Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Frank Gilson]

> EHC have to some extent become a trough in the value-for-money of
> troop costs, I think. [They're one of the downsides to the K of V
> list, he notes, trying vainly to link the threads...]

Ahhhh, but the Medieval Indian style list EHC are elephant proof, and
thus can (must?) be run right next to the elephants...a troop
combination providing some compensation for Elephant vulnerabilities.

If also bow armed, the EHC definitely draw off a bit of shooting that
would otherwise hit the Elephants.

As for your list version of Kingdom of Vijayanagara (NASAMW list
#183), I personally can't run shieldless LMI archers in any quantity.
Can't do it...if shielded, they can actually get into HTH under
certain circumstances for significant benefit. As shieldless Reg C
LMI B, I see only very very narrow options for them to charge anybody.

Due to being shieldless, cavalry can also just run right up to 40p,
take the big shot, and ride you down anyway given the juicy +3 to hth
factor...which totally makes up for hitting tired and disordered.

That's why I was buying those guys as Reg C LI in the very efficient
6 element size...start out in column, march to the right place, and
expand to either side as necessary.

It does seem absolutely to be a list where you want two woods...so
you probably need to put 3 woods down on your terrain list. If your
opponent also wants terrain, then it gets very tricky to use your
elephants...

Frank Gilson

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/22/2003 08:08:13 Central Daylight Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

> Well (and now Jon is going to decry this as a "if you do that, then.."
> discussion : if the cav are at 40p, they must have taken at least
> one prior prep shot (considering the two units in isolation, of
> course) and passed the waver for taking say 2 and being outside charge
> range.

I would think he meant 80p. Mutual march to 240p - cav approach to 80p
(unless foot silly enough to approach....) One shot - take it, but shieldless
makes up for it.


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

[Ewan McNay]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "FrankGilson"
<franktrevorgilson@h...> wrote:

> As for your list version of Kingdom of Vijayanagara (NASAMW list
> #183), I personally can't run shieldless LMI archers in any
> quantity.
> Can't do it...if shielded, they can actually get into HTH under
> certain circumstances for significant benefit. As shieldless Reg C
> LMI B, I see only very very narrow options for them to charge
> anybody.

I mostly cede this point - if they're having to charge folk, something
is usually wrong.

> Due to being shieldless, cavalry can also just run right up to 40p,
> take the big shot, and ride you down anyway given the juicy +3 to
hth
> factor...which totally makes up for hitting tired and disordered.

Well (and now Jon is going to decry this as a "if you do that, then.."
discussion : if the cav are at 40p, they must have taken at least
one prior prep shot (considering the two units in isolation, of
course) and passed the waver for taking say 2 and being outside charge
range. [Note I am explicitly ignoring any other units splitting,
drawing, or otherwise affecting fire or the interaction at all. The
bow are only 58 points, after all!] Then at close range the cav are
going to take anywhere from 4 cpf up (that 4 assumes SHK shielded,
16@1 = 24), and another 2 in support. So they hit tired, disordered,
nonimpetuous, and -2 for shotting, pute their factor on a 4(lance) +3
(shieldless) +1(charge) -2(shot) -1(tired) -1disorder) = 5@4 = 15,
which misses the infantry. Yes, I skipped a waver test in there,
potentially. The cav receive 2-3 cpf more, which with the charge puts
them on 13+ cpf, perilously close to being exhausted.

No, I am not of course claiming that the foot have the better end of
this deal (and I know that you know all this stuff - talking to the
peanut gallery again), but it's not all one way and the foot *are*
significantly cheaper than most opponents.

> That's why I was buying those guys as Reg C LI in the very efficient
> 6 element size...start out in column, march to the right place, and
> expand to either side as necessary.

The point on 6-elements being a good size is unarguable, and similar
to my reason for liking 3-El units; and the LI have lots of good uses,
although shieldless LI are often ridden down relatively easily again.

> It does seem absolutely to be a list where you want two woods...so
> you probably need to put 3 woods down on your terrain list. If your
> opponent also wants terrain, then it gets very tricky to use your
> elephants...

Agreed again. [And again to the peanut gallery, note the
predomination of agreement. The argument is really (I think) around
the edges of a basic army-scheme.]

>
> Frank Gilson

[Ewan McNay]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 7/22/2003 08:08:13 Central Daylight Time,
> ewan.mcnay@y... writes:
>
> > Well (and now Jon is going to decry this as a "if you do that,
then.."
> > discussion : if the cav are at 40p, they must have taken at
least
> > one prior prep shot (considering the two units in isolation, of
> > course) and passed the waver for taking say 2 and being outside
charge
> > range.
>
> I would think he meant 80p. Mutual march to 240p - cav approach to
80p
> (unless foot silly enough to approach....) One shot - take it, but
shieldless
> makes up for it.

But... [ ]

...if 80p, you're then relying on the foot missing their counter (and
skirmishing back to 161p). If the foot player is ballsy, he can
skirmish back to 41p, take the close range shot and hope to pass
waver/not get caught; the following turn he could take shot without
need to be in skirmish, because he could evade again if needed.

Frankly, that would be overly-ballsy unless you're Chris Damour.
Which you wouldn't be, because this is discussing regular foot .

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/22/2003 11:20:02 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

> ...if 80p, you're then relying on the foot missing their
> counter (and
> skirmishing back to 161p)>>

No, actually. If he does that, he has gone far enough back to create a hole I
am prepared to exploit - someone's flank just got exposed by such a long
rearward counter - one that leaves him unable to shoot at full strength and
reacting to my moves to boot.

This is precisely why I do not engage in discussions like these and why I am
leaving this one now. :)

J

Perhaps I missed something on this thread earlier, but consider also the foot
being LI B not in skirmish standing at 80p to take the prep and support shots on
the EHC. 8@ bow attack on anything but SHC and SHK will get 2 or 3CPF on a 2E
mounted unit, so the charge will take place or waver test. With 4E LI B on the
2E EHC target, the mounted will take it on the chin before combat, and in HTH it
will either roll down and stick to the LI, rally forward disordered with a
uproll explosion onto the LI and/or tired to get hit next bound, or it will
become attached to the rear of the routing LI and still take a hit next bound
tired. All the while remaining shieldless to all comers; it makes the EHC
extremely bad expendibles in this scenario. With LMI B I wouldn't bother
skirmishing either, as the point differential between 4E IrgC LMI B and 2E EHC
L,B is great enough to chance the waver test in order to get the full shot
effect in the prep shot. If reg LMI, then 16 figures shooting will
certainly cause the EHC to hit tired/disordered/shieldless, so unless the LMI
fail the waver the EHC will not rout them on contact but may actually rout
themselves! IMO, no way to fight EHC. Consider a fresh EHC charge through
their own LI to hit the bowmen...disordered yes, but no prep shot and not tired
when contacting. Just some thoughts. Any obvious errors I subscribe to my evil
twin Skippy.
Wanax

ewanmcnay <ewan.mcnay@...> wrote:
--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 7/22/2003 08:08:13 Central Daylight Time,
> ewan.mcnay@y... writes:
>
> > Well (and now Jon is going to decry this as a "if you do that,
then.."
> > discussion : if the cav are at 40p, they must have taken at
least
> > one prior prep shot (considering the two units in isolation, of
> > course) and passed the waver for taking say 2 and being outside
charge
> > range.
>
> I would think he meant 80p. Mutual march to 240p - cav approach to
80p
> (unless foot silly enough to approach....) One shot - take it, but
shieldless
> makes up for it.

But... [ ]

...if 80p, you're then relying on the foot missing their counter (and
skirmishing back to 161p). If the foot player is ballsy, he can
skirmish back to 41p, take the close range shot and hope to pass
waver/not get caught; the following turn he could take shot without
need to be in skirmish, because he could evade again if needed.

Frankly, that would be overly-ballsy unless you're Chris Damour.
Which you wouldn't be, because this is discussing regular foot .


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


Lord of the Meadehall of men! Aknowledged professional sack lounger. Creator
of semi-lifeforms in their millions. The good looking twin, though sinister in
thought and deed. He who would produce but for 7 years of inactivity punctuated
by frenzied finger touching. Smooth.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

A Diplomat. "Oh that word!" Taken from Ben Franklin in the broadway musical,
"1776."

Kelly

JonCleaves@... wrote:
In a message dated 7/22/2003 11:20:02 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

> ...if 80p, you're then relying on the foot missing their
> counter (and
> skirmishing back to 161p)>>

No, actually. If he does that, he has gone far enough back to create a hole I
am prepared to exploit - someone's flank just got exposed by such a long
rearward counter - one that leaves him unable to shoot at full strength and
reacting to my moves to boot.

This is precisely why I do not engage in discussions like these and why I am
leaving this one now. :)

J

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

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

[Frank Gilson]

I guess a big point for me is that there are regular loose order
missile troops on other lists that get shields, or something
pretending to be a shield (a 2HCW or 2HCT). Perhaps there isn't a
list with Irr B elephants and Reg C LMI B,Sh...(probably not, can't
think of one).

To me, also, is something that Jon stated...if you have to keep
running back, because you are shieldless LMI, then you are exposing
holes in your line.

No shieldless LMI for me! noooooo!

Frank
--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 7/22/2003 11:20:02 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ewan.mcnay@y... writes:
>
> > ...if 80p, you're then relying on the foot missing their
> > counter (and
> > skirmishing back to 161p)>>
>
> No, actually. If he does that, he has gone far enough back to
create a hole I am prepared to exploit - someone's flank just got
exposed by such a long rearward counter - one that leaves him unable
to shoot at full strength and reacting to my moves to boot.
>
> This is precisely why I do not engage in discussions like these and
why I am leaving this one now.
>
> J