Yorkist Power

Ran into some of the toughest units imaginable at Wintercon, Yorkist Nobles with depth.

Couple of questions:

1) The Nobles are CP, both types of billmen are FP. Does the Nobles+billmen unit apply to "Other Nobles and Men at Arms" as well? Or just the specific "0-1 CP Nobles" unit?

2) If this applies to "Other Nobles..." must the Nobles be in dismounted mode to form the large unit?

3) If the "Other Nobles..." unit can be built up to be a Large Unit can the upgrade to VBU=7 I=4 be taken and used as the front unit for the Large unit?

4) Are there any restrictions on the billmen that can be used to form the Large Unit? Must Discipline levels be the same or somesuch? Or can C discipline Shire Billmen be combined?

There doesn't appear to be anything preventing any of the above being done, which leads to the situation where the following build occurs:

2 units of CP Other Nobles with general = 2 x 28
2 upgrades to VBU = 7 I=4 gives 2 x 36 points = 72 points
2 Shire billmen = 2 x 9 points = 18 points

Form them into 2 large units for a total cost of 90 points, 45 each.

Large units with 7+4 dice and depth bonus keeping those 4 Impetus dice in action for the first 4 losses. Which will only occur if the enemy does enough hits to that basic VBU of 7 to score more than 1 hit on even a 6 cohesion test.

Massively powerful units.

In an army that also includes Longbow A.

No dramas if that is the way it is meant to be, just want to check that is the case.

Fairly sure you have uncovered an ambiguity in the lists that has not been queried before. I believe the large unit option is only intended to refer to the FP, (including the CP dismounted as FP). I'm not aware of any historical precedent for Wars of the Roses large units of CP or of mixed CP/billmen. I've met a number of WoR's armies in UK comps (run Tudor myself) and have never met this interpretation. I can see how it would produce power units   . Can also see how the lists could be read that way...

TD

It was a terrifying unit, GG.

Try facing that army with little more than FLs and CLs. I did.

Yep.

Thinking the tactics we were all too worried about the longbow. With Willo sitting back my tactics were to move around outside of longbow range and then hit him with a cavalry charge to push him off the table and autobreak.

I used my CL's to kill one of his larger command units on the left so that breaking his smaller command on the right (that wasn't totally protected by fortresses) would take him over 50% losses but we ran out of time just as I had used cover to swing my entire axis of attack to the right flank and engage over there.

What I probably should have done was concentrate my CLs and Arquebus on the Left to gain a local advantage and make him respond to me by moving around and creating confusion behind his fortress line.

Doesn't matter how good Longbow A are, if we stand off and engage with a 3:1 shooting advantage sooner or later he will have to move...

I think I might take some cloned Yorkists to MOAB...    

I agree that you may have found an ambiguity in the army lists.

However, I don't think you can form a large unit (LU) of CP and FP. The list talks about forming LUs 'with units of the same type'. The CP/FP LU would have units of different types, wouldn't it?

The only list I know that combines cavalry with foot in a LU is the Early Samurai, and there the cavalry have special modifications, and are specifically identified in the list, as 'supported samurai'. There is no suggestion in the Yorkist (or other WOR lists) that the front unit of the LU changes its characteristics, which again suggest to me that the CP/FP LU isn't possible.

I can see the point about using Shire billmen. You can say they are the same type as Nobles, since both are FP. However, a LU made up of units with different discipline ratings makes no sense. The discipline rating of the LU is undefined. So I think a LU of Nobles and Shire billmen isn't right either. In some of the Chinese lists, LUs can be made up with either B or C discipline troops, but the units forming any one LU have to have the same discipline type.

I can see that if I'm wrong, you can create a very powerful unit cheaply.

It would be good if Lorenzo could clarify this.

RogerC

Two of the continuing problems with lists of any description are their source and motivation.

If I use Minoan Greeks, what is it based on? How long a period does it cover? What is it, in point of fact, other than an informed fantasy?

If I use Richard at Bosworth or Henry at Agincourt, I have a single instance of a field army being used in a very particular deployment. The idiocy of flaming pigs is another good example where the particular has been generalised.

Refighting Bosworth or Agincourt is one thing. Using that structure in all cases is quite silly and will always have the faint aroma of "gaminess".

Therein lies the problem - what is your motivation for your army?

I have personal reasons for all of my armies (academic study, historical interest, horse-based etc etc). All of them I have studied and like for the sake of it. None of them are huge battle winners, particularly in competitions.  

The other motivation is to win at all costs. Admirable in itself and, at heart, why any army ever took a field. The problem is that it can lead to use any structural advantage available - even if that advantage is a one-hit wonder or not really historical.

The most disheartening thing I ever hear during a game is the comment "Well, it doesn't say that I can't do it." This is generally a moment where something weird and very unlikely is about to happen. My general policy is that, if you need to win so much in a game of toy soldiers, then go for your life. It's not worth the argument.

I appreciate that may make me sound like some "gentlemen vs players" advocate but if you don't understand the society of your army, its history and use then I wonder why you are playing.

But that's just me. I'll get out of your way now.

You're on the money (or in the case of Gentleman vs Players you're on the no crust cucumber sandwiches) Starkers.

There are plenty of armies to cover anything and everything, but all too often we end up with wackarse combinations.

Macedonians have always fascinated me for what they achieved but there will never be an absolutely definitive list because the organisation at each recorded battle differs and that makes it impossible to be precise, one can only go with approximations. It frustrates me that I can't work an elephant into a comp list because the allied list is too small, not because an elephant is a killer unit but because they just look cool on the table and they were historical in certain circumstances. One thing I'd like in Impetus 2 would be some mechanism to build a command with allied troops in it provided they number no more than 50% of that command or something, and they rout if 50% of their number is lost.

The French from Wintercon are the other side of the coin for my favoured Swiss. How did Francis put together such a theoretically capable army only to have them smacked by a bunch of Swiss pikemen? That question can never really be answered, I lean toward poor command and lack of understanding HOW to use the new model army Francis put together but there can be no definitive answer there. On the table they work well, far better than they dis historically, so how do we reflect the historical? Do we even want to?

War of the Roses, well the Lancastrians must die. Simple really. I was born white, I shall always be white and the red must be forced to admit the error of history and yield. Just as Yorkshire cricket must always be the powerhouse of England so should Yorkist troops be magnificent wherever they go!

Unless we're talking football in which case Mersey Red is the only true colour...

Well said starkers :-)

A bit of a strange one this one. The billmen able to form LU's with nobles ( or MAA in the Yorkist Pretenders list )....interesting combination.

I would say it's correct as it's in all the WotR lists and I would say possible with any noble unit mounted or not. No points reduction for them (19pts) and this LU would only move 5U.

Would be interested in what Lorenzo has to say. Seems a bit of a hamstringing of two perfectly good units personally not something I would do...but sounds like the choice is there for those who would.

To be fair Tarty you are the master of Burgundy with pike front ranks made large by longbow A to their rear...

Granicus Gaugamela wrote:To be fair Tarty you are the master of Burgundy with pike front ranks made large by longbow A to their rear...

Hits come off the longbow first though   way more valuable than the pike. However there is a points reduction for them   

Yep, that lovely combo of bows at range which absorb the hits so your pike can throw themselves at people. Will be interesting to see you in action come MOAB.

Is that the Chinese "interesting", GG?

I have a feeling I won't enjoy the Burgundian death-machine very much.

Just hide behind trees Starkers!

Burgundian Pike VBU 4 ... not exactly dangerous.
Good enough for scaring off horseys though.
The longbow in the back are nasty it's true but don't get many of them if taking the cheaper option as they can only be fielded with Ordonnance pike..

Anatolians do not fear death, Mr Burgundy.
They're very used to it with me.

VBU 4+1 Pike supported by VBU 4 Longbow A standing off and loosing volleys as the enemy closes whilst you have VBU 7+4 Ordonnance Men at Arms holding ready Tartty.

The combination is...

DELICIOUS!

I look forward to it!

While searching the old forum for another question I came across this threat,

http://impetus.forumsland.com/impetus-about3848.html

It does not say conclusively that FP billmen cannot form LU's with CP, it just does not mention that combination...

TD

Thanks for tracking that down, Aurelus. It answers the point about using Shire billmen - if the rear rank is C discipline the whole unit is C discipline. My earlier comment about LUs not changing characteristics when the rear rank is lost becomes effective then. If you decide to use Nobles and Shire billmen to make an LU, you are making the Nobles C class for the rest of the game.

If you can have the CP/FP combination, are we saying that the resultant LU permanently has a move of 5U and is C class if Shire billmen are used. Still seems an odd unit to me.

And yes, I take Starkadder's 'gentlemen and players' point. Lists inevitably allow odd combinations, and people will seek advantage in tournaments. In general, Lorenzo has been good in suppressing the more unreasonable options.

I wish I had a good reason for having Anatolian Turkomen. In my case, I could not resist having an army called 'The Horde of the Black Sheep', but then decided to move the flock a bit to the west

RogerC

Yes nicely tracked down Aurelus. I agree Roger it would be a strange combination I think as well....but possible by the looks of it.

Ah the Black and White Sheep Turks, Roger. Some of my very earliest loves. They are irresistible names. Come back to the Turk Side, Roger. Feel the power course through you.

The Sultanate of Merv is another that always appeals. Any group calling itself after an Australian pace bowler of robust opinions has to be admired.

I could never field a Yorkist army. I'd find myself constantly doing bad Peter Cook doing bad Laurence Olivier doing bad Richard 111 impersonations. I'd be thrown out of the comp. But it'd be funny. I'd have to work in some car park references.

As far as I know only units of the same type can form LU when LU are allowed and units not of the same type can only form LU if their lists specifically say they can.

Christopher

I bought the the WotR "Neville" army from Willo that is included in pictures elsewhere on the forum.  Took them to MOAB where they did very well.

Combined with an Expert General they came on as a flank march and with the exception of a light cavalry force who used a skirmisher screen to force deployment right back where the rest of my army was located they created havoc.

Which seems to have reopened the question regarding Large Units between mounted and foot troops, CP cavalry using the FP billmen to form a large unit

The list says "Nobles can create Large Units with billmen, becoming the front rank".

No qualification, no restriction.  

Willo previously took them as dismounted FP troops and applied the VBU=7 I=4 upgrade, I played them as mounted CP.

Given the previous statements that LUs adopt the characteristics of the front rank (exception being discipline = lowest) I played them as:

1) they take fire based on being cavalry i.e. the enemy fire gets the larger number of dice column
2) they do not get the +1 for being FP vs missile fire or vs only mounted enemy
3) they move 8U as heavy cavalry with all terrain negatives
4) they form Groups as per CP

Or don't they?

Given previous discussion on this topic it can be taken either way.  Which of the various traits do they keep and which do they lose?

And given the list allows an upgrade to VBU=7 I=4 does that only apply to mounted units or can the foot sloggers be so upgraded?

OMG, I missed this discussion, and being of Yorkist faith is a shame.
Well Large Units in WOTR armies are only among foot, FP(Noble)+FP(bills).
Probably was too obvious for me that it was not better specified. But Large Units with mounted+foot or anyway with different troops types are rare and when present are well specified.

dadiepiombo wrote:OMG, I missed this discussion, and being of Yorkist faith is a shame.
Well Large Units in WOTR armies are only among foot, FP(Noble)+FP(bills).
Probably was too obvious for me that it was not better specified. But Large Units with mounted+foot or anyway with different troops types are rare and when present are well specified.

Excellent clear answer, thanks chief.

Presumably the FP cannot be upgraded to VBU7 I4 units?

no, only CP can be upgraded to VBU 7.
With insight I had to write Dismounted Nobles instead of Nobles.

During WOTR mounted knights were very few and mostly used as a reserve. Nobles stood in the front rank to better control their troops.  Fidelity was not a common feature on that war