Hi, there is a point in the armylist of Kingdom of Jerusalem that I feel little strange:
Crusader knights has 3 attacks 3 hits and save roll 5+ cost 110 special knights
There is a dwongrade as crusaders on foot who has 3 attacks 3 hits and save roll 4+ cost -35 special slow
The usual rule (not written) with save rolls are this: if the unit is mounted then better one unit for the save roll.
I see strange that crusader on foot improves the armour of crusader knights.
¿is this a erratum? ¿do you think this is normal for the list?
Good question - at face value, it does seem odd...
Thinking about it, perhaps it reflects that when the Knights are not mounted they do not have the vulnerability of their horse?
There's nothing on the errata: http://www.warhammer-historical.com/PDF/WMAerr.pdf
GW has always had this wierd idea (from 1st Ed WFB) that being mounted increases your armour save.
I guess this particular scenario is a bit of a typo, but it might represent the use of a larger shield on foot? :-/
For that period horses had little protection, so could be hurt by Saracen arrows, but the mail used was virtually inpenetrable by same arrows. I would think it was that.
IanS
Yep it is really odd.
Thanks to replay and leave your comment about this subject.
Crusaders on foot are slow 75 pts. This special is about heavy armoured troops (typically of heavy infantry).
Also crusaders mounted are knights 110pts. And the only knights who had 4 4 4+ are teutonic order and teutonic order has 155 points cost (if I rememeber well, because I am telling by heart).
Looking up the troops isolated each from other they have an internal logic for me, but they are a downgrade, so they should have to be conected.
More comments of warmaster players, specially those who had tested the list are very appreciated and very valueable for me.
Another odd thing about kingdom of Jerusalem armylist is that follows:
I understood in warmaster medieval rules about min/max that you should buy min/max for each complete fraction of 1000 pts.
So from 1-999 --> only min
from 1000-1999 --> min/max * 1
from 2000-2999 --> min/max * 2
and son on.
Well Kingdom of Jerusalem has no unit with unlimited max. This is a odd thing in warmaster list.
So if I go for one min/max, I think the range from 1000-1999 points, I only could buy 1595. Because this is the cost of alll army maximizating the units.
So... what happens if I want to make an armyt of 1800 points? should I break the rule of min/max and buy more units that are allowed?
Again More comments of warmaster players, specially those who had tested the list are very appreciated and very valueable for me. Or someone who correct me because I am understanding wrong the thing.
I agree with your maths and logic about a 1800 pt list.
I guess in this case you need to agree how to proceed with your opponent - using 2k min/maxs would certainly seem reasonable
There isn't an updated list on Rick Priestly's site either.
In WoTR lists in WMA foot knights have the same stats as mounted knights but cost 50pts less. So it seems like the extra armour save is costed in to the points in the Kingdom of J list. I agree with the others that mounted knights were probably more vulnerable to arrow fire, so a higher save is reasonable for foot knights.
There are a lot of issues arround the WM Medieval book, the most important being that it was seemingly written as a stand alone system without the intention of integrating it with the earlier books and there was very little cross book play testing of lists, this is not an issue if you just play in period or against historical opponents but is a pain if playing cross period games. Many of the special rules in the medieval book are at odds with the principals in earlier works, not least because they are free, for instance the knight rule should be 5 points and the combined arms rule should be at leat 10 points.
IMHO the book is too Anglo centric and with nearly half of the lists being English of one flavour or another (who needs 4 or 5 Wars of the Roses lists) and there are flaws in many lists, the Tuetonic list in particular is so broken that an official errata was issued within a few weeks of the book coming out, as pressented in the book the Teutonic knights are the same as Choas Knights and they have 3 attack medium cavalry with skirmish! Overall in I think the play testing team was very small and kept a lot to themselves, I did see a couple of the early lists and made some recomendations most of which were ignored.
For the Kingdom of Jerusalem list the inclusion of dismounted knights with a save of 4+, a reduction of 35 points and the SLOW rule is correct, dismounting the knight increases his armour as he's not sat on an unarmoured horse. The horse gives him extra mobility (30cm) and greater hitting power (shock based and +1 knight bonus, even if that should cost 5 points) but the mount is itself vulnerable to attack so the overall knight cost should be 5+ armour so I'm afraid that
QuoteThe usual rule (not written) with save rolls are this: if the unit is mounted then better one unit for the save roll.
isn't correct. Personally I'd only use dismounted knights in the later armies of the First Crusade when the Franks were running short of horses.
The Rules state that if you using armies which fall between the 1000 point bands you use the maximums and minimums for the lower thousand and don't pro-rata the difference, so a 1250 point army uses the 1000 point mins and maxes as does a 1500 and 1750 point one. This is certainly the formula addopted at all the WMA competitions I'm aware of but providing both sides are happy there's no reason not to pro-rata the mins and maxes as a house rule.
Incidentally while I'm not a fan of most of the Medieval books and think it was a lost opportunity the siege rules are quite brilliant, produce great games and I'd buy the book just for them.
Quote from: DanJ on 17 October 2011, 10:21:35 AM
Incidentally while I'm not a fan of most of the Medieval books and think it was a lost opportunity the siege rules are quite brilliant, produce great games and I'd buy the book just for them.
Interestingly, it's not even listed on the Warhammer Historical website. The main Warmaster Ancients book is there, but out of stock, and the Ancient Armies book is there. But no mention of Medieval at all.
Cheers, Martyn
--
I'd noticed that it was missing from the WHH website, they must have sold out, the current 50% sale seems aimed at continuing the winding down of the whole historical side of WG. Unfortunately I can't see GW relinquising the IP of anything so the chances of a second generation Warmaster Ancients is virtually non existent.
Quote from: DanJ on 17 October 2011, 03:14:50 PM
a second generation Warmaster Ancients is virtually non existent.
Isn't it called "Hail Ceaser" ?
IanS
Quote from: DanJ on 17 October 2011, 10:21:35 AM
The Rules state that if you using armies which fall between the 1000 point bands you use the maximums and minimums for the lower thousand and don't pro-rata the difference, so a 1250 point army uses the 1000 point mins and maxes as does a 1500 and 1750 point one. This is certainly the formula addopted at all the WMA competitions I'm aware of but providing both sides are happy there's no reason not to pro-rata the mins and maxes as a house rule.
Thanks for clarifying the rules of dismonted knights.
Sorry but The max/min system used in WMA competition is not clear for me. I am not trying to discuss, is just I am not native english and I do not understand completley what are you explaning :-[
If I understand: Use the 1*(min/max) until 1750 points
Use the 2*(min/max) from 1751 to 2750
and so on... ????
I did not read Hail Ceaser, but I guess I will be a warmaster user for some years.
My phylosopy is using the armylist and slightly modified them for recreating battles. I had made Qadesh, Megido, Pavia and Fornovo.
In progess: Las Navas de Tolosa, Platea (6mm) and Hydaspes (2mm)
Forthcoming plans: Alarcos, Dorileum, Maraton.... maybe Yarmuk
No on Miniums - up to 1999 use 1000, to 2999 use 2000, over 3000 use 3000, same for maxiums unless it as unit limited to 1.
IanS ;)
QuoteMy phylosopy is using the armylist and slightly modified them for recreating battles
That's the best way to go unless you're playing in a competition when all players must use the same basic rules.
I've done quite a lot of battles as large WMA games and use the official lists as a starting point for the game, changing them as I think right or writing new lists from scratch. As long as you're happy with the result and it gives a good game just about anything is possible. One thing you might like to consider is that the bigger the game the easier it is to have special units or rules without unbalancing the game, for instance when we played Manzikert I gave the Byzantines a unit of guard infantry and cavalry, both of which had an extra attack and hit. In a small game (1000 points) these would have been overly powerful but in a big game (3500 pts) they were just a couple of better than average units in a large army.
I also like to add extra rules which can add more flavour, for instance when we played Arsuff I invented a rule which prevented the Master of the Hospitalers and Templars from commanding each other's forces or that bodyguard troops would always try and remain within 1 move of their commander, so when a general figure moved at the start of the next turn the guard would use their "initiative" to hurry over to protect their general.
I like the Arsuff battle rule!
playing big games (3k or 4k) with warmaster ancients will be delicious. Unfortunatly I do not have enough painted figures, but... some day...
... some day
One of the great things about 10mm is that you can use non specific troops of the same general type in many different armies.
I've got a core of about 10 units which can best be described as "men standing with spear and shield" and who have fought as roman auxilia, arab spearmen, persian levy and welsh foot to name just a few, I think they were originally bought as Saxon Fryd AS4.
In a small army they might stand out but in a big game they just blend into the army.