Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/1/2004 16:34:37 Central Standard Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:
Well I don't get it. Why? I know Frank & Mark and the "gurus" are
saying this but for the life of me I thought is was so ridiculous I
obviously assumed they were simply not aware of how the list rule
worked.

So can someone please provide some illumination in the form of a
concrete example (i.e. numbers I can crunch on) where this is
demonstrated to be the way to go? Because I just plain do not see it
that way at all. Not even just a matter of style, it makes no sense
to to me whatsoever.

Obviously I have a lot to learn.
John, I'd like to help, but I need to know the question - is the question why
would someone forego JLS with a varangian? Or is the question how does the
list rule work?

Jon


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

[Frank Gilson]

I think we all agree that the Nikephoran Byzantine list is pretty
complicated. You can run it with close order foot, or without, with
Varangians, or without, as a mounted skirmish army or as a more concentrated
foot missile army...or some combination.

Really finding out how to use it is something I would suggest a player of
the list mock up with other troops in several experimental battles. Writing
down the list on paper and pondering over it is useful to see how it points
out and then think up battle plans...but any of us is likely to be somewhat
wrong if we don't then extend to actual play experience.

Let me look at Wanax' version, comment, and then mention some assumptions
and give a couple of versions of the list.

Wanax
CNC with 2HC L/B/sh
4x2E RgB EHC/HC L/sh
4x2E RgC LC B/sh B
1x2E RgB SHC L/sh
2x6E IrgB LHI 2HCW/J/sh
3x4E RgD LMI B/sh B
2x6E RgD LI S/sh B
1x9E RgD MI LTS/sh B
1x4E IrgB HC L/B/sh
2x2E IrgA HC L/sh

Various little questions first. Do the Reg LC need those shields? That is,
do you ever anticipate frontally charging with them or having to hold up
shields to receive missile fire? I would rather use them in a flanking role,
or in an emergency to draw off some shooting from my cavalry.

Next, make sure that the rear rank of your varangians don't have
2HCW...that's a waste of points.

Note that only 1/2 of your Kontaratoi can be Reg D in the Early period,
which you appear to be in given that you have the SHC. Also, if I were to
use the Kontaratoi I would want them to have Dart. That way, I can really
threaten enemy missile foot, and make enemy mounted very unlikely to charge
me.

Beyond that you have a mix of reg and irreg mounted which is good, as you
have maneuverability plus impetuousity...

Now for a couple of list versions from my end.

Assumptions for list 1:
I expect to be facing shock mounted armies accompanied by solid supporting
foot, either of the missile variety or spear, or barbarian. I want to retain
an ability to oppose elephants with this list also, but not use the
Varangians given their vulnerability to knights. I'll oppose shock mounted
with skirmishers and missile fire from a variety of sources. I want to win
the "war of light troops" every time.

CinC w/PA Reg A/B EHC L,B,Sh (2E)
Sub w/P Reg A/B EHC L,B,Sh (2E)
Sub identical
2E Reg A/B EHC L,B,Sh
3 units of 2E Reg A/B HC L,B,Sh
6E Reg C LC B
2 units of 2E Reg B LC B
12E Irr C LC JLS,B,Sh/JLS,B (I'll explain this freakish unit in a moment)
2 units of 6E Reg D(1 element C) LMI B,Sh/B
2 units of 2E Reg C LI JLS,Sh
2 units of 6E Reg C LI B,Sh/B
2E Reg C LI S,Sh/B
4 models Reg C Light Bolt Shooters crew of 2
19 units in 3 commands with 89 scouting points

This version is designed to have an extremely flexible force of light troops
that should defeat almost any enemy light force. It is a highly regular army
with great morale. The lancers are designed to do some skirmishing, but pass
whatever counters and wavers they may need to take (if knights catch one of
your units, as an example). Yes I have some EHC...when they could be
HC...the generals plus one unit. Those are my reserve and do not initially
oppose the enemy. The bolt shooters are an experiment in putting them on a
hilltop in order to have a decent avenue of overhead fire across intervening
troops. The gigantic LC unit (max size) is operated in three rows of 4
elements, can skirmish and fire 16 figures that way, but really it is to be
prompted to dismount as 6E Irr D MI JLS,B,Sh/JLS,B for additional employment
against Elephants...it also absolutely runs over and kills any unsupported
LI or standard sized LC the enemy may have. This army will also outscout
perhaps 1 in 3 of your opponents, more if you get a little lucky (especially
if players shift towards 100YWE type armies).

Next a list out more due to Mark Stone and his thinking than mine, so I
credit him here. It uses all the Varangians. The intent is to hit with them,
and then followup with lancers. It retains a very solid bunch of light
troops...which should be a feature of any version of this list.

CinC w/PA Reg A EHC/Reg B HC L,B,Sh
three Subs similar
2E Reg A/B SHC L,Sh
3 units of 4E Irr B LHI 2HCW,JLS,Sh/JLS,Sh
2 units of 6E Reg C LMI B,Sh/B
2 units of 6E Reg D LI B,Sh/B
2 units of 2E Reg C LI B,Sh/B
2E Reg D LI B
6E Irr C LC JLS,B,Sh/B
6E Reg C LC B
2E Reg B LC B,Sh/B
18 units in 4 commands with 59 scouting points

You rely on the Varangians here, to oppose mainly enemy foot and elephants,
or to exploit terrain along with the archers against a knight army. You
should still win the light troop war, although along less frontage. You want
to disorder/tire/pin enemy with the Varangians and bowmen, then charge in
with your lancers.

Note no use of Kontaratoi. That's a matter of personal choice...as they get
expensive when fully loaded out with missiles, etc., and still move slowly
and don't fire out to 240p with everybody. However, for a different playing
style a unit or two of them would serve as anchors, especially combined with
terrain, for cavalry to operate around behind. I choose to permit that using
clouds of quality light troops instead (cheaper, fill more frontage), but my
lights cannot get into and win anywhere near the combats that Kontaratoi
could.

All of these issues require actual gameplay, and not just two or three
matches, to really answer.

Frank Gilson

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

Thanks Frank, some food for though. I'll comment below:

> Let me look at Wanax' version, comment, and then mention some
assumptions
> and give a couple of versions of the list.
>
> Wanax
> CNC with 2HC L/B/sh
> 4x2E RgB EHC/HC L/sh
> 4x2E RgC LC B/sh B
> 1x2E RgB SHC L/sh
> 2x6E IrgB LHI 2HCW/J/sh
> 3x4E RgD LMI B/sh B
> 2x6E RgD LI S/sh B
> 1x9E RgD MI LTS/sh B
> 1x4E IrgB HC L/B/sh
> 2x2E IrgA HC L/sh
>
> Various little questions first. Do the Reg LC need those shields?

In my playng style Frank, these guys need shields :)

That is,
> do you ever anticipate frontally charging with them or having to
hold up
> shields to receive missile fire? I would rather use them in a
flanking role,
> or in an emergency to draw off some shooting from my cavalry.

While this is there main use, I still use them in HTH at some point.
Always happens, even if a sacrifice to uncover a flank, and I've paid
too many times for not having shields. It is 4 points, so I feel
worth the cost.

>
> Next, make sure that the rear rank of your varangians don't have
> 2HCW...that's a waste of points.

Yes I go back and forth on this one. I love the hitting on the first
charge with the 2nd rank 2HCW, as they hit like lance armed cav. I
run Danish Crusaders now with the second rank as JLS/sh, and frankly
these guys are just going to kill in 2 bounds or explode. I expect
the same for the Varangians, so my current theory is hit hard first,
then keep 121p away :)

>
> Note that only 1/2 of your Kontaratoi can be Reg D in the Early
period,
> which you appear to be in given that you have the SHC. Also, if I
were to
> use the Kontaratoi I would want them to have Dart. That way, I can
really
> threaten enemy missile foot, and make enemy mounted very unlikely
to charge
> me.

You are right, so another X number of points these bozos are soaking
off. !@#$%&* they just don't fit no matter how nice I paint them
up. Anyway, I am firmly opposed to giving D to them. In fact, I'd
rather upgrade the minimum to RgB and give them pikes separating out
the bowmen to hide somewhere. My main reason for buying them is to
stop routing LI to regain points :)

>
> Beyond that you have a mix of reg and irreg mounted which is good,
as you
> have maneuverability plus impetuousity...

Exactly. I want to win on the flanks, and use the Varangians/SHC
combo on some prepared ground in the middle for the big win. Step
one, kill off the enemy LC and HC with my mounted. Or, skirmish LC
at his kniggits and shoot them to peices as they chase me away only
to rally forward and get hit by my EHC or HC at a standstill. Step
B, shoot up his elephants or barbarian trash or shooters, then scream
in like the insane player I am and roll up 4 at the critical moment :)

I am trying to build a single flexible list that will cope with
elephants, shooters, and kniggits. I'm almost finished painting
1200, so as I test it I'll report back my findings.

> Now for a couple of list versions from my end.
>
> Assumptions for list 1:
> I expect to be facing shock mounted armies accompanied by solid
supporting
> foot, either of the missile variety or spear, or barbarian. I want
to retain
> an ability to oppose elephants with this list also, but not use the
> Varangians given their vulnerability to knights. I'll oppose shock
mounted
> with skirmishers and missile fire from a variety of sources. I want
to win
> the "war of light troops" every time.
>
> CinC w/PA Reg A/B EHC L,B,Sh (2E)
> Sub w/P Reg A/B EHC L,B,Sh (2E)
> Sub identical
> 2E Reg A/B EHC L,B,Sh
> 3 units of 2E Reg A/B HC L,B,Sh
> 6E Reg C LC B
> 2 units of 2E Reg B LC B
> 12E Irr C LC JLS,B,Sh/JLS,B (I'll explain this freakish unit in a
moment)
> 2 units of 6E Reg D(1 element C) LMI B,Sh/B
> 2 units of 2E Reg C LI JLS,Sh
> 2 units of 6E Reg C LI B,Sh/B
> 2E Reg C LI S,Sh/B
> 4 models Reg C Light Bolt Shooters crew of 2
> 19 units in 3 commands with 89 scouting points

This is similar to the way I used to run it. My problem was always
the lure of actually using your HC and EHC to do some shooting gets
them too close and eventually sucked into a fight or shot disordered,
fail a counter, etc..

I love the giant LC unit. I've been toying with numbers for running
Hun this way just to follow the Edge Gibson theory of mounted
shooting, but the dismounting theory adds some more glee to the
proposition.

boltshooters IMO are a waste given the manuverability of this army.
You will ultimately get in the way of your shot more times than not.
Especially as the way to deal with overhead shooting is to close with
the enemy for HTH, which is what the above might find troubling as
more and more counters fail.

> Next a list out more due to Mark Stone and his thinking than mine,
so I
> credit him here. It uses all the Varangians. The intent is to hit
with them,
> and then followup with lancers. It retains a very solid bunch of
light
> troops...which should be a feature of any version of this list.
>
> CinC w/PA Reg A EHC/Reg B HC L,B,Sh
> three Subs similar
> 2E Reg A/B SHC L,Sh
> 3 units of 4E Irr B LHI 2HCW,JLS,Sh/JLS,Sh
> 2 units of 6E Reg C LMI B,Sh/B
> 2 units of 6E Reg D LI B,Sh/B
> 2 units of 2E Reg C LI B,Sh/B
> 2E Reg D LI B
> 6E Irr C LC JLS,B,Sh/B
> 6E Reg C LC B
> 2E Reg B LC B,Sh/B
> 18 units in 4 commands with 59 scouting points
>
> You rely on the Varangians here, to oppose mainly enemy foot and
elephants,
> or to exploit terrain along with the archers against a knight army.
You
> should still win the light troop war, although along less frontage.
You want
> to disorder/tire/pin enemy with the Varangians and bowmen, then
charge in
> with your lancers.


Not sure you can run the subs with lancers, but then if so you'd have
at least one sub with a "c" class lancer in tow. The main difference
here is the lack of close order, which I'm not opposed to at all.
Otherwise the list is not too far different from mine.

Thanks again Frank.
food for thought.

Wanax

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/1/2004 2:10:38 PM Eastern Standard Time,
spocksleftball@... writes:

> Yes I go back and forth on this one. I love the hitting on the first
> charge with the 2nd rank 2HCW, as they hit like lance armed cav. I
> run Danish Crusaders now with the second rank as JLS/sh, and frankly
> these guys are just going to kill in 2 bounds or explode. I expect
> the same for the Varangians, so my current theory is hit
> hard first,
> then keep 121p away >>

What Frank is saying is that Varangian 2HCW can't count from the second rank if
they are also armed with JLS - which is true.

J

[John Murphy]

There are a few mis-readings of the list that are popping up here in
this discussion. I think folks are going off memeory without
actually looking at the notes and list rules in the book. Let's nail
them down now before they show up in a tourney.

Scott H - you can back me on this if I am correct. Or smack me down
in the worst possible way if I am wrong and speaking out of turn
here.

And do, because if I have been doing it incorrectly all this time I
would like to know. Being the Warrior village idiot I normally
wouldn't bring these points up but nobody else has so I see it as my
obligation to play court jester here.

These comments apply to the Early Nikephorian FHE list.

1. Varangians _only_ get 1.5 ranks 2HCW when the entire unit has
_only_ 2HCW, no JLS. And even then they only get it if (counter-)
charging or pursuing. Sure, if you put JLS in tha back rank they get
the half-rank "other foot" usual for JLS under circumstances which
apply for JLS, with the JLS plus to boot. But not 2HCW.

2. The upgrade from C>B applies across _both_ lancers and archers -
I asked Scott about this way back when - so you _can_ upgrade all
your lancers as long as you leave some C (or D) archers. The 3/4 is
on an element-vs-element basis so for instance 3 HC can be B for 1
LC staying C. You do not have to run the list with any C class
lancers.

3. This one is actually for all lists although it came up in this
particular list discussion. The "up to the cost of the cheapest
element" is up to, not equal to. So has to be actually 1 pt less,
not equal as stated in the example. Now, personally, I will not
count your points and notice (you could run 1800 against me and I
might not ever realize - oops shouldn't say that huh), but be
careful about stating the right way to do this if you are going to
bring it up so as to avoid trouble later with someone who will
count 'em - and actually someone using this go "just a bit over"
shouldn't complain when someone point out they went "just a bit
over" their "just a bit over". IMHO this rule should be scrapped.

Thanks for pointing out my inability to actually read :)

Yes, I couldn't have spent less time looking at the list here at
work, so I will be more careful in future....

Wanax

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "J. Murphy" <jjmurphy@s...>
wrote:
> There are a few mis-readings of the list that are popping up here
in
> this discussion. I think folks are going off memeory without
> actually looking at the notes and list rules in the book. Let's
nail
> them down now before they show up in a tourney.
>
> Scott H - you can back me on this if I am correct. Or smack me down
> in the worst possible way if I am wrong and speaking out of turn
> here.
>
> And do, because if I have been doing it incorrectly all this time I
> would like to know. Being the Warrior village idiot I normally
> wouldn't bring these points up but nobody else has so I see it as
my
> obligation to play court jester here.
>
> These comments apply to the Early Nikephorian FHE list.
>
> 1. Varangians _only_ get 1.5 ranks 2HCW when the entire unit has
> _only_ 2HCW, no JLS. And even then they only get it if (counter-)
> charging or pursuing. Sure, if you put JLS in tha back rank they
get
> the half-rank "other foot" usual for JLS under circumstances which
> apply for JLS, with the JLS plus to boot. But not 2HCW.
>
> 2. The upgrade from C>B applies across _both_ lancers and archers -
> I asked Scott about this way back when - so you _can_ upgrade all
> your lancers as long as you leave some C (or D) archers. The 3/4 is
> on an element-vs-element basis so for instance 3 HC can be B for 1
> LC staying C. You do not have to run the list with any C class
> lancers.
>
> 3. This one is actually for all lists although it came up in this
> particular list discussion. The "up to the cost of the cheapest
> element" is up to, not equal to. So has to be actually 1 pt less,
> not equal as stated in the example. Now, personally, I will not
> count your points and notice (you could run 1800 against me and I
> might not ever realize - oops shouldn't say that huh), but be
> careful about stating the right way to do this if you are going to
> bring it up so as to avoid trouble later with someone who will
> count 'em - and actually someone using this go "just a bit over"
> shouldn't complain when someone point out they went "just a bit
> over" their "just a bit over". IMHO this rule should be scrapped.

Got it. Will recall all second rank axes to the armory.
Wanax

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/1/2004 2:10:38 PM Eastern Standard Time,
spocksleftball@y... writes:
>
> > Yes I go back and forth on this one. I love the hitting on the
first
> > charge with the 2nd rank 2HCW, as they hit like lance armed cav.
I
> > run Danish Crusaders now with the second rank as JLS/sh, and
frankly
> > these guys are just going to kill in 2 bounds or explode. I
expect
> > the same for the Varangians, so my current theory is hit
> > hard first,
> > then keep 121p away >>
>
> What Frank is saying is that Varangian 2HCW can't count from the
second rank if they are also armed with JLS - which is true.
>
> J

[John Murphy]

I am obviously confused here, because I thought the nearly-unanimous
expression here was to give them JLS and we were talking about rank-
and-half and somehow elevating them above "normal" chopper troops in
the same breath.

Would someone please clarify - which parties are recommending which
way to arm these and why?

For myself I had them all-choppers when I started playing this army
until I dropped the Varangians altogether, because I liked them to
get the list rule 1.5 ranks 2HCW charging etc. When you have an army
with no knights you have to have _something_ that let's you feel
that crunch when they slam into someone. And it was cheaper than
adding JLS in order to actually reduce their hitting power. Yes,
second bound (unless pursuing) they shieldless toast. So you had
better win big in the first bound if you are going to send them in.
Even if you add the JLS you are getting the plus for one rank at the
cost of the drop in second rank performance and then they are still
shieldless and single-rank bound two. So really you paying more
points to make them actually worse against anything but LI or El.

On the flip side you would be adding a missile/skirmish capability.
But geez these are the Varangians we are talking about for crying
out loud! How could you make them a missile skirmish must-evade unit
and have any self respect? Better to send them home to Kiev than
treat them like that!

Hey, I noticed I have a choice of about 30 languages to post in on
Yahoo. Maybe I'll try another one next time since reading and
writing English clearly seems to be giving me so much trouble! <g>

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> What Frank is saying is that Varangian 2HCW can't count from the
second rank if they are also armed with JLS - which is true.

[John Murphy]

Well I don't get it. Why? I know Frank & Mark and the "gurus" are
saying this but for the life of me I thought is was so ridiculous I
obviously assumed they were simply not aware of how the list rule
worked.

So can someone please provide some illumination in the form of a
concrete example (i.e. numbers I can crunch on) where this is
demonstrated to be the way to go? Because I just plain do not see it
that way at all. Not even just a matter of style, it makes no sense
to to me whatsoever.

Obviously I have a lot to learn.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Wanax Andron"
<spocksleftball@y...> wrote:
> recall all second rank axes to the armory.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/1/2004 18:08:19 Central Standard Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:
The whole tactic of
thinking two bounds ahead by staggering charges like that is just
something I have not yet caught on to (
I am sorry I didn't mention it sooner...lol

The key is to decide what it takes to break a unit. Then see what in you
army does that. Quite often you will want a certain unit dead and nothing you
have (that isn't busy doing something else) can break it on contact. For
example, do you need that big foot unit disordered so your reg cav can get the
+2
for disordered foot and not bother going impetuous? Then hit it with something
that will do 2x hth casualties and 1 CPF first....etc.


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/1/2004 18:29:12 Central Standard Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:
But it
always amazes me that in a game where there is a scramble to tweak
every troop type just right to get every factor out of them, there
are apparently a number of cases where this is really a pointless
exercise and in fact a detriment for concealing more important
That scramble exists in every 'army builder' game used in a competitive
format.

Can you give me an example, though, of why focusing on a troop type is
pointless and hiding something more important?

J


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

[Mark Stone]

On April 1 J. Murhpy said:

> I am obviously confused here, because I thought the nearly-unanimous
> expression here was to give them JLS and we were talking about rank-
> and-half and somehow elevating them above "normal" chopper troops in
> the same breath.
>
> Would someone please clarify - which parties are recommending which
> way to arm these and why?

Oh, there's only one way to run the Varangians:
The max you can get is 8 stands. Take all 8. Put them in 2 units of 4 stands.
Each unit is:
2 stands Irr B LHI 2HCW,JLS,Sh
2 stands Irr B LHI JLS,Sh
Start them in a 1x4 column, and recognize that in many cases they will enter
battle that way.

Other possible configurations, and the reasons not:

All JLS,Sh. Well, this is pretty obviously not a good choice, but just to be
clear, it drastically diminishes your capabilities against elephants and men
with long pointy sticks.

All 2HCW,Sh. Sure, you get to fight in a rank and a half in certain situations,
but there are few things where you'll be at a better factor than the
2HCW,JLS,Sh/JLS,Sh combination, and those few things are the wrong things to be
fighting anyway. Knights come to mind as an example. I'd rather beat elephants
with a wider margin than lose to knights with a lesser margin. All flavors of
losing to knights are essentially the same.

2HCW,JLS,Sh in the front, 2HCW in the back. This doesn't qualify you for the
list rule. The list rule _doesn't_ say "a second rank armed only with 2HCW
fights half..." It specifically says if only with 2HCW fight in a rank and a
half. Thus if the front rank is armed with something in addition to 2HCW, then
the whole is disqualified from the terms of the list rule.

All 2HCW,JLS,Sh. Not even sure if this is an option, but it isn't a good one.
You don't get the 2HCW in the second rank, only the JLS, and because you have
2HCW in the second rank you lose the JLS+ in that rank after the first bound
(see 9.3, 3rd bullet).

Just to be perfectly clear about the 2HCW,JLS,Sh option vs. the 2HCW,Sh option,
let's look at the two cases I care about, namely Varangians dealing with things
my cav can't handle:

(1) 4 stands (2 wide) of Varangians charging impetuously vs. 8 stands MI P,Sh
(a) All 2HCW: 2HCW = 5 +1 (charging) +2 (impetuous) -2 (facing pike) = 6.
9@6=45. P = 2. 16@2=32. Varangians win even if the pikes roll up 1. Varangians
have no real chance of routing the pikemen.
(b) 2HCW,JLS/JLS: 2HCW = 5 +1 (JLS) +1 (charging) +2 (impetuous) -2 (facing
pike) = 7. Other foot = 3 +1 (JLS) +1 (charging) +2 (impetuous) -2 (facing pike)
= 5. 6@7=36 + 3@5=12 = 48. Actually 3 casualties better than just 2HCW.

(2) 4 stands (2 wide) of Varangians charging impetuously vs. a 3 model elephant
unit of Irr C crew of 1 w/P, 1 w/JLS.
(a) All 2HCW: 2HCW = 3 +2 (impetuous) -1 (facing el pike) = 4. 9@4=27. El = 2 +1
(charging) = 3. crew = 1. crew/JLS = 1 +1 (JLS) = 2. 1@2=2. 10@3=25 + 2@1=3 +
2@2=4 = 32. Gee, on evens the Varangians start out losing. That's not good.
(b) 2HCW,JLS/JLS: 2HCW = 3 +2 (JLS) +2 (impetuous) -1 (facing el pike) = 6.
Other foot = 1 +2 (JLS) +2 (impetuous) -1 (facing el pike) = 4. 6@6=30 + 3@4=9 =
39. Now the Varangians start out winning, and even if the elephants roll up 1
it's just a push. (Note, though, that the Varangians will still take 3CPF on an
up roll by the elephants, becoming disordered foot, which is why you want to
send them in as 1x4 columns, and why you want to send one unit in at a time so
the second unit can hit the elephants standing still, but that gets into the
whole combined arms doctrine which is a different topic....)


-Mark Stone

[John Murphy]

Great explaination, thanks. Man, Mark, you're good at this stuff. I
hope I don't ever play you in a game I really want to win!
Especially the bit about the 1x4 columns. The whole tactic of
thinking two bounds ahead by staggering charges like that is just
something I have not yet caught on to (in 20 years now...). It would
simply not occur to me not to do the obvious and toss both units in
at once, or more likely just the one unit 2x2 (since that is all the
ranks that fight, ya know) which can go badly as you indicated.
Having heard Jon and Frank and some others now going into this
setup/closer 2-charge tactic about different matchups and unit sizes
(in the Aztec and EIR discussions) it is obviously something I need
to pay more attention to in the future - both for the sake of doing
it and realizing it can be done against me! It is a whole new level
of play.

This is really very interesting, thanks. Especially for the tactical
explaination. Maybe not obvious to a lot of people, or maybe just
not to me.

But some of this begins to touch on why I gave up on the Varangians
and went to skuts to start with. The axes are a lot fun to play with
(a lot, and especially when you add in the historical interest the
Varangians generate) but man they die fast from the irreg loose foot
2 FP per CPF, and those unshielded second bounds, even when they are
winning. I even thought about making them close-order as I would
happily give up a +1 if they could last 2 combats without
evaporating. But I do not suspect even that helps as it is still
only 8 figs versus 6 per element front and still 2 FP per CPF and
still unshielded second bound.

I hope I do not have this problem when I play my Patrician Romans
with all that Irr MI HTW, Sh stuff. Of course, they have enough
trouble just getting in to 2 combats! But it is pretty slim
difference with only the 8 versus 6 figs on a frontage and the
shield stopping them from vaporizing after two bounds of HtH.

[John Murphy]

Thanks, Jon. The question was why add JLS to the front rank paying
extra points for something that caused the list rule not to apply,
hence lowering the casualty generation against all but LI and
elephants that I was seeing.

Mark did a good job of answering though. The JLS+ in the front rank,
which fights with twice as many figures, can make a bigger
difference than even a -2 for the second rank due to the drop from
2HCW to other+JLS. This is probably something I should have worked
out myself before whining.

While there are troops against which this is still not enough, Mark
made a good case for not making those the targets of the Varangians
and showed that a number of other circumstances come out to a wash -
kind of like the whole LMI-LHI thing. Where this is different though
is in the particular requirement of needing Varangians to be an anti-
Elephant troop. In that role, obviously, the JLS+ is a huge
advantage and not be forgone.

If there was really a huge difference in those 2-3 factors of 2HCW
versus other foot (as I believed though I am proven incorrect in the
cases that matter) I could see sacrificing the anti-elephant. But it
always amazes me that in a game where there is a scramble to tweak
every troop type just right to get every factor out of them, there
are apparently a number of cases where this is really a pointless
exercise and in fact a detriment for concealing more important
issues.

Think I have it right now?

But the best part of his answer for me, as I said and it is worth
echoing, was the pointers on staggered charges and unit widths and
the connection with the same discussion in the Aztec and Roman list
dialogs.

More of this kind of thing would be a big help to those of us who do
not play on that level yet (like I said, in my case still after 20
years).

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> John, I'd like to help, but I need to know the question - is the
question why
> would someone forego JLS with a varangian? Or is the question how
does the
> list rule work?

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/2/2004 22:27:18 Central Standard Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:
I meant, for instance, the whole Varangian discussion - where
tweaking a particular troop type for what appears to be the best
factors against _most_ opponents is in fact a dis-service to them in
their primary role against the opposition they are required to beat.>>

I think that is fairly said, John. Myself, I prefer to think of units in
terms of where they fit in the scheme and what I will need them to do and *then*
ensure that they have the tools to accomplish that.

J


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