Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Phil Gardocki]

The reason that the "African" formation was deleted had to do with new interpretations of Byzantine manuals, not a game/play/balance issue.  In the 60's and 70's it was thought that African was a unit formation, like Cantabrian circle and Scythian.  But in the 80's it was found out that it was an Army formation of skirmishing cav with ready lancers behind them.

Phil G.

[joncleaves]

Thank you Phil!

Thanks Phil, In 6th , I played "african " wasn't sure historically
what it was.
Ed the Byzantinophile



--- In WarriorRules@y..., PHGamer@a... wrote:
> The reason that the "African" formation was deleted had to do with
new
> interpretations of Byzantine manuals, not a game/play/balance
issue. In the
> 60's and 70's it was thought that African was a unit formation,
like
> Cantabrian circle and Scythian. But in the 80's it was found out
that it was
> an Army formation of skirmishing cav with ready lancers behind them.
>
> Phil G.

--- In WarriorRules@y..., ekollmer@t... wrote:
>
> Thanks Phil, In 6th , I played "african " wasn't sure historically
> what it was.
> Ed the Byzantinophile

Terry writes:
You're not the only one unsure. But it sure makes a hell of a
difference, whether or not EHC L,B can "skirmish". To be blunt,
upgrading to EHC is a waste of points in most circumstances (please
note this caveat).

>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@y..., PHGamer@a... wrote:
> > The reason that the "African" formation was deleted had to do with
> new
> > interpretations of Byzantine manuals, not a game/play/balance
> issue. In the
> > 60's and 70's it was thought that African was a unit formation,
> like
> > Cantabrian circle and Scythian. But in the 80's it was found out
> that it was
> > an Army formation of skirmishing cav with ready lancers behind
them.
> >
> > Phil G.

Terry asks:

So is this simulated in the rules or in specific lists (e.g through
detachments)? Non-skirmishing EHC B is a waste of points (Economic
Rationalism rules!) in most circumstances

[Phil Gardocki]

Not True!!  When receiving missile fire before contact, HC vs EHC is +1 on the tactical charts.  Also, rarely can I rely on my opponent to rout on impact and it comes down to Other Hand to Hand, where the +1 is also a factor.  Also, I spend so much time in combat disorder, (lance charges being what they are), that I upgrade the back ranks as well to EHC when possible.

But hey, I took last place in the 1992 NCT:)  What do I know?

Phil G. :)


Terry writes:
.....  To be blunt, upgrading to EHC is a waste of points in most circumstances (please note this caveat).....