Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ewan McNay]

Very long AAR. Feel free to ignore; if reading, see accompanying file
for maps.

Historicon 2004 – an NICT AAR.

I’ve put a PowerPoint set of terrain maps in the files section, which
might be of interest to go along with this. Or not .

Some general stuff – thanks to Michael Bard for the Sassanid painting,
which made and continues to make me very happy. He’s looking for
work, folks… Great to meet some new faces – Lenny Herman, a gentle
gentleman; Charles Yaw, owner *and* painter of the other gorgeous 25mm
Sassanid; Jon C, whom I actually got to meet (and preview the new
rulebook, which will be extremely pretty); ‘The Greek’; Derek Downs’
sons, who played 25mm Warrior with way too much enthusiasm and sugar
high (!), very refreshing; others who I doubtless met at points of too
little sleep and/or glucose. [And I never did find that Starbucks.
But Lapps’ coffee proved to be surprisingly decent.]

Praise first: first, for the very high level of good sportsmanship and
general camaraderie. I only had one game that was other than
enjoyable, friendly, greatly positive – and that’s a pretty good
batting average, I think. Someone who I have not been able to yet get
a name for painted up a gorgeous 25mm 16-man legion as the Theme
prize, which is the coolest award I’ve seen in recent years, so kudos.
Eric did a good job of getting colourful, Roman-themed plaques made,
and has provided the impetus for a traveling NICT great helm trophy
(which will clearly rust in Florida, so should not be allowed to
return there very much…). Scott Holder would have been aided by
actually having a rulebook but otherwise took the abuse and
intensity with his usual unfazedness. I think he even ruled my way a
couple of times this year, too.

Mike Byrne took home the Sportsmanship award, highly merited and a
fitting recognition.

On to the games (and the odd gripe!). Thursday I was glad that we’d
driven down Wednesday night rather than that morning! Got to the
Host, met up with Michael and took the Sassanids. Started smiling a
lot. Played his Syracusans in a quick FW game, which demonstrated
mostly that the Syracusans are not a great FW list (and that the
Sassanids are pretty decent in FW, even without elephants). Then to
qualify for the NICT. Game 1 brought Nikephorian Byzantine; not
really a good army match for me, as the Byzantine infantry are great
against elephants and OK against SHC (with the exception of the HTW
unit), while he has better LC and HC than I do and good LI/terrain
troops. Anyway, I decided to try Mark’s Road-Open-Open-Hill theory.
And promptly missed all four choices. Yes, really – I didn’t fight a
game in my Dry climate until the Theme final against another Sassanid,
and just kept rolling 1s and 2s through several games. Fortunately,
the Byz only got flank stuff, including a MWF, and missed one piece,
so we actually got a pretty decent table for me (slide 1 in the file).
He set up with a mounted wing on my left along the MWF and a massed
close foot centre: two units of spears beside the woods, then the HI
HTW guys next to the mounted wing, interspersed with lots of regular
HC L, B, Sh. No forced march pickets to oppose mine: a big unit of LI
B on my left, and two units of LI JLS in centre and right (the second
a 4-man unit in the wood). So the close foot were pinned and never
really did anything, which is all I could hope for. However, army
setup took over an hour, of which my setup took maybe 10 minutes
(yeah, this is leading into one of two gripes for the weekend). Bound
1 saw my LC, LI B, SHC, HC, and elephants all heading for his mounted
wing. Bound 2, his line of LC and LI was uniformly shot for at least
2, often 3 CPF, and in particular a unit of LC L had been unable to go
into skirmish due to lack of missile weapons, and had to try to rally
back disordered into the same space as a unit of LC B, trapped in
front of the close foot line. Not good; they were duly caught and
routed, although no-one cared and they were able to pass through the
Varangians in their rout move to escape pursuit. We’re now almost 3
hours into the game and I’m really trying to get things moving – I
suspect that this annoyed my opponent, unfortunately. Scott, when
asked, says that it’s just part of the game – probably correct, just
vexing. Bound 3 I’m following up the shot-back line on my left, and
the HI HTW unit is coming into the line in front of my SHC; my
elephant-proof LC unit and a unit of elephants go into two units of LI
which have to evade and are both caught. The LC rout their opponents,
the elephants burst through, and both catch disordered LC at the halt.
My SHC shoot away the HC that is shielding the HTW guys, charge the
legion and push it back, while another Byz LC unit has been forced to
rally disordered in front of the MI line. On to bound 4, which is
going to end the game, except that we never actually get to melee.
Argh. Playing less than 4 bounds in the four hours did get me pretty
wound up – I suppose this is the case which proves that going to
shorter round is not plausible without sanctions available. Anyway,
3-1 and a depressing start, the only virtue of which is potentially
keeping me out of the top flight for a while. As it turns out, this
failure to get through bound 4 costs me significantly. I’m told by
folks I talk to afterward that this particular opponent is notorious
for slowness. Fortunately, I’m still very happy about the new army : )).

Round 2 brings me Bill Low, a good friend, with Mithridatic. This, in
contrast, is a poor matchup for Bill: he has no close foot but a lot
of peltasts, whom my SHC would like to meet, and a fair-sized mounted
wing that is just too small to match up well. Again, I miss the first
three of my terrain choices – let’s see, the odds of the first seven
missing are .333^7, or roughly five hundredths of one percent. Hmm.
So we end up with the terrain shown in map 2 – Bill has placed a MWF,
a maximum rocky hill, and a maximum brush in front of which he
force-marched 2 24-man peltast blocks (rather scaring the LI B who
were sent there to hold the rough). A third 24-man unit holds the
rocky hill toward the centre, while a command of two scythed chariots
plus CinC is about to barrel through the middle. There are also two
8-man peltast units as pickets force-marched in the middle, and Bill
has a blindspot when he wheels one of these to oppose my LI JLS unit
which is then able to move onto the peltasts’ flank, shoot it
disordered which shakes it, and then catch it to get the rout. The
second is shot up on bound 2 by some LC despite being in skirmish, and
has to rally disordered except that the LC catch it for a second rout.
My shooting dice continue to be hot: in the large brush, the LI B
and more LC combine to halt, disordered, the left-most 24-man block,
which allows the LI to charge into the rear of the second block who
have turned around to try to hit the rear of my pursuing LC. All not
good. The pursuing LI are hit by a chariot as well as some EHC,
convincingly squashing them, but now all that Bill has to fill the
centre is really EHC, and against SHC/elephants that’s not good
either. On my left, though, Bill has one great success: a unit of EHC
which had come forward to draw fire away from the peltasts take 9 cpf
in prep, and so must charge across the brush into a 12-man LC block.
I decide to stand and receive the charge, which is a mistake – I don’t
need to win on this part of the battlefield, so why give up any
chances to the opponent? Anyway, I do – and roll down in support
shot, down in combat to avoid exhausting the EHC, while Bill rolls +3
in melee to do exactly 1 cpf, then catches me in the breakoff. That
shakes an elephant unit, giving Bill some points – alas, not enough to
keep him in the tournament. So at the end of Day 1 – see previous
brief report – I’m on 8, with four leaders on 10.

Game three is on Saturday, after a successful day of Theming, and
apparently my terrain dice have decided to warm up: facing another
good friend, Scott McDonald, using Medieval Spanish – pretty much what
I designed the Sassanids to fight against – I get my first-ever road,
both open spaces, and a max-sized gentle hill, while he just gets some
woods which split my rear in two and fill up some of the left flank.
He’s outscouted – another first for me, but I will outscout opponents
4 and 5 also – and sets up in a loose box in the middle of his
deployment area, with a unit of LC on both wings and a couple of LI
pickets 240 from the centre line. See map 3. Scott is in trouble and
knows it, aiming explicitly to get 3 points from the outset – so he
charges one end of my big LI B unit with some LC bound 1, forgetting
that I have shot his LI into disorder and hence can charge myself
impetuously, avoiding the waver test. On the other side, my lone
CinC is accompanying the elephant-proof LC in forcing the Spanish LC
to be shot disordered a couple of times, then charged when shaken.
And in the middle, my LI S, Sh prove their worth in absorbing longbow
fire to shield my SHC and LC, who roll up on shooting to force the
longbow (who do not possess shields even had they not shot) to waver,
which they fail, leading to being swept away after routing from being
charged by the same LC. The game’s pretty much over at that point –
Scott has sent SHK into my LI JLS unit in the middle, and HK into the
big LI B unit on my right, both of whom succeed in getting points but
then die, putting Scott on retreat. 13, with two leaders (Frank and
Derek) on 15. I figure I am likely to play Mark Hissam, whom I know
to be on 13 and using Late Romans, and that would suit me fine.

Instead, I face Kelly Wilkinson and Burmese. This is actually also
fine – I match up better than some opponents, and his support stuff is
really bad, although I only have one unit that is even slightly
interested in actually fighting the elephants (my Paighan MI). So I’m
pretty content, until I once again miss *all* of my terrain, while
Kelly gets three max size woods. Now I’m in real trouble, but
fortunately his support troops that are going to be in those woods are
even worse than I had realised – shieldless irregular LMI B, chiefly.
We get through a lot of bounds – Kelly pushes 4 3-elephant units
down the middle (see map 4) behind a shield of 3 LI B units, while my
regular LI are trying to gang up on the flanks of the Irr LMI, and
also shoot it where possible, especially with the JLS guys who easily
out shoot and outfight the LMI, but cannot charge it frontally! On
the far left, there’s a unit of LMI JLS, Sh hiding in the far wood,
and eventually I expand my unit of HC onto its shieldless flank (in
the wood), pushing the far end of the unit out of the wood to be
charged by SHC, which gets rid of that. The two Irr LMI B units are
outnumbered, including by SHC expanding into the wood behind one of
them (!) to block their evade when charged in the flank by LI JLS, and
one of those also goes down, shaking the LI B on my far right. Now,
Kelly only has one command. 3 LMI units, 5 LI, 4 elephant and a HC
(compulsory junk at the back) is 13, so I need seven to put it on
retreat, if I recall correctly. I’ve got 2 LMI, one LI. I can almost
certainly get rid of the LI in the centre, which is almost exhausted,
making six, but I need to kill an elephant unit, and the Burmese
elephants are getting close to combat. So: in go the Paighan, albeit
after being shot for 2 cpf and halted. My own elephants go in, in
column, alongside them to minimise support shooting, and that works –
neither of my units takes a cpf, while his elephants do. And in the
combat… well, Kelly’s elephants are only C class, and they are quite
capable of rolling down 3. So they do. The Paighan don’t – and
that’s a routing Burmese elephant unit, with another shaken, and an
army on retreat. At the same time, though, a third elephant unit
routs my other elephants on contact aided by the massive incoming
support fire, and Kelly gets 3 points. Did Frank and Derek play to a
1-1? Not likely; Derek came away with another 5, putting him on 20
and me on 18. He’s faced Todd Kaeser, Alex Vaeth, Rob Turnbull, and
Frank, but only the latter two count for scoring extra points – so my
best guess is that he’s ahead of me slightly on extra points as well
as being 2 raw points ahead. At least I have a shot – but I’m missing
those 2 points from game 1.

I’m quite proud of the game against Derek. Feel free to throw rotten
fruit at this point. Terrain is *again* at his dictate – see map 5 –
giving him an open area where I predict massed elephants, and a wooded
region where I expect him to push the LHI/LMI. But he’s outscouted,
so I know that he can’t be within 240p of the centre. So, I force
march a lot of LC as well as the small LI units, planning to have SHC
and elephants on a small frontage past the woods and hold up the open
space with LI, as shown on the map. This basically works: I get rid
of the two LI units closest to the wood, and pin Derek’s army
essentially on the baseline, as he has nothing force marched close to
the woods. My big mistake, and the regret for the tournament, is that
I did not go gung-ho: I should not have worried about the 2 cpf, and
been confident enough in the plan to have all the SHC and El
force-marched through the woods. They’d have become ordered at the
end of bound one, after marches, and been able to charge in on bound
two. That would have worked wonderfully, as it turned out, given the
actual deployment. As it was, the plan still works pretty well but a
little too slowly; in particular, the gap between the front woods and
rear woods is small enough that a column of 3 elephants makes it
difficult for SHC to come through alongside. Still, on bound 2 (might
be 3, my sheet for this battle doesn’t record which bound each charge
went in) I have a unit of LHI failing a waver for being prompted to
retire while in charge reach, and two of Derek’s LI units destroyed.
The following turn, I pass a key waver – Derek has a unit of elephants
poised on the flank of my lead SHC unit, which in turn is threatening
a unit of LMI B next to the shaken LHI. On the flank of the
elephants, in turn, I have a 4-man LC unit, but they take 2cpf in
prep. With no real choice – the fruit of not having been gung-ho! – I
take the waver so that they can charge the elephants’ flank and allow
the SHC to charge. I pass with my uneasy D class LC! Yee-ha! That
gets me routing LMI; on the same bound, I catch some LI in the far
wood because I expand a unit of LC behind Derek’s (sound familiar?) to
prevent them escaping, and my 3-elephant unit goes into the elephant
unit next to the far wood, pushing it back disordered and with an
overlap and many extra crew. All is right in the world. Nothing much
is happening in the centre-right; my Paighan and second El unit are
waiting in case the screen fails, and the LC who had been
force-marched past the woods have escaped from the LMI/LHI who have
been trying to pin them against those same woods. Everyone passes the
waver for the routing LMI, except the shaken LHI who rout off-table.
OK, so here’s my second gripe of the weekend – this one I only
realised in the car on the way ‘home’ on Saturday night, and should
really be titled ‘how not to win an NICT.’ Derek did not have a camp,
and when asked to place one he’d declared a fuzzy green area of the
groundcloth to be his camp. As it happens, that area is exactly where
I have just routed two loose foot units, who (1) would not have had a
gap to rout through (so the camp would have been swept away), and (2)
even if not swept away, the two routs would have made the camp take
uneasy D class wavers. If it had failed even one, Derek’s army goes
onto retreat, because he has two one-unit commands of sub generals
with elephants, and his big CinC’s command is only one unit away after
losing the LI and two loose foot units. Because there was no camp
actually there… I didn’t think of it, and no wavers were taken nor was
there any bursting through. Sour grapes, perhaps. Anyway, back in
the actual battle, everything is still fine – Derek makes his counters
to get more LHI/LMI away from advancing SHC, twice, but it’s looking
like a 3- or likely 4 to me, 0 or 1 to Derek. Then I make a mistake:
I allow a 4-man unit of LC in the middle of the table to sit,
disordered by my elephants, within 400 paces of one of Derek’s
elephant units – which promptly rolls long on a charge, catches some
LI, burst through it and rolls long to convert into the LC. Big deal
– the only thing that can see it is a unit of Irr B elephants… who
shake next turn when the LC rout. That next turn is the last of the
game, and my subgeneral in the lead SHC unit is hit in the flank by
Derek’s other subgeneral elephants (you know, one of those one-unit
commands? :-/). He is hacking the rear of some LMI, so no big deal.
Until he rolls –4 in melee – the unit is still winning, but he
personally is dead, so it routs from the catastrophe. My elephants
next to him who are pushing back Derek’s disordered elephants manage
to also roll –4, and fail to rout them. Finally, my LC in the far
wood fail their counter, and are ruled to be not allowed to evade to
their rear (which would allow them to escape being charged by Derek’s
detached 4-man LI unit) – so they get caught and rout also, although
that one was not unexpected. It’s gone from all good to all bad on
essentially five bad die rolls – two lots of elephants going long, a
failed IrrB waver, and two lots of –4 in melee. Lots and lots of sour
grapes now, but not really at the time – it has been a great game, I’m
very happy with plan and execution, Derek is gracious, dice happen.
The bitter taste comes with the camp realisation in the car. I coulda
been a contender; if the camp is there and even just shakes, the
battle is over at 5-1 to me. Instead, 3-2 to Derek.

As it turns out, I don’t even finish second: on adjusted scores, Jon
is 0.3 ahead. Ah well.

OK, so: other than the tinge of bitterness, is this actually of any
interest to people who can’t see the actual battle going on? I could
do something similar for the theme, but not if no-one is going to read it!

[Ewan McNay]

Ewan McNay wrote:

<a ton of other stuff, ending with...>
> As it turns out, I don’t even finish second: on adjusted scores, Jon
> is 0.3 ahead. Ah well.

I forgot to insert the congratulations to Jon here.

Two other loose ends: first, is anyone else going to write one of
these? Second, note the closeness of the top scores. Given
Derek's small lead, I wonder whether he was actually leading after
round 4 despite having a perfect 20? I'm not sure that this gives
much insight into the 5-game setup, but it did not seem to produce a
clear separation in this case.

e

[scott holder]

He was clearly leading after 4 rounds. Things bunched up after other opponents
in prior rounds did better for some people, poorer for others.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ewan McNay [mailto:ewan.mcnay@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 10:13 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Very long NICT AAR - Was: Re: [WarriorRules] Historicon
results




Ewan McNay wrote:

<a ton of other stuff, ending with...>
> As it turns out, I don’t even finish second: on adjusted scores, Jon
> is 0.3 ahead. Ah well.

I forgot to insert the congratulations to Jon here.

Two other loose ends: first, is anyone else going to write one of
these? Second, note the closeness of the top scores. Given
Derek's small lead, I wonder whether he was actually leading after
round 4 despite having a perfect 20? I'm not sure that this gives
much insight into the 5-game setup, but it did not seem to produce a
clear separation in this case.

e





Yahoo! Groups Links

[Charles Yaw]

Ewan wrote: ...is anyone else going to write one of
these? :)

While I am not, I have found the ones you wrote to be interesting and
helpful, so thanks for the effort. I look forward to seeing all the NICT
lists and a reveiw of them.

Charles




Yahoo! Groups Links









Yahoo! Groups Links

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/29/2004 12:09:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Charles  Yaw"
<yaw@...> writes:

>Ewan wrote:  ...is anyone else going to write one of
>these? >.

I would if people were interested.

[Ewan McNay]

Everyone, all together now: "we're interested" )

JonCleaves@... wrote:

> In a message dated 7/29/2004 12:09:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Charles Yaw"
<yaw@...> writes:
>
>
>>Ewan wrote: ...is anyone else going to write one of
>>these? >.
>
>
> I would if people were interested.
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I certainly would be, jon. And I think that it would be invaluable for people
who are new to Warrior to hear comments based on your playing style.

kelly

JonCleaves@... wrote:
In a message dated 7/29/2004 12:09:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Charles Yaw"
<yaw@...> writes:

>Ewan wrote: ...is anyone else going to write one of
>these? >.

I would if people were interested.

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

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

[Todd Schneider]

I know I'd be interested...

Todd

--- Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@...> wrote:

---------------------------------
Everyone, all together now: "we're interested" )

JonCleaves@... wrote:

> In a message dated 7/29/2004 12:09:25 PM Eastern
Daylight Time, "Charles Yaw" <yaw@...>
writes:
>
>
>>Ewan wrote: ...is anyone else going to write one of
>>these? >.
>
>
> I would if people were interested.
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/29/2004 1:10:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Ewan McNay
<ewan.mcnay@...> writes:

>Everyone, all together now: "we're interested" )>>

Ok. I will get something on here....lol funny guy.

[scott holder]

FWIW (not very much), I find battle accounts under any game system boring,
exceedingly so. Not that anyone should feel hesitant about posting em, it's
just that for at least this one gamer, they don't provide any insight into the
game and they get deleted as soon as I get far enough into the post to determine
that it's a battle report.

Unlike the recent spate of posts around the use of streams, roads and other
funzy terrain ploys. Not to mention the experiences of those trying to make HG
work. As a player, I find those analyses cogent and very helpful in actually
picking up the nuances of the system.

Please don't take the first paragraph as an overly snarky on Ewan, it's not
meant to be that way. Given the guidelines of this egroup, battle reports
certainly fall into the realm of what's very acceptable and I don't mind extra
email the way some folks do:):)

scott

[Ewan McNay]

Y'know, Scott has the greatest words. Snarky I at least had heard of
- but I just got 'hinky' from one of his old emails, too.

Strange what the midwest will do to a man .

Ewan, unsnarked.

Holder, Scott wrote:

> FWIW (not very much), I find battle accounts under any game system boring,
exceedingly so. Not that anyone should feel hesitant about posting em, it's
just that for at least this one gamer, they don't provide any insight into the
game and they get deleted as soon as I get far enough into the post to determine
that it's a battle report.
>
> Unlike the recent spate of posts around the use of streams, roads and other
funzy terrain ploys. Not to mention the experiences of those trying to make HG
work. As a player, I find those analyses cogent and very helpful in actually
picking up the nuances of the system.
>
> Please don't take the first paragraph as an overly snarky on Ewan, it's not
meant to be that way. Given the guidelines of this egroup, battle reports
certainly fall into the realm of what's very acceptable and I don't mind extra
email the way some folks do:)
>
> scott
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Todd Schneider]

I am more interested in seeing the lists used
myself...

--- "Holder, Scott" <Scott.Holder@...> wrote:

---------------------------------
FWIW (not very much), I find battle accounts under any
game system boring, exceedingly so. Not that anyone
should feel hesitant about posting em, it's just that
for at least this one gamer, they don't provide any
insight into the game and they get deleted as soon as
I get far enough into the post to determine that it's
a battle report.

Unlike the recent spate of posts around the use of
streams, roads and other funzy terrain ploys. Not to
mention the experiences of those trying to make HG
work. As a player, I find those analyses cogent and
very helpful in actually picking up the nuances of the
system.

Please don't take the first paragraph as an overly
snarky on Ewan, it's not meant to be that way. Given
the guidelines of this egroup, battle reports
certainly fall into the realm of what's very
acceptable and I don't mind extra email the way some
folks do:):)

scott

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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.

[Ewan McNay]

Actually, this kind of feedback is very useful to me. Obviously, I
don't post this stuff for myself - I know what happened, I know what I
did wrong . So whatever might be useful to others is more relevant.
[Given a list, how a particular opponent is approached? That kind
of stuff? Or what?]

Todd Schneider wrote:

> I am more interested in seeing the lists used
> myself...
>
> --- "Holder, Scott" <Scott.Holder@...> wrote:
>
> ---------------------------------
> FWIW (not very much), I find battle accounts under any
> game system boring, exceedingly so. Not that anyone
> should feel hesitant about posting em, it's just that
> for at least this one gamer, they don't provide any
> insight into the game and they get deleted as soon as
> I get far enough into the post to determine that it's
> a battle report.
>
> Unlike the recent spate of posts around the use of
> streams, roads and other funzy terrain ploys. Not to
> mention the experiences of those trying to make HG
> work. As a player, I find those analyses cogent and
> very helpful in actually picking up the nuances of the
> system.
>
> Please don't take the first paragraph as an overly
> snarky on Ewan, it's not meant to be that way. Given
> the guidelines of this egroup, battle reports
> certainly fall into the realm of what's very
> acceptable and I don't mind extra email the way some
> folks do:)
>
> scott
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

[Todd Schneider]

Personally, I am more interested in List
"de-construction" as it were, and trying to figure out
from a "newer Player" point of view why a certain list
would be taken a certain way. The one thing holding
me back in that regards is that being a newer player,
I only have access to the FHE lists and a couple of
the Hutchby and Clark books.

I could look at Derek's Khmer List and see the
reasoning behind it, but I don't have the master list
to look at to see what I might do differently if I
were to play it.

I liked you review of the 2003 NICT lists, because it
gave me a different point of view to look at other
players lists and methods.

I believe I've fianlly reached that point in Warrior
where I am "Rules Comfortable" with the game overall,
but some of the nuances behind it (why a certain list
is run one way usually, how player preference comes
into the decisions) and the like while no longer
"closed", aren't exactly open. Besides, if I am going
to win the NICT in 2009, I have to get a good idea of
what I am going to be up against. And the previously
played lists are a good place to start.

While I may choose to run Berbers or Selucids
differently, seeing other people thought processes is
always a good place to start. And as every player in
the NICT is a better player than me right now, it's
also a good learning tool from my point of view.

Todd

--- Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@...> wrote:

---------------------------------
Actually, this kind of feedback is very useful to me.
Obviously, I
don't post this stuff for myself - I know what
happened, I know what I
did wrong . So whatever might be useful to others
is more relevant.
[Given a list, how a particular opponent is
approached? That kind
of stuff? Or what?]

Todd Schneider wrote:

> I am more interested in seeing the lists used
> myself...
>
> --- "Holder, Scott" <Scott.Holder@...>
wrote:
>
> ---------------------------------
> FWIW (not very much), I find battle accounts under
any
> game system boring, exceedingly so. Not that anyone
> should feel hesitant about posting em, it's just
that
> for at least this one gamer, they don't provide any
> insight into the game and they get deleted as soon
as
> I get far enough into the post to determine that
it's
> a battle report.
>
> Unlike the recent spate of posts around the use of
> streams, roads and other funzy terrain ploys. Not
to
> mention the experiences of those trying to make HG
> work. As a player, I find those analyses cogent and
> very helpful in actually picking up the nuances of
the
> system.
>
> Please don't take the first paragraph as an overly
> snarky on Ewan, it's not meant to be that way.
Given
> the guidelines of this egroup, battle reports
> certainly fall into the realm of what's very
> acceptable and I don't mind extra email the way some
> folks do:)
>
> scott
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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.

[Ewan McNay]

Todd Schneider wrote:

> Personally, I am more interested in List
> "de-construction" as it were, and trying to figure out
> from a "newer Player" point of view why a certain list
> would be taken a certain way. The one thing holding
> me back in that regards is that being a newer player,
> I only have access to the FHE lists and a couple of
> the Hutchby and Clark books.

Well, H&C are generally pretty unbalanced. FHE lists are (imnsho)
tremendous. Just a huge leap ahead of anything else available. I
think they are - or should bee - a massive selling point for new folk.
OK, I'll calm down now .

> I liked you review of the 2003 NICT lists, because it
> gave me a different point of view to look at other
> players lists and methods.

Well, when Scott has the time to post the 2004 lists, I'll do the
same. Opinions I got .

My own list - well, for whatever reason I was inspired by the
Sassanids, which was the key motivator behind actually buying the
army. But then - as you note - comes the choice of how to take it.

I guess I'll cover this in the big review. Basically, I wanted not to
have anything that was an inviting target for the enemy (which I
expected to be knight or close foot, primarily; I did not design the
list to cope with massed elephants and it showed). I wanted to have
as much regularity of support troops as I could (the LC being regular
was a big factor in my picking the army; ditto the availability of
decent reg LI). I wanted to be able to hit hard on a small frontage
(hence SHC and El) and be something different from most contenders
(because that would put me out of the mainstream of what most folk
might design their armies against) - hence the bow-armed,
elephant-proof, shielded SHC.

As it all turned out, my support troops did much of the work while the
noble SHC lounged around in several of the battles. But that's fine.

Anyway, thanks for the comments/requests. I'll try to hit them.

e