Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Changes in rules and army lists inevitably cause
turmoil, and inevitably cause some previously
viable armies to drop below the threshold of
playability. If you're someone who has invested
in the lead and painting time for such an army,
this change can be particularly painful.

Looks like I've found the first such army that I
own and will no longer be playing: Khazars.

Of all the later steppe peoples horse archer
armies in the WRG books, this was my favorite.
Not only do you get an abundance of L,B,Sh HC,
and an abundance of light cav, you get your
choice of how much you want to be regular or
irregular.

The kicker was that you had something you could
use in the face of opponents horse archer armies
usually dread, such as elephant armies:
The Rus. Up to 40 figures of Irr B HI or MI, with
LTS,JLS,Sh. That was what made the army viable.
An odd thing was that this was the _only_ list on
which the Rus could be Irr B. Even the Rus list
didn't have that option.

Sadly, the Rus have disappeared from the "Dark
Age Warrior" Khazar list.

My understanding is that now that "Dark Age
Warrior" is out, this is the only source from
which tournament armies may be drawn for this
period. That being the case, I will retire the
Khazars.

I have other armies to play, and Khazars was
always just a "change of pace" for me, but I
think we'll see an increasing number of these
"casualties", and I hope that the powers that be
are sensitive to some of the sublte nuances that
made particular armies worthwhile.

Khazars was never a "killer" army. The presence
of the Rus did not unbalance the list. I realize
that it was probably questionable whether the Rus
should have been on the list, but if it was
plausible, I guess I would have erred on the side
of charitable interpretation. I'd be much more
inclined to apply a harsh, conservative
interpretation to lists like Seleucid, Late
Roman, or Medieval Spanish, but I can't see how
being charitable to the Khazars would have done
anything more than add refreshing diversity to a
hobby in which diversity should be a good thing.


-Mark Stone

[Chris Bump]

Mark,

I totally empathize and I am sure will eventually be sympathyzing with you. My
beloved Polybians along with all the Punic wars lists appear to be heading
towards being rolled into the Camillian list(s) by what few clues I've picked up
from Scott and Jon. It also appears that all of the Caesarian/triumverate lists
are to be rolled into the Marian list. The almagamation of so many lists into
one, I am afraid, leads to a dulling effect in order to allieviate overly large,
cumbersome to decipher lists with multiple periods and geographies. Ceste'la
vive. or is it guerre? :^)
Chris

[joncleaves]

Chris, Mark

I know Scott is remaining silent and well he should. :)

But I can't let such negative language go unnoticed by a member of FHE.

If there is no historical evidence of Rus fighting with Khazars, then they won't
be in the list. We are dreadfully sorry about TOG making this 'extrapolation',
but we need something credible to make such a decision. We are hardly ripping
the heart out of killer lists or some such nonsense.

As for the Romans, not only are Polybians and Camillans separate lists, but no
set of lists will receive more scrutiny from a group more interested in making
sure we get the Romans 'right'. If there is justification, for example, for
having completely separate Marian and Caesarian/Triumverate lists, then show us
why exactly. Now is the time to start building that data, but I note ruefully
that such complaints rarely (actually never, but I'll be polite) come with
supporting historical evidence, particularly of the primary/secondary source
kind.

I say all this, not because I am list ho, but because I would really have
so-called Warrior 'problems' be brought up with recommended solutions instead of
simple lamentations.

J

[scott holder]

I totally empathize and I am sure will eventually be sympathyzing with
you. My beloved Polybians along with all the Punic wars lists appear to
be heading towards being rolled into the Camillian list(s) by what few
clues I've picked up from Scott and Jon.

>Read the FW army lists. Those will be duplicated in the actual army
list books. Therefore, Polybians will *not* be rolled into a Camillan
list. Note:

FW List # 56, Camillan
FW List # 69, Polybian

>Don't see no rolling there.

It also appears that all of the Caesarian/triumverate lists are to be
rolled into the Marian list.

>That is the case because I simply don't see the need for these
particular lists to be separate, waaaaay too many commonalities.

The almagamation of so many lists into one, I am afraid, leads to a
dulling effect in order to allieviate overly large, cumbersome to
decipher lists with multiple periods and geographies.

>Again, peruse FW lists to note the general innaccuracy of the above
statement. Two examples spring to mind at how I'm breaking out lists:
Ottoman Turks and Teuts. Two lists for each subject. The Crusades are
getting 4! lists of their own, the Byzantines, a boatload, and so on.

Scott
List Ho

[scott holder]

If there is no historical evidence of Rus fighting with Khazars, then
they won't be in the list. We are dreadfully sorry about TOG making
this 'extrapolation', but we need something credible to make such a
decision. We are hardly ripping the heart out of killer lists or some
such nonsense.

>TOG? WTF?

>Nobody is more sympathetic to army concerns, particularly in 25mm where
the time and money investment can be significant, than me. But, in
order for our product to have any historical credibility, it has to be
as historically accurate as we can make it.

>So, if there are instances where a clear consensus exists as to the
inclusion or exclusion of something, I will make changes (as was the
case with the Khazars). If there is lotsa doubt/debate on something
that's currently in a list that's not too terribly bogus (referencing
some of the "new" lists), then it'll stay in.

>This reminds me of a conversation I sat in on with Kruse Smith and Jim
Hill prior to the release of the NASAMW Book II revisions regarding
Nepalese cavalry. They didn't want to include it (and didn't in the
long run) because they agonized over people having to change their
armies and this was after it was *clear* that new translated sources
indicated every Tibetan army to that point in time totally messed up the
Nepalese. So, that's why I'm gonna aim for historical accuracy.

As for the Romans, not only are Polybians and Camillans separate lists,
but no set of lists will receive more scrutiny from a group more
interested in making sure we get the Romans 'right'. If there is
justification, for example, for having completely separate Marian and
Caesarian/Triumverate lists, then show us why exactly.

>This is one of those cases where I feel the "new" lists went overboard
in the other direction in splitting up stuff to the "nth" degree, hence,
why I didn't integrate such a change into the "master" lists for Fast
Warrior.

Now is the time to start building that data, but I note ruefully that
such complaints rarely (actually never, but I'll be polite) come with
supporting historical evidence, particularly of the primary/secondary
source kind.

>If after publication we discover that a list really does need a "sub
list", by all means we'll get that out.

Scott
List Ho

[Chris Bump]

But Jon,

That was all I was doing was lamenting, not calling for change of route or
decisions. I find myself sitting here giggling in my underwear in the dark
(just kidding) as I write this, because there were no negative comments at all.
Mark asked for the consideration Scott has on multiple occassion proclaimed that
he felt and had/has every intention of applying. I simply offered some
consolation and brotherly lamentations. Take a deep breath, no one is being
impetuous here and at best we are under Wait orders.....No Worries mate.
Chris

[joncleaves]

TOG. That other game. Should be TODG (that other damn game) but it doesn't
pronounce as well...

[Chris Bump]

>Again, peruse FW lists to note the general innaccuracy of the above
statement. Two examples spring to mind at how I'm breaking out lists:
Ottoman Turks and Teuts. Two lists for each subject. The Crusades are
getting 4! lists of their own, the Byzantines, a boatload, and so on.

Scott
List Ho

>>Yep.
I am in Boston, my rules are still in Dallas. I prostrate myself before you.
As I said, not to offer any kind of defence, but rather to just point all back
to my words, from what clues I have been able to garner thus far my postions
were what IIIIIII interpreted to be taking place. No complaints. No requests
for change.:^) I still find myself giggling as I respond here, but please know
that I am only awaiting anxiously with bated breath for the classical and
imperial lists to come out. My complete confidence is bequeathed to FHE.
Chris

[scott holder]

>>Yep.
I am in Boston, my rules are still in Dallas. I prostrate myself before
you.

>The moral of this story is "always take your rules with you":)

As I said, not to offer any kind of defence, but rather to just point
all back to my words, from what clues I have been able to garner thus
far my postions were what IIIIIII interpreted to be taking place. No
complaints. No requests for change.:^)

>Anyone is free to submit lists for me to consider, particularly those
not yet done. If it's something like Polybian Roman, it'll gather dust
for another year but I absolutely promise it'll get reviewed and act as
another datapoint for list work.

My complete confidence is bequeathed to FHE.

>Heh heh, I'll quote you on that after Classical Warrior is
released:):)

Scott
List Ho