Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[John Murphy]

Hi all,
I am new to the list. I am based in the NoVa area and my 7th ed
experience is limited to a handful of con tourney games in LA back in
the 80s and then more recently playing my Maurikian Byzantines, and a
couple other armies, with only occassional success at several
weekends
full of tourney games at HMGS-E or NOVAG cons. That and several
drubbings at the hands of Craig Scott's Sassanids (hi Craig if you're
out there). I've also got some Normans, Romanian Franks, Chinese
Northern Dynasties and soon Patrician Romans and Early Imperial
Romans.
But enough of the introduction.
I would like to thank whomever put the sections in the Warrior
rules on suggested unit sizes and also the helpful hints for new
players. Excellent idea. The former has always been something I could
never figure out and the latter gives me and others some pointers to
pay closer attention to.
Do the more experienced players on this list have any comments on
the suggested unit sizes they'd like to share? In my own experience
the sizes for regulars seem a bit small which I have always liked to
play but always seem to be overwhelmed in competition unless you can
manage to combine them against larger units. Perhaps this more due to
my own less developed sense of tactical co-ordination?
I also recently saw the NASAMW revisions to the old 6th ed lists.
I
was suprised that they removed all the 2HCW options from the 100YW
archetype LB and their various similar types in other armies. This
sweeping change is probably something that came up long ago but being
one less familiar with the period I was wondering why and wether
Warrior would continue that. In a similar vein I was wondering if the
English hobilars would likely continue as mtd inf or whether they
would be restored to being more or less lesser men-at-arms able to
provide rear ranks for the SHK. I am pondering fiddling around with
middle period Anglo-Irish Justiciary army, especially if they get one
of these list rules subtracting 1 from their reliability rolls (yes,
a glutton for punishment)!
Anyway, hello all.
- John Murphy

[Don Coon]

> Do the more experienced players on this list have any comments on
> the suggested unit sizes they'd like to share? In my own experience
> the sizes for regulars seem a bit small which I have always liked to
> play but always seem to be overwhelmed in competition unless you can
> manage to combine them against larger units. Perhaps this more due to
> my own less developed sense of tactical co-ordination?

Your local play group will dictate what is a good unit size. We call it the
meta game (it is the global game that goes on behind the game i.e. I know
that he knows that I know that he knows...). I started out with 6 el Reg C
HI LTS. After a few games with an opponent I went to three 2 el bodies
instead. That gets old after a while and I went to 2 4 el bodies. Optimal
body size is very much opponent driven. When you play in the same group for
a while. guys will adapt to your typical army composition, and you must
evolve or die.

Don

Scott,

I'm curious. What is your process in writing a list?

From your last post, it sounds like you hit the academic journals as part of
the list writing process. I'm just interested what is involved?

John Meunier


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

[scott holder]

I also recently saw the NASAMW revisions to the old 6th ed lists.
I was suprised that they removed all the 2HCW options from the 100YW
archetype LB and their various similar types in other armies. This
sweeping change is probably something that came up long ago but being
one less familiar with the period I was wondering why and wether
Warrior would continue that.

>Look at FW lists 214 and 223. The data available indicates that
beginning at the tail end of the 100yearswar, the English were moving
their LBmen away from also being true melee machines armed with 2HCW and
by the WOTR era, that weapon was gone--the sources are fairly clear and
there is an academic consensus on the matter as well. LBmen of the
later era were armed with small shields (bucklers) and swords, hence the
list rule that you see in 223 (and one that will undoubtedly carry over
into the actual Warrior list).

In a similar vein I was wondering if the
English hobilars would likely continue as mtd inf or whether they
would be restored to being more or less lesser men-at-arms able to
provide rear ranks for the SHK.

>Beats me, haven't looked at that yet. Only about 60 armies between now
and that point:):)

Scott
List Ho