Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Todd Kaeser]

In a recent conversation with Dave Markowitz we came to the conclusion that even
though there is all this nit picking on the lists the FHE have made so many more
armies playable. If you take a look at the armies used in tournaments or
discussed over the warrior groups list it is readily apparent that many
different types of armies are being used and used successfully.

Swiss is being hotly debated, but before the FHE changes they were relatively
unplayable. Now they are an army to contend with on the table - especially in
25mm

Sassanid Persian, Mongols, Wallachian, 100 Years War, Medieval armies in
general, the Later Byzantine armies, many more Chinese armies are all being
played now and are quite competitive. When did we see 10 Dynasties Chinese or
Korean armies being played and winning tournaments?

Samurai is also much better - not the easy "W" it once was. Some armies will
soil their pants when playing it.

Earlier Romans are very different now and we have yet to see them used more
often

There have been some downsides to the newer lists.

Earlier Byzantines have suffered due to the hign minimums (many also don't
know that under the revisions http://www.fourhorsemenenterprises.com/darkage.htm
there have been substantial changes to the army which makes their minimuns less
and more playable.) I've since copied all of the changes into the army books by
copying them onto Microsoft Word, shrinking them to 7 size font, and glueing
them into the cover pages.

Late Roman has also suffered with the lance rules and the use of 1 list
tournaments. Yet it was with Patrician Roman that Chris Damour won the NICT a
few years back.

Biblical armies were never very popular and are very difficult to win with out
of time period.

Barbarian armies have also suffered with the new lance rules.

Overall, however I would say that the new lists, with all of their list rules,
have made many more armies playable.

Just a few thoughts,

Todd K

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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

[Greg Regets]

You may be right, but the long term will really tell the whole story.

Right now, people are playing a wider variety of armies, but that may
(emphasis on may) be because the books came out one at a time, and
people built the army of the day.

There are clearly some armies that combine: a) lots of list rules, b)
nearly no minimums, c) lots of points saved by removal of back rank
shields, d) classification as "swordsmen" which basically makes
masses of troops, double-armed. It is possible that these mechanical
advantages may eventually turn the eye towards these armies.

Also, I don't really see these points as nit picking. I think people
have real concerns, which is healthy. Some of these people (I count
myself in this group) hope to hell that they are 100% wrong. It would
suck to go back to the days of 6th Edition, where half the offerings
at any given tournament was Teutonics, Seleucids and LIR ... at least
that is how it was in my area.

On the positive side, there is no denying the quality work that went
into these lists, and my experiences of late has shown that FHE is
more than willing to at least listen to alternative views of how
history presents a given army. There really isn't much more you can
ask of a game designer.

Thanks ... g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Kaeser <hailkaeser@y...>
wrote:
>
> In a recent conversation with Dave Markowitz we came to the
conclusion that even though there is all this nit picking on the
lists the FHE have made so many more armies playable. If you take a
look at the armies used in tournaments or discussed over the warrior
groups list it is readily apparent that many different types of
armies are being used and used successfully.
>
> Swiss is being hotly debated, but before the FHE changes they
were relatively unplayable. Now they are an army to contend with on
the table - especially in 25mm
>
> Sassanid Persian, Mongols, Wallachian, 100 Years War, Medieval
armies in general, the Later Byzantine armies, many more Chinese
armies are all being played now and are quite competitive. When did
we see 10 Dynasties Chinese or Korean armies being played and winning
tournaments?
>
> Samurai is also much better - not the easy "W" it once was. Some
armies will soil their pants when playing it.
>
> Earlier Romans are very different now and we have yet to see them
used more often
>
> There have been some downsides to the newer lists.
>
> Earlier Byzantines have suffered due to the hign minimums (many
also don't know that under the revisions
http://www.fourhorsemenenterprises.com/darkage.htm there have been
substantial changes to the army which makes their minimuns less and
more playable.) I've since copied all of the changes into the army
books by copying them onto Microsoft Word, shrinking them to 7 size
font, and glueing them into the cover pages.
>
> Late Roman has also suffered with the lance rules and the use of
1 list tournaments. Yet it was with Patrician Roman that Chris Damour
won the NICT a few years back.
>
> Biblical armies were never very popular and are very difficult to
win with out of time period.
>
> Barbarian armies have also suffered with the new lance rules.
>
> Overall, however I would say that the new lists, with all of
their list rules, have made many more armies playable.
>
> Just a few thoughts,
>
> Todd K
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>