Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Derek Downs]

In a message dated 2/22/2006 3:56:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mark@... writes:
Ironically, the two armies I'm tinkering with most extensively right now -- 10
Independent States and Shang Chinese -- are both entirely lacking in LC and
are
in many ways inspired by the idea of beating the very skirmisher doctrine I've
Mark

Run the five dynasty list and have LC and your LTS bow foot

Derek


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

[Derek Downs]

In a message dated 2/22/2006 3:56:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mark@... writes:
So it's interesting to see how trends shift over time. Good use of combined LI
and LC was quite prevalent some years ago, when knight armies were more common
(the year Dave Markowitz won the NICT with 100YWE, whichever year that was).
LC and LI are not what HYWE is know for

LC and LI armies have nearly disappeared because the army point total has
grown so large
now you can have close formation foot all the way across the board if you want
This could not happen at the lower point totals

Derek


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

[Mark Stone]

--- On February 22 Frank said: ---

> Support your LC with LI and your LI with LC. Working in cooperation,
> they can accomplish much more. Mark Stone has used this to great
> advantage.

Ironically, the two armies I'm tinkering with most extensively right now -- 10
Independent States and Shang Chinese -- are both entirely lacking in LC and are
in many ways inspired by the idea of beating the very skirmisher doctrine I've
so carefully laid out. And the army that Alex and I are bringing to Cold Wars
(Mongols in 15mm) is almost entirely lacking in LI.

So it's interesting to see how trends shift over time. Good use of combined LI
and LC was quite prevalent some years ago, when knight armies were more common
(the year Dave Markowitz won the NICT with 100YWE, whichever year that was).
This is a style that will never completely go away: look at Ewan's Sassanids,
for example.

But I've certainly shifted my interests away from "winning with skirmishers",
and I don't see as many armies out there making good use of combined LI/LC
tactics. Hard to predict what the next "fad" will be, but that's what makes the
season from Cold Wars to Historicon so interesting.


-Mark Stone

And you seem to be very fond of this Derek. I believe that you are
the one who started the whole IrrD Bow for as far as the eye can
see.

I think that even with today's point totals LI and LC serve a very
specific and usefull role. They can help delay and control the
action on the field.

Ambrose

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, darnd022263@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2/22/2006 3:56:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> mark@... writes:
> So it's interesting to see how trends shift over time. Good use of
combined LI
> and LC was quite prevalent some years ago, when knight armies were
more common
> (the year Dave Markowitz won the NICT with 100YWE, whichever year
that was).
> LC and LI are not what HYWE is know for
>
> LC and LI armies have nearly disappeared because the army point
total has
> grown so large
> now you can have close formation foot all the way across the board
if you want
> This could not happen at the lower point totals
>
> Derek
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[Derek Downs]

In a message dated 2/23/2006 9:11:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
cgc.sjw@... writes:
having recently run a tournament (my 4th, not much compared
to Derek!) I've come to the conclusion that getting 1600 points DONE in
4 hours is tight.
Christian, I have 1600 points in three hour games at Derekcon's. Most games
play out. Everyone has to be focused though. Not much time for socializing.

Derek


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

Dear List,
I'm especially interested in this thread because 1) I like LC
armies (historically) and keep trying to find ways to make them work
(while having ALL of Mark Stone's reservations about what LC is, or what
Skirmish is, or what LC/MC/Skirmish/melee actually was...
and 2) having recently run a tournament (my 4th, not much compared
to Derek!) I've come to the conclusion that getting 1600 points DONE in
4 hours is tight. Now, just for fun--done, to me, is when one side or
the other has triumphed--genuinely beaten the opposing army. In last
year's tourny, at 1200 points, almost all results were decisive. At
1600, less than 1/2 were. Yet last year, at 1200 points, some of our
players were UTTER novices, so rules arguements and look-ups went on and
on--while this year, everyone knew their way around the table and the
rulebook.
And finally--I like 2000 points the best. Just feels like a real
army, whether it's KoSJ or Myceneaen Greek. (Or French Ordinance...
someday,. I just have to). How long should 2000 points take to play?
With one player? With 2 players?

Already looking at next year's tourny. We're strongly considering
1600 points--but played in chunks. Make a 1600 point list. From that
list, take 500, then 1000, then play all 1600 in the final round.

I'd be happy to hear other ideas.

Christian

>
>


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

We recently did a tournament in Newburgh, New York with 3 3-1/2 hours
and only 1/2 hour between rounds, if I recall correctly. We started at
9 AM and finished by around 9 PM. Didn't work out bad at all, and as
far as I could tell, all the battles went to a decisive conclusion.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, darnd022263@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2/23/2006 9:11:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> cgc.sjw@... writes:
> having recently run a tournament (my 4th, not much compared
> to Derek!) I've come to the conclusion that getting 1600 points DONE in
> 4 hours is tight.
> Christian, I have 1600 points in three hour games at Derekcon's.
Most games
> play out. Everyone has to be focused though. Not much time for
socializing.
>
> Derek
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>