Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[scott holder]

No one was asked to directly test any WRG or Society list, ever. You
may have used a WRG or Society list to playtest Warrior rules, but FHE
makes no guarantee that any particular troop type in any particular list
by another author will be represented in our list in exactly the same
manner. If any of you think we have a contract to make sure our lists
represent their troops the exact same way as any list published by
someone else, please disabuse yourself of that notion now.

>I, more than most people, understand the apprehension people feel when
they have "investments" in lead, especially 25mm, can be rendered
worthless by someone else. Therefore, I have entered into list
production with an eye to refine and update lists, rather than massively
overhaul them.

>That being said, I also have something of a responsibility to ensure
that Warrior army lists reflect the most current information and use an
interprative eye that's conservative, which again lends itself more to
the update/refine approach than the massively change methodology. The
latter occurs more with those armies that I have significant outside
help with. To date, that's been primarily the Byzantines which none of
you have seen:):)

>In FW, no such massive overhaul occurred. With a couple of exceptions
that most likely will be corrected in the near term, troops that "did"
things in that other set of rules, "do" the same things in Warrior. In
fact, because of the liberating nature of list rules, FW, and eventually
Warrior lists, in many cases enable armies to do "more" than they
currently do. List rules were fairly minimal in Biblical Warrior, there
are many more of them in Dark Age Warrior.

>And when I do "massively overhaul" a list, it will be because it really
needs it. Thus far, at least in a Warrior context (as opposed to a FW
context), I've not done something that any 25mm army owner can't manage
to accomodate without trashing most of the lead.

>Let's talk about Huns for a minute. The NASAMW list is crap:)
Here's why: it was written by someone who "bought into" a
then-controversial paper calling into question the whole horse-based
basis of the Huns. Note how it didn't discuss any minute tactical
issues such as whether or not Hun LC used a formation we no longer
name:) Well, in the 15+ years since then, the general consensus
among scholars of that period is that the original paper was crap. So,
when I, and my supporting author, come down to working on the Huns, much
of what you'll see will be conservative in it's interprative outlook.

>And that comes to an important point, our list work will attempt to
reflect a consensus perspective on armies. A good example of this to
date would be the Hyksos in Biblical Warrior. There is a developing,
but by no means universal view, that these guys weren't the "chariot
gods" we traditionally see them as being. Phil B adopted that approach
for his latest lists. I, instead, stuck with the traditional
interpretation, again because I take a fairly conservative approach to
these things, but suggest players use another army in Biblical Warrior
which better fits the "Hyksos as marauding foot barbarians"
intepretation. This example highlights the inherent "risks" in updating
army lists:):)

Scott
List Ho