 |
Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules
A Four Horsemen Enterprises Rules Set
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mark Stone
Moderator
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2102
Location: Buckley, WA
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:05 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Todd Schneider wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Ewan McNay wrote: |
Warning: I hate this list. Feel free to stop reading now and avoid insult 
| Quote: |
CinC 1E Irr B LC L, Sh @ 122
Ally Gen 1E Irr B EHK, L, SH @ 85
|
The CinC as a single element of LC I have no real objection to (although - why not make him a 2E unit? If he's failing wavers you're losing anyway..). Taking the Ally as a single element seems to have little, if any, upside. What's the rationale? |
Additionally, being EHK, your going to be outclassed at some point in time by a list with SHK in it. |
|
Um, SHK don't exactly "outclass" EHK. The factor difference with lance charging is just 1. So EHK can certainly make very servicable shock troops, even against heavier mounted. And Ewan is right; the one element general here is just silly. Any bound you think you might want to attach him to another mounted unit, you're going to have to keep said unit stationary, and thus telegraph what you are doing. Not effective.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Berber Cavalry 4E Irr C LC L, Sh @ 73
Berber Cavalry 4E Irr C LC L, Sh @ 73
Ghuzz Cavalry 2E Irr C JLS, B, Sh @ 53
Ghuzz Cavalry 2E Irr C JLS, B, Sh @ 53 |
Too many irreg LC - but then if you're taking Berber, what should one expect, so OK. But, 2E units of Irr LC JLS, B, Sh? Huh?? Lunacy . I suppose that it might be OK if you knew that you were going to face *exactly* 2 opposing 6E units of LC and have no other troops involved on either side. But otherwise... I mean, these guys can't even chase off opposing LI with any degree of safety, and their point:value ratio is horrendously high. Oh, and finally, L-armed LC are cute but again only really against opposing light troops, and in your case only against opposing LC because you can't afford to chase opposing LI. Not a good investment. |
I myself am not to interested in point:value ratio, at least not as your interpreting it. It's not the final arbiter of how I choose a unit. |
Look, this just amounts to saying you don't want to acknowledge or think about the problem. It's like saying "yeah, maybe I could run the 100 meter dash faster without this sack of rocks on my back, but I don't really think about weight issues when preparing for the race."
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Slingers 4E Irr C LI S, Sh @ 49
Slingers 4E Irr C LI S, Sh @ 49
Slingers 4E Irr C LI S, Sh @ 49
|
Here once again we enter the twilight zone. 4E units of irregular LI? Honestly, madness. You're spending mroe on command points than on troops, and creating units that can't do anything - can't mass fire, can't absorb fire (which S, Sh LI are superb at in larger/regular units), can't fight, can't survive  . |
I'll have to disagree somewhat here. These guys have turned out OK for me. The problem with taking as few spear units as I have is that I coverless of the tabletop, I can't adequately support myself the way I want to. 3 units of LI have done a good job in closing down one side of the table, and when challenged the LC I bring up in support has done an adequate job of protecting them. Any unit firing at them has to roll up to even have a chance of doing a CPF, and if my 4E are holding off 6, 10 or 12E of B armed LI thats to me is worth it. Other peoples mileage may vary. I haven't played a large variety of other lists yet, so my opinion on this can certainly change in the course of a turn
I do think that having all of them be slingers is bad though, I know against Will it would have been nice to have a Bow armed unit to help discourage some of his LC. |
So here I get to disagree with both Ewan and Todd. While I normally avoid 4 element units of LI, slingers are something of an exception, for precisely the reasons Todd states here:
In an army that struggles to cover frontage, more units of lights is more important than bigger units of lights;
Even at 8 figs per unit, skirmishing slingers are very tough to shoot up, and thus have to be displaced by more brute force methods. That's pretty much exactly what they are supposed to do.
But, no Todd, you should not make one of them an LI B unit. Sling shoots almost as well as bow in many situations, better in some situations, and is vastly better protected against enemy missile fire.
Never one to leave all the brutish comments to Ewan,
Mark Stone |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
scott holder
Moderator
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6035
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mark said:
But, no Todd, you should not make one of them an LI B unit. Sling shoots almost as well as bow in many situations, better in some situations, and is vastly better protected against enemy missile fire.
Glad to see someone else with a prediliction to LI slingers.
Todd, the way you purchase them, that's 75 CP for 12E of slingers and that's just too brutal. If they were Reg, I'd buy into it but Irr? Okay, you might get some flexibility in your shooting arcs with three units vs two or even one but I'm not so sure you gain all that much maneuverability with Irr LI units. Again, Reg units are a different story if you master the art of Reg LI play w/o losing points in the process.
At the very least, I'd make it two units of 6E and free up 25 CP. Or perhaps a single 8E (or slightly more) unit and then attempt to rely on terrain to cover the board frontage. If you blow the terrain roll, then you have a built-in excuse for losing.
scott
_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ewan McNay
Moderator
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2769
Location: Albany, NY, US
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mark:
| Quote: |
So here I get to disagree with both Ewan and Todd. While I normally avoid 4 element units of LI, slingers are something of an exception, for precisely the reasons Todd states here:
In an army that struggles to cover frontage, more units of lights is more important than bigger units of lights;
Even at 8 figs per unit, skirmishing slingers are very tough to shoot up, and thus have to be displaced by more brute force methods. That's pretty much exactly what they are supposed to do.
But, no Todd, you should not make one of them an LI B unit. Sling shoots almost as well as bow in many situations, better in some situations, and is vastly better protected against enemy missile fire. |
The problem I see is the irregular nature of said slingers, which will make it difficult to *get* into appropriate skirmish mode a reasonable percentage of the time, and the units are too small to avoid/escape/resist when/if brute force does arrive. Plus, 3 units doesn't cover the frontage, and so I'm not sure that the upside is that big; it just seems like having more small units, in this case, is making it both easier and more worthwhile (because of additional cost from command points) to track them down and kill them, and 3 units lost is not insignificant. But, Mark makes valid points, as usual.
Now, quit distracting me from this NICT stuff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Todd Schneider
Centurion
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 904
Location: Kansas City
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's one of the things I am looking at. We get to change up to 200 points between games, so making two of 6 is certainly a possibility.
Also, I may be looking at it wrong, but when looking at "Coverage",
I am looking at it this way:
From the table edge to 200 paces in, there you place a 4E unit 120 paces wide. 640 paces away from that you place another 120 pace wide unit, 640 paces away from that another 120 pace wide unit goes down, and it influences 240 paces away from itself. If 40 paces = 1 inch, then thats 2080 paces, or 52 inches or better than half the length of a board that the LI can influence.
With a 6E Unit, your looking at 200 paces, a 6E unit at 175 paces wide plus 640, plus 175 plus 240, or 1430 paces, or 36 inches, or 3 feet. Is that extra space worth it? I have no idea. I some battles it could be, in other battles maybe not. Thats something I have to play with and decide for myself.
| Quote: |
Um, SHK don't exactly "outclass" EHK. The factor difference with lance charging is just 1. So EHK can certainly make very servicable shock troops, even against heavier mounted. |
If I were EHK throughout I'd agree with you. As I looked it though, and I wish I had saved my sheet on it, theres something about if he rolls up 1 and I roll up 1, he's even better the next bound because I am now disordered HK...Anyways, I think if push came to shove we'd all prefer to have SHK, but figuring out EHK is a puzzle I am still working on. Maybe saving some command points by consolidating the LI and upgrading some Knights is the way to go...
The way I looked at that matchup was this: I don't want to rely on my opponent rolling down or me rolling up to win that particular fight. Heck, even dice battles give me concern becuase thats when I usually roll down 3. At 1 less, I have to do something to ensure that if I don't win and am forced to recoil, I have something in the area that prevents him from expanding or can charge the next bound. Thats dependent on my approaches and how well I set them up and the like, well, basically it devolves into an electronic tabletop discussion which serves no purpose
Anyways, the advice is appreciated
Todd
_________________
Finding new and interesting ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory almost every game! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Todd Schneider
Centurion
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 904
Location: Kansas City
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Todd K,
I know where I screwed up in that LC battle you brought up earlier.
After I won, I looked at the results, forgot Light Cav counted as Light and not mounted, and gave Will the choice to recoil or break off.
Thanks for pointing that out,
Todd
_________________
Finding new and interesting ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory almost every game! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Grimmett
Legionary
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 406
Location: Northern Virginia
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jon--
I must object.
Ewan knows what he is talking about; he applies his theories on the board to great effect. At least against me.
Ralph is a latecomer to the Mideast; he was conjegating Russian verbs when I was eating goats with the Bedouins.
_________________
Tim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joncleaves
Moderator
Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't imply that Ralph knows what he is talking about (he does not), or that Ewan does not (he does). Their delivery is what is similar....
_________________
Roll Up and Win! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Stone
Moderator
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2102
Location: Buckley, WA
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Todd Schneider wrote: |
| Quote: |
Um, SHK don't exactly "outclass" EHK. The factor difference with lance charging is just 1. So EHK can certainly make very servicable shock troops, even against heavier mounted. |
If I were EHK throughout I'd agree with you. As I looked it though, and I wish I had saved my sheet on it, theres something about if he rolls up 1 and I roll up 1, he's even better the next bound because I am now disordered HK... |
The thing to keep in mind is that when knights fight knights, the result is generally a wash. You may be winning some, you may be losing some, but no one is routing anyone quickly.
Consider SHK vs. HK, two 2-stand units colliding with no outside interference:
* The HK get L is a 1, charging +1, impetuous +2 = 4. 5@4 = 15.
* The SHK get L is a 2, charging +1, impetuous +2 = 5. 5@5 = 20.
* The HK recoil tired and disordered, the SHK follow up and expand.
* Now the SHK get other cav vs. HK is a 1, tired is a 0. 6@0 = 6, which will be a CPF and twice as many, forcing the HK to waver test for second cause of disorder.
* Upshot: it should take 5 bounds or so for the HK to rout from failed wavers, and if, at any point during that time, the SHK roll down 2 and fail to do a CPF then the SHK really lose their ability to do a CPF (they're no longer following up), and the whole thing drags out even longer. In other words, this combat should have no effect on the the outcome of the overall battle, since other things will have been long decided before this resolves.
(It's possible that I'm mis-remembering, and other cav vs. HK is a 2 instead of a 1; that doesn't actually change the example very much).
So you need to think of a knight vs. knight collision as cancelling both units out, even if one unit tends to get the upper hand. So all of your EHK are certainly very effective at cancelling out SHK, which means -- and this is the key point -- they don't need to be afraid of SHK. Use them aggressively, whether or not your opponent has SHK.
This is the huge difference between knights and even EHC. With SHK vs. EHC, assuming both are impetuous and no other factors intervene, EHC will rout on even die rolls. So SHK certainly command respect from cavalry, but other knights are a different matter.
-Mark Stone |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tibor
Recruit
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:13 am Post subject: List thoughts |
|
|
Hear Hear Mark!
Very lucid.
I agree and have never thought SHK particulary awesome as they are VERY expensive and do NOT ride over EHK or HK.
Your comments are excellent.
While the various comments on this list show insight into various players style, we must give a larger amount of understanding to how the user of a particular list will make units effective.
Years ago, I used 6 man units (2E) of HC and people thought it odd and vulnerable - now this is 'normal' while I am trying 4E units now in various armies to examine their effects under circumstances I think the 2E unit is weak.
Just depends on whther you are a player able to use units in ways others do not.
For examle, 2E of LC support the LC L well - ridden up in support, they prevent the LC L getting shot at while they position themselves.
Used to draw large amounts of enemy into following them as nearest to approach is always good as well.
2E LC units are reknown for their irritation value (think Mongols as the pinnacle of their use) and most players would emulate the ability to use highly manouvrable units which have an effect disproportionate to their points cost - but this is going back to the 'way I'd use them' line.
Yes they cost more than a Reg alternative but the list being used doesn't offer this option.
Likewise, the 3 units of LI S is something I quite like.
They are annoying - they cause people to shoot at a target they don't want to, they influence a significantly large territory without getting in your own way as you move units up behind them, they shoot effectively if not awesomely, they are relatively manouverable because of their size despite them being Irr. Personally, I might add just one element to each (or one or two) units so I can march them in a 1 wide column but turn as 2-3 element wide.
They are strong enough to cause the enemy to use more powerful Light troops or to use a significant level of overkill (HC for instance) to ensure rubbing them out as their shields make them more than just leaves in the wind to brush away or ignore.
All this just shows how I would use them rather than whether they are a good idea without a plan to use them.
Beat me, or the player who designed the list and then you can start talking about weaknesses of the list.
Commenting on lists is a interesting sideline but USING the list offers more possibilities for discussion.
I was quite enthralled, for instance, in people's discussions of use not of weaknesses.
Anyway, that's my 2 rubles worth -
Tibor
expert in the art of ineptitude[/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Todd Schneider
Centurion
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 904
Location: Kansas City
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK, the 3rd round for Winter (nee Spring) Warrior is getting underway tonight.
Had I been on the ball I would have crunched some numbers and realized I was probably playing Steve Hollowells Carthaginians, and adjusted my list accordingly.
However, I dropped that ball, and am facing him with the same Army list I've used the past two battles. It doesn;t match up to well with him, but I do have some advantages to use.
More details either tonight, hopefully.
Todd
_________________
Finding new and interesting ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory almost every game! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Todd Schneider
Centurion
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 904
Location: Kansas City
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, Winter Warriorin KC is over for me. I played my last game last night, against Steve Hollowells Later Carthaginians, please see the AAR in that thread.
As a roundup, overall Winter Warrior was a good tournament for me. After running an Army with no mounted that shoots everything it can, running Berbers was a nice change of pace. In hands more competant than mine, it looks as if it can be a quite forgiving and capable army, and it has enough variety in it that I will be tinkering with it, and enjoy playing with it, for awhile to come.
I finished with 8 game points raw, which if i remember correctly is the best finish I have had in a Warrior tournament points wise.
Gamewise I went 0-2-1.
Raw points wise was a total of 1276 for me versus 1552 for my opponents. I think that despite my record, my Raw score would allow me to finish in the middle of that pack, which is what I wanted to do.
Next up, Warrior Crush, 1200 points of 25mm Berber's.
Thanks for reading,
Todd
_________________
Finding new and interesting ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory almost every game! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Album
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
![[ Hidden ]](templates/subBlack/images/lang_english/icon_email.gif "[ Hidden ]"){kind=icon}