Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Tom McMillan]

In a message dated 5/13/02 8:55:19 PM, WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com writes:

<< My point is that I think a different standard of historical rigor
ought to be applied to marginal lists than to "killer/tournament"
lists. You may disagree. >>

An interesting approach, and not as absurd as it sounds.
However, as long as the Lists are being written by an unbiased source
with no axe to grind, it is probably as wrong to 'knock down a peg' the
killer armies as it was, in the NASAMW List days, for proponents to try and
dig up obscure examples to solve their problems.
Let the chips fall where they may.
But I would agree that an army that already has a very wide array of
options, like the Seleucids, might require more justification for the
inclusion of obscure possible allies than, say, the Scythians or the Russ.

I personally think that if you can not point directly
to an obvious source (historically, but in some cases
like bronze age agean archeologic) then forget it.
The one thing that tires me more than anything is the
bullcrap lists. A perfect example is Zargos
highlanders--sounds like a buck rodgers, kiltwearing
foe--in DBM. We have absolutely no evidence of these
people outside of Assyrian textual references. What
did they wear, how did they fight? Phil obviously
took the historical references, assumed that hill
people would be loose order, wild, and unpredictable:
ta-da! Wb(F). Bullcrap! I understand the importance
of providing historical opponants, but who here can
drum up support for a DBM list like Tupi? I say, and
it is just an opinion, that without references, lists
should not exist.

I'm also oppossed to the 2 pages shopping list for
armies. Something like the old German Imperial list
in 7th. There were so many options and conditions
that you couldn't put an army together for fear of
violating some condition :)

boyd

--- Quahog25@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 5/13/02 8:55:19 PM,
> WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com writes:
>
> << My point is that I think a different standard of
> historical rigor
> ought to be applied to marginal lists than to
> "killer/tournament"
> lists. You may disagree. >>
>
> An interesting approach, and not as absurd as it
> sounds.
> However, as long as the Lists are being written
> by an unbiased source
> with no axe to grind, it is probably as wrong to
> 'knock down a peg' the
> killer armies as it was, in the NASAMW List days,
> for proponents to try and
> dig up obscure examples to solve their problems.
> Let the chips fall where they may.
> But I would agree that an army that already has a
> very wide array of
> options, like the Seleucids, might require more
> justification for the
> inclusion of obscure possible allies than, say, the
> Scythians or the Russ.
>
>


=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com

[Greg Regets]

I think every tournament should have three prizes. One for winning the battles,
one for best painted army, and one if you successfully make two accurate Italian
Condotta lists.

G
----- Original Message -----
From: Wanax Andron
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 7:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Questionable allies


I personally think that if you can not point directly
to an obvious source (historically, but in some cases
like bronze age agean archeologic) then forget it.
The one thing that tires me more than anything is the
bullcrap lists. A perfect example is Zargos
highlanders--sounds like a buck rodgers, kiltwearing
foe--in DBM. We have absolutely no evidence of these
people outside of Assyrian textual references. What
did they wear, how did they fight? Phil obviously
took the historical references, assumed that hill
people would be loose order, wild, and unpredictable:
ta-da! Wb(F). Bullcrap! I understand the importance
of providing historical opponants, but who here can
drum up support for a DBM list like Tupi? I say, and
it is just an opinion, that without references, lists
should not exist.

I'm also oppossed to the 2 pages shopping list for
armies. Something like the old German Imperial list
in 7th. There were so many options and conditions
that you couldn't put an army together for fear of
violating some condition :)

boyd

--- Quahog25@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 5/13/02 8:55:19 PM,
> WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com writes:
>
> << My point is that I think a different standard of
> historical rigor
> ought to be applied to marginal lists than to
> "killer/tournament"
> lists. You may disagree. >>
>
> An interesting approach, and not as absurd as it
> sounds.
> However, as long as the Lists are being written
> by an unbiased source
> with no axe to grind, it is probably as wrong to
> 'knock down a peg' the
> killer armies as it was, in the NASAMW List days,
> for proponents to try and
> dig up obscure examples to solve their problems.
> Let the chips fall where they may.
> But I would agree that an army that already has a
> very wide array of
> options, like the Seleucids, might require more
> justification for the
> inclusion of obscure possible allies than, say, the
> Scythians or the Russ.
>
>


=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

Height: 4567 ft 01234567891011 in
Weight:
Sex: F M






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



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



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