Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 4/19/04 12:20:42 AM GMT Daylight Time,
jeff.tillitzki@... writes:

> Shan,
>
> Improvements in regards Imp.War. Dacian list #15 .V. any extrapolation from
> 6th.Ed. Dacian list #68, applicable for Warrior/WRG 7th.Ed.
>
> 1. Imp.War. Dacians have available 75 figures (being an old timer, I still
> speak
> in terms of numbersd of figures) of Sarmatian allies .V. 6th.Ed. previously
> having
> 30 - approx. some 900 pts (in 'real terms', allowing for command points) .V.
> 400 pts.
>
> 2. Imp.War. Dacians have 78 figures of Bastarnae allies .V. previously 56 -
> some
> 700 pts. .V. 450.
>
> 3. There are now slightly more Dacian LC than before.
>
> 4. There is a large increase in the availability of 'B' grade warband LMI,
> which now can
> be double-armed 2HCW/Jav style.
>
> 5. Bastarnae and Dacian WB LMI 2HCW-armed can now be employed in formations
>
> which are combat effective in 1 + 1/2 ranks.
>
> 6. Dacian bow can now be LMI, so as to provide a not inconsiderable
> shooting
> platform, through concentration of fire - this could not be similiarly
> managed by
> Dacian LI bow of 6th.Ed.
>
> So far as 'improvement/s' - and apart from the troop-type advantages alluded
> to
> above - previously, a Dacian wargames army suffered from maintaining a
> battle-field
> situation/configuration, whereas the player could readily get his LMI
> warbands
> to go impetuous. Especially when being opposed by enemy elephants, chariots
> (and
> frontal SHC/SHK), the 'unease' situation, which was further complicated by
> the lack
> of a PA standard, made these difficult 'to get going'. Additionally, heavy
> enemy
> missile fire in conjunction caused the WB units to sometimes effectively
> test
> as 'D' grade, even before making contact. This could be rectified somewhat
> by
> careful battlefield management to ensure their 'support', so as to keep them
> at
> 'C' grade. Now, this situation has been somewhat dispelled by the prevalence
> of 'B' grade WB, which effectively keep each unit as 'eager', at least at
> the
> early stages of combat.
>
> In combination with Bastarnae WB LMI, now efective in 1 + 1/2 ranks, these
> WB units are very potent - and given that this could only be achieved by the
> 6th.Ed. player after much endeavour and deft skill, I see this as an
> unqualified
> improvement.
>
> In 'my neck of the woods', I have rarely seen 6th.Ed. Dacian armies take to
> the table,
> mainly due to the afore described weaknesses - so I do agree some
> 'improvement'
> was required to make them more attractive as an army for the competition
> player, and agree that these 'improvements' could be justified solely on that
> basis alone.
>
> However, the problem for me is that the Imp.War. Dacian list offers the
> player
> to opt against preserving a Dacian army within its historical balance. Quite
> clearly, the Roman enemies of the Dacians felt the need to come up with
> special
> tactics/armour to manage the effectiveness of the most numerous and
> impressive
> part of the Dacian army - their falx-armed warband infantry. The Romans
> found
> no problems with the Dacian/Sarmatian mounted presence. But, with Imp.War.
> Dacians, one can get by with purchasing only 72 WB foot, 12 LI bow and 18
> Bastarnae WB, and then flood the field with mounted troops. At around 1500
> pts,
> I can see no reason why a Dacian army cannot field nearly as many cavalry
> figures
> as infantry, which - to my mind - bares no correlation with its historical
> counterpart. This kind of situation vis a vis Imp.War. lists in general is
> my
> main 'sticking point' with them.
>
> Anyway, good luck with your Dacians. I look forward to using my Dacian
> Foundry types
> with a lot more regularity; when I can be tempted away from using a defacto
> Palmyran
> army, appearing under the guise of Eastern Middle Imperial Roman, but having
> access
> to at least one D-armed 'B' Legionarii unit and 6 cart-mounted
> bolt-shooters. Maybe
> even the 'improved' Dacians would struggle against that one!
>
> Regards, and may the dice be kind!
>
>
>

i have what i consider limited knowledge of the dacians but seem to recall
they gave the romans a hard time for a while. i understand the lists are based
on the troops that could have been or could possibly have been made available
for particular campaigns or battles.

i hope to see my camel brigade of irrd d B camels in the seleucid list
although records only record them occasionally.

i think it better to give the options where evidence is scant rather than to
exclude them.

if the historian wishes to exclude them as the general of the day did that is
his choice, at the end of the day 50% of generals got it wrong .

mark mallard


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

[Todd Schneider]

One of the things I have noticed, having started to pay more attention to
it, and after having talked with Jon C and Scott about it, is that where
lists are concerned the players are given a lot more flexibility in how they
are handled/constructed.



Apparently, and any of the long time players please feel free to correct me,
under TOG rules, Phil Barker often made the final choice as to what the
troop type and weapon was, and would often change things around based on
scant historical evidence.



With Warrior, you get a choice. Was the troop type LMI or MI? Well,
there’s nothing historically accurate that says either or, so it leaves the
choice up to the player.

Armed with LTS or P? Same thing.



And, Warrior is also meant to be fun as well as informative, giving the
players great latitude in what they play within a list, as long as certain
minimums are met. That’s why you see the experimental Scythed Chariots in
the LIR list, and other things that might be considered “oddities.”





My Two cents,

Todd

_____

From: markmallard77@... [mailto:markmallard77@...]
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 7:31 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Concerns re Imperial Warrior Lists -
Tillitzki, Newcas...




I have what i consider limited knowledge of the dacians but seem to recall
they gave the romans a hard time for a while. i understand the lists are
based
on the troops that could have been or could possibly have been made
available
for particular campaigns or battles.

i hope to see my camel brigade of irrd d B camels in the seleucid list
although records only record them occasionally.

i think it better to give the options where evidence is scant rather than to

exclude them.

if the historian wishes to exclude them as the general of the day did that
is
his choice, at the end of the day 50% of generals got it wrong .

mark mallard


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






Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



ADVERTISEMENT
HYPERLINK
"http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=129dmb3l6/M=291630.4786521.5933964.1261774/D=groups
/S=1705059080:HM/EXP=1082421095/A=2072415/R=0/SIG=11thh7ako/*http:/www.netfl
ix.com/Default?mqso=60178432&partid=4786521"click here


HYPERLINK
"http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=291630.4786521.5933964.1261774/D=groups/S=
:HM/A=2072415/rand=856715753"



_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
HYPERLINK
"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/W
arriorRules/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HYPERLINK
"mailto:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe"Warrior
Rules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the HYPERLINK
"http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/"Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.658 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 4/9/2004



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.658 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 4/9/2004



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