Warrior Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules
A Four Horsemen Enterprises Rules Set
 
  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups AlbumAlbum   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Allied/Sub Generals
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Rules
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Horseman
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 08 Jan 2017
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 12:01 am    Post subject: Allied/Sub Generals

I'm trying to figure out the benefits to using allied general rather than subs but am at a bit of a loss...

In their favour:
1) They can effect the random factor in combat every bound whilst Subs can only do so in the first bound of a combat

2) In some lists they give you access to different troop types unavailable otherwise

Against :
a) Sub Generals can intercept and rally any friendly non allied unit. Whilst Allied generals can only intercept units in their own command.

In the Oscan list in classical Warrior you get the option to upgrade a Sub general to an allied general and in several lists you get the option to downgrade an allied general to a sub.....

My question being in these instances why would you pay extra for the allied general? Point one above would still apply but mitigated by IMO point a. Am I missing something?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 12:47 am    Post subject:

No, you are not...we tend to try to avoid Ally generals, except when they provide access to troops we feel are necessary.

The extra 25 pts are...a burden.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6032
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 2:09 pm    Post subject:

Bear in mind that the ally designation also represents the historical aspect of these lists regardless of the "burdensome" point cost associated with them in the eyes of power gamers. Rolling Eyes Shocked

scott

_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
Horseman
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 08 Jan 2017
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:00 pm    Post subject:

scott holder wrote:
Bear in mind that the ally designation also represents the historical aspect of these lists regardless of the "burdensome" point cost associated with them in the eyes of power gamers. Rolling Eyes Shocked

scott


I'm quite pleased to say I moved on from being a "power gamer" many years ago.......Back in the day we just went with it, if a list had ally generals instead of subs then so be it (and historically I see the justification in many armies for this to be the case) To be fair 25pts really is a drop in the ocean unless running 3 or more sub/allied generals and even then it equates to one unit medium infantry. I was just puzzled with the lists where there was an option to upgrade/downgrade. Why wouldn't you go for the cheaper option?

On a related topic. Back in the day, due to a misinterpretation of the rules (and after rereading 7th ed. recently the blame lies on us and NOT Barkerese) we used to limit commands to 6 units +the general (with or without an integral unit) leaving a typical 2000pts game with minimum 3 generals but more often 4. What is the general consensus (no pun intended) for the optimum number of generals to take?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6032
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 12:36 pm    Post subject:

The only rule of thumb is cost effectiveness. By that I mean if purchasing something with a general element only costs you fractionally more, then folks tend to go that route. This only works with generals on SHK elements or El elements. There might be a couple of other cases.

To a lesser extent it also depends on your army. If you need generals for prompting because your army and playing style lean in that direction, then you get generals.

I've not seen any real trend recently toward fewer or greater generals. I tend to have no subs/allies at 1200 pts and lately no subs/allies at 1600 pts.

scott

_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 5:11 pm    Post subject: # of generals

Well, folks tend to run between 1 (one) and 3 (three) generals...CinC and Sub or two, possibly one Ally.

One general is fairly rare...as is 3 or more (excepting some lists).

This is on 1600 points, of course...1 or 2 generals the norm for 1200 points and 3-4 on 2000 points.

As Scott mentions, there are unit that make a general much more cost effective as the difference between a Knight (SHK particularly) element or Elephant element or Heavy Chariot element with or without a Sub is little.

As an example, a SHK army can have CinC, Sub and another Sub with a small reserve.

Irregular armies benefit from more generals given the extra prompt points needed and the fact that a general often saves 25 points of command factor.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6032
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 6:18 pm    Post subject:

Another thought on why there's no rule of thumb:

Since I filled in several years back for a Mini, I ran Bill's Thracians. The army's core are three 12E Barbarian Infantry blocks *without* 2HCW. Front rank is entirely Irr A. That means they never need prompting.

Reason #1 for not having a second general.

The purpose of those blocks is to close with a high value target ASAP. The more die rolls you get with them, the greater your chances are of rolling up and typically breaking your opponent. The units have good staying power which belies their Irr status. As such, you want to win or lose the game quickly. Since our games are 2.5 hours long at 1200pts, such a combat approach means there's not a lot of dicking around time either before or after things heat up.

Reason #2 for not having a second general.

Lemme stress that such an approach for such an army cannot be a template for anything else. It just happens to fit how I like to play the army.

And that's what continues to make Warrior a great game. We've always had this concept that "decision points" should exist throughout the game and in that regard, we've hit a home run because there are a gazillion "decision points" that begin with basic army selection, how you compose it, how you want to fight it (which goes back to list composition), etc., etc.

There are some truisms across the game like cost effectiveness for generals as SHK or El or HCh but number of generals...their ain't no truisms. Shocked

_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 10:28 pm    Post subject:

Scott is correct, of course...there are exceptions.

I recently ran a Spartacan army with just the CinC...as the 'action' units all had Irr A in the front rank and would not be needing prompting to charge.

I started frequently with WAIT orders, then changed them to Attack so as not to waste charge fatigue initially.

Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Horseman
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 08 Jan 2017
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:00 pm    Post subject:

Its good to know there no set standard or number crunched optimum.....and I like the fact that the only way to really find out is to play and learn from experience!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Ed Kollmer
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1018

PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 3:42 am    Post subject:

Am I a "power player" Scott?????
Ed the Unknowing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:16 am    Post subject:

No, Mr. Kollmer, no you are not...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6032
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:07 pm    Post subject:

Heh heh, Ed, if you have to ask the question, you're not. Laughing

scott

_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2102
Location: Buckley, WA

PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:05 pm    Post subject:

Another consideration on the number of generals is the relative cost of a geneal versus the figure and command factor it replaces. For irregular knights, EHC, and SHC the cost to upgrade to a subgeneral is relatively small, since you're paying 50-55 points for a general as opposed to 25 point command factor plus the cost of a fairly pricey figure.

Elephants are an even better bargain. It's actually cheaper to put an elephant general in a unit than not. The rationale for this eludes me, but I stopped worrying these nagging details of Warrior years ago. All complex systems struggle to maintain a balance of consistency, accuracy, and playability. Warrior does far better than any other miniatures rules system in this period I've seen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
Ed Kollmer
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1018

PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 1:02 am    Post subject:

Whewww........
That is a relief.....
The pressure was too much.....
Thanks Scott and Frank...
My wife thanks you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
jamiepwhite
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 213
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:04 am    Post subject: From the evil powergamers at Steve's Gym

Here are some general guide lines

1. Generals on elephants are usually a bargain for the points and one should buy all the elephant mounted generals available. The Khmer list in Oriental Warrior is a good example.

2. Ally generals are not a bargain and are only bought to gain access to their allied troops.

3. Regular foot armies only need one general and thus can run around in a single massive command.

4. Regular mounted armies will field two or three generals to get the mounted units to charge impetuously.

5. Irregular shock mounted armies such as Norman or Tuareg only need one general. How much command and control are IA lancers going to need?

6. Mounted shooting armies do need two or three generals running around the table to prompt LC charges, prompt marches, etc.

7. Irregular foot armies usually need two or three generals sprinkled across the table to get the foot units moving. Japanese would be an example of this where generals to prompt charges are often needed as the samurai are LB armed without LTS.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Rules All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
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