Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/25/2005 14:25:25 Central Daylight Time,
mark@... writes:

<<Before sending this email I did actually stop to think if, in almost 20
years of
Warrior/TOG tournament gaming, I have ever witnessed an effective flank march
that involved an entire command. I couldn't think of a single such
instance.>>


Just to jump in here. I am not a big fan of command flank marches, but I
have certainly seen them win games. I'm watching one work very well right now,
in fact....lol

Jon








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

[John Murphy]

I am trying to think of some alternative strategies to employ with
my Moldavian army for situations which do not encourage the use of
any of my more standard kinds of plans which in most circumstances I
am happy with.

One grand-tactical weapon I would like to add to my arsenal is the
flank march. While I do not normally employ this I have come up
against times where it would have been a great idea, for instance to
get around a minor water feature into an otherwise-engageable
opponent. But I have not really done this because I am still
uncertain what would be a good way to plan to split the army up to
make the flank march effective.

Here is the 1600-pt list I've been using lately 1x 2E HK CinC, 1x 2E
HK Sub, 4x 2E HK/HC, 4x 6E LC, 1x 4E LMI and 3x 6E LI, plus the
following which, however, have to be their own separate command of
Regs 1x 2E HC/MC Ally and 4x 2E LC

My thinking is first that the Reg command is, by itself, not
suitable for a flank march of this type. It works well with the HK
but lacks real hitting power and while in a normal flank march it
might make good harrassment here I am looking for a shock force
which can use the flank march to get behind an essentially linear
terrain feature at troops attempting to hide behind it. And this is
not it. Also, the Reg command has a pretty fair skirmishing ability
which would be useful to fix the enemy battleline while waiting for
the arrival of the flankers.

So that leaves some combination of the Irregs making up a command.
Definately in a situation like this one general and all four HK
units would be the core of the flank march command. This provides
the shock power, but by itself is a bit vulnerable to missile fire
and even more so to triggering unwanted charges. So I need some
support from the LC and/or LI. But that has to be balanced with what
to leave against the enemy front, and with being able to fit the
flankers into the space permitted when they arrive.

So I am thinking maybe splitting off a flank march command of one
Irr general's unit, all 4 HK/HC units, and either 2 LI or 2 LC units
depending on what kind of troops I am trying to use the flank march
to get to.

Ideas?

[Mark Stone]

--- On June 25 John Murphy said: ---

> So I am thinking maybe splitting off a flank march command of one
> Irr general's unit, all 4 HK/HC units, and either 2 LI or 2 LC units
> depending on what kind of troops I am trying to use the flank march
> to get to.
>
> Ideas?

Here's my idea: don't do it.

Before sending this email I did actually stop to think if, in almost 20 years of
Warrior/TOG tournament gaming, I have ever witnessed an effective flank march
that involved an entire command. I couldn't think of a single such instance.

Let me quote from the revsied 14, which pretty much says it all:

"A flank marching unit or command must fully enter the table on the bound of
arrival if at all possible.... Troops, terrain and the size of the rear zone
may all conspire to force the flank marching player to enter the playing area
in a less than optimal manner and this should be taken into consideration when
planning a flank march."

You have very little control over when you will arrive, where you will arrive,
and in what formation you will arrive given that you must do everything
possible to get the command on table immediately, or in as few bounds as
possible. And your opponent will see this coming a mile away. Light troops,
normally so valuable in screening shock troops, are almost useless in this role
on a flank march, as (a) they'll likely have to enter next to, rather than in
front of the shock troops to meet the requirement of getting on table as
quickly as possible, and (b) evaders who leave the table never return. So your
lights show up, some heavier enemy shouts "Boo!" at them, and they immediately
leave the table for the rest of the game.

The very best you can really hope for is that your opponent is stretched so thin
that he has only one reserve unit (a light infantry or some such) to guard the
flank on which you will arrive. Even in this case, I can't see how you can
reasonably expect to have an impact in time to make a difference. You approach
the reserve unit on the bound you arrive, and charge it. Let's say you kill it
that very bound. You spend the next bound rallying. Then -- on the third bound
after your arrival -- you can begin to take action that might influence the
rest of the battle. You've got about a 50/50 chance of arriving by bound 3,
about a 70% chance of arriving by bound 4, so realistically you shouldn't
expect to be influencing the battle until bound 6 or 7. That's simply too late,
given that 90% of all tournament games are going to last between 6 and 8 bounds.
And that's best case scenario. Your opponent might have a stronger reserve. It
might take you longer to clear the reserve out. You might not arrive until
later in the game.

You're playing very, very, low odds by flank marching an entire command. If you
are up against an opponent whose main battle line is so impenetrable that you
can only win by getting around it somehow, then low odds are worth taking. But
the Moldavians should _never_ be in that situation. You have a wide enough
variety of both skirmishers and shock troops, and high enough quality of each,
that you should always have a better percentage plan of action available to you
than flank marching an entire command.

Flank marching a single unit can sometimes be useful. It keeps your opponent
honest, and often if you are enveloping a more compactly deployed opponent you
have a unit or two that doesn't have room to fit in anyway, so might as well be
on a flank march. But flank marching an entire command? Pretty much never, I'd
say.


-Mark Stone

[John Murphy]

Yeah, but Mark, I am talking about an opponent sitting on his butt
behind a stream here, who otherwise I could pretty much walk up to
and beat. Flank marching gives me a way to put shock troops around
the river where they force wavers and do not get disordered charging
and the river bank is not there to defend.

This is a very limited set of circumstances as I said at the start
of the post. Not for use against someone who comes to fight. Even
against the corner hedgehog types there are better ways to deal with
them - but the minor water features (or potentially I could see TF's
having this kind of impact in an extreme case) are tough unless you
just want to shake hands and call it 0-0. Or do like I usually do
and go bashing across anyhow and lose 5-2!

In particulars, I too have had entire-command flank marches be used
effectively, both for (long ago) and against (recently). For one
thing, that one unit sitting there only ties up one of your own
units charging and rallying. For another I can get in enough bounds
in a game (especially with a snooze on the table until the flankers
arrive) to get them in play for a few bounds. And if not, I have the
same darn 0-0 game.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> You're playing very, very, low odds by flank marching an entire
command. If you
> are up against an opponent whose main battle line is so
impenetrable that you
> can only win by getting around it somehow, then low odds are worth
taking. But
> the Moldavians should _never_ be in that situation. You have a
wide enough
> variety of both skirmishers and shock troops, and high enough
quality of each,
> that you should always have a better percentage plan of action
available to you
> than flank marching an entire command.

Greetings John,
With the current point system that 5-2 loss is actualy better for you
than a 0-0 draw. This is especialy true if its early in the tournament.
>
> This is a very limited set of circumstances as I said at the start
> of the post. Not for use against someone who comes to fight. Even
> against the corner hedgehog types there are better ways to deal with
> them - but the minor water features (or potentially I could see TF's
> having this kind of impact in an extreme case) are tough unless you
> just want to shake hands and call it 0-0. Or do like I usually do
> and go bashing across anyhow and lose 5-2!

I will say that if nothing else you will have a chance for an
entertaining game. Having been on the other side of a minor water
feature defended by Macabean Jews with a Bactrian army I had
considered chancing a flank march except that I can only send one
command and it would be outnumbered 3-1. In that particular game I
looked at Frank Gilson shook his hand and we took our 3 point draw.
We then fought the battle for the organizers to show them that I
couldnt force a crossing, I think Frank scored 300 pts to my 100 or so
in the 2 rounds I tried to force it.

> In particulars, I too have had entire-command flank marches be used
> effectively, both for (long ago) and against (recently). For one
> thing, that one unit sitting there only ties up one of your own
> units charging and rallying. For another I can get in enough bounds
> in a game (especially with a snooze on the table until the flankers
> arrive) to get them in play for a few bounds. And if not, I have the
> same darn 0-0 game.
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> > You're playing very, very, low odds by flank marching an entire
> command. If you
> > are up against an opponent whose main battle line is so
> impenetrable that you
> > can only win by getting around it somehow, then low odds are worth
> taking. But
> > the Moldavians should _never_ be in that situation. You have a
> wide enough
> > variety of both skirmishers and shock troops, and high enough
> quality of each,
> > that you should always have a better percentage plan of action
> available to you
> > than flank marching an entire command.

Greetings Jon,
You should post a recap for us then
>
> Just to jump in here. I am not a big fan of command flank marches,
but I
> have certainly seen them win games. I'm watching one work very
well right now,
> in fact....lol
>
> Jon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Todd Schneider]

Terry,

I was the guy using the flank march that Jon was
referring to today ;-)

For the better part of a year now I have been playing
the same list, Araucanians. For a while, because of a
local tournament, I played it at 1200, but recently
we've been playing 1600 point games, which has forced
me to take a look at how I use the list.

Also, I've experimented and toyed with it for awhile
now, and have finally gotten to the point where I
think
I have the list just right.

The big issue with this list is its lack of mounted,
and the ability to close in with troops who choose not
to fight (Loose order shooters mostly, who hit as hard
as I do in bow fire), but it does have it's strengths,
in the double armed Close and loose order infantry and
powerful (if used correctly) Light Infantry. However,
even with the latest list changes I made, I was still
having problems getting the combats I wanted and the
results I needed, so what I have started doing is
using a command flank march, which is what I did today
(and was the one Jon was refering to earlier).

It's small, at three units, but IMO it's pretty
powerful:

2E Irr B HC JLS Sh (Sub Gen)
6E Irr B LMI 1/2 HTW, B, Sh; 1/2 JLS, B, Sh
4E 1/2 Irr B, 1/2 Irr C 1/2 2HCW B, Sh; 1/2 JLS, B Sh

At 303 points it will force back most other flank
marches, and it can deal with most things on a flank,
except what I ran into today (Sassinids with El and
SHC).

It almost came through for me today, but Charles did
some skillful maneuvering and passed a lot of wavers,
and pulled out a hard earned and well deserved 5-2
victory in the end. But it was a close run battle for
a couple of turns... :-)

Todd

[John Murphy]

Todd,

So you figured the foot approaches onto the board first, and with a 5E
frontage should fit through the rear zone? Then the general comes on
behind in mounted approaches?

Would the same thing work out for my army - assuming the opposing
troop types were suitable for it and there was not a better option
without a flank amrch (say the guy had a minor water or substantial
line of TF's down the centerline) - if I approached (or marched on
4's) first with 2x 6E Irr C LI B,Sh/B and then in mounted approaches
(or marching on 3's) brought in 1x 2E Irr A/B HK L,Sh general and 4x
2E Irr A/B HK/HC L,Sh? If the opposing troop types were better suited
at the time of arrival I could also pre-empt with the mounted bring
the LI behind? I'd have 574 or 634 points depending on which general,
leaving not much but light troops to the enemy front (facilitating
fast play) and depending on the huge flank march to be a game-winner.

The 6E LC would be better in the flank march, and give a bit more room
on approaches/marches, but I am thinking the LI with interpenetration
ability is the better troop type to put in front of the HK if that is
what is needed.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Schneider <thresh1642@y...>
wrote:
> 2E Irr B HC JLS Sh (Sub Gen)
> 6E Irr B LMI 1/2 HTW, B, Sh; 1/2 JLS, B, Sh
> 4E 1/2 Irr B, 1/2 Irr C 1/2 2HCW B, Sh; 1/2 JLS, B Sh
> At 303 points it will force back most other flank
> marches

[Charles Yaw]

I had not played Todd in a while and the size of his flank march
supprised me at first. Slopply play on my part for not asking how
many scouting points I could not see (2). Todd thus achieved the
one time necessary for a successful flank march, suprise. Todd
rolled his flank march in on the 2nd bound and forced a much smaller
flank march I had back onto the table at the end of bound 2. This
was both good and bad for him as the flank march arrived early in
the game, but it also came before most of my troops were fully
committed. I had a turn to get ready and as I had not committed my
SHC or EL units yet, I had them available to reposition to oppose
the flank march, and they were they very troops he could not
successfully deal with. Anything else in my army would have been
very problematic in stopping him. He was able to break a LC unit
that I could not get out of the way on bound three and force several
waiver checks, mostly on Irr B units, and all except one passed. On
bound 4 he broke the MI unit he had forced back onto the table and
another LC unit failed a waiver check, but that same bound I pushed
a MI unit of his off the table and it was all down hill for the
flank march after that.

If this flank march had arrived some later, it might have done more,
but then as Mark pointed out, time starts to run out.

Given the size of the rest of Todd's battle line, I don't think this
in his case the size of the flank march detracts from his main
effort.

Charles

> Terry,
>
> I was the guy using the flank march that Jon was
> referring to today
>
> For the better part of a year now I have been playing
> the same list, Araucanians. For a while, because of a
> local tournament, I played it at 1200, but recently
> we've been playing 1600 point games, which has forced
> me to take a look at how I use the list.
>
> Also, I've experimented and toyed with it for awhile
> now, and have finally gotten to the point where I
> think
> I have the list just right.
>
> The big issue with this list is its lack of mounted,
> and the ability to close in with troops who choose not
> to fight (Loose order shooters mostly, who hit as hard
> as I do in bow fire), but it does have it's strengths,
> in the double armed Close and loose order infantry and
> powerful (if used correctly) Light Infantry. However,
> even with the latest list changes I made, I was still
> having problems getting the combats I wanted and the
> results I needed, so what I have started doing is
> using a command flank march, which is what I did today
> (and was the one Jon was refering to earlier).
>
> It's small, at three units, but IMO it's pretty
> powerful:
>
> 2E Irr B HC JLS Sh (Sub Gen)
> 6E Irr B LMI 1/2 HTW, B, Sh; 1/2 JLS, B, Sh
> 4E 1/2 Irr B, 1/2 Irr C 1/2 2HCW B, Sh; 1/2 JLS, B Sh
>
> At 303 points it will force back most other flank
> marches, and it can deal with most things on a flank,
> except what I ran into today (Sassinids with El and
> SHC).
>
> It almost came through for me today, but Charles did
> some skillful maneuvering and passed a lot of wavers,
> and pulled out a hard earned and well deserved 5-2
> victory in the end. But it was a close run battle for
> a couple of turns...
>
> Todd

[Charles Yaw]

A flank march of the size you are referring to is going to be missed
on the table by most opponents. Often there is only one really
viable side to choose to declare for the flank march and a skilled
opponent will have a couple of LC or LI units waiting on it to fix
it into place.

Charles


> Todd,
>
> So you figured the foot approaches onto the board first, and with
a 5E
> frontage should fit through the rear zone? Then the general comes
on
> behind in mounted approaches?
>
> Would the same thing work out for my army - assuming the opposing
> troop types were suitable for it and there was not a better option
> without a flank amrch (say the guy had a minor water or
substantial
> line of TF's down the centerline) - if I approached (or marched on
> 4's) first with 2x 6E Irr C LI B,Sh/B and then in mounted
approaches
> (or marching on 3's) brought in 1x 2E Irr A/B HK L,Sh general and
4x
> 2E Irr A/B HK/HC L,Sh? If the opposing troop types were better
suited
> at the time of arrival I could also pre-empt with the mounted
bring
> the LI behind? I'd have 574 or 634 points depending on which
general,
> leaving not much but light troops to the enemy front (facilitating
> fast play) and depending on the huge flank march to be a game-
winner.
>
> The 6E LC would be better in the flank march, and give a bit more
room
> on approaches/marches, but I am thinking the LI with
interpenetration
> ability is the better troop type to put in front of the HK if that
is
> what is needed.
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Schneider
<thresh1642@y...>
> wrote:
> > 2E Irr B HC JLS Sh (Sub Gen)
> > 6E Irr B LMI 1/2 HTW, B, Sh; 1/2 JLS, B, Sh
> > 4E 1/2 Irr B, 1/2 Irr C 1/2 2HCW B, Sh; 1/2 JLS, B Sh
> > At 303 points it will force back most other flank
> > marches

[Todd Schneider]

John,

IMO, the biggest thing to consider is what your
opponenet would do if he was in your shoes I think,
and whether or not you have played him with that
particular Army List before.

If he sets up a long line of TF's but both his flanks
are open, is he going to have anough troops to cover
each flank and still hold you up in the center? I
think that would be easier to do with a minor water
feature than with TF's, and i think the army your
facing plays into the decision making as well.

Another thing is relying on that die roll for the
flank march to come in. Mine arrived on Turn 2, which
was both good and bad. If your comfortable in playing
1000 points against 1600 while 600 of yours hasn't
arrived on the table,

I almost never flank march anything with Araucanians,
single unit or single Command. I did yesterday
because of a few factors:

1. I know Charles like to flank march.
2. I knew which flank he was going to flank march
with a reasonable degree of assuarance, because i had
one side of the board closed down with two marshes and
had a couple of units nearby that could deal with a
single unit flank march.
3. I knew I had enough units left on the board that
he wasn't expecting flank march that large. Even with
a 3 unit flank march, I still had 13 pretty
substantial units on the board.
4. I knew the units I had on the flank march had a
good chance of dealing with anything he sent my way.


Ultimatley, in the end it didn't work out for me, but
Charles did have to pass a lot of wavers he wouldn't
have taken otherwise.

I agree with you on the HK LI interaction,

Todd


--- John <jjmurphy@...> wrote:

> Todd,
>
> So you figured the foot approaches onto the board
> first, and with a 5E
> frontage should fit through the rear zone? Then the
> general comes on
> behind in mounted approaches?
>
> Would the same thing work out for my army - assuming
> the opposing
> troop types were suitable for it and there was not a
> better option
> without a flank amrch (say the guy had a minor water
> or substantial
> line of TF's down the centerline) - if I approached
> (or marched on
> 4's) first with 2x 6E Irr C LI B,Sh/B and then in
> mounted approaches
> (or marching on 3's) brought in 1x 2E Irr A/B HK
> L,Sh general and 4x
> 2E Irr A/B HK/HC L,Sh? If the opposing troop types
> were better suited
> at the time of arrival I could also pre-empt with
> the mounted bring
> the LI behind? I'd have 574 or 634 points depending
> on which general,
> leaving not much but light troops to the enemy front
> (facilitating
> fast play) and depending on the huge flank march to
> be a game-winner.
>
> The 6E LC would be better in the flank march, and
> give a bit more room
> on approaches/marches, but I am thinking the LI with
> interpenetration
> ability is the better troop type to put in front of
> the HK if that is
> what is needed.
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Schneider
> <thresh1642@y...>
> wrote:
> > 2E Irr B HC JLS Sh (Sub Gen)
> > 6E Irr B LMI 1/2 HTW, B, Sh; 1/2 JLS, B, Sh
> > 4E 1/2 Irr B, 1/2 Irr C 1/2 2HCW B, Sh; 1/2 JLS, B
> Sh
> > At 303 points it will force back most other flank
> > marches
>
>
>
>
>

[John Murphy]

Am I asking the wrong question, then? Maybe I should be asking,
without dickering about with my list (which against 99% of opponents I
am quite happy with), what do I do about a tourney game where the
other guy has no acceptable counter to crazy tin cans and gobs of good
LC and throws down a minor water or a line of TF's across the middle
of the board? (and maybe the answer is - just be thankful I am not
playing against an Elephant army!)

In the one real event (not a common occurance but one which still
needs some kind of answer) which started this question for me, I tried
to cross anyhow (you _do_ get a ford plus I had a road which gave me a
bridge, but the real reason was having IrA's makes you willing to try
a lot of crazy things and hope for the eventual gift from the dice)
even got the up roll in one combat on one bound, but quickly realized
it was not going to work as the other guy could keep feeding stuff in
on his side of the water without reply from me unless I wanted to
continue to be disordered, fighting up the river bank, and forego
forcing a waver check in order to get more troops in there myself. So
I got a chance to break off and pull back across the river (probably
in violation of my orders for IrA's now that I think about it) and the
game wound up 1-1. Not a great tournament score.

But forget it - it was just an off the wall question of not great
import that has probably stirred the pot more than it was worth.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "riderofrohan2001" <yaw@m...>
wrote:
> A flank march of the size you are referring to is going to be missed
> on the table by most opponents. Often there is only one really
> viable side to choose to declare for the flank march and a skilled
> opponent will have a couple of LC or LI units waiting on it to fix
> it into place.

[John Garlic]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no way to conceal the fact that a
command is missing since you have to dice for generals even if they are flank
marching. I love to flank march, but was caught off guard at Fort Worth last
fall
since I had to dice for a flank marching general and thereby reveal that more
than a unit was missing (even if I sent non-scouting points type units).

John Garlic


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

[Ewan McNay]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005, John wrote:
> But forget it - it was just an off the wall question of not great
> import that has probably stirred the pot more than it was worth.

That last is certainly untrue. Having to face a 'sitter' is not
ridiculously uncommon (although rarer than a few years back, is my guess),
and the increased thought that's going into use of TFs in particular may
make the occurrence a little higher.

I've used a command flank march rarely; by far my favourite is a general
plus a bunch of scythed chariots, which is low cost, high impact, low
frontage, and amusing . I would agree that in general it's very
difficult to camouflage the fact that a command is missing, and often that
hence just becomes free points for the opposition.

More general discussion of how to approach enemy TFs would be a very
useful thing.

E

[John Murphy]

Well, I just looked the list over again and I think I might consider
the bombards. They would certainly help in this situation - at least
to force someone's hand or to clear an area to make a sizeable
crossing - and there could be other uses for them as well. Maybe try
them on for size for a few games and see how they fit. Then I'll
either keep 'em or drop 'em again but at least I'll know.

And fwiw the guy I was playing would hardly be described as
a 'sitter' - just my luck in that particular game. I have to admit he
did what he needed to do for the army matchup. I told him I thought
he'd have done even better with that kind of setup if had a trap to
bait though. Anyhow that's the way it goes.