Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Greg Regets]

<<<From Ewan>>>

On a different track, I think that knight-heavy has always been the only
way to go with medieval armies. It's amazed me to see folk try to play
with two or three knight units and a supporting cast. I suspect Sean
thinks the same way, but the Imperialists are perhaps the extreme case:
I run them with 10-11 SHK units, whole bunch of reg LI (mostly HG,
useful against other K!), and little if anything else. Sometimes some
HI w/ Pa to soak up missile fire if I'm playing at 1600; never at 1200.

<<<Greg>>> This post was interesting to me, not that I disagree per-say, but
that I have never really been able to get this tactic to work with any success,
nor seen it used against a good player with any success, especially since the
advent of the 1/2 broken/shaken to retire, rules change. Again, not to say it
can't work, just to say I have not seen it, and we almost exclusively play
knight armies in 15mm around here.

My best success with knight armies, has been careful selection of the army to
ensure a good supporting cast; this supporting cast mixed with four or five
units of knights. The idea is to use the supporting cast to either dominate
terrain to set up a good killing scenario for the knights, or to pin the enemy,
force him to go online, so that the knights may pick a favorable point v. point,
kill potential.

Good discussion ... hopefully more people will weigh in.

Greg


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

[Doug]

><<<From Ewan>>>
>
>On a different track, I think that knight-heavy has always been the only
>way to go with medieval armies. It's amazed me to see folk try to play
>with two or three knight units and a supporting cast.

How is it possible to make up a "knight army" list without the
"supporting cast" who, historically, made up the vast majority of the
bodies going to war? Who forages for the food, cares for the horses,
fetches the wine, arms the knight, builds the fire, erects the camp...
--
Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended as
to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby
rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as
unattainable, by a great part of the community, as in England; and
enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor.

OBJECTIONS OF THE HON. GEORGE MASON, ONE OF THE DELEGATES FROM
VIRGINIA IN THE LATE CONTINENTAL CONVENTION, TO THE PROPOSED FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION; ASSIGNED AS HIS REASONS FOR NOT SIGNING THE SAME.
[EXTRACTS.] The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the
Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Elliot's Debates)
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgibin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(ed001221))

This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains
information that may be privileged, confidential or copyrighted under
applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-mail,
in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender
by return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. Unless
explicitly and conspicuously designated as "E-Contract Intended",
this e-mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment,
or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-mail does not constitute
a consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing
purposes or for transfers of data to third parties.

[Kelly Wilkinson]

The idea is to use the supporting cast to either dominate terrain to set up a
good killing scenario for the knights, or to pin the enemy, force him to go
online, so that the knights may pick a favorable point v. point, kill potential.

Good discussion ... hopefully more people will weigh in.

Greg


<kelly> So Greg, do you force your opponents to YAHOOOOOOOO! {Banjo music in the
background} LOL! <---And there is no hidden agenda for this smiley face. . .
;-\n


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

[Todd Kaeser]

If you can't find an army w/ quality support troops -
Sicilian, Teutonic (some may disagree), English,
Bzyantines (yes folks late ones are now knight
armies), Medieval Spanish, etc than going knight heavy
is the best method.

If your support troops suck and you have lots of them
I'm thinking as your opponent that I'll putz with the
knights and kill the support. If you have 900 points
in support I can kill half of that w/o a problem and
take a command as well.

Ewan's list w/ LI and knights is tough vs. most
armies. Vs. pike/elephant he might find it
interesting, but against almost all others he can gang
up to survive prep/support shots and kill almost
anything.

Knights are really tough against most foot. In
bunches it's tough to do much damage against them and
they stick around a long time. I think most people
don't use them early enough in the game. People wait
until the 2nd half of the battle to save up a fresh
charge. I've hopefully routed his support and many of
his knights will be retiring by now.

Just my thoughts.

Todd K.

--- "Greggory A. Regets" <gar@...> wrote:
> <<<From Ewan>>>
>
> On a different track, I think that knight-heavy has
> always been the only
> way to go with medieval armies. It's amazed me to
> see folk try to play
> with two or three knight units and a supporting
> cast. I suspect Sean
> thinks the same way, but the Imperialists are
> perhaps the extreme case:
> I run them with 10-11 SHK units, whole bunch of reg
> LI (mostly HG,
> useful against other K!), and little if anything
> else. Sometimes some
> HI w/ Pa to soak up missile fire if I'm playing at
> 1600; never at 1200.
>
> <<<Greg>>> This post was interesting to me, not that
> I disagree per-say, but that I have never really
> been able to get this tactic to work with any
> success, nor seen it used against a good player with
> any success, especially since the advent of the 1/2
> broken/shaken to retire, rules change. Again, not to
> say it can't work, just to say I have not seen it,
> and we almost exclusively play knight armies in 15mm
> around here.
>
> My best success with knight armies, has been careful
> selection of the army to ensure a good supporting
> cast; this supporting cast mixed with four or five
> units of knights. The idea is to use the supporting
> cast to either dominate terrain to set up a good
> killing scenario for the knights, or to pin the
> enemy, force him to go online, so that the knights
> may pick a favorable point v. point, kill potential.
>
> Good discussion ... hopefully more people will weigh
> in.
>
> Greg
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

[Todd Kaeser]

Doug,

The dilemma is that for historical purposes we create
armies w/ a realistic feel. To so well in tournaments
we subvert the lists to make an army we can win with.

That's why theme tournaments are so much fun. It
keeps things historical. Otherwise we squeeze from
the lists anything we can.

Todd K

--- Doug <rockd@...> wrote:
> ><<<From Ewan>>>
> >
> >On a different track, I think that knight-heavy has
> always been the only
> >way to go with medieval armies. It's amazed me to
> see folk try to play
> >with two or three knight units and a supporting
> cast.
>
> How is it possible to make up a "knight army" list
> without the
> "supporting cast" who, historically, made up the
> vast majority of the
> bodies going to war? Who forages for the food,
> cares for the horses,
> fetches the wine, arms the knight, builds the fire,
> erects the camp...
> --
> Doug
> The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes
>
> The judiciary of the United States is so constructed
> and extended as
> to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several
> states; thereby
> rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive,
> and justice as
> unattainable, by a great part of the community, as
> in England; and
> enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor.
>
> OBJECTIONS OF THE HON. GEORGE MASON, ONE OF THE
> DELEGATES FROM
> VIRGINIA IN THE LATE CONTINENTAL CONVENTION, TO THE
> PROPOSED FEDERAL
> CONSTITUTION; ASSIGNED AS HIS REASONS FOR NOT
> SIGNING THE SAME.
> [EXTRACTS.] The Debates in the Several State
> Conventions on the
> Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Elliot's
> Debates)
>
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgibin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(ed001221))
>
> This communication is for use by the intended
> recipient and contains
> information that may be privileged, confidential or
> copyrighted under
> applicable law. If you are not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby
> formally notified that any use, copying or
> distribution of this e-mail,
> in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please
> notify the sender
> by return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your
> system. Unless
> explicitly and conspicuously designated as
> "E-Contract Intended",
> this e-mail does not constitute a contract offer, a
> contract amendment,
> or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-mail
> does not constitute
> a consent to the use of sender's contact information
> for direct marketing
> purposes or for transfers of data to third parties.
>


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Todd,
I agree theme tournaments are fun,although some tournament rules have
been( without being able to remember exactly) a little questionable for an
historical point of view. As far as I'm concerned we play the best
historical set of rules out there, but it's still a game. I have my doubts
about it coming very close to what took place on the battle fields of
history.
I really just have to question the use of the word squeeze in referring to
the use of legal lists to make a tournament army. I have always found it
very enjoyable to play with or " squeeze " the lists to see what might be
done to make a seemingly unplayable list into one that can compete. I view
it as a skill. I know not all of us have this talent and there are many out
there that are more skilled than I at it, but please don't hate or squeeze
those who love this aspect of the game. Play and let play:)
Regards,
David Beeson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd Kaeser" <hailkaeser@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 7:11 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Kight Armies


> Doug,
>
> The dilemma is that for historical purposes we create
> armies w/ a realistic feel. To so well in tournaments
> we subvert the lists to make an army we can win with.
>
> That's why theme tournaments are so much fun. It
> keeps things historical. Otherwise we squeeze from
> the lists anything we can.
>
> Todd K
>
> --- Doug <rockd@...> wrote:
> > ><<<From Ewan>>>
> > >
> > >On a different track, I think that knight-heavy has
> > always been the only
> > >way to go with medieval armies. It's amazed me to
> > see folk try to play
> > >with two or three knight units and a supporting
> > cast.
> >
> > How is it possible to make up a "knight army" list
> > without the
> > "supporting cast" who, historically, made up the
> > vast majority of the
> > bodies going to war? Who forages for the food,
> > cares for the horses,
> > fetches the wine, arms the knight, builds the fire,
> > erects the camp...
> > --
> > Doug
> > The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes
> >
> > The judiciary of the United States is so constructed
> > and extended as
> > to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several
> > states; thereby
> > rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive,
> > and justice as
> > unattainable, by a great part of the community, as
> > in England; and
> > enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor.
> >
> > OBJECTIONS OF THE HON. GEORGE MASON, ONE OF THE
> > DELEGATES FROM
> > VIRGINIA IN THE LATE CONTINENTAL CONVENTION, TO THE
> > PROPOSED FEDERAL
> > CONSTITUTION; ASSIGNED AS HIS REASONS FOR NOT
> > SIGNING THE SAME.
> > [EXTRACTS.] The Debates in the Several State
> > Conventions on the
> > Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Elliot's
> > Debates)
> >
>
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgibin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(ed001221))
> >
> > This communication is for use by the intended
> > recipient and contains
> > information that may be privileged, confidential or
> > copyrighted under
> > applicable law. If you are not the intended
> > recipient, you are hereby
> > formally notified that any use, copying or
> > distribution of this e-mail,
> > in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please
> > notify the sender
> > by return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your
> > system. Unless
> > explicitly and conspicuously designated as
> > "E-Contract Intended",
> > this e-mail does not constitute a contract offer, a
> > contract amendment,
> > or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-mail
> > does not constitute
> > a consent to the use of sender's contact information
> > for direct marketing
> > purposes or for transfers of data to third parties.
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

[Doug]

>Doug,
>
>The dilemma is that for historical purposes we create
>armies w/ a realistic feel. To so well in tournaments
>we subvert the lists to make an army we can win with.

but but but but but... the new lists are supposed to be designed to
prevent such subversion
--
Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended as
to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby
rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as
unattainable, by a great part of the community, as in England; and
enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor.

OBJECTIONS OF THE HON. GEORGE MASON, ONE OF THE DELEGATES FROM
VIRGINIA IN THE LATE CONTINENTAL CONVENTION, TO THE PROPOSED FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION; ASSIGNED AS HIS REASONS FOR NOT SIGNING THE SAME.
[EXTRACTS.] The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the
Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Elliot's Debates)
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgibin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(ed001221))

This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains
information that may be privileged, confidential or copyrighted under
applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-mail,
in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender
by return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. Unless
explicitly and conspicuously designated as "E-Contract Intended",
this e-mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment,
or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-mail does not constitute
a consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing
purposes or for transfers of data to third parties.

You guys are thinking about this wayyyyy too much.
It's a game. We play to enjoy it. Yes, there is an air
of competition. But if a troop combination is on an
FHE-approved list, then by definition it is legal. I
don't grasp your distinction.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

[Greg Regets]

We were talking about this last night in our weekly Warrior get-together. There
were actually many battles in the medieval period where a large host showed up
to the field, but primarily the mounted knights and a few shooters did the
fighting. In the battles leading up to Hattin, just about every battle
consisted of a major effort to muster the feudal host and get it to the battle
field, only to see the military orders knights charge off and fight alone.

I do not find this type of list to be ahistorical at all.

I love these sorts of discussions though, because they bring out different
playing styles, both of players and of regions. Warrior is not unlike college
football, in that first and foremost, you have to play and build a team (army)
that will beat the players in your conference (local area). This is more likely
then not, how a person's personal taste in lists and units comes into play.

A nice example of this was Mark Stone's lack of 'love' given to regular loose
order crossbows. I'm sure there is a good reason he does not prefer them, based
on who and where he plays, but in our area, it seemes to have evolved into a
valued weapon. It's easy to see how this has happened, as a very high
percentage of the players around here are running SHK, EHK and SHC based
armies. No point of view is right or wrong - they are just different, based on
whom people are playing and what armies they are running.

Greg

P.S. (Rest of post trimmed, just for Ewan)
;-)

[Todd Kaeser]

David,

I'm not suggesting that we make illegal lists at all.
I'm only pointing out that we make atypical lists
according to the historical armies typcially used.
Holder is trying to make the minimums managable yet
provide a very historical flavor for 800 or so points.


Todd

I love the rules set and will not play another set. I
think it provides an excellent representation of
history considering it encompasses 4,500 years of it.


--- DBeeson <dbeeson@...> wrote:
> Todd,
> I agree theme tournaments are fun,although some
> tournament rules have
> been( without being able to remember exactly) a
> little questionable for an
> historical point of view. As far as I'm concerned we
> play the best
> historical set of rules out there, but it's still a
> game. I have my doubts
> about it coming very close to what took place on the
> battle fields of
> history.
> I really just have to question the use of the word
> squeeze in referring to
> the use of legal lists to make a tournament army. I
> have always found it
> very enjoyable to play with or " squeeze " the lists
> to see what might be
> done to make a seemingly unplayable list into one
> that can compete. I view
> it as a skill. I know not all of us have this talent
> and there are many out
> there that are more skilled than I at it, but please
> don't hate or squeeze
> those who love this aspect of the game. Play and let
> play:)
> Regards,
> David Beeson
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Todd Kaeser" <hailkaeser@...>
> To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 7:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Kight Armies
>
>
> > Doug,
> >
> > The dilemma is that for historical purposes we
> create
> > armies w/ a realistic feel. To so well in
> tournaments
> > we subvert the lists to make an army we can win
> with.
> >
> > That's why theme tournaments are so much fun. It
> > keeps things historical. Otherwise we squeeze
> from
> > the lists anything we can.
> >
> > Todd K
> >
> > --- Doug <rockd@...> wrote:
> > > ><<<From Ewan>>>
> > > >
> > > >On a different track, I think that knight-heavy
> has
> > > always been the only
> > > >way to go with medieval armies. It's amazed me
> to
> > > see folk try to play
> > > >with two or three knight units and a supporting
> > > cast.
> > >
> > > How is it possible to make up a "knight army"
> list
> > > without the
> > > "supporting cast" who, historically, made up the
> > > vast majority of the
> > > bodies going to war? Who forages for the food,
> > > cares for the horses,
> > > fetches the wine, arms the knight, builds the
> fire,
> > > erects the camp...
> > > --
> > > Doug
> > > The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes
> > >
> > > The judiciary of the United States is so
> constructed
> > > and extended as
> > > to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the
> several
> > > states; thereby
> > > rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and
> expensive,
> > > and justice as
> > > unattainable, by a great part of the community,
> as
> > > in England; and
> > > enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor.
> > >
> > > OBJECTIONS OF THE HON. GEORGE MASON, ONE OF THE
> > > DELEGATES FROM
> > > VIRGINIA IN THE LATE CONTINENTAL CONVENTION, TO
> THE
> > > PROPOSED FEDERAL
> > > CONSTITUTION; ASSIGNED AS HIS REASONS FOR NOT
> > > SIGNING THE SAME.
> > > [EXTRACTS.] The Debates in the Several State
> > > Conventions on the
> > > Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Elliot's
> > > Debates)
> > >
> >
>
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgibin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(ed001221))
> > >
> > > This communication is for use by the intended
> > > recipient and contains
> > > information that may be privileged, confidential
> or
> > > copyrighted under
> > > applicable law. If you are not the intended
> > > recipient, you are hereby
> > > formally notified that any use, copying or
> > > distribution of this e-mail,
> > > in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited.
> Please
> > > notify the sender
> > > by return e-mail and delete this e-mail from
> your
> > > system. Unless
> > > explicitly and conspicuously designated as
> > > "E-Contract Intended",
> > > this e-mail does not constitute a contract
> offer, a
> > > contract amendment,
> > > or an acceptance of a contract offer. This
> e-mail
> > > does not constitute
> > > a consent to the use of sender's contact
> information
> > > for direct marketing
> > > purposes or for transfers of data to third
> parties.
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> > http://sbc.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
>


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

What people favour does very much depend upon what they anticipate
their opponents will have. For years in tournaments in Australia we
have observed a sort of paper scissors rock syndrome with peoples
choice of armies.

What we have found over that time though is that armies apart, the
best players usually succeed.

Another thing that I have observed is that using an army that is not
popular but takes people a little by surprise because they
underestimate it can do well, especially in a short (two day
tournament).

Adrian Williams

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, gar@t... wrote:
> We were talking about this last night in our weekly Warrior get-
together. There
> were actually many battles in the medieval period where a large
host showed up
> to the field, but primarily the mounted knights and a few shooters
did the
> fighting. In the battles leading up to Hattin, just about every
battle
> consisted of a major effort to muster the feudal host and get it
to the battle
> field, only to see the military orders knights charge off and
fight alone.
>
> I do not find this type of list to be ahistorical at all.
>
> I love these sorts of discussions though, because they bring out
different
> playing styles, both of players and of regions. Warrior is not
unlike college
> football, in that first and foremost, you have to play and build a
team (army)
> that will beat the players in your conference (local area). This
is more likely
> then not, how a person's personal taste in lists and units comes
into play.
>
> A nice example of this was Mark Stone's lack of 'love' given to
regular loose
> order crossbows. I'm sure there is a good reason he does not
prefer them, based
> on who and where he plays, but in our area, it seemes to have
evolved into a
> valued weapon. It's easy to see how this has happened, as a very
high
> percentage of the players around here are running SHK, EHK and SHC
based
> armies. No point of view is right or wrong - they are just
different, based on
> whom people are playing and what armies they are running.
>
> Greg
>
> P.S. (Rest of post trimmed, just for Ewan)
> ;-)

[Greg Preston]

On Wednesday, June 18, 2003, at 06:54 PM, Adrian Williams wrote:

> What people favour does very much depend upon what they anticipate
> their opponents will have. For years in tournaments in Australia we
> have observed a sort of paper scissors rock syndrome with peoples
> choice of armies.
>
Yes, and the greatest fun possible is going into a match-up that
everyone agrees you can't win ....and winning !!

> What we have found over that time though is that armies apart, the
> best players usually succeed.
>
Although having said that, I can't remember any of our top players
turning up with trash armies

> Another thing that I have observed is that using an army that is not
> popular but takes people a little by surprise because they
> underestimate it can do well, especially in a short (two day
> tournament).
>
There speaks a man who recently slaughtered the cream of Med France
with some Bactrian FW Trash. :)

Greg P


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