Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Todd Schneider]

From what I've read on LIR Armies they did not have
any fully armored rider and horse units (Ala say,
Palymryan Cataphracts). The Clibinarii were EHC, and
it wasn't until the Byzantine Empire that you started
seeing Roman SHC. There could be an overlap between
the Byantine units and Late ROman Period though...

Course, I could be reading the wrong books in this
regards...

Todd


--- CHRIS BUMP <cncbump@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
And yet the FHE LIR list has no Cataphracts? Bit of
an exaggeration to suggest that all historical options
are offered.

Even though much historical data suggests considerable
spacing between Legionairres in the Marian and
Polybian eras, and Logistically the only way to
replace such troops in combat would be through such
open ordered formations, Scott proclaimed that the
reason that Marians and most likely Polybians would
not be allowed the option of being open order was that
it encouraged their use as other than open terrain
troops. Huh? This suggests blatant ignoring of
historical data to support a game mechanism desired by
FHE. The game is what it is, and I don't think that
anyone will argue that FHE does extensive research in
support of their prodigy, but I also disagree with the
notion that anywhere near all historically supported
options are offered to the gamer.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: JonCleaves@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 11:25 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] List Design Philosophy


Most here understand FHE's list design philosophy.
But with the large influx of new folks, I thought it
might be good to reiterate so everyone is on the same
sheet.

When we are faced with multiple choices as to how a
troop type might look - meaning there is evidence of
more than one weapon/armor/training/order/morale
combination that could be applied, we opt to give the
player all the options we have any evidence for.

Why? Well, if you fancy yourself an historian and
you believe you have hit on the only correct view - it
is there for you. If you think the evidence that
almughavars had some shields is sketchy or
non-existent, there is no requirement to take them on
your troops. If you think that thing that Late Roman
legionaires carried was just another JLS and not a D -
no need to take them.

Let's take the oft-maligned Late Roman chariot as an
example - something Scott and I debated at length.
Yes, we do have evidence of its existence - in some
ways more evidence than we have of a lot of biblical
troop types...lol - but not a lot on its employment.
But, it's out there, people have them and the record
is murky. Given our interpretation of them and their
cost and the army they are in, we feel we have given
the player the best options. I would not, for
example, permit it in a theme tourney I ran, as I do
not believe the thing was ever used in real combat.
Do I mind seeing it in an open tourney? You know -
the kind where Assyrians fight Ottoman Turks... Not
in the least. I am not afraid of an LIR army that
contains one and, much more importantly, I would
never, ever make some sort of history-based argument
that in any way made use of an open tourney game as an
example. None of our list writing or playtesting uses
anything but historical opponents. If you play in
opens and are worried about their 'history' you are on
your own...lol We very early on made the decision
that trying to get 'Romans' balanced with 'knights'
was pointless from a great many standpoints. We are
looking for armies that perform in period the way we
believe they performed. You take Sea Peoples into an
open, you are a hero, but we aren't going to 'do
things' to the Sea Peoples list to make them more
resistant to 15th century knights....

You guys are the players - you decide which of more
than one historical interpretations you believe from
your own homework. Don't let us - or anyone else -
tell you what to think.

J


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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



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


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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.

[joncleaves]

The game is what it is, and I don't think that anyone will argue that FHE does
extensive research in support of their prodigy, but I also disagree with the
notion that anywhere near all historically supported options are offered to the
gamer.>>

Noted...lol

Chris, in the case of the Marians, as one example, I took the role of the
advocate of LHI - when we are considering something one guys takes on the role
of its champion and the others the naysayers. But if even the guy who is trying
to make it work (like a defense counsel...lol) doesn't believe in the end that
it is right, some other avenue to get to the same effect must be explored. LHI
is not the right answer given the effect we needed to replicate and the things
LHI can do in the game. They were doing things that just simply didn't happen.

What they did do, was permit others to pass through their ranks and replace worn
troops with fresh - which is where we went.

Jon

[joncleaves]

But the rationale for shields comes from FHE's position that they did not suffer
from dramatic shooting losses. >>

Marian legionaires had shields....lol

Oh - you are bringing up Almughavars again? Sorry, thought that horse died.

That is not our position. We found several small references to bucklers being
carried, seconds carrying shields for men who appeared to be almughavars, much
confusion over the name almughavar itself and exactly whether that was a 'troop
type' on its own or a small party of a larger group - a group which carried
shields. In addition, they fought and defeated troops who should have killed
them if entirely shieldless. The picture is murky, so we gave them the option.

Our position is that it is very possible that enough of what we are calling
almughavars (even if we are by necessity lumping them in with the greater,
larger unit that appears in numbers at the Warrior scale) possessed shields that
giving that troop type the option for half of their elements shields in Warrior
is giving the player the right set of options to simulate what he believes is
true.

We discussed a list rule briefly, but only use that when we need an effect
(circulating combatants) that would not be reflected by an historically
justifiable troop type (LHI). I appreciate the continued recommendation of
going with a moog list rule, but of course we considered that and decided it to
be unnecessary long ago.

My personal belief is that what is actually an almughavar was a sort of group of
champions or 'myrmidons' - a subset of a larger group whose effect was to lead
the larger group into battle and motivate them. There is evidence this larger
group had shields and that the almughavars discarded theirs or gave them to
someone to carry before battle with someone they didn't need that kind of
protection from. I could be wrong, and if so, the option also exists to not
have them.

With Marians, the picture is not murky that they stood a little further apart
from each other nor is it murky that they handled replacement in combat with an
unprecedented degree of sophistication. The question was, how best to replicate
that - and LHI was clearly not the answer.

J

[John Murphy]

Ah Paul Georgian where are you when we need you.

Interestingly, the Warrior Byz SHC do not show up until the very end
of the Thematic period in the mid-900's, well past the Late Roman,
then they are used for about a hundred years and disappear again.
This is historical by the way - AFAIK (and I delved into this for
years mind you) the armies of Belisarius and Heraclius did not use
heavily armored cavalry (nor, I think it could be argued, did their
Sassanid Persian rivals by that late date although you do not see
this reflected in that list - even though the list author will
happily tell you how everything Byzantine was copied from the
Persians - just a jab there Craig, to some extent he is maybe
correct anyhow).

Furthermore, the sources for the creation of Byzantine SHC in this
era mostly indicate the armor (not the weaponry however) was based
on what the Byzantines, at least, thought was an earlier Roman
practice. So go figure. But admitedly their history could be a bit
messed up.

One could also ask, since the Byzantine Klibanophoroi had a few
lances and a bunch of "maces" why all of them get lances instead of
having a lance / 1SA-1HCW combination?

Anyhow, certainly there are _some_ historical interpretations that
indicate full cataphract armor for some LIR units. Heck you can even
buy the figures for them.

However, all that said, I think the point boils down to...

It is only a game, guys. You can play the list any way you want at
home, or anywhere you want if you put the game on. The lists, and
the rules for that matter, just provide a guideline (and in most
cases a much, much better one than previously) for gamers to meet
and play competitively - whether in a historical matchup or an open
tournament. If you want to take Moog shields away or give LIR SHC
then do it, even run a game at Historicon that way. But the
likelihood of getting a published list changed - purely for
competition sake, really - with so much discussion under the bridge
already is about nil so while you may argue it all you want I would
not hold my breath.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Schneider
<thresh1642@s...> wrote:
> From what I've read on LIR Armies they did not have
> any fully armored rider and horse units (Ala say,
> Palymryan Cataphracts). The Clibinarii were EHC, and
> it wasn't until the Byzantine Empire that you started
> seeing Roman SHC. There could be an overlap between
> the Byantine units and Late ROman Period though...

[Todd Schneider]

John,

How much confusion can also be a product of just the
word "Cataphract", as its name is attahced to many
different types of mounted (Clibinarii).

In reagrds to Mounted using 1HCW (or even 2HCW), when
I was doing the City States list for Fan Warrior I
looked at giving them thew option of having a mounted
unit armed with 2HCW (because there are figures out
there that are Knights armed with 2HCW from "the
Company that shall not be Named" ). Combat wise,
they get theier lunch handed to them, and if it was
1HCW it's even worse, as they don't fight rank and a
half against knights, which is presumable what these
guys would be fighting.

In reagrds to the Kilbanophoroi, is their any
documentaion on how they fought, in what formation? I
would suspect the front rank was Lance armed, and they
were responsible for breaking into the enemy
formation, and then the SA armed guys would follow
through the newly created gaps and start swinging.

Todd

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


---------------------------------
Ah Paul Georgian where are you when we need you.

Interestingly, the Warrior Byz SHC do not show up
until the very end
of the Thematic period in the mid-900's, well past the
Late Roman,
then they are used for about a hundred years and
disappear again.
This is historical by the way - AFAIK (and I delved
into this for
years mind you) the armies of Belisarius and Heraclius
did not use
heavily armored cavalry (nor, I think it could be
argued, did their
Sassanid Persian rivals by that late date although you
do not see
this reflected in that list - even though the list
author will
happily tell you how everything Byzantine was copied
from the
Persians - just a jab there Craig, to some extent he
is maybe
correct anyhow).

Furthermore, the sources for the creation of Byzantine
SHC in this
era mostly indicate the armor (not the weaponry
however) was based
on what the Byzantines, at least, thought was an
earlier Roman
practice. So go figure. But admitedly their history
could be a bit
messed up.

One could also ask, since the Byzantine Klibanophoroi
had a few
lances and a bunch of "maces" why all of them get
lances instead of
having a lance / 1SA-1HCW combination?

Anyhow, certainly there are _some_ historical
interpretations that
indicate full cataphract armor for some LIR units.
Heck you can even
buy the figures for them.

However, all that said, I think the point boils down
to...

It is only a game, guys. You can play the list any way
you want at
home, or anywhere you want if you put the game on. The
lists, and
the rules for that matter, just provide a guideline
(and in most
cases a much, much better one than previously) for
gamers to meet
and play competitively - whether in a historical
matchup or an open
tournament. If you want to take Moog shields away or
give LIR SHC
then do it, even run a game at Historicon that way.
But the
likelihood of getting a published list changed -
purely for
competition sake, really - with so much discussion
under the bridge
already is about nil so while you may argue it all you
want I would
not hold my breath.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Schneider
<thresh1642@s...> wrote:
> From what I've read on LIR Armies they did not have
> any fully armored rider and horse units (Ala say,
> Palymryan Cataphracts). The Clibinarii were EHC,
and
> it wasn't until the Byzantine Empire that you
started
> seeing Roman SHC. There could be an overlap between
> the Byantine units and Late ROman Period though...



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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.

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Schneider
<thresh1642@s...> wrote:
> In reagrds to the Kilbanophoroi, is their any
> documentaion on how they fought, in what formation? I
> would suspect the front rank was Lance armed, and they
> were responsible for breaking into the enemy
> formation, and then the SA armed guys would follow
> through the newly created gaps and start swinging.

Oh, absolutely! One of the joys of studying and playing Byzantines
is the sheer weight of nearly-useless hisotircal trivia to digest in
all the extent military manuals and such.

I would argue we know more about how the folks in Constantinople
_wanted_ their army to fight than about nearly any other army in the
entire period covered by the Warrior rules. How that translated into
actual battlefield usage is in some cases a bit of an issue but the
theoretical basis is at least quite evident.

And your statement above is, I believe, essentially what those
manuals indicate.

Speaking of FanWar, I hope, please, that Fantasy Warrior will have
Videssos lists, divided into sub-periods for the three series of
novels, with also a Makuran enemy to play against as well as some of
the other nations. I am pretty sure both Paul Georgian and Craig
Scott are big Videssos readers (I think both have briefly mentioned
this in the past) and with their historical background could
certainly do up some nice lists unfettered by reality.

That would sell one copy of the product to me, which I might not
otherwise buy.

[Todd Schneider]

John,

I'd talk to Jon C. About the Videssos stuff. As of
now I am only peripherally involved with FanWar,
mainly as a Playtester and sometimes List writer.

Are their figs available for Videssos?

Todd

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


---------------------------------
--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Schneider
<thresh1642@s...> wrote:
> In reagrds to the Kilbanophoroi, is their any
> documentaion on how they fought, in what formation?
I
> would suspect the front rank was Lance armed, and
they
> were responsible for breaking into the enemy
> formation, and then the SA armed guys would follow
> through the newly created gaps and start swinging.

Oh, absolutely! One of the joys of studying and
playing Byzantines
is the sheer weight of nearly-useless hisotircal
trivia to digest in
all the extent military manuals and such.

I would argue we know more about how the folks in
Constantinople
_wanted_ their army to fight than about nearly any
other army in the
entire period covered by the Warrior rules. How that
translated into
actual battlefield usage is in some cases a bit of an
issue but the
theoretical basis is at least quite evident.

And your statement above is, I believe, essentially
what those
manuals indicate.

Speaking of FanWar, I hope, please, that Fantasy
Warrior will have
Videssos lists, divided into sub-periods for the three
series of
novels, with also a Makuran enemy to play against as
well as some of
the other nations. I am pretty sure both Paul Georgian
and Craig
Scott are big Videssos readers (I think both have
briefly mentioned
this in the past) and with their historical background
could
certainly do up some nice lists unfettered by reality.

That would sell one copy of the product to me, which I
might not
otherwise buy.



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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.

[joncleaves]

FanWar already has hero rules, and we will probably go with that for
achilles along with possibly some stuff from Mike Bard's website's trojan
battle.

but for your own Illiad, anything goes!


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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Oh my goodness! Bill, I suggest that Achillies is invincible to all but an up 3
average die roll from shooting/support shooting. What do you think about that?


kelly

hrisikos@... wrote:
> > > Why? Well, if you fancy yourself an historian and you believe
> you have
> >> hit on the only correct view - it is there for you.
> >
> >I, for one, am satisfied with this approach, and hence wait with eager
> >anticipation for my Greek hoplite army list and all its options that I
> >have documented with primary source material.
> >Greek
>
> BTW, will there be an option to bring the Gorgons' Head in a leather
> bag? After all, we don't know when it was lost, exactly...
>
> effect something like &quot;turn all elements within 120 paces who are
> facing towards it (within 90 degrees) into Obstacles...&quot;
> --


Actually, that would be a feature:

1. Too early for any hoplite list;

2. Better suited to fantasy warrior...We Hellenes know the difference
between myth and legend :)

But hey, i like the way you think. For example, shouldn't Achilles'
element be invulnerable to casualties except when struck from the rear?



Greek


Greek


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Todd,

Do you have a copy of The Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome by Phil
Barker? Acording to Phil, "Descriptions of cataphractarii in Ammanius and Julian
make it quite certain that they (Late Roman Cats) were identical to the Palmyran
type described later." Knowing this kind of information is why I like to read
list designer notes for deleting troops from lists that have a historical basis
such as the Sassanid Daylami or Trapezatoi. Including such things as Roman
cataphract scythed chariots just seems a bit off. Does anyone know when or if
they were ever actually used? Or for that matter, did they ever get off the
paper they were drawn up on?
Btw, in Phil's description of the Palmyran Cataphract, he writes, "While
the foot archer was numerically the most important troop type of the Palmyran
army, the one that caused the most consternation among Aurelian's army was the
cataphract cavalryman. Sometimes the Roman cavalry could deal with them by
keeping out of reach and enveloping their flanks, but on other occasions they
rode the lighter troops down. They later formed the model for the Cataphract
regiments introduced into the Roman army by Aurelian. These were later greatly
expanded by Constantius II." Phil further sites a picture scratched on a wall at
Doura Europos and descriptions in the works of Ammanianus Marcellinus and
Julian.

kelly
just my 2 cents

Todd Schneider <thresh1642@...> wrote:
From what I've read on LIR Armies they did not have
any fully armored rider and horse units (Ala say,
Palymryan Cataphracts). The Clibinarii were EHC, and
it wasn't until the Byzantine Empire that you started
seeing Roman SHC. There could be an overlap between
the Byantine units and Late ROman Period though...

Course, I could be reading the wrong books in this
regards...

Todd


--- CHRIS BUMP <cncbump@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
And yet the FHE LIR list has no Cataphracts? Bit of
an exaggeration to suggest that all historical options
are offered.

Even though much historical data suggests considerable
spacing between Legionairres in the Marian and
Polybian eras, and Logistically the only way to
replace such troops in combat would be through such
open ordered formations, Scott proclaimed that the
reason that Marians and most likely Polybians would
not be allowed the option of being open order was that
it encouraged their use as other than open terrain
troops. Huh? This suggests blatant ignoring of
historical data to support a game mechanism desired by
FHE. The game is what it is, and I don't think that
anyone will argue that FHE does extensive research in
support of their prodigy, but I also disagree with the
notion that anywhere near all historically supported
options are offered to the gamer.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: JonCleaves@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 11:25 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] List Design Philosophy


Most here understand FHE's list design philosophy.
But with the large influx of new folks, I thought it
might be good to reiterate so everyone is on the same
sheet.

When we are faced with multiple choices as to how a
troop type might look - meaning there is evidence of
more than one weapon/armor/training/order/morale
combination that could be applied, we opt to give the
player all the options we have any evidence for.

Why? Well, if you fancy yourself an historian and
you believe you have hit on the only correct view - it
is there for you. If you think the evidence that
almughavars had some shields is sketchy or
non-existent, there is no requirement to take them on
your troops. If you think that thing that Late Roman
legionaires carried was just another JLS and not a D -
no need to take them.

Let's take the oft-maligned Late Roman chariot as an
example - something Scott and I debated at length.
Yes, we do have evidence of its existence - in some
ways more evidence than we have of a lot of biblical
troop types...lol - but not a lot on its employment.
But, it's out there, people have them and the record
is murky. Given our interpretation of them and their
cost and the army they are in, we feel we have given
the player the best options. I would not, for
example, permit it in a theme tourney I ran, as I do
not believe the thing was ever used in real combat.
Do I mind seeing it in an open tourney? You know -
the kind where Assyrians fight Ottoman Turks... Not
in the least. I am not afraid of an LIR army that
contains one and, much more importantly, I would
never, ever make some sort of history-based argument
that in any way made use of an open tourney game as an
example. None of our list writing or playtesting uses
anything but historical opponents. If you play in
opens and are worried about their 'history' you are on
your own...lol We very early on made the decision
that trying to get 'Romans' balanced with 'knights'
was pointless from a great many standpoints. We are
looking for armies that perform in period the way we
believe they performed. You take Sea Peoples into an
open, you are a hero, but we aren't going to 'do
things' to the Sea Peoples list to make them more
resistant to 15th century knights....

You guys are the players - you decide which of more
than one historical interpretations you believe from
your own homework. Don't let us - or anyone else -
tell you what to think.

J


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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



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


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Jon,

It seems that legionaires and for that matter, Argyraspids from the
Seleucid army, were able to deploy and move through broken terrain and
effectively fight in said terrain as the march on Beth Zacharia is described by
Bar Kochva in his book, The Seleucid Army. Why is it that we have to assume that
highly trained troops would be so inflexible as to not have a plan for operating
in rough terrain? Why not allow something like a formaiton change into the
necessary order when moving in and out of terrain for these typs of troops?

kelly

JonCleaves@... wrote:
The game is what it is, and I don't think that anyone will argue that FHE does
extensive research in support of their prodigy, but I also disagree with the
notion that anywhere near all historically supported options are offered to the
gamer.>>

Noted...lol

Chris, in the case of the Marians, as one example, I took the role of the
advocate of LHI - when we are considering something one guys takes on the role
of its champion and the others the naysayers. But if even the guy who is trying
to make it work (like a defense counsel...lol) doesn't believe in the end that
it is right, some other avenue to get to the same effect must be explored. LHI
is not the right answer given the effect we needed to replicate and the things
LHI can do in the game. They were doing things that just simply didn't happen.

What they did do, was permit others to pass through their ranks and replace worn
troops with fresh - which is where we went.

Jon

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

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

[Todd Schneider]

Kelly,

What would be a rules mechanism for this? As I
understand it, making them LHI allowed them to do
these things, but also made them less "historical" in
how they were used.

How well trained were they at fighting in broken
terrain, as opposed to flat ground?

Todd

--- kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
Jon,

It seems that legionaires and for that matter,
Argyraspids from the Seleucid army, were able to
deploy and move through broken terrain and effectively
fight in said terrain as the march on Beth Zacharia is
described by Bar Kochva in his book, The Seleucid
Army. Why is it that we have to assume that highly
trained troops would be so inflexible as to not have a
plan for operating in rough terrain? Why not allow
something like a formaiton change into the necessary
order when moving in and out of terrain for these typs
of troops?


kelly

JonCleaves@... wrote:
The game is what it is, and I don't think that anyone
will argue that FHE does extensive research in support
of their prodigy, but I also disagree with the notion
that anywhere near all historically supported options
are offered to the gamer.>>

Noted...lol

Chris, in the case of the Marians, as one example, I
took the role of the advocate of LHI - when we are
considering something one guys takes on the role of
its champion and the others the naysayers. But if
even the guy who is trying to make it work (like a
defense counsel...lol) doesn't believe in the end that
it is right, some other avenue to get to the same
effect must be explored. LHI is not the right answer
given the effect we needed to replicate and the things
LHI can do in the game. They were doing things that
just simply didn't happen.

What they did do, was permit others to pass through
their ranks and replace worn troops with fresh - which
is where we went.

Jon

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

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


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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.

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I certainly would be for a Videssos list rule that allows the Videssian axe
bearing Guardsmen to fight 1 and a half ranks whether charging or not! At least
in Fantasy Warrior they could kick some but as Regs!

kelly

John <jjmurphy@...> wrote:
--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Schneider
<thresh1642@s...> wrote:
> In reagrds to the Kilbanophoroi, is their any
> documentaion on how they fought, in what formation? I
> would suspect the front rank was Lance armed, and they
> were responsible for breaking into the enemy
> formation, and then the SA armed guys would follow
> through the newly created gaps and start swinging.

Oh, absolutely! One of the joys of studying and playing Byzantines
is the sheer weight of nearly-useless hisotircal trivia to digest in
all the extent military manuals and such.

I would argue we know more about how the folks in Constantinople
_wanted_ their army to fight than about nearly any other army in the
entire period covered by the Warrior rules. How that translated into
actual battlefield usage is in some cases a bit of an issue but the
theoretical basis is at least quite evident.

And your statement above is, I believe, essentially what those
manuals indicate.

Speaking of FanWar, I hope, please, that Fantasy Warrior will have
Videssos lists, divided into sub-periods for the three series of
novels, with also a Makuran enemy to play against as well as some of
the other nations. I am pretty sure both Paul Georgian and Craig
Scott are big Videssos readers (I think both have briefly mentioned
this in the past) and with their historical background could
certainly do up some nice lists unfettered by reality.

That would sell one copy of the product to me, which I might not
otherwise buy.



Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Todd,

The writer of the Videssos series, Harry Turtledove is a PHD of Byzantine
history. There are figures and they are Byzantine as the Makuran are Sassanid
Persians. Don't forget the Misplaced Legion which are Marian Romans.

kelly

Todd Schneider <thresh1642@...> wrote:
John,

I'd talk to Jon C. About the Videssos stuff. As of
now I am only peripherally involved with FanWar,
mainly as a Playtester and sometimes List writer.

Are their figs available for Videssos?

Todd

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


---------------------------------
--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Schneider
<thresh1642@s...> wrote:
> In reagrds to the Kilbanophoroi, is their any
> documentaion on how they fought, in what formation?
I
> would suspect the front rank was Lance armed, and
they
> were responsible for breaking into the enemy
> formation, and then the SA armed guys would follow
> through the newly created gaps and start swinging.

Oh, absolutely! One of the joys of studying and
playing Byzantines
is the sheer weight of nearly-useless hisotircal
trivia to digest in
all the extent military manuals and such.

I would argue we know more about how the folks in
Constantinople
_wanted_ their army to fight than about nearly any
other army in the
entire period covered by the Warrior rules. How that
translated into
actual battlefield usage is in some cases a bit of an
issue but the
theoretical basis is at least quite evident.

And your statement above is, I believe, essentially
what those
manuals indicate.

Speaking of FanWar, I hope, please, that Fantasy
Warrior will have
Videssos lists, divided into sub-periods for the three
series of
novels, with also a Makuran enemy to play against as
well as some of
the other nations. I am pretty sure both Paul Georgian
and Craig
Scott are big Videssos readers (I think both have
briefly mentioned
this in the past) and with their historical background
could
certainly do up some nice lists unfettered by reality.

That would sell one copy of the product to me, which I
might not
otherwise buy.



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Todd,

I'm not sure which edition it was, but WRG 5th or 6th allowed legionaires
to change their order from Loose to heavy with a mere formation change. Using
those cool bases that Greg's brother in law has created at Dibbles Hobby store
would totally make this idea awsome. For those who didn't want to do this, a
counter or chit determining loose order could be used. Why not afford
flexibiltiy and make players pay extra points for that flexibility?

kelly

Todd Schneider <thresh1642@...> wrote:
Kelly,

What would be a rules mechanism for this? As I
understand it, making them LHI allowed them to do
these things, but also made them less "historical" in
how they were used.

How well trained were they at fighting in broken
terrain, as opposed to flat ground?

Todd

--- kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
Jon,

It seems that legionaires and for that matter,
Argyraspids from the Seleucid army, were able to
deploy and move through broken terrain and effectively
fight in said terrain as the march on Beth Zacharia is
described by Bar Kochva in his book, The Seleucid
Army. Why is it that we have to assume that highly
trained troops would be so inflexible as to not have a
plan for operating in rough terrain? Why not allow
something like a formaiton change into the necessary
order when moving in and out of terrain for these typs
of troops?


kelly

JonCleaves@... wrote:
The game is what it is, and I don't think that anyone
will argue that FHE does extensive research in support
of their prodigy, but I also disagree with the notion
that anywhere near all historically supported options
are offered to the gamer.>>

Noted...lol

Chris, in the case of the Marians, as one example, I
took the role of the advocate of LHI - when we are
considering something one guys takes on the role of
its champion and the others the naysayers. But if
even the guy who is trying to make it work (like a
defense counsel...lol) doesn't believe in the end that
it is right, some other avenue to get to the same
effect must be explored. LHI is not the right answer
given the effect we needed to replicate and the things
LHI can do in the game. They were doing things that
just simply didn't happen.

What they did do, was permit others to pass through
their ranks and replace worn troops with fresh - which
is where we went.

Jon

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

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


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

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