Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[captainjack75040]

I understand that this is a disussion going on between lance arm cav and multi armed cav. Those being lance armed only being better trained for the lance then those having lance and bow and trained as such. Personally, I don't agree with the idea. However, the Normans did show they were better with the lance then the Byzantines when they met each other on the battlefield. I believe that that Byzantine Cav is correctly reflected under the combat factors and they shouldn't be changed. However, Norman HC should received a bounce of some sort, as they did prove they were well trained and also, mentally prepared to charge directly into combat. Possibly a + plus 1 against multi-armed Cav or as someone stated earlier, Companion Rules being applied to the Normans.

As for Byzantine Cav. I can only say, I wish they were cheaper and also the number of required LC units/nationalities be lessen. Some of the later Byzantine List requires as much as four different LC nationalities be fielded. Cost points that could be used elsewhere.

My thoughts,

Jack Young 417-368-0601.

[Todd Kaeser]

Jack,

Have you also checked out the errata for those Byzantine lists?

http://www.fourhorsemenenterprises.com/holy.htm

or

http://www.fourhorsemenenterprises.com/darkage.htm

I agree that the minimums make the Byzantine lists difficult to create to most people's likings - probably why we don't see them as much. However, there have been some decent reductions in minimums in the errata and are worth taking a look at.

Helpfully,

Todd K

[Bill Chriss]

As for the Norman cav geting a bounce, wouldn't the current +2 for being impetuous Irr B without a general be enough, together with the ability to be HC back rank; HK front rank? No way, point for point, that Byzantines are as good a buy.

Admittedly, my ethno-historic allegiances are showing here....