Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/4/2004 16:41:53 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:
Wow! This came out real nice for a first try, although I would like
to squeeze yet more knights in at the cost of some LC. Man, just look
at all the scouting points, for an SHK army! I must be adding
something up wrong.>>

I fought against a Late Polish army twice last night and so your list
interests me. What's the plan for fighting LB-men? Elephants? How will you
keep
archers from chasing off the Lc and exposing the K?


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

[John Murphy]

Wow! This came out real nice for a first try, although I would like
to squeeze yet more knights in at the cost of some LC. Man, just look
at all the scouting points, for an SHK army! I must be adding
something up wrong.

(Middle Period) Later Polish
15 units @ 1,439 points

2 Polish Commands (total 10 units @ 898 points):

1x Polish CinC and Soltys Retainers
2E Irr B/C SHK/HK L,Sh (PA) @ 181

1x Polish Sub-general and Soltys Retainers
2E Irr B/C SHK/HK L,Sh (P) @ 121

4x Polish Szlachta Knights and Soltys Retainers
2E Irr B/C SHK/HK L,Sh @ 109

4x Tartar Cavalry
2E Reg C/D JLS,B,Sh/B @ 40

1 Lithuanian Command (5 units @ 541 points):

1x Lithuanian Sub-general
2E Irr B HC L,JLS,Sh (P) @ 105

4x Lithuanian Cavalry
6E Irr B LC JLS,Sh @ 109

to fill out the list minimums, keep these as low-cost as possible...
still need 4E Polish Bowmen/Archers
still need 2E Polish Soltys Mounted Crossbowmen

Still would like 1-2 more SHK/HK units, but what to drop?

[John Murphy]

was a couple list problems
Lithuanians 1E is used as rear rank of sub-general
Tartars only half the C's get to have JLS,Sh

But I think I am in love - good thing I do not change girlfriends
this often, my wife would very upset!

_Still_ looking to add 2 more SHK/HK @ 218
just to really kick butt
and that does make "only" 9 lancer units total
need to drop 123 points of LC or other stuff
(weapons, morale, figures) to do it

(Middle Period) Later Polish
17 units @ 1,505 points

2 Polish Commands (total 12 units @ 1,020 points):

1x Polish CinC and Soltys Retainers
2E Irr B/C SHK/HK L,Sh (PA) @ 181

1x Polish Sub-general and Soltys Retainers
2E Irr B/C SHK/HK L,Sh (P) @ 121

4x Polish Szlachta Knights and Soltys Retainers
2E Irr B/C SHK/HK L,Sh @ 109

1x Polish Soltys Mounted Crossbowmen
2E Irr C LC CB @ 41

1x Polish Bowmen
4E Irr C LMI 2HCW,B/JLS,B @ 73

4x Tartar Cavalry
2E Reg C LC JLS,B,Sh/B @ 42

1 Lithuanian Command (5 units @ 485 points):

1x Lithuanian Sub-general
2E Irr B HC L,JLS,Sh (P) @ 105

2x Lithuanian Cavalry
6E Irr B LC JLS,Sh @ 109

2x Lithuanian Cavalry
4E Irr B LC JLS,Sh @ 81

[John Murphy]

Assuming you are serious, basically two issues here, and if that is
all I have to worry about that would be an improvement indeed! Alas,
likely not the case.

Elephants are handled in two ways. First, hope to not paired against
them! However, since that definitely warrants a back-up plan, I would
intend something like using the LC to keep them away from knights and
try to pick up points against the other parts of the army. Make the
elephants crawl 3" per bound, deny them charge targets they can
reach, shoot them to a halt and make them take wavers for seeing
their friends rout - that is my plan for Elephants, after looking at
this army for about half an hour now.

That one unit of Polish bowmen, with 2HCW front rank and JLS back
rank, might also be good to use against halted elephants. But that
would require some trickery to pull off against an opponent who
actually still has a brain-wave reading.

Longbowmen could be a bit rough, not only are they tough to face but
some armies (ahem) can have oodles of them so you must really do
something to fight them. Otherwise against someone with 4-8E of
longbows I'd say the same thing as elephants, find the troops
somewhere else you _can_ kill.

However, if faced with loose-order longbows the answer usually is
combined arms foot and mounted - this I know from being on the sharp
end of that stick often enough. The mounted stops the longbows from
going into skirmish, the foot hits them, then the mounted clobbers
them next bound when they are stuck to the foot and do not support
shoot. With the Poles I am looking at something like Mark Stone's
HYWE anti-pike method based on the above. Trick here is not
permitting the longbows to shoot the mounted knights and making them
shoot SHI. Also messy being irregulars but that has ups and downs.
Once again, the thirty-minute analysis from a bad player...

Another thing this army can do, however, which the HYWE can not is
exploit gaps with LC which can make the longbows uneasy for their
waver checks. That starts to be very good odds, given the chance, for
going after them mounted. However, armies with longbow to avoid
giving you something easier to kill probably also have good gap
control. So back to the previous plan.

I am still liking this list, though I have details to work out and
admittedly there will be some armies that will make them miserable.

I looked at Frank & Mark's HYWE lists. Comments on those in replay to
that message.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> What's the plan for fighting LB-men? Elephants? How will you keep
> archers from chasing off the Lc and exposing the K?

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "J. Murphy" <jjmurphy@s...>
wrote:

> Longbowmen could be a bit rough, not only are they tough to face
but
> some armies (ahem) can have oodles of them so you must really do
> something to fight them.

Again the answer from my method of play would be a full screen of LI
facing the LB. Let them sit and shoot until the LB are shooting
tired, then start ramming echelon SHK charges into them over 2-3
bounds. They will go back quick enough. Concentrate on a single
unit to exchange the majority of fire with, then blow it away with
kniggits. That -2 for shooting means a tired LB unit will be
shooting on the 0 table vs SHK. 6@0=6 per element frontage at close
range, and as a support shot add another -2 for contact and the LB
are plinking away at 6@-2 or 3fp. Even if shooting 18@-2 it will do
only a single CPF to the 2E SHK; thus the SHK hit with 5@4+1+2-1 or
5@6 or 25fp. The LHI LB fight back with 4@2 or 8. Next bound,
without help the LB are shieldless and disordered loose. SHK fighting
6@6+1-1 followup and tired for 30pf. The LHI now LMI back rank are
fighting 10@2-1 or 15 fp. Second combat cause of disorder for a
waver check on the LB. But don't forget the second SHK unit that now
pounds in to hit the disordered LMI for a sweep.

The secret is getting the timing right and keeping enough fire so
that the LB take either 1 CPF from shooting each bound and remain
shielded, or shoot back and take more. If they go into skirmish, a
foolish thing to do with SHK around, then just charge immediately
through the LI. If they lay stakes, send in 2 SHK first bound and
another in the second bound.

Or....just hunt down the brigans with the kniggits and force waver
test from the LB that way ;)

wanax

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/5/2004 9:44:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
spocksleftball@... writes:

> The secret is getting the timing right and keeping enough fire so
> that the LB take either 1 CPF from shooting each bound and remain
> shielded, or shoot back and take more. >>


This is a good example of why I tend to stay away from such
measure-countermeasure discussions. As a 'LB-player' (if there is such a thing)
I am faced by LI all the time. My preferred method is to have a small JLS-armed
LC unit supporting the LB. Being shooters, the LB has to be the LI target -
they keep their shields up and maybe take 1FP. Then the LC charges the LI -
problem solved.

Now what happens is a cycle of mails where players show why their countermeasure
will stop my LC and round and round we go...lol

I think that maybe a better way to handle these discussions is to talk in
general terms about what types of pairs of troops (or 'pods' like Scott calls
them) work together well to cover each other's weaknesses rather than enter the
cycle...

<<If they go into skirmish, a
> foolish thing to do with SHK around, then just charge immediately
> through the LI. >>

Why is skirmish foolish? If you are 120p from the SHK and they charge you, you
get away on even dice even if you fail the waver. I bait that trap all the time
- for 38 points of shaken troops I have a tired SHK exposed inside my line....

[scott holder]

I think that maybe a better way to handle these discussions is to talk in
general terms about what types of pairs of troops (or 'pods' like Scott calls
them) work together well to cover each other's weaknesses rather than enter the
cycle...

>I use that term because oftentimes, "pairs" isn't what is called for. My
favorite example is the usage of Mongol cav. I need a "pod" consisting of 6E
unit of LC, 2E unit of HC and possibly a 4E unit of HC or perhaps two 2E units
of LC, etc. Obviously the composition of such a pod depends on what you're
trying to do with the combined grouping. As a playing style, this is a *bitch*
for me to master. The 6E LC is the shooting platform, the 2E LC are the pin
units, the HC are either closers or, in the case of the 4E unit, another
shooting platform. Getting these components to work correctly without causing a
horsey traffic jam is the key. And this pod is really designed to do nothing
more than totally blow away every opposing HC and below-to-LI support/screen
unit.

>But that's just one pod. I've been playing Dark Age lists a bit lately because
of my mostly monthly games with Darrell (he has primarily Dark Age armies in
25mm) and find the same type of things apply. You might have two pods per
command, etc. I try to get them to function as autonomously as possible
although another coordination key is to get the pods to be in a position to
support someone to either side, not exactly something that screams as doable in
a Dark Age list:) For example, If I'm running Anglo-Danish, I might have a
pod of 3 units, one Fyrd of some ilk, one HC unit and then one something else.
Spread those out across the table and you have some options, assuming you're not
overmatched army wise from the gitgo but in my monthly games, we try to pair
things historically.

scott

[Todd Schneider]

I've been trying the "pod" idea with my Marian Romans,
using one 4E Legions backed up by a 2E Legion, a unit
of Scutarii or Thracians and a unit of Armenian EHC.

Against most larger, well larger than 4E) opponents,
The Legions can't win a fight straight up 9 times out
of 10 on even dice, their success (ecspecially against
some opponents) comes in the 2nd bound of combat, when
the smaller legion, EHC or Thracians (or Scutarii, can
lend their weight to the battle.

It works well in theory when I'm practicing on the
table top, in last weekend tournament it did very well
in the one game I won big. The other games nI beleive
I got the matchups I wanted but the dice were less
than desirable. What I need to get better at is
having a plan for when something like that goes wrong.



--- "Holder, Scott" <Scott.Holder@...> wrote:

---------------------------------
I think that maybe a better way to handle these
discussions is to talk in general terms about what
types of pairs of troops (or 'pods' like Scott calls
them) work together well to cover each other's
weaknesses rather than enter the cycle...

>I use that term because oftentimes, "pairs" isn't
what is called for. My favorite example is the usage
of Mongol cav. I need a "pod" consisting of 6E unit
of LC, 2E unit of HC and possibly a 4E unit of HC or
perhaps two 2E units of LC, etc. Obviously the
composition of such a pod depends on what you're
trying to do with the combined grouping. As a playing
style, this is a *bitch* for me to master. The 6E LC
is the shooting platform, the 2E LC are the pin units,
the HC are either closers or, in the case of the 4E
unit, another shooting platform. Getting these
components to work correctly without causing a horsey
traffic jam is the key. And this pod is really
designed to do nothing more than totally blow away
every opposing HC and below-to-LI support/screen unit.

>But that's just one pod. I've been playing Dark Age
lists a bit lately because of my mostly monthly games
with Darrell (he has primarily Dark Age armies in
25mm) and find the same type of things apply. You
might have two pods per command, etc. I try to get
them to function as autonomously as possible although
another coordination key is to get the pods to be in a
position to support someone to either side, not
exactly something that screams as doable in a Dark Age
list:) For example, If I'm running Anglo-Danish,
I might have a pod of 3 units, one Fyrd of some ilk,
one HC unit and then one something else. Spread those
out across the table and you have some options,
assuming you're not overmatched army wise from the
gitgo but in my monthly games, we try to pair things
historically.

scott

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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.

Right Jon, I'm helping only to explain one possibility in dealing
with what on the surface seems an extreme threat. As I stated
the "secret is getting the timing right", which I'm sure you will
agree is the key in dealing with almost any offensive
action/combination in Warrior.

I agree that counter counter counter discussions are not in
themselves beneficial, but that was not me reason for this posting.
It was to show that the L Pole list has means by which to deal with
otherwise showstopping threats.

BTW, if LBmen are tired and skirmishing in front of mounted, then yes
I would welcome the opportunity to move up to 40p and charge
impetuosly even over stakes. IT would look like a black hole had
just opened up in your lines ;)

Wanax

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 5/5/2004 9:44:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
spocksleftball@y... writes:
>
> > The secret is getting the timing right and keeping enough fire so
> > that the LB take either 1 CPF from shooting each bound and remain
> > shielded, or shoot back and take more. >>
>
>
> This is a good example of why I tend to stay away from such measure-
countermeasure discussions. As a 'LB-player' (if there is such a
thing) I am faced by LI all the time. My preferred method is to have
a small JLS-armed LC unit supporting the LB. Being shooters, the LB
has to be the LI target - they keep their shields up and maybe take
1FP. Then the LC charges the LI - problem solved.
>
> Now what happens is a cycle of mails where players show why their
countermeasure will stop my LC and round and round we go...lol
>
> I think that maybe a better way to handle these discussions is to
talk in general terms about what types of pairs of troops (or 'pods'
like Scott calls them) work together well to cover each other's
weaknesses rather than enter the cycle...
>
> <<If they go into skirmish, a
> > foolish thing to do with SHK around, then just charge immediately
> > through the LI. >>
>
> Why is skirmish foolish? If you are 120p from the SHK and they
charge you, you get away on even dice even if you fail the waver. I
bait that trap all the time - for 38 points of shaken troops I have a
tired SHK exposed inside my line....