Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Tom McMillan]

In a message dated 6/2/02 8:42:16 PM, WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com writes:

<< It is my opinion, Paul, that Warrior list authors take on a unique
responsibility when they are asked to help us. That specifically includes
making their lists according to the FHE research and list philosophies and
not their own.

If the list isn't historically accurate as the author understands the history
(however imperfect that knowledge is)it is wrong to submit it in that state.
If Scott did not make that clear to his list authors, I will. >>

Which brings us to the 'Pavcocic principle'.
Back when NASAMW was rewriting the Lists, Mike Pavcocic took over the
Imperial Roman ones. Mike was a nationally recognised scholar of the period,
and his work was absolutely brilliant. His lectures on the subject at NASAMW
conventions left our jaws dropping. Based on deep erudite scholarship, these
Lists were fascinating to read and almost obsessively accurate.
They did, however, have 2 little problems- 1) they were about 8,000 lines
long, and 2) they made absolutely NO sense on the tabletop. They led to
illegal formations, and nothing looked or played right.
List authors should certainly consider , when considering such decisions
as Irreg vs Reg cav, how an army actually performed on the battlefield. This
is particularly true for the Byzantines, where we have not only numerous
battle reports but also training manuals, and the two can be compared and
contrasted.
To suggest that either historical accuracy without regard to game
mechanics, or that playability at the expense of historical accuracy, are
absolutes is just silly. List authors MUST compromise between these two
factors if their work is going to be of any value to anyone.

[joncleaves]

<<To suggest that either historical accuracy without regard to game mechanics,
or that playability at the expense of historical accuracy, are absolutes is just
silly. List authors MUST compromise between these two
factors if their work is going to be of any value to anyone. >>

I completely and totally concur, Tom. I must have misunderstood what paul was
saying.