Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 08:38:30 EDT
From: cncbump@...
Subject: Re: Digest Number 341

In a message dated 09/05/2001 4:32:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
martin.jerred@... writes:

<< I want a rules system that acts as an administrative model based
on identifiable/accountable precedents from history so that Vikings *do*
fight as Vikings as per the historical record [and this means the "against
whom" is their historical opponents]. Once that is decided upon [and broken
down into it's constituent building block data points, ie JLS or 2HCW; LMI
or HI; etc] >>

cncbump@... writes in reply:
Martin, I think that you make my point here. I was not purporting that
a-historical opponents should be the deciding factor as to their performance
or ability, but rather that they cover so much time and potentially so many
opponents and stood in both loose and close formation and fought with a
multitude of weapons and varied in class of morale and hence eagerness that
to try and make them generic as a genre on a matrix would be to disserve
them
and likely make them worse than they already currently are vs non-historical
opponents.

[MJ] Err, yes I rather think [in retrospect] that I mis-interpreted the tack
you were taking, apologies!

As to whether or not the rules were written primarily as a set of rules for
historical match ups that allow other or visa versa, I do not know. I
obviously was not involved nor do I know Phil. The very act of simplified
categories of troops, armor and weapons that does not take into account
advances in technology seems to support the idea that as he was designing
this the thought was how to easily play a what if. But I have no evidence
to
support that.

Chris

[MJ] Ah now that's a [slightly but significantly] different statement . I
suspect that the rules [that is WRG ed x and DBx] were if not written
primarily for competative [and thus a-historical] formats they were at least
written recognising the significance of this element of the market. Not
necessarily a bad thing and as usual the whole issue comes down to shades of
grey as to were an individual wants the compromise to be balanced.

[MJ] Nb: before I get leapt on [if not too late] I have nothing against
competative play, it's just not the be-all/end-all for me. It has/does
generate a lot of very useful things for the hobby, I just don't want it to
be the "only" consideration.....

Cheers
Zippee
[UK]