Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[lilroblis]

Unfortunately I was not able to attend fall in as I was in South Africa on a family matter, but sounds like it went well. I cannot read any of Franks posts - but would love to see if wesaw different armies with the jls cav fighting Rank and a half.
For those who played - did the rule change make the game better or worse? Or was it irrelevant to the tourney.
I was planning on running Prussians and Carthos both looked like fun with effective cavalry - not so much without
So at the risk of tilting at windmills (lances only - as JLS does not work) - would love as much feedback as possible.

[Frank Gilson]

[Mark Stone]

The JLS rule affected army list choice. I don't think it affected outcomes. And I think with army list choice LC was mainly what folks were thinking about. Jim Bisignani and I talked explicitly about this.

I stand by what I said months ago. If we were to make an official change, I'd want it to be "An element of cavalry armed with JLS behind a front rank element of cavalry armed with JLS fight with 1 figure when charging, counter-charging, or pursuing." This would have LC fighting rank and a half, but MC, HC, and EHC fighting 4 figures instead of 5, which seems like a fair concession to the hand-to-hand power of lance vis a vis JLS. It's also enough of a bump to MC/HC/EHC to make them useful as follow-up troops into already disordered foot.

This opinion is, of course, worth exactly what Scott paid for it. Maybe less.

[lilroblis]

Thanks for the replies - apparently if I just go into the web site I cannot see Franks notes- if I follow my notification I can - go figure.
Sorry to hear that - I was running two armies that go from B- to A and C- to B with the change. I love Cartos - but it is a B- list - with effective cavalry it becomes A- or even A in my opinion - and no Knights, EHC, SHC still chew the cav up - but now people have to take the cav seriously for frontal charges on foot and they can beat other cavalry if the cisrcumstances are right.
I will do math in my head - but for example - flank of EHK knights - 3@4 at best -9 casualties - recoil - and kill the jls troops next turn, up 1 12 - no sigar up 3 gets a rout
5 at 4 - 15 - I roll up 1 and the EHK routs - noone wants to take that chance - so the hc,jls, sh is a threat of sorts - I believe other cav is 1, charging 2, imp 4 - may have factors wrong -
LMI armed with anything in 16 man unit - 3@7=18 recall , 5@7 30 vs 6@4 =18 - go through all the numbers and you see why one only sees the minimum jls armed M/HC in any army unless they have list rules - they still are inferior, but are a real threat. Hopefully we will get another chance to try this

[Frank Gilson]

As Mark has also said, and others have mentioned, it isn't just the damage dealt...but received.

SHC/SHK/EHK and to a lesser extent EHC/HK are played because they deal out the same damage as equally armed HC/MC, but take far less.

You're still not going to want to send HC/MC JLS,Sh in frontally to more or less anything even if they were to fight 1.5 ranks.

If you got one rank fighting HC JLS,Sh into the shielded flank of EHK you do the 9 you mention, and then expand in a follow up to do 12 the next bound. If the disordered EHK counter to turn to face, they are 1E wide and do 6 in return...so you cause disorder again, and a waver, and soon will tire and probably shake the EHK.

Secret? Don't let folks send anything at all into your unit flanks. Or, feel free to send just about anything into some unit's flank.

I have done quite well with LI JLS,Sh into the flanks of mounted...on the very rare occasion that's happened.

There will be the occasional event where JLS cav get some sort of bonus...but not for the most part.

[Nicholas Rowe]

How about this: Hand to Hand Tactical Factor: -2 against a unit of Steady, Loose or Open, Non-Impetuous, Cavalry or Camelry where all figures fighting hand-to-hand are fighting with JLS and not L. Exceptions: -1 against steady JLS, P, L.

This would simulate what historical JLS-armed cavalry actually did. When Gallic cavalry faced Caesar's legionaries, for example, the result was usually a long fight instead of a short, sharp charge that ended in the slaughter of either the cavalry or the infantry. Melee engagements were more like a closer and more lethal extension of skirmishing than what lance cavalry were doing. Their javelins and horse-based mobility would have allowed for engagement from relatively safe ranges.

Shock charges still happened, which is why the factor would rely on the JLS cav being non-impetuous. So in that role JLS cav would still be inferior to L cav, as they were historically. I feel this would give the player the choice of which style of combat to commit their JLS cavalry to. The exceptions are based on weapons which would give enemy infantry or cavalry greater reach or range for their melee weapons. It's only a half-exception because those weapons would still be less effective at such a range.

[Frank Gilson]