Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ewan McNay]

> From: <spocksleftball@...>
> Subject: Re: Samurai
>
> Using the NASAMW list, I've created a 1200pt Samuari (m) list:
>
> CNC +2 IrgB HC B/2HCW
> 3x Sub +5 Irg A/B B/2HCW
> 2x 12 IrgB LHI B/2HCW
> 2x 6 IrgA LHI 2HCT
> 3x 12 IrgC LHI 2HCT
> 2x 12 IrgC LHI B
> 2x 240 ditched palisade

Oh, yuck! :)

OK, it's not *that* bad... no, let's be honest, it is. Are those minima
of Ashigaru?

This army has a frontage of 20 elements, or (in 15mm) 80 cm. That's
somewhat less than 3'; not untenable, but that's with generals in the
front line and so on, and you'll have minimal reserve.

Moreover, of that 20 elements, 6 elements are totally useless (the C
2HCT) and the LHI B, A-class 2HCT aren't much better, which only leaves
you a few HC and LHI B/2HCW units - and the HC are going to have to hare
off into the distance unless on wait orders (which you'll likely want
the whole army on). What exactly do you think that you can *beat* with
this and how? Your strategic 'plan' below is woefully lacking in actual
detail against whomever you think might be a sensible opponent.

> This is a smallish army. Theory is to put the palisade with the ashigaru bow
on the opponant's mounted flank next to a brush which contains the other 2HCT
ashigaru. Place the LHI B on attack flank with HC and small IrgA LHI blocks in
support. Use the LHI samurai to absorbe missile attacks then position small 2HCT
IrgA samurai to where they can launch. Same for HC subgeneral units....launch
and clear operations.

If this is in fact the best list that can be generated for the samurai,
I withdraw my enthusiasm .

****

> From: "Frank Gilson" <franktrevorgilson@...>
> Subject: Generals...
> I tend to run either a knight army, or an elephant army. I put my generals
> into two element units. This actually SAVES points in the case of elephants
> (which is pretty abusive)..that is, let us say I have Irr B El with 3 crew,
> that's 48 points. A unit of two is 121 points. If it instead has a
> sub-general then it costs only 115 points. You also tend to get more
> elephants than the army list normally allows by sticking them on elephants.

There seems to be general agreement here. One of the things I would do
to the Seleucids, for example, to make them more useful is to mount
the generals on elephants.

> So, why two element units?
>
> Well, these are knights, or elephants...and as such are relatively expensive
> and of high combat potential. Since I still get a staff move (more on that
> later) with a two element unit containing a general, I might as well run
> them that way and intend to get them into combat.

With knights, I think that this is a no-brainer. Elephants I find a
little more difficult to decide: yes, two elephants is often enough to
kill your opponent in hth (certainly if they're knights . But I find
El to be a little more vulnerable to bowfire (point 1) and I like the
ability to expand by 2 elements, which one never wishes to do with K
(point 2). The two combine to make me think that 3 El is often a more
generally-useful size. Yes, one loses the staff move, but (and maybe I
am missing something key, not unlikely) I have never been a big user of
staff moves. The expansion is the key point, really; also, being 3
models deep allows one to turn 90 degrees from column and end up 3-wide,
which is occasionally useful. But anything that helps me get more
elephants actually into contact is a good thing. And on a fourth hand
or so, 2-El units are plenty for some roles (like supporting bowfire on
a flank by making opposing mounted uneasy and/or disordered), and
significantly cheaper. I tend to take a mix of the two sizes, if
available.

> Also, especially if you have a CinC in a regular knight unit, these guys
> represent a LOT of points...and if they never attack, you often find you
> just don't have enough "points fighting". Make sure you take appropriate
> advantage of all the prompt points available. If you never prompt anything,
> then why are you spending points on generals? well...we have to...but since
> we do, they should be used to their best advantage.

Right. If you running something like Teuts, or a Burmese Ally from
Hutchby & Clark, that general is over 200 points - or one sixth of a
mini army, one eighth of a 1600-pt force. [Which is actually a big
reason why I don't run teuts - the generals are just too expensive!]

> You may find you have generals that are of troop types or have bodyguards
> you won't really be using as your attacking sorts. In that case, you
> probably want single staff elements, and to get very familiar with the staff
> element joining other body rules.

In particular, generals tend to be mounted even in armies that don't
have decent mounted troops. In such a case, may as well take them as
single elements.

It is too bad that they cannot then dismount, because they would often
be dismounted close foot - see reasons to rally in another thread.

E