Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Like I said in the above post, I have been crunching numbers today
and planning future armies and such. One of the things I plan on
doing in the future is re-working up my Celt army. (It is one of my
older armies and is in bad need of a touch up job and rebasing) Celt
armies are not the greatest thing for the unlimited tourny scene,
but they are colorful and alot of fun for agressive players to run
as a "non-serious" alternative.

A few months ago I was considering rebasing them as Ancient British
but this new book includes the other two Celt armies so now I'm
torn. So which of the three Celt armies do you lot prefer? Gauls,
Galatians, or Britons?

As far as I can tell the three Celt armies have the following pros
and cons:

Gauls
----
Pros:
An unlimited amount of irr A for infantry
the new list allows unlimited irr A options for Cav too
Decent amount of light infatry
Cons:
Loose order infanty are vunerable to mounted troops, espeically
knights and the like
No option for light cavalry
Limitations on the number of mounted elements

Galatians
----
Pros:
Medium infantry are less vunerable to mounted troops and are more
visually apealing than loose order.
Unlimited irr A options for infantry unless you go late period.
Greek allies give much needed rough terain troops and lihgt cavalry.
Scythed chariots are fun!
Options for HTW armed troops (althuogh I can't imagine why anyone
would take that option as it prohibits the use of irr A infantry)
Cons:
Fewer light infantry options without getting allied troops.
Medium infantry lack mobility and don't hit as hard as LMI
No irr A option for the HC
the best options cannot be used together


Britons
----
pros:
Lots of light infantry options
Light cavalry means that Britons have the most secure flanks of all
the Celt armies.
Regular Roman allies
Cons:
Fewest irr A options of any Celt army
No armoured cavalry


Anything to add or take issue with? Once again, which Celt army do
YOU prefer and why.

Martin

[Tim Grimmett]

Martin--

I meant to respond to your post earlier but got swamped with various thing.

Before answering your question, I'd add two other Classical warrior armies to
your list in that they are Celt-like--Illyrians and Celtiberians.

Of the three armies you listed I have a preference for the Gauls because the
list provides greater flexibility. I've grown an odd affection for LCh, but
warn you against upgrading and HC/MC units to IA--one cannot roll up high enough
to make that work. The Britons are limited by the IA limits on the foot and the
Galatians close order foot is too vulnerable (I am intrigued by the tactical
possibilites poised by the LCh/scythed chariot working in tandem).

The new CW Illyrian list is worthy of a look with the Syracusan ally--and the
double armed Celtiberians with the IA upgrade has me tinkering with that list.
If they had LCh I'd be set, no 6E minimums of nearly useless MC as in
Galatians/Gauls, and enough of a mounted presence to keep an opponents loose
order foot from skimishing away.

My 2 cents (not that I've made any of this work in a tournament setting on a
consistent basis).

Tim



Martin <mwolverton@...> wrote:

Like I said in the above post, I have been crunching numbers today
and planning future armies and such. One of the things I plan on
doing in the future is re-working up my Celt army. (It is one of my
older armies and is in bad need of a touch up job and rebasing) Celt
armies are not the greatest thing for the unlimited tourny scene,
but they are colorful and alot of fun for agressive players to run
as a "non-serious" alternative.

A few months ago I was considering rebasing them as Ancient British
but this new book includes the other two Celt armies so now I'm
torn. So which of the three Celt armies do you lot prefer? Gauls,
Galatians, or Britons?

As far as I can tell the three Celt armies have the following pros
and cons:

Gauls
----
Pros:
An unlimited amount of irr A for infantry
the new list allows unlimited irr A options for Cav too
Decent amount of light infatry
Cons:
Loose order infanty are vunerable to mounted troops, espeically
knights and the like
No option for light cavalry
Limitations on the number of mounted elements

Galatians
----
Pros:
Medium infantry are less vunerable to mounted troops and are more
visually apealing than loose order.
Unlimited irr A options for infantry unless you go late period.
Greek allies give much needed rough terain troops and lihgt cavalry.
Scythed chariots are fun!
Options for HTW armed troops (althuogh I can't imagine why anyone
would take that option as it prohibits the use of irr A infantry)
Cons:
Fewer light infantry options without getting allied troops.
Medium infantry lack mobility and don't hit as hard as LMI
No irr A option for the HC
the best options cannot be used together


Britons
----
pros:
Lots of light infantry options
Light cavalry means that Britons have the most secure flanks of all
the Celt armies.
Regular Roman allies
Cons:
Fewest irr A options of any Celt army
No armoured cavalry


Anything to add or take issue with? Once again, which Celt army do
YOU prefer and why.

Martin








---------------------------------
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!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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