Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

A few days ago, I obtained the Imperial Warrior Lists. Being a long-term
Ancients
gamer in Eastern Australia and holding an ongoing interest in Roman military
matters
during the Imperial period (my current post-graduate studies at University of
Newcastle are concerned with the reigns of the emperors Philippus Arabs, Trajan
Decius,
Trebonianus Gallus and Aemilianus - period A.D. 244-53), I plumbed the depths of
these
lists with some relish.

Overall, I was disappointed with some aspects of these lists, both in terms of
wargames playability and historical research. I simply want to list some of my
concerns in
general terms, which I would be prepared to discuss on-line with anyone in
greater
detail in the future.

1. Some armies avail themselves of 'ally contingents' in such vast quantities,
both
in terms of troop numbers and points values, that they can be employed in a
fashion
whereby they totally overshadow the presence of their 'home contingent'. A case
in
point is Later Judean, which has available almost 1200 points of Parthian
allies. Given
that most regular games are conducted at between 1200 to 1600 points, I ask the
question - when does any army like this one cease to be Judean and become
Parthian?
I fully realise that there are compulsory Judean troops to be bought, but in a
case like this, are
only minimal (approx. 450 points). What I am getting at is that the Parthian
devotee,
who is seeking out a mechanism whereby he doesn't have to put of with poor class
Parthian infantry
types, can go to the charging infantry or steady peltaste-type troop, by opting
to
call his army Later Judean; which in its eventual make-up is simply a defacto
Parthian army, with enhanced infantry.

Maybe Ancient British is a similar case, whereby there are some 600 points of
Roman allies available. In a low points game, when does this army cease to be
British and become EIR?

Except in explicit attested cases, ie. the make-up of Aetius' Patrician Roman
army at
Chalons in A.D. 451, where allied contingents (Visigoths, Burgundians, Franks,
Amorican
Britons etc.) made up about 2/3 of his force; or maybe Hellenistic Indo-Greek
armies, where in terms of numbers and representation, the Greco-Iranian presence
was dominated by Indian
allies, should this practice be allowed to stand?

What I would suggest is the 'ally contingents' can make up no more than half the
points
value of their 'home army'; therefore this would give a more appropriate
proportional
representation at all traditional gaming levels, from as little as 1000 pts. to
'big'
games nearer 2000.

2. Nearly every army seems to have 'improved' - in some cases, markedly, in
terms
of playability - when compared to its former WRG 6th/7th List counterpart. In
some cases, I find this acceptible, because some armies never/rarely 'saw the
light of day' on a table, because of
some problematic functions within their Lists. Dacians are a case in point here,
not
that I am particularly 'worried', because they are an army I am inclined to use
of occasion; but where is the historical justification?

Another favourite of mine has been Mithridatic, which now seems availed of
'everything' which were previously forbidden in combination. I cannot see the
historical justification for
Armenian allies with Bastarne, and I am pretty familiar with the ancient source
material
in this instance. But, in Imperial Warrior, there it is!

To my way of thinking, virtually every list - notably Palmyran, Sassanian
Persian, and all the Roman lists - has substantially 'improved'; yet, these
armies were subject to quite adept
scholarly comment, even at the time of Barker's fine attempts to 'list' them.
For instance,
where have LHI Palmyran archers suddenly sprung from?

3. Do we have to re-visit some hackneyed arguments, such as the existence of
the
'curras dreponas' (sorry, can't remember the exact Latin term now) LIR
scythed-chariot; and the existence of ANY bow-armed SHC cavalry, which seems
still to depend on one piece of
ancient graffiti from Dura-Europas - in each case, where the evidence is so
flimsy,
so can hardly be justified as 'historical reality'?

Well, Imperial Warrior, I'll start using them because they still represent the
'latest'
in research. But, I still have distinct reservations, in some cases, as to their
historical
accuracy; and so far as playability goes, I think there has been a new benchmark
set,
in the creation of a 'sexed-up' set of Lists.

My regards, gentlemen - an 'improvement', but a dangerous 'precedent'.

Jeff Tillitzki

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/16/2004 00:58:00 Central Daylight Time,
jeff.tillitzki@... writes:
Nearly every army seems to have 'improved' - in some cases, markedly, in
terms
of playability..........<snip> - but where is the historical justification? >>

Jeff

Please bear in mind that it is FHE general list policy to include both
interpretations of a particular piece of history unless there simply is zero
justification for one of them. WRG's long standing policy is to choose one over
the
other.

We do this because the historical gamer is therefore free to choose for
himself which of the two interpretations he believes is correct from his own
research.

The tourney gamer can, indeed, choose the one more optimal, but in a world
where Sumerians fight Vikings, that we may have been too liberal with an
interpretation is hardly an issue..lol

All list balance is done entirely in period. If a particular list would not
'perform well' in an open tourney because of a choice we made or did not make,
that will just have to be.

We also concentrate on how certain troops and weapons systems were USED, not
how they simply existed. If a cavalry troop type was used exclusively for
scouting purposes and never fought in the battle line, it might not make the
list. If a weapon is individually more dangerous than it appears in the list
but
was not optimally used by that troop in the bodies and formations in which it
actually fought, it might not show up at the level of resolution of Warrior.

As for list maxima, that represents battlefield extremes to permit the
greatest amount of flexibility. We could have done even more of the following:

'if troop type X is used, no more than Y elements of troop type Z can be in
the army" and I mean a LOT more, but at some point you have to cut that off or
every list looks like Medieval German Princes from hell....lol

Hope this helps
Jon


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

>
> 2. Nearly every army seems to have 'improved' - in some cases,
markedly, in terms
> of playability - when compared to its former WRG 6th/7th List
counterpart. In some cases, I find this acceptible, because some
armies never/rarely 'saw the light of day' on a table, because of
> some problematic functions within their Lists. Dacians are a case
in point here, not
> that I am particularly 'worried', because they are an army I am
inclined to use of occasion; but where is the historical
justification?
>

I am interested in what you see to be "improved" in the Dacian list,
and why this is a problem, can you elaborate? (I am new to Warrior
rules, and I have a Dacian army, and just recently picked up IW).

Thanks,

Shan

Shan,

Improvements in regards Imp.War. Dacian list #15 .V. any extrapolation from
6th.Ed. Dacian list #68, applicable for Warrior/WRG 7th.Ed.

1. Imp.War. Dacians have available 75 figures (being an old timer, I still
speak
in terms of numbersd of figures) of Sarmatian allies .V. 6th.Ed. previously
having
30 - approx. some 900 pts (in 'real terms', allowing for command points) .V. 400
pts.

2. Imp.War. Dacians have 78 figures of Bastarnae allies .V. previously 56 -
some
700 pts. .V. 450.

3. There are now slightly more Dacian LC than before.

4. There is a large increase in the availability of 'B' grade warband LMI,
which now can
be double-armed 2HCW/Jav style.

5. Bastarnae and Dacian WB LMI 2HCW-armed can now be employed in formations
which are combat effective in 1 + 1/2 ranks.

6. Dacian bow can now be LMI, so as to provide a not inconsiderable shooting
platform, through concentration of fire - this could not be similiarly managed
by
Dacian LI bow of 6th.Ed.

So far as 'improvement/s' - and apart from the troop-type advantages alluded to
above - previously, a Dacian wargames army suffered from maintaining a
battle-field
situation/configuration, whereas the player could readily get his LMI warbands
to go impetuous. Especially when being opposed by enemy elephants, chariots (and
frontal SHC/SHK), the 'unease' situation, which was further complicated by the
lack
of a PA standard, made these difficult 'to get going'. Additionally, heavy enemy
missile fire in conjunction caused the WB units to sometimes effectively test
as 'D' grade, even before making contact. This could be rectified somewhat by
careful battlefield management to ensure their 'support', so as to keep them at
'C' grade. Now, this situation has been somewhat dispelled by the prevalence
of 'B' grade WB, which effectively keep each unit as 'eager', at least at the
early stages of combat.

In combination with Bastarnae WB LMI, now efective in 1 + 1/2 ranks, these
WB units are very potent - and given that this could only be achieved by the
6th.Ed. player after much endeavour and deft skill, I see this as an unqualified
improvement.

In 'my neck of the woods', I have rarely seen 6th.Ed. Dacian armies take to the
table,
mainly due to the afore described weaknesses - so I do agree some 'improvement'
was required to make them more attractive as an army for the competition player,
and agree that these 'improvements' could be justified solely on that basis
alone.

However, the problem for me is that the Imp.War. Dacian list offers the player
to opt against preserving a Dacian army within its historical balance. Quite
clearly, the Roman enemies of the Dacians felt the need to come up with special
tactics/armour to manage the effectiveness of the most numerous and impressive
part of the Dacian army - their falx-armed warband infantry. The Romans found
no problems with the Dacian/Sarmatian mounted presence. But, with Imp.War.
Dacians, one can get by with purchasing only 72 WB foot, 12 LI bow and 18
Bastarnae WB, and then flood the field with mounted troops. At around 1500 pts,
I can see no reason why a Dacian army cannot field nearly as many cavalry
figures
as infantry, which - to my mind - bares no correlation with its historical
counterpart. This kind of situation vis a vis Imp.War. lists in general is my
main 'sticking point' with them.

Anyway, good luck with your Dacians. I look forward to using my Dacian Foundry
types
with a lot more regularity; when I can be tempted away from using a defacto
Palmyran
army, appearing under the guise of Eastern Middle Imperial Roman, but having
access
to at least one D-armed 'B' Legionarii unit and 6 cart-mounted bolt-shooters.
Maybe
even the 'improved' Dacians would struggle against that one!

Regards, and may the dice be kind!



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