Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[lilroblis]

So I run reg foot armies a lot - and 2 generals is the least I get - because otherwise my foot dance does not happen. If the cav were not companions I would have 3

[jhill4913@comcast.net]

Getting back into the game, I enjoy reading older posts and chiming in for less than two cents worth. It's a shame that so much of the hard work put into army list books, with extensive notes on various allied components is never seen on the tournament table top. One reason seems to be the cost of the Ally General because, yes, 25 points matters in a competitive game. Perhaps the next rules errata will reduce them to 50 points and allow hordes of cool allied troops to actually show up for battle.

[lilroblis]

My problem with Allied generals is one the changing sides and yes 25 points counts- still use them occasionally

[Todd Kaeser]

We haven't had an ally change sides since Ewan made it happen about a decade ago, but I do like the flavor of them. The extra cost is a little pain, but I'll still use them if worthwhile troops. At 1200 points it is not worth an ally - and sometimes not even a sub. 1600 points is tricky, but 2000 points makes it worth it.

prompting irregulars is tricky and needs some more generals - usually within a "stick" = 240 paces and 2 rolls of less than or equal to 7 to get off both units.

Todd

[Mark Stone]

I will note -- somewhat contrary to Scott's observation -- that there do appear to be some rough trends over time.

When I started playing back in the WRG 7th days, and up through "white book" Warrior, the norm on 1600 points was very much to have 3 generals. Some people occasionally ran with 2, rarely someone would run with 4, but 3 was the standard.

These days 2 is the standard. Seems to apply to both 1600 and 2000 points, but 2 is the standard. And Derek -- troublemaker that he is -- has shown how effective it can be to run with just one general.

My personal view is that the current fad to run with fewer generals is just that -- a fad. If you reason it through, 3 generals is worth the incremental cost more often than not. Partly this has to do with prompt points. I've never walked away from a game saying "gosh, I really had too many prompt points in that one." But mostly it has to do with the current deployment system. If you have more generals than your opponent, then you are deploying your last command after all of his regardless of scouting points, and that's a big deal. Having a small "attack pod" in a single command that can be deployed last -- after all your opponent's troops are on the table and all the rest of your troops are on the table -- is a huge advantage, enabling you to line that pod up exactly where it needs to be. *

*This assumes, of course, that you understand deployment in depth, as opposed to the conventional, and typically cumbersome, left - center - right deployment. But that's a post for another time (and one I think I've already made somewhere on the Forum).