Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Chris Damour]

John Meunier writes:
> Saw post saying Kom. Byz. are going to be a lot better
> under Warrior.
>
> Why?

John,
To be fair, most of the "improvements" to the list
came about in Scott's "7.6" changes, not Warrior.
The major reason is the rank and a half for lance. As
I said, it was already a decent army. I have watched Chris
Cameron dissect opponents with it. He always joked about it
being "dial a light cavalry". You want bow only? Got it. B
morale? C morale? Irregular? Regular? Got it, got it, got
it and got it.
The list has relatively low minima, and they are all
mounted. Plus you get good support infantry. And you can
have lots of D morale troops. (I love my scum!)
I do object to HAVING to purchase the 10 Irr C LC JLS,
B, Sh; but 'ya can't have eggs in your beer all the time!
Chris did use to complain that when he played the Kom. Byz.
that he ought to be allowed to pay his opponent to either
not fight at all, or fight someone else! Great fun...

> Which other armies will benefit from Warrior versus 7.6?
>
> And, again, why?
Hrmmnnn... I am afraid that I have not played enough
games of Warrior to answer that question.
Chris "How did I roll down 5?"
Damour

[joncleaves]

<< I've read over the list of changes and quickly read the draft of the rules.
Saw post saying Kom. Byz. are going to be a lot better under Warrior.
Why? Which other armies will benefit from Warrior versus 7.6? And, again, why?
John Meunier>.

John:
There has been no effort to improve (or weaken) any army with Warrior. Please
be advised that any answer you get is going to be the opinion of a WRG player
who is making an educated guess about the effects of the very minor changes in
mechanics from WRG 7.6 to Warrior. Said guess will probably also come with a
bias that army X (my traditional enemy) is now killer, or army Y (the one I love
to play) now sucks.

As an example, we may eventually decide to not have dismounting be a cause of
disorder. This will make it easier for knight armies to dismount in the face of
archers and the like. IF we do this (and we have not yet decided to do so), it
MAY make knight armies semm more powerful. IF we do it, it will not be to make
K 'more powerful', it will be because we think that best represents reality in
the game mechanics.

Remember, there are even more opinions about which armies are 'good' and 'bad'
in the ancients gaming world than there are stars in the heavens.

That said: Phil, Han chariots rule!!! :)

Jon

[joncleaves]

<<Jon,

I appreciate the caveats. I'm more curious in how people think through these
things.>>

I've always advised people to play an army that suits their style and not what
they think or have been told is killer.

<< I've lived through enough new versions of WRG/DBM to understand the gripe
factor.>>

No Warrior 1.1!!!!

<<Besides, now that Thessalian rhomboids are out, I don't have a chance to win
anyway. >>

I'm glad you are keeping things in perspective... :)

Jon

I've read over the list of changes and quickly read the draft of the
rules.

Saw post saying Kom. Byz. are going to be a lot better under Warrior.

Why?


Which other armies will benefit from Warrior versus 7.6?


And, again, why?


John Meunier

Jon,

I appreciate the caveats. I'm more curious in how people think through these
things. I've lived through enough new versions of WRG/DBM to understand the
gripe factor.

Besides, now that Thessalian rhomboids are out, I don't have a chance to win
anyway. :)

John Meunier

JonCleaves@... wrote:

> << I've read over the list of changes and quickly read the draft of the rules.
> Saw post saying Kom. Byz. are going to be a lot better under Warrior.
> Why? Which other armies will benefit from Warrior versus 7.6? And, again,
why?
> John Meunier>.
>
> John:
> There has been no effort to improve (or weaken) any army with Warrior. Please
be advised that any answer you get is going to be the opinion of a WRG player
who is making an educated guess about the effects of the very minor changes in
mechanics from WRG 7.6 to Warrior. Said guess will probably also come with a
bias that army X (my traditional enemy) is now killer, or army Y (the one I love
to play) now sucks.
>
> As an example, we may eventually decide to not have dismounting be a cause of
disorder. This will make it easier for knight armies to dismount in the face of
archers and the like. IF we do this (and we have not yet decided to do so), it
MAY make knight armies semm more powerful. IF we do it, it will not be to make
K 'more powerful', it will be because we think that best represents reality in
the game mechanics.
>
> Remember, there are even more opinions about which armies are 'good' and 'bad'
in the ancients gaming world than there are stars in the heavens.
>
> That said: Phil, Han chariots rule!!!
>
> Jon
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free, Unlimited Calls Anywhere!
> Conference in the whole family on the same call.
> Let the fights begin! Visit Firetalk.com - Click below.
> http://click.egroups.com/1/5476/2/_/_/_/962915163/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com

[Phil Gardocki]

To Jon, Emperor of all of the World Under the Sun
From Philip Gardocki, Sultan of the only legitimate Khanite

:::NUTS:::

Philip Gardocki

(or is that Khandom?)
>
>That said: Phil, Han chariots rule!!! :)

Attachment: vcard [not shown]