Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Frank Gilson]

Mr. Kovel weighs in on 1 list version versus 2:

>
>Message: 11
> Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 18:51:38 EDT
> From: Eaglewars@...
>Subject: Re: One list or two?
>
>I have always been a one list player, and I will continue to be one
>regardless of the tournament set-up. There are several reasons that I
>prefer this
>format. first, it is more of a challange to find the right troop mix.
>Generalship makes more of a difference if there is only one choice.
>Second, it does
>reduce the number of playable armies, in my opinion. My army at H-Con,
>Anglo-Irish, had no real options at 1600 points. If everyone else had two
>lists, I
>honestly believe my one list would have been less competitive. In the end,
>I was
>beaten by a player who played a better game than I did, not an army
>match-up.
> Third, more options means more figures. Everybody is complaining about
>prices now, if you have to have more lead the complaints will go up.
>Jacob Kovel

I'd like to rebut some of his points, as a means of continuing this
discussion.

I do not believe that it is more of a challenge to 'find the right troop
mix' if you only have one list version to work with. If you have the option
of two list versions you have to determine what two viable options are, then
evaluate this. It isn't just a clear cut matter of an "anti-knight" version
and an "anti-elephant" version. There are different sorts of "knight" and
"elephant" armies, and other sorts, especially the "massed missile fire"
army type. Two versions of a list should be looked at more as a way to have
particular shifts in focus for your army...only one version and it seems you
have to make a lot of compromises.

Jacob's second point, that two lists would restrict the number of armies, is
also incorrect. Any list, but especially the FHE revised lists, have
significant flexibility. I'm looking at the new Feudal Warrior Anglo Irish
list right now. Do you focus it on a mass of irregular loose order foot with
some cavalry and longbow support? Do you instead run the minimums of those,
and increase the cavalry and longbow? What role do the Galloglaich play?
There look to be at least two different flavors of army here. How they play
and what final list decisions you would make seem to be vastly more
interesting if you can bring two versions.

Mr. Kovel does make the valid point that you would need more lead if you had
two versions. I personally feel, however, that the benefits of two lists
outweigh this negative.

Frank Gilson

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

[Jake Kovel]

In a message dated 8/3/2003 4:31:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
franktrevorgilson@... writes:

> Mr. Kovel weighs in on 1 list version versus 2:

That would be Dr. Kovel (or LTC Kovel) I just love titles.

>
> I do not believe that it is more of a challenge to 'find the right troop
> mix' if you only have one list version to work with. If you have the option
> of two list versions you have to determine what two viable options are, then
> evaluate this. It isn't just a clear cut matter of an "anti-knight" version
> and an "anti-elephant" version. There are different sorts of "knight" and
> "elephant" armies, and other sorts, especially the "massed missile fire"
> army type. Two versions of a list should be looked at more as a way to have
> particular shifts in focus for your army...only one version and it seems you
> have to make a lot of compromises.

Being able to field an anti-something list and another list is a great luxury
that not every list fields. Maybe it is just me, but the vast majority of the
armies I play certainly don't present those options.

>
> Jacob's second point, that two lists would restrict the number of armies, is
> also incorrect. Any list, but especially the FHE revised lists, have
> significant flexibility. I'm looking at the new Feudal Warrior Anglo Irish
> list right now. Do you focus it on a mass of irregular loose order foot with
> some cavalry and longbow support? Do you instead run the minimums of those,
> and increase the cavalry and longbow? What role do the Galloglaich play?
> There look to be at least two different flavors of army here. How they play
> and what final list decisions you would make seem to be vastly more
> interesting if you can bring two versions.

I have looked extensively at the Anglo-Irish list. There are some options, but
only by time period. For instance, go for the longbows of the early period and
you do not get Gallowglaichs. Or, if you want the two together, look at the
latter period, where the cost per stand of the longbowmen go up dramatically
because they are now regular, and you get fewer stands. In a two list
tournament, the same is true. Both lists must come from the same year.
Basically, the focus is always on the loose order foot. Supporting it is the
key.

>
> Mr. Kovel does make the valid point that you would need more lead if you had
> two versions. I personally feel, however, that the benefits
> of two lists
> outweigh this negative.

Depends on your finances. I am a dealer and I still have to be careful with my
lead purchases.

Jacob Kovel