy of only one
> list per
> army in a tournament. The Mongols in effect get two lists out of one,
> giving
> them a significant advantage over other cavalry armies. For example, as a
> cavalry army I quite like the Russ army with Bulgar allies, but you really
> have
> to choose whether it is going to be an anti-cavalry or an anti-elephant
> army;
> hard to put together one list that does both well.
>
> We've seen a number of lists substantially disadvantaged by the one list
> policy:
> Scots, Irish, Vikings, to name a few. Now we're seeing a set of lists --
> Mongols
> -- that substantially benefits.
>
> Again, I'm not passing judgment on any of this. It may be a good thing or
> a bad
> thing or neither. But it is the way of the world right now.
>
> I will note that the other disadvantage Mongols traditionally have had is
> the
> lack of sufficient shock power from their cav. Regular EHC with L, even
> when
> charging impetuously, just doesn't have the hitting power of heavier
> cavalry.
> Now at least one Mongol list gets around this: Timurids can have SHC (and
> elephants).
>
> If you're a cavalry player, then, there are two really stellar lists out
> there
> from the last two books that both give you the capacity to deal with
> elephants
> and give you the shock power needed behind your cavalry charges: Sassanid
> Persian and Timurid Mongols. The Sassanids because their cavalry can be
> elephant-proofed, and the Timurids because of the dismount rule. I'm still
> of
> the opinion that Timurids outweigh Sassanids slightly as a pure tournament
> army, but either would be a "top tier" choice at this point. And no, I'll
> be
> playing _neither_ in the forseeable future.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>