Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

MilesGregarius · Recruit Joined: 05 May 2006 Posts: 10

I've had the rules for some time, but it looks like I'm finally going to have the time and money to paint up an army. Recently, I've become enamoured of Roger II's Sicilian Kingdom , so I'm going to give FW 8 a try. Before doing so, I figured I'd consult the collective brain trust.

I read in a previous thread that HYWE have a fairly easy learning curve for newbies like myself. With the Muslim ally option, this list looks like it could be something of a poor man's HYWE.

So version 1.0 looks something like this:

2E Reg A EHK/HK L, Sh

2E Irr B HK L, Sh

2E Irr B HC L, Sh

2E Reg C LC JLS, Sh

6E Rec C MI LTS, Sh

6E Rec C LMI B, Sh

2E Reg C LI JLS, Sh

My first question is how best to configure the Muslim foot. Initially I thought to use the requisite spearman as two close order LTS bodies. But on further consideration, I've been leaning towards taking the minimum spearmen and maxing out the bowmen. This would both increase the missle firepower and increase the speed of the army by eliminating all the close foot.

Which lead to version 1.1:

2E Reg A EHK/HK L, Sh

2E Irr B HK L, Sh

2E Irr B HC L, Sh

2E Reg C LC JLS, Sh

4E Rec C LMI JLS, Sh

6E Rec C LMI B, Sh

4E Reg C LI JLS, Sh

2E Reg C LI JLS, Sh

Inexperienced as I am, I don't know how either configuration would play out, though in both cases I assume I should deploy with the Muslim command in front and the Normans poised to pounce on units stuck in with the LTS/shot up by the B.

Secondly, I read the Skirmish Doctrine some time ago (need to go back and reread it), but I'm still not sure the proper number/balance of lights.

My third question is: are the Reg C SHC worth the points? If they are, I'm not sure where to take the points from in either of the above configurations.

Thanks in advance for the advice.

John Murphy · Legate Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1625

Well, my vote would be 1.1 is a big improvement over 1.0

I don't know about "poor man's" HYWE, this list I think is a once-upon-a-time "killer list" because back in the day it was one of those few lists where you got all three of (a) decent shock mounted, (b) reg loose long-range missile and (c) light troops both foot and mounted.

So you have essentially done that in your v 1.1, although perhaps the pumdits will have some details to pick on for you and help you tweak it still further.

FWIW after playing a lot of SHK/LB armies I find that (a) Reg LMI B are a lot of times better than Reg LMI LB, except if your enemy can take advantage of the shorter eff range and (b) HK can often do the jub as well as SHK - that last, though is not entirely turning out to be tha case however, and HC is a noticeable step down from HK I think.

But HYWE has nothing like your good mix of light troops, and indeed I would say that is the bane of playing HYWE although you just have to tough it. The only thing you might look at, and I do not have the list in front of me, is getting some of the lights with bows instead of JLS as having some of both, mounted and foot, is about the best you can do.

Todd Kaeser · Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 6:53 pm Post subject:

Siculo-Norman is the new Sicilian Hohenstaufen (sp?)

The 1.1 version is how I would run the army. You are a skirmish army who can hold a fair amount of table space and group your knights to hit in a specific area. As a knight army you don't fear elephants due to the amount of bow fire you are capable of putting out. Only issue is on a small table or in 25mm vs. Macedonians.

The SHC are too slow and too costly. The MI LTS guys slog too slowly for what you want to accomplish and are a target for others. They will only get to fight against what they don't want to.

I'd love to see a little more LC, but that is my personal preference.

Todd K

Terry Dix · Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 8:10 pm Post subject: Re: Siculo-Norman advice

Kelly Wilkinson · Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 11:58 pm Post subject: Other Armies that are similar

Hi,

I just wanted to add that I have been looking at this list fairly hard as a friend of mine who is new to the game is looking at fleshing out various lists that are similar. You might consider the early version of list 18 the hoho list as they don't have to pay for the muslim ally.

Another close version is the Fatimid Egyptians who get a substantial Crusader Ally and loads of Sudanese along with some very nice support troops including some decent Li JLS,sh who can push your advance along nicely. Another thing that I like about the Fatimids is the fact that you can buy camels for 4 points per element for your LTS armed MI. This more than puts the odds on your favor against SHK or SHC as it will disorder those types putting them at a -3 and -4 from respectively. The Fatimids are definately worth looking into as they have very decent regular foot and great Cav/knights.

Just a couple of things for you to consider. . . Twisted Evil

Kelly Wilkinson

MilesGregarius · Recruit Joined: 05 May 2006 Posts: 10

Thanks all for the advice thus far. As I thought, the all loose order, bow heavy list is the way to go.

Kelly Wilkinson · Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 2:45 am Post subject: Hoho's and Fatimids

MilesGregarius · Recruit Joined: 05 May 2006 Posts: 10

Kelly Wilkinson · Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 7:37 pm Post subject: Other Armies that are similar

I agree with you sticking with one army list at least for a while. I'm just saying that those two are similar to the playing style and make up of the list you are working with now and add a certain variety that spices up things a bit. The deal about the hoho early list is that they don't have to pay 97 points for that expensive HC L Sh Ally element. Instead, you could purchase another unit of knights, bowmen, Javs, etc. . . And so what if the Knights are German, You can call them Siculo-Itallians (whose ancestors are Normans)!

KW