Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[jamiepwhite]

Theme player and list....................................................list weighting.......NICT – Theme place
1) Rob Turnball, Italian Condotta, 25.8..........................10........................2
2) Derek Downs, Medieval French, 25.4......................10........................-1
3) Rich Kroupa, Medieval German Princes, 23.3.........15........................9
4) Frank Gilson, Medieval French, 19.8........................10........................5
5) Dave Dietrich, HYWE, 17.7.........................................0.........................-3
6) Greg Hauser, HYWE, 15.8..........................................0.........................4
7) Jamie White, Anglo-Irish, 15.7....................................5.........................4
8) Dan Woyke, Medieval French, 14.0..........................10........................-1
9) Scott McDonald, Medieval Spanish, 13.6..................0.........................-4
10) Scott Holder, Early Burgundian, 13.4.......................0.........................0
11) Todd Kaeser, Early Burgundian, 13.3......................0.........................-3
12) Terry Dix, HYWE, 12.5..............................................0..........................2
13) Marc Cribbs, Later Welsh, 11.7.................................5..........................0
14) Bill Low, Low Countries, 10.6....................................10.......................-10
15) Phil Gardocki, Anglo-Irish, 8.8...................................5.........................-2
16) Jim Bisigani, Anglo-Irish, 5.4 ....................................5..........................0

[Ed Kollmer]

Thank you Rich
for doing the Medieval Germans proud!!
Since Otto was not able to appear, the Princes sent their best Prince.!!!!
Prince Rick. Heil , Heil.

[jamiepwhite]

I thought it was interesting that the top 4 places were all +10 or better armies. I would claim that the handicap was too much but all the anglo Irish armies did average or worse, they should have done better if the +5 handicap meant that much. And, Low Countries with +10 still had trouble.

I wanted to stir up some discussion on handicapping for the next theme while looking at data and results, anyone else want to comment?

[Bill Low]

A very interesting analysis, Jamie, thanks.

For my own part, I totally misplayed the Low Countries in the first 2 games ... being out-scouted, holding back the pikeman, on the theory that they could react to their opponents' deployment, forgetting that they are slow and clumsy and take extra FP with EHI in front ... they never got into the fight in the first 2; third game was better.

I would excuse the Low Countries from this analysis, due entirely to my own incompetence in running them.

BTW ... they got only a +5% adjustment, as Derek (rightly!) saw P as powerful in this theme. Sorry to have disappointed!

[lilroblis]

I love the weighting - I thought it got armies that would not otherwise see the table on it. I would point out though that I had the best Pike in the game (mi/HI with shield, so maybe got too many points). I however took the list for the HG/2HCT which were a serious disappointment.
at even points I would have run HYW English or similar, because they are just better - with the weighting I felt like I would make it up - and as it was never faced a longbow army

[scott holder]

We all love to raise our eyebrows at Derek's weighting. Keep in mind that while he proposes it, ultimately me and Bill decide what to do.

Nonetheless, it's still fun giving Derek grief about the weighting.

That being said, it works in terms of it's goal: widening the number of viable armies in a theme. If we hadn't have done weighting this year, there would have been no Med French armies. We didn't want this to be the Hundred Years War...English, theme. As such, this year, like in all the years that we've adopted a weighting approach to the theme, did exactly what we wanted it to do. The Theme event is *much* better for it.

scott

[jamiepwhite]

Alex and Successors Lists

22) Alex Macedonian, -10%
23) Alex Imperial, -10%
24) Asiatic Early Successor, 0%
25) Lysimachid, 0%
26) Macedonian Early Successor, 0%
27) Seleucid (Early Period Only), -10%
28) Ptolemaic (Early Period Only), -5%
30) Pyrrhic (No Samnites/Oscans; No Italiot/Sicilian Greeks), +5%
31) Pergameme (No ex-Seleucids), +5%

Classical Warrior Enemies Lists

2) Skythian (Early Period Only; No Assyrians): 0%
5) Illyrian (No Syracusan-led troops), +30%
6) Thracian (Early Period Only), +20%
18) L Ach Persian, +10%
19) Bithynian (No Roman/Roman-led troops), +10%
32) Galatian (No Imitation Legionaries), +20%
37) Hellenistic Greek, +10%

Imperial Warrior Enemies Lists

2) Early Armenian (CinC cannot be Tigranes), +10%
6) Nabataean Arab, +30%
8) Bosporan, +5%


I have to admit, +30% handicap does have me looking at Ilyrian, surely I can do something with endless waves of IB LMI JLS Sh. Or even better, play like early Qin and field vast blobs of ID LMI JLS 1/4 shield to see if you can make the pike tired. 48 + 9 + 25, 82 points a blob for a screen?

On the other hand, +30%, if anyone manages a semi decent list from the trash they are going to be unstoppable. Just more to think about.

[Bill Low]

What's the emoticon for "licking his chops" ... I am all in for Nabataean Arab!

[Historian]

Illyrians sound tempting, but the estimated cost of $600 for the lead is daunting.

[lilroblis]

I put my money on Thracian - 1920 points is a fearsome army

[Ed Kollmer]

Somehow I agree with Robert.
I have faced Thracians and they can be
pretty tough
Ed Afraid of Thracians Kollmer

[derekcus]

I'll bite. Why are Thracians so tough in this tournament?

Derek

[scott holder]

Lemme bat this ball back into your side of the court:

What's your rationale for weighting Thracians like this?

Heh heh, don't get me wrong, I like seeing some of these lists have so many points. As I've said before, I can finally field a Galatian army that seems "right". Now, will that help against the relative problems it'll have against any pike-based army with L-armed HC? No probably not but at least I finally feel the army is "complete" and I can figure a way to run it competitively with the weighting as it is.

For all I know, Thracians are the same way. Would you change the weighting if we allowed Thracian Peltasts the 2HCW option? I know from playing Thracians in the Mini a couple of years back that wouldn't make a difference as I never arm em with 2HCW. It's 12E blocks with Irr A in the front rank.

scott

[derekcus]

I would have to drop it to plus 10%
I guess thracians will just get the top 4 or 5 spots

[scott holder]

I see now in an email that you already answered the question about 2HCW and dropping the list to 10% if we did that.

But if we don't, again, why 20% as it currently stands? I assume it's because shieldless Thracian HC, even at 1.5 ranks, still goes into combat against L-armed HC at a -1. Then I suppose a combined arms pike trash army has more ways to potentially catch Thracian LMI standing.

Going from that, it means L-armed HC doing the old 5@7=30 on a standing Thracian LMI block. If they're Companions, they can break thru in most cases leaving the Thracians disordered and must rallying. Next bound your infantry comes in and it's good by Thracian LMI. This assumes they didn't shake in the first place.

In the usual meta-gaming that goes on behind the scenes, I suppose if players expect hordes of Thracians to show up (not likely considering as Phil said above, you've got a *lot* of 25mm lead to put together between now and July 2015), then the pike-trash players will maximize their Companions so that they'll have lots of them to toss hither and yon to pin Thracian LMI.

I know from my albeit limited experience playing Thracians that the 12E infantry blocks have surprising staying power, most of the time enough for an up roll to win the melee for you. But it also assumes they entered the melee impetuously.

Again, I think 1920pts of Thracians is pretty cool but then I'm playing 1920pts of Galatians.

Your thoughts?

scott