![Warrior](templates/subBlack/images/logo_phpBB.gif) |
Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules A Four Horsemen Enterprises Rules Set
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Mark Stone Moderator
![Moderator Moderator](mod6sword.gif)
![](images/avatars/1287194267458c0a43e386e.png)
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2102 Location: Buckley, WA
|
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:19 am Post subject: Re: 2017 NICT Lists |
![](templates/subBlack/images/lang_english/icon_ignore.gif) |
|
Frank Gilson wrote: |
Here follows my posting of each of the 2017 NICT competitors lists...in order of finish.
NICT
1) Todd Kaeser, Tepanec, 42.2
2) Rich Kroupa, Kushan, 38.4
3) Derek Downs, NKE, 37.7
4) Bill Low, Tepenec, 37.5
5) Ewan McNay, HYWE, 37
6) Greg Hauser, Ghaznavid, 34.8
7) Jake Kovel, Early Polish, 33.7
Dan Woyke, Sultanate of Lodi, 33.3
9) Sean Scott, Italian Condotta, 31.8
10) Robert Turnball, Seleucid, 30.4
11) Mark Stone, Shang Chinese, 28.9
12) Jamie White, Zulu, 25.2
13) Phil Gardocki, Anglo-Irish, 22.8
14) Jevon Garrett, Elamite, 16.6
15) Scott McDonald, Seleucid, 14.8
16) Rick Parrish*, Midianite, 12.6
*Alex Stone played Rick's 5th round running weighted NKE.
I don't have Alex Stone's NKE list, but assume it somewhat similar to Derek's. |
Side note before I jump in: "List Lore" as a category appears below the "fold" on most computers and all smart phones, so generally people don't even notice that something's been posted here. Hence the lack of responses. We might think, at some point, about using something other than an early 2000s discussion board system.
Back on topic: I thought I'd start with some commentary on the overall mix of armies and the results.
Here's one way to look at the results:
* 3 static shooter armies (Tepanec x2, 100YWE). In other words, consistently outscouted and relying on shooting to create opportunities.
* 5 elephant armies (Kushan, Ghaznavid, Seleucid x2, Sultanate of Lodi).
* 2 attacking knight armies (Early Polish, Italian Condotta).
* 1 barbarian trash army (Anglo Irish).
* 5 oddball armies (NKE, Shang, Zulu, Elamite, Midianite).
Of these, here's a quick assessment:
* The oddball armies are all over the place. Highest finish 3rd, also last place, and the rest scattered in between. No surprise in the wildly variant results. Kind of interesting that this many oddballs showed up. That seems like more than in years' past.
* Below average showing by barbarian trash. Not surprising. This remains one of the most disadvantaged army types in our system (along with Romans).
* Not a very strong showing by the attacking knight armies. This is interesting because prior to Scott's densifying of terrain this had been one of the most successful army types. Also notable that we have no Mongol-related armies this year. It appears these armies haven't figured out how to be effective with current trends in terrain setup.
* Elephant armies did well. Very well. Generally this isn't surprising. These armies have been strong since the beginning of 7th edition at least. It's a little surprising given the number of armies that had dense shooting out there. Not sure what to make of that.
* Static shooting armies did extremely well, taking 2 of the top 5 spots. This puzzles me still (sorry Todd) because no one seemed to be willing to refuse to take the bait. Sit in "Wait" orders, make them come to your side of the table, make them extend to more frontage than they can actually cover, make them show they can come get you (generally they can't). No, instead everyone tries to go and dig them out. With predictable results. Well, for better or worse these are the armies to beat now. I hope folks will take that into consideration as they plan their army list choices for next year. I know I will.
Having laid out that somewhat snarky analysis, I will conclude by saying this. Armies at the top of the pile vary a lot. Players at the top of the pile vary less. This has always been a game that rewards thoughtful play, and I continue to appreciate that. Our current champion is a case in point. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subBlack/images/spacer.gif) |
Historian Recruit
![Recruit Recruit](1sword.gif)
![](images/avatars/1475583922522872103eeb8.gif)
Joined: 27 Feb 2011 Posts: 239 Location: Pennsylvannia
|
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:43 am Post subject: |
![](templates/subBlack/images/lang_english/icon_ignore.gif) |
|
As the only "Barbarian Trash" army, my dominant tactic was "Sit in "Wait" orders", make them come to your side of the table," You can see by my standings how effective that was. Also, Anglo-Irish could be also classed as a missile army, as every unit but the 4 Knights and Cavalry have a missile weapon.
Giving your opponent opportunities to set up the tempo and matches seems to be more effective than waiting for an opportunity. _________________ Phil
Japanese telephones work pretty much like ours, except the person on the other end can't understand you. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subBlack/images/spacer.gif) |
Frank Gilson Moderator
![Moderator Moderator](mod6sword.gif)
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1553 Location: Orange County California
|
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:11 pm Post subject: Re: 2017 NICT Lists |
![](templates/subBlack/images/lang_english/icon_ignore.gif) |
|
Mark Stone wrote: |
Side note before I jump in: "List Lore" as a category appears below the "fold" on most computers and all smart phones, so generally people don't even notice that something's been posted here. Hence the lack of responses. We might think, at some point, about using something other than an early 2000s discussion board system.
Back on topic: I thought I'd start with some commentary on the overall mix of armies and the results.
Here's one way to look at the results:
* 3 static shooter armies (Tepanec x2, 100YWE). In other words, consistently outscouted and relying on shooting to create opportunities.
* 5 elephant armies (Kushan, Ghaznavid, Seleucid x2, Sultanate of Lodi).
* 2 attacking knight armies (Early Polish, Italian Condotta).
* 1 barbarian trash army (Anglo Irish).
* 5 oddball armies (NKE, Shang, Zulu, Elamite, Midianite).
Of these, here's a quick assessment:
* The oddball armies are all over the place. Highest finish 3rd, also last place, and the rest scattered in between. No surprise in the wildly variant results. Kind of interesting that this many oddballs showed up. That seems like more than in years' past.
* Below average showing by barbarian trash. Not surprising. This remains one of the most disadvantaged army types in our system (along with Romans).
* Not a very strong showing by the attacking knight armies. This is interesting because prior to Scott's densifying of terrain this had been one of the most successful army types. Also notable that we have no Mongol-related armies this year. It appears these armies haven't figured out how to be effective with current trends in terrain setup.
* Elephant armies did well. Very well. Generally this isn't surprising. These armies have been strong since the beginning of 7th edition at least. It's a little surprising given the number of armies that had dense shooting out there. Not sure what to make of that.
* Static shooting armies did extremely well, taking 2 of the top 5 spots. This puzzles me still (sorry Todd) because no one seemed to be willing to refuse to take the bait. Sit in "Wait" orders, make them come to your side of the table, make them extend to more frontage than they can actually cover, make them show they can come get you (generally they can't). No, instead everyone tries to go and dig them out. With predictable results. Well, for better or worse these are the armies to beat now. I hope folks will take that into consideration as they plan their army list choices for next year. I know I will.
Having laid out that somewhat snarky analysis, I will conclude by saying this. Armies at the top of the pile vary a lot. Players at the top of the pile vary less. This has always been a game that rewards thoughtful play, and I continue to appreciate that. Our current champion is a case in point. |
I don't 100% agree with Mark here...Kushan is not really an elephant army...it is an army of lancers and LC that uses some Elephants and Camels. Those are useful tools to expand the army's capabilities, but it had only four elephants...you're not really an 'Elephant' army unless you run 6+ of them and use Elephants as your primary strike force.
In that sense, one of the Seleucid armies, McDonald's, was not an 'Elephant' army with only 2 such. So really only 3 elephant armies, only one of which was 'near the top' (Hauser's Ghaznavids).
I'd have to say, then, that Elephant armies did not do well.
Also, you could call HYWE as run by McNay as a 'static shooter army'...but it is also very much a SHK army with 7 such units...thus transitioning into very much an attacking knight army when circumstances permitted.
NKE as run by Mr. Downs was not really an 'oddball' army, but a static shooter army with some light chariots for unease and 160p charges.
Elamite and Midianite were also dense shooting armies...more than 'oddball'...they would just be different forms of such.
I also think Mark's Shang had significant dense shooting as an offensive angle...although not its core purpose.
I do think Mark has a very valid point that this set of lists and our debates about them are a good place to start planning for next year! |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subBlack/images/spacer.gif) |
Mark Stone Moderator
![Moderator Moderator](mod6sword.gif)
![](images/avatars/1287194267458c0a43e386e.png)
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2102 Location: Buckley, WA
|
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 4:00 am Post subject: Re: Todd Kaeser Tepanec |
![](templates/subBlack/images/lang_english/icon_ignore.gif) |
|
Frank Gilson wrote: |
Todd Kaeser's Tepanecs
1 CinC 2E Reg A/B LMI LTS,S,Sh + PA 175
2 Sub 2E Reg A/B LMI LTS,S,Sh + P 105
3 4E Knights Reg B (1E A) LMI LTS,S,Sh 110
4 4E Knights Reg B (1E A) LMI LTS,S,Sh 110
5 4E Knights Reg B (1E A) LMI LTS,S,Sh 110
6 4E Knights Reg B (1E A) LMI LTS,S,Sh 110
7 4E Tepanec Warriors Reg B (1E A) LMI LTS,S,Sh 110
8 4E Tepanec Warriors Reg B (1E A) LMI LTS,S,Sh 110
9 4E Tepanec Warriors Reg C LMI LTS,S,Sh 90
10 4E Tepanec Warriors Reg C LMI LTS,S,Sh 90
11 4E Subject Warriors Reg C LMI LTS,D,Sh 90
12 2E Otomi Ir A LMI 1/2 2HCT,Jls,Sh 1/2 1HCW, Jls,Sh 64
13 2E Otomi Ir A LMI 1/2 2HCT,Jls,Sh 1/2 1HCW, Jls,Sh 64
14 2E Otomi Ir A LMI 1/2 2HCT,Jls,Sh 1/2 1HCW, Jls,Sh 64
15 6E Otomi Ir C LMI Jls,Sh 79
16 2E Tepanec Skirmisher Reg C LI 1HCW,S,Sh 30
17 2E Tepanec Skirmisher Reg C LI 1HCW,S,Sh 30
18 2E Tepanec Skirmisher Reg C LI 1HCW,S,Sh 30
19 4E Subject Skirmishers Reg D LI S,Sh 34
1605 |
Ok. Now to the nitty gritty of it. The line troops of this army are 9 units, 4 elements each, of LTS, missile, Sh (usually sling). Other LMI units would be behind the line to cover flanks or move up to exploit opportunities. The LI would provide some soft extension of frontage.
Those 9 units hold 18 elements' frontage. With gaps between them that's roughly another 12 elements' frontage, totaling 30 elements frontage. The LI and/or terrain must cover another 10 elements' frontage. Our tables are 40 elements wide.
Todd is well practiced with this army, and a solid player, so he's learned space management well over the years with this type of army. That makes him a formidable opponent.
There are weaknesses, however. Not all of the line troops are high morale, and if stretched to the fullest extent of frontage coverage, even high morale units are going to be vulnerable to the right attack if they are on the end of the line.
So the key to challenging this army is to make it fight on as broad a frontage as possible while, at the same time, finding an opportune place for concentration of your own forces against the most vulnerable part of the line. This probably means holding off the true attack until the front lines have fully closed with each other, and then rapidly closing on a point of opportunity in the later bounds.
The ideal opponent would be a knight army with extensive light troops, something like Wallachian or Early Polish. Dismounted knights are very solid against Tepanec foot, and mounted knights will keep said foot from merely falling back in skirmish. Platoon with light troops so that some are rallying behind while others are skirmishing and shooting.
There are also certain foot that are very good for dealing with Tepanec foot. Korean spearmen, who show up on several lists: HI/MI LTS,B,Pa / LTS, B, Sh can stand up to the shooting and walk into and over the Tepanecs while accompanying cavalry keep the Tepanecs from skirmishing. Spanish Scutarii, taken as regulars (Reg C LMI HTW,JLS,Sh) will do very well also, and can go into bad terrain.
So there are options. But those options have to be played as carefully as Todd plays his Tepanecs, and even then you'll likely to have to have patience -- and enough playing time -- to wait for a failed counter or two.
So with the right opposing army in the hands of a strong player, I don't see how the Tepanecs get to a big win, and certainly risk a big loss. But it all comes down to matchups -- which player and which army you face -- and ability to actually execute at the table. I won't deny Tepanec is a strong army; it just doesn't suit my playing style. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subBlack/images/spacer.gif) |
Mark Stone Moderator
![Moderator Moderator](mod6sword.gif)
![](images/avatars/1287194267458c0a43e386e.png)
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2102 Location: Buckley, WA
|
Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:01 pm Post subject: Re: Rich Kroupa Kushan |
![](templates/subBlack/images/lang_english/icon_ignore.gif) |
|
Frank Gilson wrote: |
Rich Kroupa's Kushans
1 2 Elements, Irr-C, LI, JLS, Sh 2x6+25 37
2 4 Elements, Irr-C, LC, L, B, ½Sh+EP 2x16+ 2x12 + 25 81
3 4 Elements, Irr-C, LC, L, B, ½Sh+EP 2x16+ 2x12 + 25 81
4 4 Elements, Irr-C, LC, L, B, ½Sh+EP 2x16+ 2x12 + 25 81
5 4 Elements, Irr-C MI,LTS,½Sh 2x12 + 2x8 + 25 65
6 2 Elements, Irr-B, EHC, L,B, ½Sh+EP 1x39 + 1x33 + 25 97
7 1 Element, Irr-B, SHC, L, B +EP 1x52
1 Element, Irr-B, EHC,L,B + EP 1x33 + 25" 110
8 2 Element, Irr-B, SHC,L,B + EP 2x52 + 25 129
9 2 Element, Irr-B, SHC,L,B + EP 2x52 + 25 129
10 2 Elements, Irr-B, Elephants, Armed Driver+JLS+B 2x48+25 121
11 4 Elements, Irr-C LMI, JLS,B,½Sh 2x12 + 2x9 + 25 67
12 4 Elements, Irr-C, LC,L,B,½Sh +CP 2x16 + 2x12 + 25 81
13 2 Elements, Irr-C, LI, B 2x4 + 25 33
14 2 Elements, Irr-C, LI, B 2x4 + 25 33
15 4 Elements, Irr-C, MCm,L,B,½Sh 2x18 + 2x12 + 25 85
16 4 Elements, Irr-C, MCm,L,B,½Sh 2x18 + 2x12 + 25 85
17 2 Elements, Irr-B, Elephants, Armed Driver+JLS+B+PAS 1x48+15+112 175 CNC
18 2 Elements, Irr-B, EHC, L,B, ½Sh+CP+PS 1x33+5+76 114 SG-1
1604
Cav in the top group are elephant proof...in the bottom group camel proof. |
I like this better than Ewan's Sassanid list for a few reasons:
* The LMI unit provides minimal rough terrain capability, but will serve the important function of being able to go into terrain and push back enemy light infantry.
* The L-armed LC fights rank and a half, enabling a more aggressive game with the light troops.
* The camels and camel-proofing are an interesting twist, and give the opponent an additional complication to work through.
This list has big strengths and big weaknesses. We've seen from Ewan how deadly the combination of elephant-proof SHC and elephants can be. Very few troop types can stand up to both -- Todd's Tepanecs with high morale LTS,S,Sh might be the best. But generally shooters who can hinder the elephants don't phase the SHC, and barbarian foot who can threaten the elephants are vulnerable to the SHC. On the flip side, close order foot who can stand up to the SHC have to be wary of the elephants.
The normal tactic against such an army would be to try and collapse a flank away from the SHC/El by playing an aggressive skirmisher game. Rich hampers this by use the camels, and then stiffening his flank with a camel-proof EHC unit.
So certainly this army meets the primary requirement of an NICT army: it has the ability to play aggressively, and has a powerful attack that threatens almost all opponents.
Having said that, the army also has big weaknesses. The elphants can still be vulnerable to shooting given careful play, and the camels are extremely vulnerable to shooting and very weak in hand to hand. A patient opponent should be able to concentrate on one or more weak points in the Kushan line. Then it's really a matter of execution: who carries off their attack more successfully.
There will be few low scoring games where this variant of Kushan is involved, and that's a good thing. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subBlack/images/spacer.gif) |
Ewan McNay Moderator
![Moderator Moderator](mod6sword.gif)
![](http://wesnoth.slack.it/images/AAAAABase_units/units/human-loyalists/general.png)
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2769 Location: Albany, NY, US
|
Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 11:35 pm Post subject: Re: Rich Kroupa Kushan |
![](templates/subBlack/images/lang_english/icon_ignore.gif) |
|
Mark Stone wrote: |
Frank Gilson wrote: |
Rich Kroupa's Kushans
1 2 Elements, Irr-C, LI, JLS, Sh 2x6+25 37
2 4 Elements, Irr-C, LC, L, B, ½Sh+EP 2x16+ 2x12 + 25 81
3 4 Elements, Irr-C, LC, L, B, ½Sh+EP 2x16+ 2x12 + 25 81
4 4 Elements, Irr-C, LC, L, B, ½Sh+EP 2x16+ 2x12 + 25 81
5 4 Elements, Irr-C MI,LTS,½Sh 2x12 + 2x8 + 25 65
6 2 Elements, Irr-B, EHC, L,B, ½Sh+EP 1x39 + 1x33 + 25 97
7 1 Element, Irr-B, SHC, L, B +EP 1x52
1 Element, Irr-B, EHC,L,B + EP 1x33 + 25" 110
8 2 Element, Irr-B, SHC,L,B + EP 2x52 + 25 129
9 2 Element, Irr-B, SHC,L,B + EP 2x52 + 25 129
10 2 Elements, Irr-B, Elephants, Armed Driver+JLS+B 2x48+25 121
11 4 Elements, Irr-C LMI, JLS,B,½Sh 2x12 + 2x9 + 25 67
12 4 Elements, Irr-C, LC,L,B,½Sh +CP 2x16 + 2x12 + 25 81
13 2 Elements, Irr-C, LI, B 2x4 + 25 33
14 2 Elements, Irr-C, LI, B 2x4 + 25 33
15 4 Elements, Irr-C, MCm,L,B,½Sh 2x18 + 2x12 + 25 85
16 4 Elements, Irr-C, MCm,L,B,½Sh 2x18 + 2x12 + 25 85
17 2 Elements, Irr-B, Elephants, Armed Driver+JLS+B+PAS 1x48+15+112 175 CNC
18 2 Elements, Irr-B, EHC, L,B, ½Sh+CP+PS 1x33+5+76 114 SG-1
1604
Cav in the top group are elephant proof...in the bottom group camel proof. |
I like this better than Ewan's Sassanid list for a few reasons:
* The LMI unit provides minimal rough terrain capability, but will serve the important function of being able to go into terrain and push back enemy light infantry.
* The L-armed LC fights rank and a half, enabling a more aggressive game with the light troops.
* The camels and camel-proofing are an interesting twist, and give the opponent an additional complication to work through. |
Mark is deluded here . The SHC lack shields and are much less point-efficient than the Sassanid SHC/EHC combination; the elephants are fewer and not as good; and the light troops are irregular (and the LI are in simply stupid units, as Frank noted). There's much less, and much worse, LI. The camels are neat but so vulnerable. There's not even the Paighan spearmen that the Sassanids get as a foot anchor - the 4E MI are simply wasted points. The LMI can't fight anything and can't get away. Finishing anywhere respectable in the NICT with this list is a remarkable feat of skill.
Ah, I feel the old snarkiness rising... |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subBlack/images/spacer.gif) |
Mark Stone Moderator
![Moderator Moderator](mod6sword.gif)
![](images/avatars/1287194267458c0a43e386e.png)
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2102 Location: Buckley, WA
|
Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 3:47 am Post subject: Re: Rich Kroupa Kushan |
![](templates/subBlack/images/lang_english/icon_ignore.gif) |
|
Ewan McNay wrote: |
Mark is deluded here . The SHC lack shields and are much less point-efficient than the Sassanid SHC/EHC combination; the elephants are fewer and not as good; and the light troops are irregular (and the LI are in simply stupid units, as Frank noted). There's much less, and much worse, LI. The camels are neat but so vulnerable. There's not even the Paighan spearmen that the Sassanids get as a foot anchor - the 4E MI are simply wasted points. The LMI can't fight anything and can't get away. Finishing anywhere respectable in the NICT with this list is a remarkable feat of skill.
Ah, I feel the old snarkiness rising... |
Wow -- it has been so long since I've been slapped in the face by Ewan. It feels so... refreshing! Reminds me of the good ole days, so many years ago. Keep it coming, Ewan! |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subBlack/images/spacer.gif) |
Ewan McNay Moderator
![Moderator Moderator](mod6sword.gif)
![](http://wesnoth.slack.it/images/AAAAABase_units/units/human-loyalists/general.png)
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2769 Location: Albany, NY, US
|
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 pm Post subject: Re: Derek Downs NKE |
![](templates/subBlack/images/lang_english/icon_ignore.gif) |
|
Frank Gilson wrote: |
Derek Downs' New Kingdom Egyptians
1 CnC JLS B 2x 2HLch RA/B PA 149
2 2x 2HLch 1 w/B RB 48
3 2x 2HLch 1 w/B RB 48
4 2x 2HLch 1 w/B RB 48
5 2x 2HLch 1 w/B RB 48
6 2x 2HLch 1 w/B RB 48
7 4x MI JLS SH RD 58
8 4x MI JLS SH RD 58
9 4x LMI B RD 42
10 4x LMI B RD 42
11 4x LMI B RD 42
12 4x LMI B RD 42
13 4x LMI B RD 42
14 4x LMI JLS B RB ½ SH 98
15 4x LMI JLS B RB ½ SH 98
16 4x LMI JLS B RB ½ SH 98
17 4x LMI JLS B RB ½ SH 98
18 4xLMI JLS B RB ½ SH 98
19 4x LMI JLS B RC ½ SH 82
20 2x LI JLS SH RC 26
21 2x LI JLS SH RC 26
22 2x LI JLS SH RC 26
23 2x LI JLS SH RC 26
24 2x LI JLS SH RC 26
25 2x LI B RC 22
26 2x LI B RC 22
27 4x LHI 1HCW JLS SH RB 138
1599 |
This is the first of these lists against which I fought, although Derek had two of the guard 1HCW units against me and all of the JLS, B units were described as Reg B - maybe Derek was still tweaking after this version. My AAR has some thoughts, and really the list speaks for itself - a billion tiny regular units with bow, many of which are high morale and hence intended to minimise waver test failure cascades. I am surprised that it did as well as third - again, testament to player rather than list - with really zero ability to apply focussed force, and relying on enemy carelessness that I would expect to be relatively rare in the NICT. If you don't have scouting superiority, you'll be forced to deploy entirely before your opponent - and that's quite likely to be a consequential weakness if they press hard on a smaller frontage. (Side comment: in general, my experience suggests that in general that's a good way to play against Derek; channel your inner Chris Damour.) Not sure that I have anything to add to others' comments, here. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subBlack/images/spacer.gif) |
Frank Gilson Moderator
![Moderator Moderator](mod6sword.gif)
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1553 Location: Orange County California
|
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:17 am Post subject: Re: Derek Downs NKE |
![](templates/subBlack/images/lang_english/icon_ignore.gif) |
|
Ewan McNay wrote: |
Frank Gilson wrote: |
Derek Downs' New Kingdom Egyptians
1 CnC JLS B 2x 2HLch RA/B PA 149
2 2x 2HLch 1 w/B RB 48
3 2x 2HLch 1 w/B RB 48
4 2x 2HLch 1 w/B RB 48
5 2x 2HLch 1 w/B RB 48
6 2x 2HLch 1 w/B RB 48
7 4x MI JLS SH RD 58
8 4x MI JLS SH RD 58
9 4x LMI B RD 42
10 4x LMI B RD 42
11 4x LMI B RD 42
12 4x LMI B RD 42
13 4x LMI B RD 42
14 4x LMI JLS B RB ½ SH 98
15 4x LMI JLS B RB ½ SH 98
16 4x LMI JLS B RB ½ SH 98
17 4x LMI JLS B RB ½ SH 98
18 4xLMI JLS B RB ½ SH 98
19 4x LMI JLS B RC ½ SH 82
20 2x LI JLS SH RC 26
21 2x LI JLS SH RC 26
22 2x LI JLS SH RC 26
23 2x LI JLS SH RC 26
24 2x LI JLS SH RC 26
25 2x LI B RC 22
26 2x LI B RC 22
27 4x LHI 1HCW JLS SH RB 138
1599 |
This is the first of these lists against which I fought, although Derek had two of the guard 1HCW units against me and all of the JLS, B units were described as Reg B - maybe Derek was still tweaking after this version. My AAR has some thoughts, and really the list speaks for itself - a billion tiny regular units with bow, many of which are high morale and hence intended to minimise waver test failure cascades. I am surprised that it did as well as third - again, testament to player rather than list - with really zero ability to apply focussed force, and relying on enemy carelessness that I would expect to be relatively rare in the NICT. If you don't have scouting superiority, you'll be forced to deploy entirely before your opponent - and that's quite likely to be a consequential weakness if they press hard on a smaller frontage. (Side comment: in general, my experience suggests that in general that's a good way to play against Derek; channel your inner Chris Damour.) Not sure that I have anything to add to others' comments, here. |
As a side note, no one should be 'tweaking' any submitted NCT list once it has been agreed upon as final having been submitted to Scott. So, Derek's list on the table should have been exactly as listed, as that's the final version he submitted. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subBlack/images/spacer.gif) |
Todd Kaeser Centurion
![Centurion Centurion](3sword.gif)
![](images/avatars/74035690146bc727102d04.jpg)
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1213 Location: Foxborough, Massachusetts
|
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 3:01 pm Post subject: Re: Todd Kaeser Tepanec |
![](templates/subBlack/images/lang_english/icon_ignore.gif) |
|
Mark Stone wrote: |
Frank Gilson wrote: |
Todd Kaeser's Tepanecs
1 CinC 2E Reg A/B LMI LTS,S,Sh + PA 175
2 Sub 2E Reg A/B LMI LTS,S,Sh + P 105
3 4E Knights Reg B (1E A) LMI LTS,S,Sh 110
4 4E Knights Reg B (1E A) LMI LTS,S,Sh 110
5 4E Knights Reg B (1E A) LMI LTS,S,Sh 110
6 4E Knights Reg B (1E A) LMI LTS,S,Sh 110
7 4E Tepanec Warriors Reg B (1E A) LMI LTS,S,Sh 110
8 4E Tepanec Warriors Reg B (1E A) LMI LTS,S,Sh 110
9 4E Tepanec Warriors Reg C LMI LTS,S,Sh 90
10 4E Tepanec Warriors Reg C LMI LTS,S,Sh 90
11 4E Subject Warriors Reg C LMI LTS,D,Sh 90
12 2E Otomi Ir A LMI 1/2 2HCT,Jls,Sh 1/2 1HCW, Jls,Sh 64
13 2E Otomi Ir A LMI 1/2 2HCT,Jls,Sh 1/2 1HCW, Jls,Sh 64
14 2E Otomi Ir A LMI 1/2 2HCT,Jls,Sh 1/2 1HCW, Jls,Sh 64
15 6E Otomi Ir C LMI Jls,Sh 79
16 2E Tepanec Skirmisher Reg C LI 1HCW,S,Sh 30
17 2E Tepanec Skirmisher Reg C LI 1HCW,S,Sh 30
18 2E Tepanec Skirmisher Reg C LI 1HCW,S,Sh 30
19 4E Subject Skirmishers Reg D LI S,Sh 34
1605 |
Ok. Now to the nitty gritty of it. The line troops of this army are 9 units, 4 elements each, of LTS, missile, Sh (usually sling). Other LMI units would be behind the line to cover flanks or move up to exploit opportunities. The LI would provide some soft extension of frontage.
Those 9 units hold 18 elements' frontage. With gaps between them that's roughly another 12 elements' frontage, totaling 30 elements frontage. The LI and/or terrain must cover another 10 elements' frontage. Our tables are 40 elements wide.
Todd is well practiced with this army, and a solid player, so he's learned space management well over the years with this type of army. That makes him a formidable opponent.
There are weaknesses, however. Not all of the line troops are high morale, and if stretched to the fullest extent of frontage coverage, even high morale units are going to be vulnerable to the right attack if they are on the end of the line.
So the key to challenging this army is to make it fight on as broad a frontage as possible while, at the same time, finding an opportune place for concentration of your own forces against the most vulnerable part of the line. This probably means holding off the true attack until the front lines have fully closed with each other, and then rapidly closing on a point of opportunity in the later bounds.
The ideal opponent would be a knight army with extensive light troops, something like Wallachian or Early Polish. Dismounted knights are very solid against Tepanec foot, and mounted knights will keep said foot from merely falling back in skirmish. Platoon with light troops so that some are rallying behind while others are skirmishing and shooting.
There are also certain foot that are very good for dealing with Tepanec foot. Korean spearmen, who show up on several lists: HI/MI LTS,B,Pa / LTS, B, Sh can stand up to the shooting and walk into and over the Tepanecs while accompanying cavalry keep the Tepanecs from skirmishing. Spanish Scutarii, taken as regulars (Reg C LMI HTW,JLS,Sh) will do very well also, and can go into bad terrain.
So there are options. But those options have to be played as carefully as Todd plays his Tepanecs, and even then you'll likely to have to have patience -- and enough playing time -- to wait for a failed counter or two.
So with the right opposing army in the hands of a strong player, I don't see how the Tepanecs get to a big win, and certainly risk a big loss. But it all comes down to matchups -- which player and which army you face -- and ability to actually execute at the table. I won't deny Tepanec is a strong army; it just doesn't suit my playing style. |
Mark,
I greatly appreciate the compliments - Aztec/Tepanec has been about 30 years of love/play-testing/getting-it-right. I will agree with most of what you have said. There are many times when shooting alone does the trick - and with overlaps a +1 is often enough to create the crack that starts the collapse - but a +2 is often the kicker that is needed.
Matchups with ANY army are so key. The year you played 10IS and did NOT face any of the 5 Japanese armies was key - if you had faced 1-2 of them your results would have been different by your own admission.
There are occasional frontage issues with the army for sure. The LI has to be heroic to hold space - often needing to pass a counter or 2 to delay the 3-4 turns necessary to get the shots in other places. Ewan and Derek are the fastest opponents to get through this, but I can often hold a fair amount of space with a 2E LI unit that passes a counter or 2.
Morale is a problem at times. I was lucky in that my Reg C LMI passed some crucial wavers in key spots. I also rolled a fair amount of 1's vs Greg with A/B troops which does happen.
I will say that opponents have, at times, tried the wait tactic and I will happily cross the board. I have no problem pushing my army towards the opponents camps and have been in the ares (encircling is the best way to take captives for sacrifice )
Todd _________________ Nolite te Bastardes Carborundorum
"Don't let the Bastards Grind You Down" |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subBlack/images/spacer.gif) |
Frank Gilson Moderator
![Moderator Moderator](mod6sword.gif)
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1553 Location: Orange County California
|
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:57 am Post subject: Re: Todd Kaeser Tepanec |
![](templates/subBlack/images/lang_english/icon_ignore.gif) |
|
Todd Kaeser wrote: |
Mark Stone wrote: |
Frank Gilson wrote: |
Todd Kaeser's Tepanecs
1 CinC 2E Reg A/B LMI LTS,S,Sh + PA 175
2 Sub 2E Reg A/B LMI LTS,S,Sh + P 105
3 4E Knights Reg B (1E A) LMI LTS,S,Sh 110
4 4E Knights Reg B (1E A) LMI LTS,S,Sh 110
5 4E Knights Reg B (1E A) LMI LTS,S,Sh 110
6 4E Knights Reg B (1E A) LMI LTS,S,Sh 110
7 4E Tepanec Warriors Reg B (1E A) LMI LTS,S,Sh 110
8 4E Tepanec Warriors Reg B (1E A) LMI LTS,S,Sh 110
9 4E Tepanec Warriors Reg C LMI LTS,S,Sh 90
10 4E Tepanec Warriors Reg C LMI LTS,S,Sh 90
11 4E Subject Warriors Reg C LMI LTS,D,Sh 90
12 2E Otomi Ir A LMI 1/2 2HCT,Jls,Sh 1/2 1HCW, Jls,Sh 64
13 2E Otomi Ir A LMI 1/2 2HCT,Jls,Sh 1/2 1HCW, Jls,Sh 64
14 2E Otomi Ir A LMI 1/2 2HCT,Jls,Sh 1/2 1HCW, Jls,Sh 64
15 6E Otomi Ir C LMI Jls,Sh 79
16 2E Tepanec Skirmisher Reg C LI 1HCW,S,Sh 30
17 2E Tepanec Skirmisher Reg C LI 1HCW,S,Sh 30
18 2E Tepanec Skirmisher Reg C LI 1HCW,S,Sh 30
19 4E Subject Skirmishers Reg D LI S,Sh 34
1605 |
Ok. Now to the nitty gritty of it. The line troops of this army are 9 units, 4 elements each, of LTS, missile, Sh (usually sling). Other LMI units would be behind the line to cover flanks or move up to exploit opportunities. The LI would provide some soft extension of frontage.
Those 9 units hold 18 elements' frontage. With gaps between them that's roughly another 12 elements' frontage, totaling 30 elements frontage. The LI and/or terrain must cover another 10 elements' frontage. Our tables are 40 elements wide.
Todd is well practiced with this army, and a solid player, so he's learned space management well over the years with this type of army. That makes him a formidable opponent.
There are weaknesses, however. Not all of the line troops are high morale, and if stretched to the fullest extent of frontage coverage, even high morale units are going to be vulnerable to the right attack if they are on the end of the line.
So the key to challenging this army is to make it fight on as broad a frontage as possible while, at the same time, finding an opportune place for concentration of your own forces against the most vulnerable part of the line. This probably means holding off the true attack until the front lines have fully closed with each other, and then rapidly closing on a point of opportunity in the later bounds.
The ideal opponent would be a knight army with extensive light troops, something like Wallachian or Early Polish. Dismounted knights are very solid against Tepanec foot, and mounted knights will keep said foot from merely falling back in skirmish. Platoon with light troops so that some are rallying behind while others are skirmishing and shooting.
There are also certain foot that are very good for dealing with Tepanec foot. Korean spearmen, who show up on several lists: HI/MI LTS,B,Pa / LTS, B, Sh can stand up to the shooting and walk into and over the Tepanecs while accompanying cavalry keep the Tepanecs from skirmishing. Spanish Scutarii, taken as regulars (Reg C LMI HTW,JLS,Sh) will do very well also, and can go into bad terrain.
So there are options. But those options have to be played as carefully as Todd plays his Tepanecs, and even then you'll likely to have to have patience -- and enough playing time -- to wait for a failed counter or two.
So with the right opposing army in the hands of a strong player, I don't see how the Tepanecs get to a big win, and certainly risk a big loss. But it all comes down to matchups -- which player and which army you face -- and ability to actually execute at the table. I won't deny Tepanec is a strong army; it just doesn't suit my playing style. |
Mark,
I greatly appreciate the compliments - Aztec/Tepanec has been about 30 years of love/play-testing/getting-it-right. I will agree with most of what you have said. There are many times when shooting alone does the trick - and with overlaps a +1 is often enough to create the crack that starts the collapse - but a +2 is often the kicker that is needed.
Matchups with ANY army are so key. The year you played 10IS and did NOT face any of the 5 Japanese armies was key - if you had faced 1-2 of them your results would have been different by your own admission.
There are occasional frontage issues with the army for sure. The LI has to be heroic to hold space - often needing to pass a counter or 2 to delay the 3-4 turns necessary to get the shots in other places. Ewan and Derek are the fastest opponents to get through this, but I can often hold a fair amount of space with a 2E LI unit that passes a counter or 2.
Morale is a problem at times. I was lucky in that my Reg C LMI passed some crucial wavers in key spots. I also rolled a fair amount of 1's vs Greg with A/B troops which does happen.
I will say that opponents have, at times, tried the wait tactic and I will happily cross the board. I have no problem pushing my army towards the opponents camps and have been in the ares (encircling is the best way to take captives for sacrifice )
Todd |
I do think that 'waiting' against a MesoAmerican army is what you should do against Todd ...but against many others that would just result in a draw.
In the case vs. Todd, as he is willing and able to attack across the table, it then becomes this dance of your internal lines as Todd moves his troops forward...can you each get your matchups? Todd's troops do get their 3 march moves and are high morale regulars...
Also, with Wait, you give up a couple of bounds of pushing against Todd's LI...so you are unlikely to turn a flank. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subBlack/images/spacer.gif) |
lilroblis Legionary
![Legionary Legionary](2sword.gif)
Joined: 24 Apr 2006 Posts: 567 Location: Cleveland Ohio
|
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 4:07 pm Post subject: On Kushan |
![](templates/subBlack/images/lang_english/icon_ignore.gif) |
|
So having been destroyed by Kushan - I like the list - In my case - 3-4 consecutive up 3 or Up 4 when I chose to fight frontally did for me - the camels do well against me and I dont have the lights to compete - but elephants cahrging elephants and he routs me on contact (I am +1 because of pike) - then he charges my pike - and rolls Up 3 and Up 4 - and game over- well played with an army that can do that - its a nice list but not one I fear normally - but it is tough and well handled |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subBlack/images/spacer.gif) |
Mark Stone Moderator
![Moderator Moderator](mod6sword.gif)
![](images/avatars/1287194267458c0a43e386e.png)
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2102 Location: Buckley, WA
|
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:57 pm Post subject: Re: Derek Downs NKE |
![](templates/subBlack/images/lang_english/icon_ignore.gif) |
|
Frank Gilson wrote: |
Derek Downs' New Kingdom Egyptians
1 CnC JLS B 2x 2HLch RA/B PA 149
2 2x 2HLch 1 w/B RB 48
3 2x 2HLch 1 w/B RB 48
4 2x 2HLch 1 w/B RB 48
5 2x 2HLch 1 w/B RB 48
6 2x 2HLch 1 w/B RB 48
7 4x MI JLS SH RD 58
8 4x MI JLS SH RD 58
9 4x LMI B RD 42
10 4x LMI B RD 42
11 4x LMI B RD 42
12 4x LMI B RD 42
13 4x LMI B RD 42
14 4x LMI JLS B RB ½ SH 98
15 4x LMI JLS B RB ½ SH 98
16 4x LMI JLS B RB ½ SH 98
17 4x LMI JLS B RB ½ SH 98
18 4xLMI JLS B RB ½ SH 98
19 4x LMI JLS B RC ½ SH 82
20 2x LI JLS SH RC 26
21 2x LI JLS SH RC 26
22 2x LI JLS SH RC 26
23 2x LI JLS SH RC 26
24 2x LI JLS SH RC 26
25 2x LI B RC 22
26 2x LI B RC 22
27 4x LHI 1HCW JLS SH RB 138
1599 |
Lots of commentary on this list so far, so I'll try and focus on a few additional observations.
1. "Lots of shooting" isn't specific enough. We run into a 100YWE or KofStJ army that has, say, 96 - 128 shooters and we think of that as "lots". But there are several armies that are in a whole different category. Derek's list here has well over 200 shooters. My Shang can top that, but not many armies can. Back when Derek and I were both running 10 Independent States we had armies with close to 300 shooters on 1600 points. So the sheer density of shooting here is on a whole different level than what we typically mean by "dense shooting". And while my Shang have more shooters, my maneuverability is fairly clumsy compared to what Derek has put together here. Lots of regular loose order in optimized 4 element sizes, some low morale so that you can get enough high morale to counter and retire effectively where necessary. In any given bound this army will make many roles with 32 guys piling onto a single target just looking for that +2 or +3 roll. Odds are there will be at least one of those per bound.
2. The light chariots are weird and confounding. Given the Biblical rules under which they operate, they put out more than the usual shooting (3 guys firing instead of 2), and when steady they cannot be frontally charged by enemy LI or LC. This creates a stand-off with most LC, who could beat them in hand to hand but can't charge them. It makes LI often vulnerable. The LI don't fair especially well in hand to hand (JLS-armed being an exception), and have to take an uneasy waver if charged. There's very little risk to the light chariots, and lots of risk to the LI. Nor can you stiffen the LI by supporting them with LC, because the LC can't charge the light chariots. So to really bolster your LI you have to divert "real" cavalry. At worst, Derek has a flank where he can simply stop your skirmisher / light troop advance. At best, he can prey on your light infantry and open up flank opportunities for his army.
3. Derek has adopted the habit through several armies now of only taking one general. With the large, homogeneous armies that he favors setting up second is not a big deal. But I do think his lack of prompt points is something that could be exploited. I don't have anything very specific here to offer by way of advice, but it seems like a tactical weakness we, collectively, have not yet thought through how to exploit. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subBlack/images/spacer.gif) |
Frank Gilson Moderator
![Moderator Moderator](mod6sword.gif)
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1553 Location: Orange County California
|
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 7:35 am Post subject: Re: Derek Downs NKE |
![](templates/subBlack/images/lang_english/icon_ignore.gif) |
|
Mark Stone wrote: |
Frank Gilson wrote: |
Derek Downs' New Kingdom Egyptians
1 CnC JLS B 2x 2HLch RA/B PA 149
2 2x 2HLch 1 w/B RB 48
3 2x 2HLch 1 w/B RB 48
4 2x 2HLch 1 w/B RB 48
5 2x 2HLch 1 w/B RB 48
6 2x 2HLch 1 w/B RB 48
7 4x MI JLS SH RD 58
8 4x MI JLS SH RD 58
9 4x LMI B RD 42
10 4x LMI B RD 42
11 4x LMI B RD 42
12 4x LMI B RD 42
13 4x LMI B RD 42
14 4x LMI JLS B RB ½ SH 98
15 4x LMI JLS B RB ½ SH 98
16 4x LMI JLS B RB ½ SH 98
17 4x LMI JLS B RB ½ SH 98
18 4xLMI JLS B RB ½ SH 98
19 4x LMI JLS B RC ½ SH 82
20 2x LI JLS SH RC 26
21 2x LI JLS SH RC 26
22 2x LI JLS SH RC 26
23 2x LI JLS SH RC 26
24 2x LI JLS SH RC 26
25 2x LI B RC 22
26 2x LI B RC 22
27 4x LHI 1HCW JLS SH RB 138
1599 |
Lots of commentary on this list so far, so I'll try and focus on a few additional observations.
1. "Lots of shooting" isn't specific enough. We run into a 100YWE or KofStJ army that has, say, 96 - 128 shooters and we think of that as "lots". But there are several armies that are in a whole different category. Derek's list here has well over 200 shooters. My Shang can top that, but not many armies can. Back when Derek and I were both running 10 Independent States we had armies with close to 300 shooters on 1600 points. So the sheer density of shooting here is on a whole different level than what we typically mean by "dense shooting". And while my Shang have more shooters, my maneuverability is fairly clumsy compared to what Derek has put together here. Lots of regular loose order in optimized 4 element sizes, some low morale so that you can get enough high morale to counter and retire effectively where necessary. In any given bound this army will make many roles with 32 guys piling onto a single target just looking for that +2 or +3 roll. Odds are there will be at least one of those per bound.
2. The light chariots are weird and confounding. Given the Biblical rules under which they operate, they put out more than the usual shooting (3 guys firing instead of 2), and when steady they cannot be frontally charged by enemy LI or LC. This creates a stand-off with most LC, who could beat them in hand to hand but can't charge them. It makes LI often vulnerable. The LI don't fair especially well in hand to hand (JLS-armed being an exception), and have to take an uneasy waver if charged. There's very little risk to the light chariots, and lots of risk to the LI. Nor can you stiffen the LI by supporting them with LC, because the LC can't charge the light chariots. So to really bolster your LI you have to divert "real" cavalry. At worst, Derek has a flank where he can simply stop your skirmisher / light troop advance. At best, he can prey on your light infantry and open up flank opportunities for his army.
3. Derek has adopted the habit through several armies now of only taking one general. With the large, homogeneous armies that he favors setting up second is not a big deal. But I do think his lack of prompt points is something that could be exploited. I don't have anything very specific here to offer by way of advice, but it seems like a tactical weakness we, collectively, have not yet thought through how to exploit. |
Derek's lack of prompt points is ameliorated with this NKE army by virtue of the fact that he is relying on multiple turns of shooting...and the disorder it will somewhere create...so he doesn't actually have to prompt charges. Being regulars, in many cases high morale, counters can be relied upon rather than retirements...also easing the prompt point situation.
I think fighting this NKE army is best done by delaying contact until such a point as you can blow out part of it with armored shock mounted...so that the NKE shooting doesn't have time to wear down the rest of your army.
Things like Pavise and Wagon Laager are useful here ... |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subBlack/images/spacer.gif) |
Mark Stone Moderator
![Moderator Moderator](mod6sword.gif)
![](images/avatars/1287194267458c0a43e386e.png)
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2102 Location: Buckley, WA
|
Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2017 6:40 pm Post subject: Re: Bill Low Tepanec |
![](templates/subBlack/images/lang_english/icon_ignore.gif) |
|
Frank Gilson wrote: |
Bill Low's Tepanecs
Toltec Successor States (Tepanec) 1250-1426 (NWW 7 - Dry) NICT 2014 (1600)
1 CinC as LMI 1HCW, S, Sh with PA standard + 3 Reg A LMI 1HCW, S, Sh (151) 24 24 24 127 0 151
4 SG as LMI LTS, S, Sh with P standard + 3 Reg A LMI LTS, S, Sh (81)/3 Reg B LMI LTS, S, Sh (24) 24 24 96 57 0 153
4 SG as LMI LTS, S, Sh with P standard + 3 Reg A LMI LTS, S, Sh (81)/3 Reg B LMI LTS, S, Sh (24) 24 24 96 57 0 153
457
4 Knights Reg A/B LMI LTS, S, Sh 24 24 96 4 10 110
4 Veteran Warriors Reg A/B LMI LTS, S, Sh 24 24 96 4 10 110
4 Veteran Warriors Reg A/B LMI LTS, S, Sh 24 24 96 4 10 110
330
4 Warriors Reg C LMI 2HCT, S, Sh 24 24 96 10 106
4 Warriors Reg C LMI 2HCT, S, Sh 24 24 96 10 106
4 Subject Warriors Reg C LMI LTS, D, Sh 20 20 80 10 90
4 Otomi Irr C LMI 1HCW, JLS, Sh 12 12 48 25 73
375
2 Otomi Irr A LMI 2HCT/1HCW, JLS, Sh 21 18 19.5 39 25 64
2 Otomi Irr A LMI 2HCT/1HCW, JLS, Sh 21 18 19.5 39 25 64
2 Otomi Irr A LMI 2HCT/1HCW, JLS, Sh 21 18 19.5 39 25 64
2 Otomi Irr A LMI 2HCT/1HCW, JLS, Sh 21 18 19.5 39 25 64
256
4 Skirmishers Reg D LI S, Sh 6 6 24 10 34
4 Skirmishers Reg D LI S, Sh 6 6 24 10 34
2 Skirmishers Reg C LI 1HCW, S, Sh 10 10 20 10 30
2 Skirmishers Reg C LI 1HCW, S, Sh 10 10 20 10 30
2 Skirmishers Reg C LI S, Sh 8 8 16 10 26
2 Skirmishers Reg C LI S, Sh 8 8 16 10 26
61 180
Scouting: 8 1598 |
I'll keep this one short. Most of my comments about Todd's Tepanecs apply to Bill's as well. Certainly not an army I'd want to face; Bill plays it well, and overall Bill has a winning record against me. So let me focus on the few differences between the two.
Bill gets slightly less frontage coverage out of his army with 8 units of regular LMI as opposed to Todd's 9. Bill also makes greater use of 2HCT, whereas Todd sticks to LTS throughout for the regular LMI. These two differences are related, since 2HCT costs more than LTS, thus yielding fewer total figures for the same points.
It's an interesting choice. Generally I prefer the 2HCT option. It (mostly) fights the same rank and a half as LTS, but generally at much higher factors. Yes, facing 2HCT is only a -1 compared to the -2 for LTS, but overall I think you end up at a better casualty ratio with 2HCT. One usual counter-argument would be ending up shieldless on the second bound with 2HCT, but circulating combatants mitigates that. So really that's only a disadvantage in melees that go 3 or more bounds and remain close into the 3rd bound. I'd say that's pretty rare.
So the tradeoff is really hitting power versus frontage coverage, and only a slight difference either way. Personally I'd opt for a little extra hitting power and forgo a bit of frontage coverage. On terrain dense tables that seems like the right tradeoff.
Really it's a matter of personal preference. As Todd has capably deomonstrated, there isn't anything wrong with the all-LTS approach. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subBlack/images/spacer.gif) |
|
|
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
|