Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ewan McNay]

The specific impetus for this was my NICT experience last year, where I faced Frank Gilson and Dave Markowitz in quick succession, both using Alexandrians, so in that context I have been thinking about how to get a significant win over Alexandrians with Sassanids; any suggestions?

More generally, though, I think that at the moment the question of how you plan to deal with Alexandrians is a key one for top-flight competition army design, so thoughts in general are welcome.

[I'll try to offer some answers, as well as the question, a little later!]

[Mark Stone]

Well, I don't have an answer for you, Ewan, and narrowing the scope to Alexandrians vs. Sassanids does limit things quite a bit. I'll offer some data points that I think matter, however. Doubtless things that have already occurred to you.

The big weakness in the Sassanids is that their lack of terrain troops. And the Alexandrians have terrain troops in abundance. A possible weakness for the Alexandrians is their ability to hold frontage; all those 4-to-a-stand troops add up in cost and make for a fairly compact army.

The problem, as Frank has clearly demonstrated, is that the Alexandrians can almost certainly narrow the frontage if they want to. If they take as terrain picks something like "Minor Water - Marsh - Marsh - Steep Hill" they have an excellent chance of substantially narrowing the frontage, particularly given that Minor Water pre-empts all open terrain oriented picks.

I think the Sassanids can reasonably assure that the frontage on which the fight does take place will be open, but cannot easily broaden that open frontage to take advantage of their skirmisher and cavalry advantage.

Then you're left with trying to beat the Alexandrians in a head to head matchup. Neither your elephants nor your cataphracts are a very good frontal matchup against pikemen or hypaspists. Here I suppose the one weakness for the Alexandrians is their elephants, who are vulnerable to shooting (something Sassanids do reasonably well). I'm not sure how you turn that into a decisive or likely advantage, but it's something.

You can also consider simply refusing to fight on a narrow frontage. Use your terrain picks to keep your side of the table open, keep your army well back from the center line, and keep your army under wait orders. My guess is any skilled NICT player running Alexandrians will take his chances, cross the center line, and try to come make a fight of it.

This leads to an odd rhythm, one I'm still trying to master, of how to shift from passively waiting to aggressively counter attacking. I have to do it all the time playing 10 Independent States (and their whopping 8 scouting points). In theory, it can be done, but personally, I need more practice at this technique. Dave and Frank seemed to totally have this down during the years that they played 100 Years War English at Cold Wars, so perhaps Frank can comment on the art of shifting from defense to offense with an army that initially hangs back.


-Mark Stone

[Mark Stone]

OK, I had to think about this a couple of days to offer something more than "rock, meet paper". And there is a certain amount of the paper, scissors, rock effect at work here. If I were one of the many people running a knight/cav army in the NICT because that way I can use the same army for the theme tournament, then I'm not going to be too happy about facing Sassanids. That's a nightmare matchup for the knight/cav player.

So that's your consolation prize. Nonetheless, you have a valid concern. I believe the path to the NICT championship has to go through Sassanids and Alexandrian Imperial. That's where the pendulum is in our game right now.

So, what to do? I have one small suggestion. Nothing that's going to decisively tip the balance, but a tweak that may help. Let's take it as a given that you'll be fighting Alexandrians on an open, but narrowed frontage, and you're going to have to be prepared to essentially meet him head on somewhere in that frontage.

You have a 4 stand unit of HC L,B as I recall. I'd do two things: scrounge up 12 points for shields in the front, and have it start the game dismounted as 2 stands of Irr C HI LTS,B,Sh/LTS,B. This gives you one foot unit that doesn't really have to fear very much in the Alexandrian army, and can hopefully be slipped into the line somewhere where it can do real damage.

In the company of other dense shooting, like el-proof SHC, this is a unit that can go right at Alexandrian elephants. It needn't fear peltasts, and with care it can stand up to Hypaspists. In the company of elephants, it could even charge MI pike (I believe a combined el-HI charge at the pike would have about a 60% chance of getting "pikes recoil disordered" as a first bound result).

Irr C is certainly risky; there's a big variance in what you might roll in combat. But used with care, this unit could provided the needed extra pressure in the right place.


-Mark Stone

[Ewan McNay]

Very thoughtful, Mark - thanks a lot. [The cost for shields is higher - the Clib are all/none - so I need to find 7E worth of shields, or 42 points, which is significant. But if it gets me an improved anti-Alex plan, worthwhile.] Alex's elephants are indeed a potential weak spot in the line, in general, compared to pikemen/LHI, although the Alex player knows this too and tends to have them hanging back .

On a slightly different note, I went back to check exactly what the pike special rules allow. One thing they do *not* allow is to countercharge when otherwise unable to declare a charge. So, if you get your Almughavars (for example) to between 80 and 120p, you still get to hit the pikes halted. Shouldn't be impossible; getting to move second in critical phases may be key, though (and/or having the pikes fail their counter, nothing to rely on). This feeds back into the Berber discussion, of course .

[Todd Schneider]

In the long run, Would dropping an LI unit be worth upgrading the Clib to All Shields?

Todd

[Ewan McNay]

Todd - don't know yet.

Given the fairly specialised intended use of that 2E HI unit, shields may not be so critical, as they'll count shielded at first contact and hope for the pikemen to be disordered afterward.

[I also just re-ran the numbers on elephants going in alone, and they're a lot better than I had thought; not sure why. So sending in El units against even Alexandrian pikemen is not silly. I should have tried that rather than sending in a sub with his automatic roll of -4 and death ]

[joncleaves]

I had wondered about that... Nothing about Alexandrian Pike makes them any more resistant to an El charge and El can disorder them.

Seems the SHC go in second, eh?

J

[John Murphy]

???

I do not understand, I thought charge reach alone is not by itself enough to prevent a counter-charge but only just sufficient to prevent a declared (ie impetuous) charge.

So I would think because of this sure you can charge impetuously against a non-impeptuous counter-charge (because with the list rules a charge, even a counter-charge, is not cancelled by impetuous troops), but you could not hit them standing. It should reduce to a similar situation where a mounted body is charged impetuously but can still counter-charge non-impetuously.

"Foot cannot counter-charge impetuous or mounted troops" is (half) cancelled out by the list rule. And the first bullet of "a body may not counter-charge a body that it is not eligible to charge" I thought had been changed to specifically exclude the case where a body is frontally charged by an enemy starting beyond its charge reach.

So the Alexandrians can counter-charge at the point when the charging moogs become 80p from them during the charge move or some such thing, and the usual prohibition regarding foot counter-charging impetuous enemy foot is removed by the list rule.

Yet, Jon apparently saw no issue with your statement. So I am clearly obfuscated here, or just out of touch with the latest flurry of list rule errata.

[Ewan McNay]

John -

- no errata involved.

If the Alex pike have declared a charge, then (by list rule) it is not cancelled by an opposing impetuous foot charge.

But there's nothing about being able to counter-charge in situations where they could not otherwise. Counter-charging is a charge response, distinct from declaring a charge.

I dunno what I messed up with my numbers on the elephants the first time, Jon, but it must have been something. Oh well. It was only an NICT title

[Guest]

We're talking about the Irr B El B/B/B/B Ewan typically uses, in a 3 elephant unit, charging a 32 figure unit of Reg C MI P,Sh.

The elephants just need a die differential of 1 against the pike, for which they have the advantage, being B morale against C morale.

If you really want to beat pikemen, run elephants that have 2 crewmen with JLS (which may or may not have additional crew, that doesn't matter much against pikemen as the first contact is the important moment.) Such JLS crewed elephants start out beating MI P,Sh at contact rather than slightly losing as solely bow armed.

Also, the downside for Elephants slamming into pike and losing is not that bad....so, send them on in.

Things to do against Alexandrians:
1) Send your elephants into the pikemen, see what happens. Do this with enough time for a win to turn into an eventual rout.
2) Kill what Alexandrian LI/LC you can with a combination of your LI and LC supported by SHC, EHC, HC.
3) Try to focus shooting on Alexandrian elephants to disorder them.

Minimize the risks you face doing the above, but realise that the Alexandrian player will be trying to do things like:
1) Get his Elephants into your SHC.
2) Force your SHC to charge his hypaspists or pikemen.
3) Use superior bad terrain troops to force through a hinge in your line caused by such bad terrain.

[Ewan McNay]

[Guest]

Hey guys, I was just checking out the new forum. Being an Alexandro-phile this thread caught my attention. I was reading John Murphy's response to Ewan, and I believe John is correct if I am understanding the situation correctly. According to the latest clarifications, 6.166 on Page 44 of your Warrior Hymnals, is a fifth bullet added to the countercharging list that states "does not have to begin with the counter-charging body being within its own tactical move distance to the charger". Therefore the Moogs can charge from 120p, but still meet countercharging Macedonian pike. Let me know if I missed something, because this is the way I've been playing it.

Also, Mark's idea about the Alexandrian's using a lot of delaying terrain to narrow the battlefield is an interesting thought. However, what thoughts do you guys have when facing an army with a lot more lights and LMI complimented by arty and good cav? They love to see a "channelized" battlefield so they can take the terrain and avoid the pike.

Thanks,
Matt

[Mark Stone]

[John Murphy]

yeah, Mark's right I had this wrong when I questioned it.

My first reading I only noticed the restrictions on counter-charging requiring you to be able to declare a charge on the target. This is something that has been "clarified" NOT to prevent the counter-charge based soley on charge reach from within a normal charge path.

However, there is another bullet/item specifically forbidding a COUNTER-charge by foot troops against impetuous or mounted troops. Right there in black and white.

This last item is not addressed by any list rule.

So Mark is 100% correct as I am sure Jon would bear out. Just trying to explain why I got this mixed up. Probably a common mis-reading though.

[scott holder]

Mark is correct in how he is characterizing this interaction.

scott