Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/9/2004 13:39:20 Central Standard Time,
mwolverton@... writes:
Hey all! Thanks once again for the tips and opinions on the First
Crusader list. I'm well on the way to finishing the extra stands I
need to play this monster in "Warrior" as well as DMx. I only
regret that my post prompted the current debate/argument.>>

Martin, no worries about that. Any 'argument' you hear is just 'email voice'
- friendly sparring is all and a very healthy debate all told. Thanks!


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

Hey all! Thanks once again for the tips and opinions on the First
Crusader list. I'm well on the way to finishing the extra stands I
need to play this monster in "Warrior" as well as DMx. I only
regret that my post prompted the current debate/argument.

Anyway, the woman I date has been getting into miniature gaming in a
pretty big way. She currently beats me three out of four times in
DBA and is learning several other systems as well. Now she is
making noises about learning a larger scale ancient game. DBM
and "Fast Warrior" seem to be good options, with full
scale "Warrior" the goal.

To this end I have decided to paint up a forgiving infantry army for
her. After throwing around several options, she latched upon the
idea of vikings as they apeal to her historically. given their very
straight forward nature they seem like a good beginer army. Does
anyone disagree?

The first of my questions is almost entirely opinion-based. I want
to build the army from "budget" figures to minmise the expense in
case she hates the game. My first choice would probably
be "Irregular" of course. But then there is always "Tin Soldier"
Both have the advantage of being readilly availible through Jacob
with Irregular being the cheaper of the two. But then again, i have
always liked the "beefy" look of Tin Soldier 15mms. So what do you
all think? Which company's Viking line is the better choice?

Finally I have not bothered to pick up "Dark Age Warrior" yet, but
have it on order now. Is there still an option under Warrior to run
Vikes as close order troops instead of loose order as was the case
in the NASAMW list? If so, in your opinion, is this a better option
than the more traditional loose order? It certainly is safer
against mounted troops and looks impressive. However close order
troops loose the speed and don't hit quite as hard on the charge.

Thoughts?

Martin

[scott holder]

Finally I have not bothered to pick up "Dark Age Warrior" yet, but
have it on order now. Is there still an option under Warrior to run
Vikes as close order troops instead of loose order as was the case
in the NASAMW list?

>You betcha. Wanna run a Viking army as almost entirely close order foot, you
can. The list notes explain why that is. No all/none stuff either, you can mix
and match.

If so, in your opinion, is this a better option than the more traditional loose
order?

>See all the recent posts about the efficacy of HI/MI JLS armed foot:)
Certainly the Irr B and C foot that can be double armed (JLS, B) plus given a HI
option are a viable troop type in any Open environment. Otherwise, read the
other posts for both views on these troops. I mean if you go with an army that
has a core of close order HI/MI javelinmen, Normans are probably "better".

It certainly is safer against mounted troops and looks impressive. However
close order
troops loose the speed and don't hit quite as hard on the charge.

>OTOH, if you're facing elephants, having that loose order option makes your
work a little bit easier, particularly if you go with a heavy Irr B option in
the list.

>This list is still a bitch to run at 1600 points. That being said, the FW
version is good across the board. She'll probably have much more fun (and
rewards) running it mostly as a FW list. Also, if you go to Derekcon and play
in a 1111 pt tourney, it would probably do okay there as well:) I just
think other armies provide more combined arms options the higher in point values
you go and that's where the "competitive curve" overtakes the Vikings.

>But, everybody should have a Dark Age trash army and Vikings are always a good
place to start. Plus, you can use the troops in them for almost any other Dark
Age trash army.

scott

[Larry Essick]

> Finally I have not bothered to pick up "Dark Age Warrior" yet, but
> have it on order now. Is there still an option under Warrior to run
> Vikes as close order troops instead of loose order as was the case
> in the NASAMW list? If so, in your opinion, is this a better option
> than the more traditional loose order? It certainly is safer
> against mounted troops and looks impressive. However close order
> troops loose the speed and don't hit quite as hard on the charge.

Bob Plyler ran this army back in the days of 7th edition. It is much
better as a loose formation army than a close formation one. The
secret is the under-apprciated effect of JLS as a missile weapon. Run
in large units in or beyond terrain, the Warriors are very tough.
Meanwhile the Hirdsmen and Berserks are also very good troops.

Mounted require skill to avoid the march, approach, charge tactics of
most Irr foot and, as Irr B and Irr A, the Hirdsmen and Berserks don't
worry much about knights if armed with 2HCW.

I have seen Berserks run in large groups as all 2SA with Sh for front
rank. It may sound like a bad idea, but they usually run through
their opponent and die to a man before any waiver tests are produced
by their passing. Opens up the way for the Hirdsmen and Warriors to
exploit the hole they have made (or the target they have softened up).

Gall Gael and Irish provide extra punch, particularly against
elephants.

The FHE list provides a lot of bow power as well, probably too much,
as JLS, B, Sh (all of which can be LHI).

Larry

[Larry Essick]

Scott,

Noticed your reply on this topic.

The FHE lists allow mixing of Warrior axe and spear. Should I assume
that Warrior archers cannot be in mixed units? Same for Hirdsmen
archers?

Larry

[scott holder]

I'd have to look at the literal text of the notes in order to be able to answer
that.

-----Original Message-----
From: larryessick@... [mailto:larryessick@...]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 2:03 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Vikings on Budget....


Scott,

Noticed your reply on this topic.

The FHE lists allow mixing of Warrior axe and spear. Should I assume
that Warrior archers cannot be in mixed units? Same for Hirdsmen
archers?

Larry





Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Martin" <mwolverton@h...> wrote:
> To this end I have decided to paint up a forgiving infantry army
for
> her. After throwing around several options, she latched upon the
> idea of vikings as they apeal to her historically. > Martin

Never thought of Vikings as a beginner army....

Running them as close order honestly means you will have to have a
mounted ally. Otherwise they will never build any momentum and she
will fight from her table edge always.

I have seen them run as loose order very effectively, but I wouldn't
recommend it for a novice. The army is one of those high power
hitting machines with a glass jaw, so as long as you are doing the
hitting it all works well....but one hard mounted slap to the flank
and half the army shakes.

Also all irregular foot armies have very limited staying power once
in combat since they take double CPF from HTH. It is not unusual to
see a 4E LMI unit picked up after two bounds of combat. They just
don't hang in there long if not winning outright.

For a foot army that has forgiveness you might want to consider
something like Alex Imperial, Selucid, or even dare I say Late
Imperial Romans. She would certainly benefit from regulars being
able to extract themselves from a bad situation, and all of these
armies have just enough mounted and other options to allow growth
with learning. Selucid is less easy to run because of odd minimums,
and LIR most easy because of troop consistency. I would avoid Alex
Imp if she has a penchant for mimmicing Ney at Waterloo; the
shieldless cav will not survive head on encounters most of the time.
The two greeks get elephant options, lots o'trash foot skirmishers
and other neat-o things like artillery, etc. the Romans are simply
tough tough tough, and they also get neat-o options.

Wanax

[Larry Essick]

> Never thought of Vikings as a beginner army....

Which is why you should avoid all of Boyd's advice. :-P

First rule of wargaming is play an army you are interested in. If she
likes Vikings then let her play Vikings.

BTW, not only are Vikings better as loose order (as has been pointed
out), but as LMI & LHI there are fewer of them to buy at only 3 per
element.

Large units of Warriors as LMI, JLS, Sh, medium sized units of
Hirdsmen and Warriors as LHI, JLS,B,Sh, small units of Hirdsmen as
LHI,2HCW,Sh. Berserks are useful in medium to large units as 2SA with
front rank Sh or in small units as 2HCW with front rank Sh. Gall Gael
are most useful in small units used only when facing elephants. Irish
are best used as allies so that you get the Irr B nobles.

Larry

As the opposed, I concur.
Wanax

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 3/9/2004 13:39:20 Central Standard Time,
> mwolverton@h... writes:
> Hey all! Thanks once again for the tips and opinions on the First
> Crusader list. I'm well on the way to finishing the extra stands I
> need to play this monster in "Warrior" as well as DMx. I only
> regret that my post prompted the current debate/argument.>>
>
> Martin, no worries about that. Any 'argument' you hear is
just 'email voice'
> - friendly sparring is all and a very healthy debate all told.
Thanks!
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Mark Stone]

Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:

> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 19:33:20 -0000
> From: "Martin" <mwolverton@...>
> Subject: Vikings on Budget....
>
> Anyway, the woman I date has been getting into miniature gaming in a
> pretty big way. She currently beats me three out of four times in
> DBA and is learning several other systems as well. Now she is
> making noises about learning a larger scale ancient game. DBM
> and "Fast Warrior" seem to be good options, with full
> scale "Warrior" the goal.
>
> To this end I have decided to paint up a forgiving infantry army for
> her. After throwing around several options, she latched upon the
> idea of vikings as they apeal to her historically.

Noooooo.... Not the Vikings!

Honestly, I wish this list were better, but it just isn't viable. And it is so
one dimensional, that a beginner won't learn enough from it.

For Fast Warrior, sure, Vikings is fine, and it sounds like that would be a good
venue for her to try out next. But on anything from 1200 points on up, Vikings
is just about the worst list you can take on which the Vikings show up.

My recommendation would be Russ with a Varangian CinC. This gives you a large
Viking contingent, but also enables you to stiffen the line with the very
durable Russ spearmen. Further, and most importantly, you can take a Bulgar ally
general to get some light cav and a couple of units of HC L,B,Sh. This gives you
the balanced array of skirmishers that the Viking list crucially lacks, and
gives you some cav that can run things down that are trying to evade from your
axemen. Remember, one of the main purposes of cavalry is to deter your opponent
from going into skirmish so that he must stand and face your infantry.

Russ is a pretty easy list to play, but it is also flexible enough and diverse
enough that as a player gets more familiar with Warrior, a real sense of the
value of combined arms tactics will emerge. And it's just a better list which
will win more games; important in holding a beginner's interest.


-Mark Stone