Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Mark Stone · Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 10:58 pm Post subject: Wallachian allies

I understand the rationale whereby many ally contingents lose a morale class on at least some troop types when appearing as an ally contingent rather than on their native list. I'm not sure I understand why an ally contingent would appear with different equipment as allies rather than on their native list.

In particular, I'm puzzled why the Wallachian LI have shields on their own list but lose shields on the Later Ottoman and Later Hungarian lists.

Again, this may well be deliberate, but I wanted to just check and see if perhaps it was an oversight.

-Mark Stone

Noel White · Recruit Joined: 13 May 2006 Posts: 62

Hey, while we are on this topic....

The Thracian list (in Clasical Warrior) does not allow shields for the light infantry of the early period 700?-250BC.

The Alexandrian Macedonian list requires the Thracian LI to have shields even though they would fall within the "early" thracian time period.
What gives, man?

Noel.

scott holder · Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 1:42 pm Post subject:

Deliberate on both parts.

Sigh, we *knew* somebody, eventually, would think the Macedonian Thracian's were a "mistake" because of the time line of the army. Again, it was deliberate.

Noel White · Recruit Joined: 13 May 2006 Posts: 62

I'm curious!
Why shields for some and no shields for others?
It's the same bunch of yahoos right?

Noel?

D PIPER · Recruit Joined: 29 Jul 2006 Posts: 29 Location: Idaho

How about the Ottoman Akinji getting L in the Wallacian/Moldavian list and only the Djanbazan in the Ottoman list?

D PIPER · Recruit Joined: 29 Jul 2006 Posts: 29 Location: Idaho

How about the Ottoman Akinji of the Wallachian/Moldavian getting "L" when only the Djanbazan of Ottoman Turk lists get that option?