Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Greg Regets]

If you are playing an army list that has not yet come out in Warrior, but has a
troop type that has been included on published Warrior lists, can you play the
updated troop type on your list?

For example, Franks. It is clear on the new lists they are going to be all HTW
with a 50% moral upgrade. On the old NASAMW list they are 50% JLS, 50% HTW, with
a 25% moral upgrade.

If you are using an old NASAMW list, may you play the "new" style Franks on this
list?

Thanks ... g


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

[scott holder]

If you are using an old NASAMW list, may you play the "new" style Franks on
this list?

>Again, what anybody does locally is entirely up to them but.......in Scotty
World, the above would not be allowed. Why? A variety of reasons impact on
this.

>One, it simply raises a certain amount of uncertainty into any given tournament
game. I shudder to think of the number of times over the years I've seen
players whip themselves into a frenzy over some perceived screw up they think
they're opponent made on putting together an army. I'm constantly amazed at how
some (few) players think that every opponent they meet is out to literally cheat
them a victory based solely on army list concoction. I've always turned a deaf
ear (for the most part) to such complaints since I always felt (and still do)
that it's the player, not the army, that wins games. Okay, running HW List #2
against Teutonic Knights by with two opposing players of equal skill and
experience will probably result in the Teuts winning 9 out of 10 times with die
roll whackiness accounting for the sole Egyptian win:) But, you take those
same two armies and put the Egyptians in the hands of a really good player and
the Teuts in the hands of someone who's new to the game and the 9 out of 10
ratio will switch around.

>Anyway, adding the above variation just adds to the umpire's headache:)
Greg, don't think for one minute that I think your motivation for this question
comes from anything negative that I'm alluding to here. I think I understand
the player's desire for a bit more consistency across lists but at this stage of
the game, I don't think that's a worthwhile goal, plus I think it's impossible
to achieve.

>Two, building lists (at the level Bill and me do) involves balancing many
different factors ... history being the most important, of course, but not the
only one ... and leaves plenty of room for judgment calls, all with the end
result of a playable but not over-powering HC ("historically correct")
list. Adding FHE elements to "new" WRG lists (as an example) can throw things
totally out of whack which lead to:

>Three, list consistency. Keep in mind that any group of lists from whatever
source reflect both the available historic data AND the author's own
interpretation of said data. In many ways, it's like mixing apples and oranges.
One of the best examples would be Phil's approach to Almughavars and my approach
to them. Heh heh, I made them better but that refects exactly what I'm talking
about here. There's a tad bit more historical data available on them now and I
had a different philisophical approach to the mechanics of list construction
than he, hence, they're different. There might be a perfectly valid reason a
list writer made a troop type a certain way and that melds into other decisions
made about the same list.

>The only "exception" I've made to this has nothing to do with troops types but
involves list rules. If somebody runs Marian Romans, for example, I'm pefectly
okay if they want to run the list rule from the FW Marian list. Of course it's
usually a good idea to get the umpire/organizer's approval of this in advance of
the event.

Scott

[Greg Regets]

Thanks Scott ... that was the answer I was expecting.

I was actually asking this question for a new player we have that is in Florida
on TDY right now and not online. I think he is bored and wants to work on lists.

For myself, I astually like the NASAMW Franks better ... lol.

Thanks again ... G

----- Original Message -----
From: Holder, Scott
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 6:49 AM
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] Army List Question


If you are using an old NASAMW list, may you play the "new" style Franks on
this list?

>Again, what anybody does locally is entirely up to them but.......in Scotty
World, the above would not be allowed. Why? A variety of reasons impact on
this.

>One, it simply raises a certain amount of uncertainty into any given
tournament game. I shudder to think of the number of times over the years I've
seen players whip themselves into a frenzy over some perceived screw up they
think they're opponent made on putting together an army. I'm constantly amazed
at how some (few) players think that every opponent they meet is out to
literally cheat them a victory based solely on army list concoction. I've
always turned a deaf ear (for the most part) to such complaints since I always
felt (and still do) that it's the player, not the army, that wins games. Okay,
running HW List #2 against Teutonic Knights by with two opposing players of
equal skill and experience will probably result in the Teuts winning 9 out of 10
times with die roll whackiness accounting for the sole Egyptian win:) But,
you take those same two armies and put the Egyptians in the hands of a really
good player and the Teuts in the hands of someone who's new to the game and the
9 out of 10 ratio will switch around.

>Anyway, adding the above variation just adds to the umpire's headache:)
Greg, don't think for one minute that I think your motivation for this question
comes from anything negative that I'm alluding to here. I think I understand
the player's desire for a bit more consistency across lists but at this stage of
the game, I don't think that's a worthwhile goal, plus I think it's impossible
to achieve.

>Two, building lists (at the level Bill and me do) involves balancing many
different factors ... history being the most important, of course, but not the
only one ... and leaves plenty of room for judgment calls, all with the end
result of a playable but not over-powering HC ("historically correct")
list. Adding FHE elements to "new" WRG lists (as an example) can throw things
totally out of whack which lead to:

>Three, list consistency. Keep in mind that any group of lists from whatever
source reflect both the available historic data AND the author's own
interpretation of said data. In many ways, it's like mixing apples and oranges.
One of the best examples would be Phil's approach to Almughavars and my approach
to them. Heh heh, I made them better but that refects exactly what I'm talking
about here. There's a tad bit more historical data available on them now and I
had a different philisophical approach to the mechanics of list construction
than he, hence, they're different. There might be a perfectly valid reason a
list writer made a troop type a certain way and that melds into other decisions
made about the same list.

>The only "exception" I've made to this has nothing to do with troops types
but involves list rules. If somebody runs Marian Romans, for example, I'm
pefectly okay if they want to run the list rule from the FW Marian list. Of
course it's usually a good idea to get the umpire/organizer's approval of this
in advance of the event.

Scott

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




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



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



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

[John Garlic]

The Late Hebrew list allows 0-1 Allied Israelite General however the infantry,
included some required troops, are also Israelite. Does that make the ally
general mandatory, or can the be commanded by the subs or CinC?

John Garlic