Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:

> Message: 22
> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 01:51:07 -0000
> From: "lsu90" <lsu90@...>
> Subject: HK
>
> How many people play HK instead of upgrading to EHK? I've always
> been interested in the period from the 1st Crusade and up till
> Hattin, but I didn't think the early crusader lists were very
> competitive. The new Perry line and Black Tree Design Crusaders have
> given me the painting bug though (hoped someone would know how they
> compare with Essex in size). Is the extra fatigue for charging HK
> worth the heavier armor compared to HC? Are EHK really worth the 24
> extra points per unit?
>

HK are a way better buy for your points than EHK. SHK are also a way better buy
for your points than EHK. The extra durability that SHK have is definitely worth
the 3 points a figure. Just look at the performance difference you get against
Roman legionaries, or against Seleucid peltasts.

But the efficiency of HK compared to EHK is tremendous. You're worse against
javelin-armed foot, but you should be beating those guys anyway, whether you're
EHK or HK. You're more vulnerable to shooting, but if your knights are getting
shot up you're playing wrong. Against the vast majority of targets these two are
the same. Further, they dismount the same. Against pikes and (if you really have
to) elephants, EHI can be quite servicable. Why pay 15 points a figure for them
when you can pay only 11?

Having said that, I'm putting together an army for Cold Wars next year whose
shock cavalry will be almost exclusively EHK; no SHK, no HK. The reason: better
support troops. At the end of the day, support troops are what matter most in
picking an army list.


-Mark Stone