Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ewan McNay]

In the absence of other lists to critique, here's what was wrong with
mine . I fixed most of the problems for the Theme, with both extra
time and the benefit of two NICT games to help.

-------- Original Message --------
> CinC alone on his elephant, Irr B, with PA 115 115
> Irr B Subgeneral as SHC L,B,Sh + 1E IrrB EHC L,B* 135 250
> Sub ditto* 135 385
> Sub ditto* 135 520

> Here and below, * indicates elephant-proofed. [I did consider
> elephant proofing only part of a LC unit, which I'm pretty sure is
> legal, but playing it out was too awkward.]

The lone CinC is, I think, correct; he can accompany elephant-prooof
LC to good effect without having to get involved in actual fighting,
or weaken an elephant unit.

The Subgenerals I am also happy with. They didn't miss being regular
(and are a lot more expensive that way, both themselves and because
their rear ranks are then not part of the minimum-7 elements of
Clinanarii); the rear rank never needed shields; they were much, much
more effective as SHC than as EHC.

> 4E Irr B HC L,B 121 641

This unit was almost completely useless - it did not fit into the
front line, it was not needed as a reserve. However, I think that
that's partly my fault - it would likely have been well--used as s
lightly more concentrated missile fire along with some of the LC, if
targetted correctly. And it's compulsoory, so I need to find a use
for it . Definitely not paying to get shields or extra-heavy
armour, though. The one time I did need it as a follow--up to the SHC
charge, it worked well, and again did not miss shields (because it
should be routing whatever disordered foot it hits at first contact).

> 3 Irr B El: 2 with 4 crew and 1 with 2 crew 175 816
> 3 El ditto 175 991

These were OK, but see below.

> 6E Reg D LC B* 82 1073
> 6E Reg D LC B 70 1143
> 4E Reg D LC B 50 1193
> 2E Reg D LC B 30 1223
> 2E Reg D LC B, 1E w/ JLS 34 1257
> 2E Reg D LC B, 1E w/ JLS, Sh 38 1295

The massed regular LC was good. There's no option to make it other
than D class, which is too bad. The biggest mistake I made was not
making more of it elephant-proof; having only one elephant-proof unit
was a problem in several games, especially when trying to combine
bowfire with elephant disorder or facing enemy elephants (Derek!). I
had expected to be fighting more with the El and SHC combined, and
that's true against knights but not always - so I need the increased
flexibility. The JLS or JLS, Sh for the small LC units was not really
needed often, but is not that pricy. In the Theme, I gave an element
of JLS to one of the bigger LC units which turned out to be helpful in
destroying a camp! So, I'd elephant-proof two of the big units and
probably one 4-man unit. Call it 16 extra points.

> 8E Reg MI (7D, 1C): 4 LTS, JLS, Sh / 4 B 110 1405

This unit worked fine; although not doing very much in most games it
earned its pay in routing a Burmese elephant unit, the job for which
it was designed. I would consider taking more close foot at the
expense of LC, but would likely not end up doing so; it's just too
slow for general use when the rest of the army is so quick. The one
element of C class is so cheap as to be sensible, but not actually
that critical - anything I want this unit to charge is likely charging
it anyway. I have the minimum compulsory of this foot. I could make
it IrrC, but it would cost more and it's very rarely going to want to
go impetuous; I also like the ability to expand 4-wide easily if desired.

> 10E Irr D LI B, 5E w/ Sh 55 1460

This was, I think, my biggest mistake. In the Theme, I ran this as
12E with one C class element, and that was *much* better. For 2
points, being able to be prompted to charge was a dumb thing not to
do. At least I gave them shields, which helped several times - this
unit was always at the front of the action. Fortunately, it also
disodered a lot of opponents, giving 'free' charge options. I would
consider taking more than one of these units, perhaps. Michael, are
you listening? At least 2 extra points, almost certainly 8 (to
make 12E), and maybe 60 or so.

> 6E Irr LI JLS, Sh (7D, 1C) 51 1511
> 6E Reg D LI S, Sh 46 1557
> 2E Reg D LI JLS, Sh 22 1579
> 2E Reg D LI JLS, Sh 22 1601

The Irr JLS, Sh unit worked fine, although I did not see as many
opposing LI as expected (which is what it was designed to deal with,
in tandem with a 2E unit of LC).

The Reg D S, Sh unit was a good buy. In a couple of cases, most
notably in front of Scott McD's longbowmen and Kelly's elephants, it
fulfilled the designed role of absorbing enemy missile fire, and being
regular allowed for it to get fire on desired enemies. No need to be
bigger.

The small regular JLS, Sh units were *great*. I want more of these,
and maybe one or two 4E units. They were effective in woods,
essentially winning the battle for me against the Burmese. Assume I
take a 4E unit (34 points). Calling Michael again.. OK, so that is 34
+ 8 + 16 = 58 points, minimum, to find somewhere. Where?

Well, surprisingly perhaps, the first thing that comes to mind is to
lose an elephant. That's 42 points, and having a 2-el and 3-el seems
maybe still enough (although I'll regret it against massed knights).
I might un-elephant-proof one subgeneral, assuming that one of them
will not be near at least my elephants. That's 6 points. I could
reduce my Irr LI JLS, Sh unit to be 4E, perhaps, which would save 8
points... I'll need to think on this. Suggestions welcome...

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/1/2004 17:45:47 Central Daylight Time,
greg.regets@... writes:

Can you legally mix Sub Generals bought as SHC with the Asarvan EHC?>>
From the Sassanid errata on the FHE website:

"Page 54, Notes: Add new sentence at the end: "An SHC general's element may
be in a mixed unit with EHC."

Ewan was exceedingly careful in the creation of his list, to include close
attention to relevant errata.

Jon






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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/1/2004 19:50:58 Central Daylight Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

I would actually be in favour of having the lists for tournaments posted
at start of tourney. Would avoid *any* possibility of errors.



I second this, for what it is worth.

Jon


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

[Greg Regets]

Good Afternoon Ewan ...

To preface, a) I'm not really 100% sure on this point, and b) from
looking at tournament lists on this board and from the lists played
by people from other areas that have come down here to play, it
doesn't seem as if most other areas are as strict on lists as we are
here in Texas, but ...

Can you legally mix Sub Generals bought as SHC with the Asarvan EHC?

Since they are not listed as bodyguard, they would have to use the
exception that allows general's elements to mix with troops of the
same training and order. It would seem like you would need to buy
these generals as EHC in order to mix with the Asarvan EHC.

That said, the preface comments might apply. I might be wrong, and
this may be part of some acceptable fudge factor that we don't really
know about down here.

Thanks ... g


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:
> In the absence of other lists to critique, here's what was wrong
with
> mine . I fixed most of the problems for the Theme, with both
extra
> time and the benefit of two NICT games to help.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> > CinC alone on his elephant, Irr B, with PA 115
115
> > Irr B Subgeneral as SHC L,B,Sh + 1E IrrB EHC L,B* 135 250
> > Sub ditto* 135 385
> > Sub ditto* 135 520
>
> > Here and below, * indicates elephant-proofed. [I did consider
> > elephant proofing only part of a LC unit, which I'm pretty sure
is
> > legal, but playing it out was too awkward.]
>
> The lone CinC is, I think, correct; he can accompany elephant-
prooof
> LC to good effect without having to get involved in actual
fighting,
> or weaken an elephant unit.
>
> The Subgenerals I am also happy with. They didn't miss being
regular
> (and are a lot more expensive that way, both themselves and because
> their rear ranks are then not part of the minimum-7 elements of
> Clinanarii); the rear rank never needed shields; they were much,
much
> more effective as SHC than as EHC.
>
> > 4E Irr B HC L,B 121
641
>
> This unit was almost completely useless - it did not fit into the
> front line, it was not needed as a reserve. However, I think that
> that's partly my fault - it would likely have been well--used as s
> lightly more concentrated missile fire along with some of the LC,
if
> targetted correctly. And it's compulsoory, so I need to find a use
> for it . Definitely not paying to get shields or extra-heavy
> armour, though. The one time I did need it as a follow--up to the
SHC
> charge, it worked well, and again did not miss shields (because it
> should be routing whatever disordered foot it hits at first
contact).
>
> > 3 Irr B El: 2 with 4 crew and 1 with 2 crew 175
816
> > 3 El ditto 175 991
>
> These were OK, but see below.
>
> > 6E Reg D LC B* 82
1073
> > 6E Reg D LC B 70
1143
> > 4E Reg D LC B 50
1193
> > 2E Reg D LC B 30
1223
> > 2E Reg D LC B, 1E w/ JLS 34 1257
> > 2E Reg D LC B, 1E w/ JLS, Sh 38
1295
>
> The massed regular LC was good. There's no option to make it other
> than D class, which is too bad. The biggest mistake I made was not
> making more of it elephant-proof; having only one elephant-proof
unit
> was a problem in several games, especially when trying to combine
> bowfire with elephant disorder or facing enemy elephants (Derek!).
I
> had expected to be fighting more with the El and SHC combined, and
> that's true against knights but not always - so I need the
increased
> flexibility. The JLS or JLS, Sh for the small LC units was not
really
> needed often, but is not that pricy. In the Theme, I gave an
element
> of JLS to one of the bigger LC units which turned out to be helpful
in
> destroying a camp! So, I'd elephant-proof two of the big units and
> probably one 4-man unit. Call it 16 extra points.
>
> > 8E Reg MI (7D, 1C): 4 LTS, JLS, Sh / 4 B 110 1405
>
> This unit worked fine; although not doing very much in most games
it
> earned its pay in routing a Burmese elephant unit, the job for
which
> it was designed. I would consider taking more close foot at the
> expense of LC, but would likely not end up doing so; it's just too
> slow for general use when the rest of the army is so quick. The
one
> element of C class is so cheap as to be sensible, but not actually
> that critical - anything I want this unit to charge is likely
charging
> it anyway. I have the minimum compulsory of this foot. I could
make
> it IrrC, but it would cost more and it's very rarely going to want
to
> go impetuous; I also like the ability to expand 4-wide easily if
desired.
>
> > 10E Irr D LI B, 5E w/ Sh 55 1460
>
> This was, I think, my biggest mistake. In the Theme, I ran this as
> 12E with one C class element, and that was *much* better. For 2
> points, being able to be prompted to charge was a dumb thing not to
> do. At least I gave them shields, which helped several times -
this
> unit was always at the front of the action. Fortunately, it also
> disodered a lot of opponents, giving 'free' charge options. I
would
> consider taking more than one of these units, perhaps. Michael,
are
> you listening? At least 2 extra points, almost certainly 8 (to
> make 12E), and maybe 60 or so.
>
> > 6E Irr LI JLS, Sh (7D, 1C) 51 1511
> > 6E Reg D LI S, Sh 46 1557
> > 2E Reg D LI JLS, Sh 22
1579
> > 2E Reg D LI JLS, Sh 22
1601
>
> The Irr JLS, Sh unit worked fine, although I did not see as many
> opposing LI as expected (which is what it was designed to deal
with,
> in tandem with a 2E unit of LC).
>
> The Reg D S, Sh unit was a good buy. In a couple of cases, most
> notably in front of Scott McD's longbowmen and Kelly's elephants,
it
> fulfilled the designed role of absorbing enemy missile fire, and
being
> regular allowed for it to get fire on desired enemies. No need to
be
> bigger.
>
> The small regular JLS, Sh units were *great*. I want more of
these,
> and maybe one or two 4E units. They were effective in woods,
> essentially winning the battle for me against the Burmese. Assume
I
> take a 4E unit (34 points). Calling Michael again.. OK, so that is
34
> + 8 + 16 = 58 points, minimum, to find somewhere. Where?
>
> Well, surprisingly perhaps, the first thing that comes to mind is
to
> lose an elephant. That's 42 points, and having a 2-el and 3-el
seems
> maybe still enough (although I'll regret it against massed knights).
> I might un-elephant-proof one subgeneral, assuming that one of
them
> will not be near at least my elephants. That's 6 points. I could
> reduce my Irr LI JLS, Sh unit to be 4E, perhaps, which would save 8
> points... I'll need to think on this. Suggestions welcome...

[Greg Regets]

Very cool ... I figured it was something like that ... :-)

Sadly, I do a pretty poor job of updating lists I'm not playing.

Thanks Jon!




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 8/1/2004 17:45:47 Central Daylight Time,
> greg.regets@g... writes:
>
> Can you legally mix Sub Generals bought as SHC with the Asarvan
EHC?>>
> From the Sassanid errata on the FHE website:
>
> "Page 54, Notes: Add new sentence at the end: "An SHC general's
element may
> be in a mixed unit with EHC."
>
> Ewan was exceedingly careful in the creation of his list, to
include close
> attention to relevant errata.
>
> Jon
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Ewan McNay]

On Sun, 1 Aug 2004, Greg Regets wrote:
> To preface, a) I'm not really 100% sure on this point, and b) from
> looking at tournament lists on this board and from the lists played
> by people from other areas that have come down here to play, it
> doesn't seem as if most other areas are as strict on lists as we are
> here in Texas, but ...

I suspect for the NICT, we're pretty damn strict .

> Can you legally mix Sub Generals bought as SHC with the Asarvan EHC?
>
> Since they are not listed as bodyguard, they would have to use the
> exception that allows general's elements to mix with troops of the
> same training and order. It would seem like you would need to buy
> these generals as EHC in order to mix with the Asarvan EHC.

Check the errata: theree's a specific clause for many of the Imperial SHC
armies allowing generals on SHC to have a rear rank of EHC. [Before I
spent the money on an army, I sure checked every point in great detail ]

I would actually be in favour of having the lists for tournaments posted
at start of tourney. Would avoid *any* possibility of errors.

E

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I disagree. I believe it is enough for the Tournament umpire to have each
person's list as Scott did. The main reason is that I like having the luxury of
my opponent not knowing if there are hidden troops in those nasty rough areas.
If my opponent knows my list ahead of time or has a copy, he will know for sure
what units aren't present on the table. That would kind of not be too good
especially for an army like the Burmese whose support troops are among the worst
in the game.

kelly wilkinson

JonCleaves@... wrote:

In a message dated 8/1/2004 19:50:58 Central Daylight Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

I would actually be in favour of having the lists for tournaments posted
at start of tourney. Would avoid *any* possibility of errors.



I second this, for what it is worth.

Jon


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


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

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

[Ewan McNay]

Good point. Might be better to require exchange of lists at the end of
each game. That should suffice.

On Sun, 1 Aug 2004, kelly wilkinson wrote:

> I disagree. I believe it is enough for the Tournament umpire to have each
person's list as Scott did. The main reason is that I like having the luxury of
my opponent not knowing if there are hidden troops in those nasty rough areas.
If my opponent knows my list ahead of time or has a copy, he will know for sure
what units aren't present on the table. That would kind of not be too good
especially for an army like the Burmese whose support troops are among the worst
in the game.
>
> kelly wilkinson
>
> JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 8/1/2004 19:50:58 Central Daylight Time,
> ewan.mcnay@... writes:
>
> I would actually be in favour of having the lists for tournaments posted
> at start of tourney. Would avoid *any* possibility of errors.
>
>
>
> I second this, for what it is worth.
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I would be for that. :)

kelly

ewan.mcnay@... wrote:
Good point. Might be better to require exchange of lists at the end of
each game. That should suffice.

On Sun, 1 Aug 2004, kelly wilkinson wrote:

> I disagree. I believe it is enough for the Tournament umpire to have each
person's list as Scott did. The main reason is that I like having the luxury of
my opponent not knowing if there are hidden troops in those nasty rough areas.
If my opponent knows my list ahead of time or has a copy, he will know for sure
what units aren't present on the table. That would kind of not be too good
especially for an army like the Burmese whose support troops are among the worst
in the game.
>
> kelly wilkinson
>
> JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 8/1/2004 19:50:58 Central Daylight Time,
> ewan.mcnay@... writes:
>
> I would actually be in favour of having the lists for tournaments posted
> at start of tourney. Would avoid *any* possibility of errors.
>
>
>
> I second this, for what it is worth.
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!

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