Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Dave Smith]

kelly wilkinson wrote:
Instead of choosing Serbians, I would consider using the Warrior
list, Wallachians/Moldavian..<snip>

**Kelly-Pete;

As we discussed this is an intriguing option, with some pretty nifty
figures available....just too many options, armies, and not enough
time ; )


Dave

[Ewan McNay]

Mark Stone wrote:

> Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:
>> From: "David Smith" <davidsmith@...>
>>Subject: Warrior Project for '05

> Aztec:
>
> Not my area of historical interest, but a well-painted Aztec army is an
> absolutely gorgeous sight. The feathers, the obsidian, the jaguar pelts....
> really cool stuff if done right.
>
> Certainly Aztecs is a playable army. It's a bit one-dimensional, but still
very
> tough. In WRG 7th you could pretty much count on at least one Aztec entry in
> every major tournament. Under Warrior Aztecs have been less popular. Not sure
> why; the list is, if anything, more competitive. Specifically the advantages
> are this:
> - puts out a lot of shooting while being relatively impervious to shooting;
> Aztecs is the army that could have crunched Derek's Silla Koreans last year,
> and would have been a very tough matchup for his Khmer this year;
> - high morale throughout, meaning you can't break one key unit and wait for
the
> cascading waver tests; you really have to break the army one unit at a time;
> - can deal with any terrain; high enough morale to be in the open, but top
notch
> loose order foot makes it tough in brush, woods, etc.
>
> Disadvantages are the lack of mounted (though this is somewhat alleviated
> depending on how you take the Warrior list), and less than ideal matchups in
> hand to hand against heavily armored mounted (SHK, EHK, SHC). The latter
> problem is somewhat alleviated by the density of shooting.

I just bought a bunch of painted/based 25mm plastic (!) Aztecs pretty
cheaply, so I imagine that I may round them out reasonably soon. I
have not looked at the lists in detail, but recall that I thought Inca
was the best of the new MesoAmerican lists, so that's probably what
they'll become.

The basic problem is that heavy mounted can rout you at contact or
shortly thereafter if they can avoid being shot up first. Your basic
counter to this is to, well, counter. Which makes the games often
pretty cat-and-mouse, so you would need to decide whether that is a
style you can take. I agree that it's a tough and beautiful army. On
the other hand, it appears that anything you paint is going to be
beautiful, so that may be less of an issue .

I would rank the Byzantines as the most competitive of your choices,
though; as Mark notes, it gets better as the quality of the player
increases, so there's probably some good reward for practicing with
it, too.

The most *fun* is likely Crusading, but not as likely to actually win.

E

[Frank Gilson]

The central/south american lists basically feature infantry that can
be reg and irreg, of pretty good morale, that both shoot and fight.

The can have 1HCW, LTS, 2HCT, 2HCW (and some HTW) as main melee
weapons, and as missile/2ndary weapons they can have JLS, S, D,
B...in varying combinations.

Tlaxcallans can also get two units of HK L,Sh.

Depending on how many weapons and what morale upgrades you stick in,
you'll cover an ever shrinking frontage...so you better get good
terrain. I'd recommend looking at Mark Stone's article on using a
Minor Water Feature plus Marsh (basically, you have the stream bend
back away once you have run it along the frontage you will cover,
and stall/delay with some cheap LI where you don't want to fight.)

Frank

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:
>
>
> Mark Stone wrote:
>
> > Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com"
<WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:
> >> From: "David Smith" <davidsmith@k...>
> >>Subject: Warrior Project for '05
>
> > Aztec:
> >
> > Not my area of historical interest, but a well-painted Aztec
army is an
> > absolutely gorgeous sight. The feathers, the obsidian, the
jaguar pelts....
> > really cool stuff if done right.
> >
> > Certainly Aztecs is a playable army. It's a bit one-dimensional,
but still very
> > tough. In WRG 7th you could pretty much count on at least one
Aztec entry in
> > every major tournament. Under Warrior Aztecs have been less
popular. Not sure
> > why; the list is, if anything, more competitive. Specifically
the advantages
> > are this:
> > - puts out a lot of shooting while being relatively impervious
to shooting;
> > Aztecs is the army that could have crunched Derek's Silla
Koreans last year,
> > and would have been a very tough matchup for his Khmer this year;
> > - high morale throughout, meaning you can't break one key unit
and wait for the
> > cascading waver tests; you really have to break the army one
unit at a time;
> > - can deal with any terrain; high enough morale to be in the
open, but top notch
> > loose order foot makes it tough in brush, woods, etc.
> >
> > Disadvantages are the lack of mounted (though this is somewhat
alleviated
> > depending on how you take the Warrior list), and less than ideal
matchups in
> > hand to hand against heavily armored mounted (SHK, EHK, SHC).
The latter
> > problem is somewhat alleviated by the density of shooting.
>
> I just bought a bunch of painted/based 25mm plastic (!) Aztecs
pretty
> cheaply, so I imagine that I may round them out reasonably soon.
I
> have not looked at the lists in detail, but recall that I thought
Inca
> was the best of the new MesoAmerican lists, so that's probably
what
> they'll become.
>
> The basic problem is that heavy mounted can rout you at contact or
> shortly thereafter if they can avoid being shot up first. Your
basic
> counter to this is to, well, counter. Which makes the games often
> pretty cat-and-mouse, so you would need to decide whether that is
a
> style you can take. I agree that it's a tough and beautiful
army. On
> the other hand, it appears that anything you paint is going to be
> beautiful, so that may be less of an issue .
>
> I would rank the Byzantines as the most competitive of your
choices,
> though; as Mark notes, it gets better as the quality of the player
> increases, so there's probably some good reward for practicing
with
> it, too.
>
> The most *fun* is likely Crusading, but not as likely to actually
win.
>
> E