Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

I vaguely recall a post a while back about making troops consistant
from one list to the other, especially when you are buying troops with
an A/G and the troops you get don't match whats on the parent list. I
know this is sometimes intentional but it seems like the earlier lists
have more of this than the later ones. Again I only vaguely remember
the post that pointed this out, but it seems like the later lists did a
good job of being more consistant. Now that all the lists are out is
there a plan to make the troops more consistant list to list and would
it help if people made suggestions on which ones didnt seem to match
the parent list?

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Todd,

Thanks for agreeing with me. I believe that sacreligious thought came from
one of my posts. Muwahahahaha!

kw

Todd <thisonehere1971@...> wrote:
I vaguely recall a post a while back about making troops consistant
from one list to the other, especially when you are buying troops with
an A/G and the troops you get don't match whats on the parent list. I
know this is sometimes intentional but it seems like the earlier lists
have more of this than the later ones. Again I only vaguely remember
the post that pointed this out, but it seems like the later lists did a
good job of being more consistant. Now that all the lists are out is
there a plan to make the troops more consistant list to list and would
it help if people made suggestions on which ones didnt seem to match
the parent list?




SPONSORED LINKS
Warrior Wargaming Four horsemen Miniature wargaming

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------




---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[John Murphy]

Strictly from a gamers' perspective, the Moldavians (Wallachian and
Moldavian, Holy Warrior list #35) would like very much if their
Crimean Tartar allies could use all the Mongol list rules.

Pleeeeeeze?

> Todd <thisonehere1971@y...> wrote:
> and would
> it help if people made suggestions on which ones didnt seem to match
> the parent list?

[Todd Schneider]

Well, as an amateur List creator (For a Semi Medieval
Fanasty Campaign Game), and having looked at all the
lists in depth with helping FHE on the updated
rulebook, I can say with a certain degree of assurance
that Scott will be going through the lists and
remedying some situations. This was due mostly to
certain lists being out before their "parent" lists
were finalized. The Mongol descendents are a prime
example of this.

I am wondering, are you asking that they get ALL the
Mongol List rules (such as terrain removal and the
like) or the Unit List rules (interpentrating Cav and
the like?

I have to admit, I don't envy Scott in this task one
bit.

Todd


--- John <jjmurphy@...> wrote:

> Strictly from a gamers' perspective, the Moldavians
> (Wallachian and
> Moldavian, Holy Warrior list #35) would like very
> much if their
> Crimean Tartar allies could use all the Mongol list
> rules.
>
> Pleeeeeeze?
>
> > Todd <thisonehere1971@y...> wrote:
> > and would
> > it help if people made suggestions on which ones
> didnt seem to match
> > the parent list?
>
>
>
>
>

[Todd Schneider]

Ack, somehow deleted a good portion of the
paragraph....

Anyways, in full as an amateur List creator whose dual
main goal is playability and objectivity, it's a fine
line to walk when deciding what an Ally component can
and cannot have when taken as part of another list.
However, in my lists (which are modelled after several
different FHE lists by and large), I am not
constrained by any sense of Historical accuracy. I do
try and keep my lists varied and appealing, as I
expect my local grop to participate in it eventually,
and have in a sense created some lists specifically
for some players (It essentially Medieval Fanasty
Campaign Game).

Having done some work for FHE with regards to the Fast
Warrior lists, and worked closely with Scott in this
project and and having looked at all the lists in
depth with helping FHE on the updated rulebook, I can
say with a certain degree of assurance
that Scott will be going through the lists and
remedying some situations. This was due mostly to
certain lists being out before their "parent" lists
were finalized. The Mongol descendents are a prime
example of this.

I am wondering, are you asking that they get ALL the
Mongol List rules (such as terrain removal and the
like) or the Unit List rules (interpentrating Cav
and the like?

I have to admit, I don't envy Scott in this task one
bit.

Todd
(who apologizes for the confusion)


--- Todd Schneider <thresh1642@...> wrote:

> Well, as an amateur List creator (For a Semi
> Medieval
> Fanasty Campaign Game), and having looked at all the
> lists in depth with helping FHE on the updated
> rulebook, I can say with a certain degree of
> assurance
> that Scott will be going through the lists and
> remedying some situations. This was due mostly to
> certain lists being out before their "parent" lists
> were finalized. The Mongol descendents are a prime
> example of this.
>
> I am wondering, are you asking that they get ALL the
> Mongol List rules (such as terrain removal and the
> like) or the Unit List rules (interpentrating Cav
> and
> the like?
>
> I have to admit, I don't envy Scott in this task one
> bit.
>
> Todd
>
>
> --- John <jjmurphy@...> wrote:
>
> > Strictly from a gamers' perspective, the
> Moldavians
> > (Wallachian and
> > Moldavian, Holy Warrior list #35) would like very
> > much if their
> > Crimean Tartar allies could use all the Mongol
> list
> > rules.
> >
> > Pleeeeeeze?
> >
> > > Todd <thisonehere1971@y...> wrote:
> > > and would
> > > it help if people made suggestions on which ones
> > didnt seem to match
> > > the parent list?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

I thought that Holy and Feudal Warrior had been retro-fitted at least
with respect to the Mongol Cavalry rules - look at the latest
amendments to confirm

ANW

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jjmurphy@s...> wrote:
> Strictly from a gamers' perspective, the Moldavians (Wallachian and
> Moldavian, Holy Warrior list #35) would like very much if their
> Crimean Tartar allies could use all the Mongol list rules.
>
> Pleeeeeeze?
>
> > Todd <thisonehere1971@y...> wrote:
> > and would
> > it help if people made suggestions on which ones didnt seem to
match
> > the parent list?

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 9/23/2005 16:36:51 Central Standard Time,
thisonehere1971@... writes:

I only have HW with me but even just the first list 1.Bagratid
Armenian has something kind of odd.

The Byzantine A/G is a HC L B Sh or EHC L B Sh and the Kav lancers
are L Sh only. The list they come out of must be either Thematic or
Nikephorian and in these there are bows you have to buy or bows you
can buy if you upgrade morale. The upgrade is allowed in list 1. but
not the bow option which means the units you can build with the A/G
wont match units on the parent list. This doesnt seem right unless
there is historical evidence that only generals had bows and it seems
like something that could be fixed without anyones effort past saying
that you can buy troops like they exist on the parent list. You
really see none of this in the later books which kind of shows that
its FHEs intent.



Ok, shoot me any others you find and we will look at them.
Jon


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Im sure things that are not consistant were accidental and caused by
the scope of the project. Believe me FHE did about a hundred times
better on the lists then probably anyone expected.

Im not sure about list rules being added or things like that. It may be
that list rules apply only to parent armies. In a way that almost makes
sense. Were Mongols as motivated and effective when fighting as allies?

I was more talking about more basic stuff like troops armed one way on
one list and anther way on the parent list. Completely understandable
how that happened and to me this would be an easy fix.

All FHE would have to do is allow A/G troops to exactly match troops of
the same name on the parent list. This would fix what Im talking about
in one easy step. I havent found any lists where this would cause a
problem and I spent a lot of time looking.

[joncleaves]

Scott is very busy at other things at the moment.

We have gone back and done some checking and fixing on this issue. I'm not
aware that there were any left outside of Biblical Warrior. Note that in some
cases, allies fought in specific time periods or with specific weapons mixes or
without much enthusiasm for the cause and this may make them different from what
you can get in the 'main list'.

However, if someone has specific cases they would like us to look at, please
send us a list.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd <thisonehere1971@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:39:56 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: A/G Troops on Army List Question


Im sure things that are not consistant were accidental and caused by
the scope of the project. Believe me FHE did about a hundred times
better on the lists then probably anyone expected.

Im not sure about list rules being added or things like that. It may be
that list rules apply only to parent armies. In a way that almost makes
sense. Were Mongols as motivated and effective when fighting as allies?

I was more talking about more basic stuff like troops armed one way on
one list and anther way on the parent list. Completely understandable
how that happened and to me this would be an easy fix.

All FHE would have to do is allow A/G troops to exactly match troops of
the same name on the parent list. This would fix what Im talking about
in one easy step. I havent found any lists where this would cause a
problem and I spent a lot of time looking.






Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I only have HW with me but even just the first list 1.Bagratid
Armenian has something kind of odd.

The Byzantine A/G is a HC L B Sh or EHC L B Sh and the Kav lancers
are L Sh only. The list they come out of must be either Thematic or
Nikephorian and in these there are bows you have to buy or bows you
can buy if you upgrade morale. The upgrade is allowed in list 1. but
not the bow option which means the units you can build with the A/G
wont match units on the parent list. This doesnt seem right unless
there is historical evidence that only generals had bows and it seems
like something that could be fixed without anyones effort past saying
that you can buy troops like they exist on the parent list. You
really see none of this in the later books which kind of shows that
its FHEs intent.


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Scott is very busy at other things at the moment.
>
> We have gone back and done some checking and fixing on this issue.
I'm not aware that there were any left outside of Biblical Warrior.
Note that in some cases, allies fought in specific time periods or
with specific weapons mixes or without much enthusiasm for the cause
and this may make them different from what you can get in the 'main
list'.
>
> However, if someone has specific cases they would like us to look
at, please send us a list.
>
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Todd <thisonehere1971@y...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:39:56 -0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: A/G Troops on Army List Question
>
>
> Im sure things that are not consistant were accidental and caused
by
> the scope of the project. Believe me FHE did about a hundred times
> better on the lists then probably anyone expected.
>
> Im not sure about list rules being added or things like that. It
may be
> that list rules apply only to parent armies. In a way that almost
makes
> sense. Were Mongols as motivated and effective when fighting as
allies?
>
> I was more talking about more basic stuff like troops armed one way
on
> one list and anther way on the parent list. Completely
understandable
> how that happened and to me this would be an easy fix.
>
> All FHE would have to do is allow A/G troops to exactly match
troops of
> the same name on the parent list. This would fix what Im talking
about
> in one easy step. I havent found any lists where this would cause a
> problem and I spent a lot of time looking.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[John Murphy]

It was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek request. Not really having a clue
wether the Crimean Tartars still used what degree of the military
systems of their Mongol forebearers.

Yeah, I'd like to see the terrain removal too, what the hey, though
since they are allies I kinda doubt Scott would go for that one.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Schneider
<thresh1642@y...> wrote:
> The Mongol descendents are a prime
> example of this.
>
> I am wondering, are you asking that they get ALL the
> Mongol List rules (such as terrain removal and the
> like) or the Unit List rules (interpentrating Cav
> and the like?

> > --- John <jjmurphy@s...> wrote:
> >
> > > Strictly from a gamers' perspective, the
> > Moldavians
> > > (Wallachian and
> > > Moldavian, Holy Warrior list #35) would like very
> > > much if their
> > > Crimean Tartar allies could use all the Mongol
> > list
> > > rules.
> > >
> > > Pleeeeeeze?
> > >
> > > > Todd <thisonehere1971@y...> wrote:
> > > > and would
> > > > it help if people made suggestions on which ones
> > > didnt seem to match
> > > > the parent list?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >

[John Murphy]

Just checked the errata... didn't realize there WAS any more recent
version. Just out of curiosity when did this change go in?

Lo and behold my prayers (and pleas) are answered! Wow!

Now I have to futz around with my list a bit, probably get some more
lead bits done up too.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jjmurphy@s...> wrote:
> It was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek request. Not really having a
clue
> wether the Crimean Tartars still used what degree of the military
> systems of their Mongol forebearers.
>
> Yeah, I'd like to see the terrain removal too, what the hey,
though
> since they are allies I kinda doubt Scott would go for that one.
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Schneider
> <thresh1642@y...> wrote:
> > The Mongol descendents are a prime
> > example of this.
> >
> > I am wondering, are you asking that they get ALL the
> > Mongol List rules (such as terrain removal and the
> > like) or the Unit List rules (interpentrating Cav
> > and the like?
>
> > > --- John <jjmurphy@s...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Strictly from a gamers' perspective, the
> > > Moldavians
> > > > (Wallachian and
> > > > Moldavian, Holy Warrior list #35) would like very
> > > > much if their
> > > > Crimean Tartar allies could use all the Mongol
> > > list
> > > > rules.
> > > >
> > > > Pleeeeeeze?
> > > >
> > > > > Todd <thisonehere1971@y...> wrote:
> > > > > and would
> > > > > it help if people made suggestions on which ones
> > > > didnt seem to match
> > > > > the parent list?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >