Early Warring States Chinese

[Piyan Glupak]

Looking at the Early Warring States Chinese army list, I notice that Skirmishers are listed twice. The first entry has a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 4. The second entry for Skirmishers has a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 1. Neither of the entries have restrictions, nor place the Skirmishers in the battle line. Should the Skirmishers have one entry with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 5, or do the different instances of Skirmishers represent different troops? If they represent different troops, does anyone have any idea what each of the two instances of Skirmishers represent?

[On a side note, the composition of the Early Warring States Chinese armies seems fairly different from the Warring States Chinese armies. All the armies of the different kingdoms must have had a busy night on 31st December 356BC! ]

[David Schlanger]

Looking at the Early Warring States Chinese army list, I notice that Skirmishers are listed twice. The first entry has a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 4. The second entry for Skirmishers has a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 1. Neither of the entries have restrictions, nor place the Skirmishers in the battle line. Should the Skirmishers have one entry with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 5, or do the different instances of Skirmishers represent different troops? If they represent different troops, does anyone have any idea what each of the two instances of Skirmishers represent?

Yes it looks like that, but the entries should be separate. It is just that the descriptive text is not quite yet displayed for a bunch of armies including the Warring States list. That should be resolved very soon! As the descriptive text is ready for all of the lists. So you should see that change.

DS

[Piyan Glupak]

Thanks David. I will look forward to seeing it.

I hope to order more figures for my Warring States armies soon. The armies that I have (Essex DBA army packs) are a bit problematic - for instance, very long spears and no shields which would indicate the Early Warring States, but a high proportion of bowmen and crossbowmen, which would indicate the main Warring States army lists. I will have to make some decisions soon.

At the moment I am converting the early Italian armies. (I did the Villanovans when I did the European Bronze Age armies.) Currently I am working on the Italian Hill Tribes (although I have been spending more time on the 6mm Russian Napoleonics). After the Italian Hill Tribes, Umbrians, Tullian Romans and Etruscans, I want to get the Warring States armies done. They give a good game under the legacy rules, but I strongly suspect that they will give an even better game with Triumph!

[David Schlanger]

Hi Piyan,

That sounds like a good plan for converting old legacy armies. I too have a bunch of Warring States Chinese figures from Essex and need to sit down and really do an analysis of what I need to update them for Triumph. I also have some of the Essex earlier period stuff like Chou and Shang periods, etc. Lots to do and so many armies!

DS

[Piyan Glupak]

I have decided to go for the Early Warring States. One of my armies is Yueh, which means that although they did linger into the time of the main Warring States army list, they didn't have a huge time before the state of Yueh got eliminated. Also, I worked out that there would be a bit less new metal and painting required. I will be re-doing the other army (bought as a generic "Others") as a Ch'u army.

I have ordered more figures from Essex. Although I don't like the tiny bases of the figures that make painting and basing a chore, and I am not fond of their tendency to have too many glue-on shields and weapons for my taste, from what I can see on the websites, their Warring States range seem the best. I will say that the Essex website is quite good, and at least they sent the figures quickly. (I am expecting them to arrive this week or next.)