Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

AntiokosIII · Recruit Joined: 30 Jun 2006 Posts: 58

Do you buy 'em or not? That's the question. The main reason for having shields is to help against missile fire, altho they also help against shielded lancers and in second combat rounds. Personally, I tend not to use them, because I tend to be shooting myself, and because I don't think the benefit justifies the (considerable) cost. What do other Sassanid players think?

Ewan McNay · Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 7:36 pm Post subject:

Note that generals come with shields, regardless of whether your other cavalry buys them. This allows you to use the Sub-Generals as the front elements of units whose back ranks are unshielded.

So: no, I don't buy them. At 1600 points, I take the minimum 7 elements of Clibanarii, and use 4 of them for a single unit of HC L, B (great for going through woods!); the other 3 are upgraded to EHC in order to form the back rank elements for each of 3 2-element units, the front element of each being an SHC Sub.

[If I had to make the choice to have unshielded generals, or buy shields throughout.. I'd be unhappy, but I'd buy shields. Makes a *big* difference when being shot at. One of the nice things about having B-armed SHC is that you *don't* have to shoot; but you are still a shooter. So, they make great units for drawing bowfire when needed, and can often make the choice to exchange shots with opposing B-armed troops because of their heavy armour.]

Mark Stone

AntiokosIII · Recruit Joined: 30 Jun 2006 Posts: 58

Ewan, I am curious. I have not played my Sassanids much lately (played them a LOT both under 7th and DBM, but only a few games in Warrior) and I have always thought of the Clibanarii/Asavaran to be the strength of the army. I always thought the problem was getting ENOUGH of the little darlin's onto the table after you pay for all the essential supporting troops. Yet here is an experienced and successful Sassanid general telling me to take the MINIMUM?!!? I am confused. Are you running en elephant army in which a few lancers on elephant-proof horses are a sideshow? An interesting thought, to be sure, but not my idea of a Sassanid army. What is your plan? (may one ask). dave

Frank Gilson · Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 7:12 pm Post subject: Ewan's Sassanids

I regard Ewan's organization of his competition Sassanid army as generally correct.

He buys almost all the elephants (5, with CinC on an elephant) and the minimum of lancers in the following units.

3 Sub Generals as SHC backed by shieldless EHC, elephant proof
one remaining units of 12 Irr B HC L,B, not elephant proof

The remainder of his army is a varied organization of LI and LC, one of the better light troop screens available. An 'appropriate' amount of the LC are elephant proof.

That's a great strength of the Sassanid army, the ability to operate elephant proof cavalry right next to the elephants.

Ewan McNay · Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:24 pm Post subject:

These days, damn near all of my LC, as well as my SHC/EHC units, are elephant-proof.

In a one-list environment, I consider the elephants to be essential for facing knight armies; the regular LC are a big reason to play the army; and I am a huge believer in LI, especially when as in the Sassanid list they need to pull double-duty in contesting any terrain I choose or need to fight around (unless my SHC are in the woods, of course...).

It turns out that when I have bought the minimum of those support troops, plus other compulsory stuff such as the CinC and the MI, there are just enough points at 1600 to buy the minimal Clibanarii in an optimal (for me) configuration.

The overall game plan is to fight in a very limited area, if forced to fight frontally (e.g. against Dave M's Japanese or Tim's LIR in the NICT) or to swarm enemy troops in the open with my light troops (NICT games against Spanish Tartessian, Med Spanish, Swiss). I only have ~7 elements' frontage of real strike troops, but that's enough to build a plan around as long as (i) that 7 elements is hit really hard, and (ii) you cannot be forced to lose elsewhere.

If I were running an army based around EHC instead of SHC, I haven't done the math but would probably again not buy shields for other than generals; that would give me 3 EHC front-shielded units, I might run the CinC as cav also, and the remainder of the heavy cav would be a second wave and so not needing as many shields. But that version of the army is hugely vulnerable to missile fire, especially bows. I don't see EHC as a viable troop to win tournaments with; I know others with as much or more analysis and ability disagree, so take that solely for one opinion.

Taking my current 1600-point version and expanding to 2000, I do add a little more heavy (EHC) cav, but it's the regular all-shielded kind instead of more Arsavan Clibs. The other addition is more of the close foot.