Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

At least three of the Four Horsemen have a long-standing, and sometimes
professional interest in the military history of the Orient. It's not
surprising, then, that Oriental Warrior represents more of a "labor of love"
than any of the army list books so far. The "notes" sections with each list
make a fine historical document in their own right, and FHE has clearly gone
further and been more daring with list rules here than in any other book in an
attempt to get the feel and tactics of the period right.

From a historical point of view, I have my reservations about some of this. I
think allowing Mongol MC, HC, and EHC to dismount element for element as MI and
HI respectively may be well intentioned, but is likely to lead to lots of
Mongols fighting dismounted in a rather unhistorical manner. And I still don't
think we've got the behavior of the steppe peoples light cavalryman right,
though I'll let Christian speak to that. He's both more of an authority on the
matter and more eloquent than I am.

Overall, though, my historical reservations are minor. This isn't my period of
history, and despite misgivings on one or two points, I'm just not prepared to
challenge people arguably more expert than I am.

I will comment on playability in the competition/tournament setting, which is
something I care a great deal about and know more about.

I've now skimmed through every list at least once, and read several in great
detail. Overall, I think we can expect to see Oriental Warrior armies in
abundance in tournaments for the next couple of years, and I expect we'll see
many of them as consistent top finishers. These are very, very competitive
lists compared to their predecessors. I'm not saying that's a good thing or a
bad thing, but it is a real thing.

Off the top of my head, and this is highly subjective and will vary much with
individual playing style, I'd say the best tournament lists in the book are:
- Han Chinese
- Tang Chinese
- Burmese
- Mongol
- Timurid

The only major army to get noticably worse is one that's been a tournament
favorite for several years now: Sultanate of Delhi.

Here's a quick description of what I see as the salient points about some of
these lists:

Sultanate of Delhi: Very similar to the way the list used to be, except that you
get fewer light infantry to put on the base with elephants, and said light
infantry can only be Irr C rather than Irr B. If you didn't play light infantry
on the base, you aren't going to care. If you did, you probably won't want to
play this army any more.

Han Chinese: A complex and very flexible list. Now has some of the best chariots
in the game (4 horse heavy, crew of 1 w/2HCT, 1 w/B, and javelinmen detachments
that can fight from behind). Has a lot of missile fire, a mix of close and
loose order foot, and 2HCT foot guys that now fighting in a rank and a half will
do some real damage. There's irr foot to keep you honest as well, and a mix of
decent cavalry besides the chariots. The only downside that I see is that this
gets to be an expensive army very quickly (extra point for 2HCT, uparmoring to
HI or LHI, morale upgrades to B or A...). As a consequence, it may not hold
much frontage if you aren't careful.

Tang Chinese: Very similar to the Han Chinese, but with more and better cavalry
instead of chariots. Anyone who has had to face Eric Turner's Yuan Mongol will
recognize a similar challenge here, the main difference being better morale for
the foot on the Tang list.

Burmese: Very similar to the old Burmese list, but now with some decent regular
loose order foot thrown into the mix. This should turn an already competitive
list into a very good one.

Mongol: This list gets several list rules that other Mongol lists don't get
(better flank marches, potentially better terrain picks if you have enough
scouting). It isn't as versatile in terms of troop types as other Mongols, since
it lacks the allied or subject troops that show up on some of the other Mongol
lists, but the lists rules here have the potential to really open up the field
of battle in ways that the army is really optimized to take advantage of.
Traditionally the Mongol weakness in tournament play has been fighting elephant
armies. That is now _completely_ reversed as the Mongols can simply dismount and
present the elephants with HI/MI LTS,B,Sh or Pa. Not a good prospect for the
elephant player.

Timurid: This list is going to play very similarly to the Imperial Warrior
Sassanid Persian list: you get an abundance of decent skirmishers, both LI and
LC, you get SHC with L,B,Sh who can be backed by EHC, and you get 4 elephants.
The negative, compared to Sassanids, is that your cavalry can't be elephant
proof -- and that's a pretty big negative. But the advantages are many: you get
regular loose order foot armed with 1HCW,B,Sh, which now gives you the rough
terrain troops the Sassanids are so sorely lacking. You get the dismount rule
that enables you to turn your Mongol cav into dangerous LTS foot. You get the
interpenetration rule, avoiding some of the tricky spacing problems you usually
have to worry about with LC. You get cavalry who can counter any time,
regardless of threat. Nor do you have any required troops that you'd really
rather not be buying. This gets my vote for the current "cadillac" of army
lists across all books published so far.


-Mark Stone

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 02/02/2005 15:53:12 GMT Standard Time,
browntj007@... writes:

I'd have to say I agree completely with Mark's accessment. Taking it
further, I'd caution the FHE against the Games Workshop mentality -
and Jon should know this very well - that each succeeding army list
book should outdo it's predecessor - because it drives sales and
interest. I do hope that the lists reflect an honest and realistic
attempt to get the history right and not the GW approach that all
lists should be competitive and playable. Let's assume the better
since I refuse to accept the other. Then... I have to ask - surely
the Mongols weren't the only HC with L,B cav to effectively dismount?
Yet - the same dismount rules do not apply. Surely other armies used
incendaries in open battles other than "Oriental Warrior" list
armies? Yet - the exceptions...again. As far as being masters of
seige warfare - aren't other armies from previous time periods - list
books - equally as impressive? My point is - if it's not too obvious -
is that you've ,meaning the FHE, opened up a can of worms by
introducing several 'new' concepts based on the idea to 'get it
right'. You've said the FHE will re-examine the lists, and I hope
sooner than later - I personally play a great variety of armies from
all eras so I'm not pulling for any one particular army- I just get a
very bad feeling when I see special rules applying to one army / area
when they should be applying to others. I applaud the effort, but
there's lots of work still. My suggestion would be when you decide to
introduce a new special rule that you examine whether or not it
applies to other book lists as well and modify them immediately upon
introduction. Will this take a lot more time? Yes, but I think it's
only fair given the risk of unbalancing gameplay towards one
particular army/area/era.

Tim Brown




** no criticisms meant but as i have stated before i feel ALL list rules
should have a points cost. This argument would then be largely irrelevant or
atleast less serious.

mark mallard


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

[joncleaves]

<<It's not
surprising, then, that Oriental Warrior represents more of a "labor of love"
than any of the army list books so far.>>

I, at least, would have to disagree. Back in 1999-2000 we set out a plan for
the list books that took the practical approach that we wanted to do them in
increasing order of difficulty in the writing - meaning the most important ones
to 'get right' would be done last and the ones that were 'easiest' to write
would be done first. This somewhat correlates to the amount of material
available for each era - least to most in terms of the order in which these were
written, generally speaking. We knew up front that getting romans, mongols,
hoplites and macedonians 'right' would be our greatest challenges and we sought
to give ourselves the most time possible to 'solve' each 'problem'. Personally,
I actually know more about the romans and the feudal/medieval armies than I do
most of the oriental warrior lists...

You wanna talk pure labor of love? See New World Warrior...lol

<< The "notes" sections with each list
make a fine historical document in their own right, and FHE has clearly gone
further and been more daring with list rules here than in any other book in an
attempt to get the feel and tactics of the period right.>>

Thanks. We think so.

<<From a historical point of view, I have my reservations about some of this. I
think allowing Mongol MC, HC, and EHC to dismount element for element as MI and
HI respectively may be well intentioned, but is likely to lead to lots of
Mongols fighting dismounted in a rather unhistorical manner. >>

The mongols dismounted all over southeast asia. They were also masters of siege
warfare. We are certainly not the first or only rules set that permits mongols
to dismount effectively.

<< Overall, I think we can expect to see Oriental Warrior armies in
abundance in tournaments for the next couple of years, and I expect we'll see
many of them as consistent top finishers.>>

This is no different than pre-Oriental. Two of the top four armies in the last
NICT were pre-Oriental Warrior oriental lists. The NICT has been won by
oriental lists on many occasions, including the last two. I would bet 2/3-3/4
of the NICT and doubles competitors over the last three years come from either
Feudal or Oriental. I think as player's understanding of the roman list rules
improves, they will begin making a comeback. I also believe there will be a
resurgence of Classical because I believe those lists have been suffering from a
lack of 'state of the art'.

<< Off the top of my head, and this is highly subjective and will vary much with
individual playing style, I'd say the best tournament lists in the book are:
- Han Chinese
- Tang Chinese
- Burmese
- Mongol
- Timurid>>

The han and burmese are perennial competitors, and I think rightly so. I
personally think the society Tang list did not reflect their capabilities.
Obviously I also personally believe no rules set has properly captured the
mongols - one of the most effective militaries in history. No question it was
one of our missions to get them as right as possible.

<<The only major army to get noticably worse is one that's been a tournament
favorite for several years now: Sultanate of Delhi.>>

I know I would disagree. I do believe the society Dehli list did some things
that just aren't supportable (IMO), but I do not agree that they do not remain
effective.

<<Han Chinese: A complex and very flexible list. Now has some of the best
chariots
in the game (4 horse heavy, crew of 1 w/2HCT, 1 w/B, and javelinmen detachments
that can fight from behind). Has a lot of missile fire, a mix of close and
loose order foot, and 2HCT foot guys that now fighting in a rank and a half will
do some real damage. There's irr foot to keep you honest as well, and a mix of
decent cavalry besides the chariots. The only downside that I see is that this
gets to be an expensive army very quickly (extra point for 2HCT, uparmoring to
HI or LHI, morale upgrades to B or A...). As a consequence, it may not hold
much frontage if you aren't careful.>>

Not a lot different than before. From a competition standpoint, by trying to
reflect the correct effectiveness of the Han chariot vis-a-vis its historical
opponents we may have made it slightly more effective in an open environment -
but I do not think enough so that a tourney player will be rushing to build this
army around its HCh. Note that JLS detachments behind were a part of both the
society Qin and Han lists, yet not exactly rolling over the competition - mostly
I think because of the extreme cost per frontage of such a unit and its
inability to enter terrain *at all* and its vulnerability to El and K. Other
then that, thought, they are clearly super-troops...lol. 2HCT has been changed
from 7th to more accurately reflect its use, but now that you can no longer take
JLS behind the 2HCT in the Han list (a 'downgrade' from the society version) you
are indeed paying for that capability without the efficiency that a brigans- or
marine-type unit would give you. The cav sucks almost as bad, but is now at
least historically correct. You have a little more Irr A than you used to, but
you're already an expensive army.
The biggest change was to rid them of the ridiculous minimum to have more C/D
than A/B foot - a choke hold that no other army in 7th suffered and for which we
could find no historical basis. That does indeed theoretically improve them
over their predecessor, but it does not change Mark's very dead on assessment
that the good stuff is burgundian-like in its expense. There are good things in
there, but you sure as heck cannot have them all. I think the best thing about
this list is that it can be taken in so many different ways, which is reflective
of the heterogeneous ways they appeared on the battlefield at different points
in their history under different leaders.

<<Tang Chinese: Very similar to the Han Chinese, but with more and better
cavalry
instead of chariots. Anyone who has had to face Eric Turner's Yuan Mongol will
recognize a similar challenge here, the main difference being better morale for
the foot on the Tang list.>>

I believe Yuan of the past were played with the misunderstanding that you could
shoot using pavise completely shielded and behind cover along with the old
mistake that you could put two bolt shooter models on one base and somehow get
to fire double crew. I think you will find both the Tang and Yuan effective but
reasonable.

<<Burmese: Very similar to the old Burmese list, but now with some decent
regular
loose order foot thrown into the mix. This should turn an already competitive
list into a very good one.>>

I would look more closely. This list IMO is not as good as the H+C list. But
then again, I never met an H+C list I agreed with....lol You get things now
that you used to not get, but you also cannot do some of the things you used to
be able to do. I, for one, do not believe the corrections in this list actually
help it from a competition standpoint when compared to the old list. I was
actually surprised not to get a howl of discontent from the known burmese
players...we'll have to see.

<<Mongol: This list gets several list rules that other Mongol lists don't get
(better flank marches, potentially better terrain picks if you have enough
scouting). It isn't as versatile in terms of troop types as other Mongols, since
it lacks the allied or subject troops that show up on some of the other Mongol
lists, but the lists rules here have the potential to really open up the field
of battle in ways that the army is really optimized to take advantage of.
Traditionally the Mongol weakness in tournament play has been fighting elephant
armies. That is now _completely_ reversed as the Mongols can simply dismount and
present the elephants with HI/MI LTS,B,Sh or Pa. Not a good prospect for the
elephant player.>>

Having playtested this more than any other of our 'changes' (including the roman
list rules) I can tell you there is a big difference between the reaction to
scanning this list and actually making it work on the table. I am extremely
pleased with how it turned out and am sure we will see more mongols in opens
than we have (umm...that would be zero...). I do not think it is as easy as it
might appear....

<<Timurid: This list is going to play very similarly to the Imperial Warrior
Sassanid Persian list: This gets my vote for the current "cadillac" of army
lists across all books published so far.>>

They didn't conquer India with 100E of Irr D LMI JLS...lol Just as the
Sassanids did not halt Rome simply with desert.

I remain surprised that Early Indians are not looked at harder....

J

[Tim Brown]

I'd have to say I agree completely with Mark's accessment. Taking it
further, I'd caution the FHE against the Games Workshop mentality -
and Jon should know this very well - that each succeeding army list
book should outdo it's predecessor - because it drives sales and
interest. I do hope that the lists reflect an honest and realistic
attempt to get the history right and not the GW approach that all
lists should be competitive and playable. Let's assume the better
since I refuse to accept the other. Then... I have to ask - surely
the Mongols weren't the only HC with L,B cav to effectively dismount?
Yet - the same dismount rules do not apply. Surely other armies used
incendaries in open battles other than "Oriental Warrior" list
armies? Yet - the exceptions...again. As far as being masters of
seige warfare - aren't other armies from previous time periods - list
books - equally as impressive? My point is - if it's not too obvious -
is that you've ,meaning the FHE, opened up a can of worms by
introducing several 'new' concepts based on the idea to 'get it
right'. You've said the FHE will re-examine the lists, and I hope
sooner than later - I personally play a great variety of armies from
all eras so I'm not pulling for any one particular army- I just get a
very bad feeling when I see special rules applying to one army / area
when they should be applying to others. I applaud the effort, but
there's lots of work still. My suggestion would be when you decide to
introduce a new special rule that you examine whether or not it
applies to other book lists as well and modify them immediately upon
introduction. Will this take a lot more time? Yes, but I think it's
only fair given the risk of unbalancing gameplay towards one
particular army/area/era.

Tim Brown

[joncleaves]

<< I'd caution the FHE against the Games Workshop mentality -
and Jon should know this very well - that each succeeding army list
book should outdo it's predecessor>>

Yes, I am aware of the 'codex effect', and this is precisely what I was trying
to disabuse Mark of....we are not trying to make every list book better.
Instead what I think you are seeing is the effect of our choice to do the books
in the order we did them - a deliberate choice. We did in fact 'save the best
for last' for a number of reasons. But we certainly are not deliberately trying
to make lists more competitive either sequentially as books come out or in the
face of a non-competitive historical record. We *are* trying, and very hard, to
get militaries that should be performing a certain way and did not under 7th to
do so. Those militaries increase on a per-book basis as we publish them BECAUSE
OF the order we chose to publish list books.
Our chosen method of trying to get these armies to perform historically - list
rules - *also* has the benefit of adding color and excitement to the lists,
again a deliberate choice.

<< I do hope that the lists reflect an honest and realistic
attempt to get the history right and not the GW approach that all
lists should be competitive and playable.>>

Not a hope - a fact.

<< Let's assume the better
since I refuse to accept the other. Then... I have to ask - surely
the Mongols weren't the only HC with L,B cav to effectively dismount? >>

Actually, yes, from an army-wide and 'doctrinal' standpoint. Remember, any HC
can dismount. But almost all did not have the extra riders, horses and or
doctrine to do so without losing combat power.

<< Surely other armies used
incendaries in open battles other than "Oriental Warrior" list
armies?>>

Indeed they did. And they can. But mostly they were used in siege warfare by
the 'westerners' and often simply as a matter of course by 'easterners'.
Culture matters...

<<My point is - if it's not too obvious -
is that you've ,meaning the FHE, opened up a can of worms by
introducing several 'new' concepts based on the idea to 'get it
right'. >>

New? That the mongols terrified millions? That romans were the best swordsmen
of their day? That the chinese had armories with hundreds of thousands of
firelances in them? Surely these are not new concepts....

<<You've said the FHE will re-examine the lists,>>

I said we will be looking at some list minima that we may have gotten wrong. I
also know we might look at some minor things for biblical warrior. I am not
aware anyone said anything about a wholesale revision of lists. Certainly I am
not into that.

<<and I hope
sooner than later - I personally play a great variety of armies from
all eras so I'm not pulling for any one particular army- I just get a
very bad feeling when I see special rules applying to one army / area
when they should be applying to others.>>

I am not aware of any major case where a special rule applies to x and x doesn't
have it.

<< I applaud the effort, but
there's lots of work still. My suggestion would be when you decide to
introduce a new special rule that you examine whether or not it
applies to other book lists as well and modify them immediately upon
introduction.>>

Again, I guess I'd consider that if I knew such a case existed.

The great mass of troops in ancient and medieval times were what we'd call Irr
LMI JLS, some with Sh. Militaries were designed to either defeat that or to
defeat what their neighbor came up with to defeat that.

Also, list rules are designed to cause an army to perform the way it did
*against its historical opponents*. If that has an additional good effect in
open competition - fine. But that is not the point. Not at all.

If someone's favorite list did nothing in history but beat up on saxon women and
small dogs, then they are simply not going to be tough in an open format. I
certainly am sorry this is true, but there is not much to be done about it.

Most importantly, this is NOT WRG 7.7. We are sons of that legacy, but
certainly not beholden to the way 7.6 list researchers did their work.
Especially with the H+C lists....

J

[Mark Stone]

--- On February 2 Mark Mallard said: ---

>
> no criticisms meant but as i have stated before i feel ALL list rules
> should have a points cost. This argument would then be largely irrelevant or
> atleast less serious.
>

I wouldn't make this a blanket policy, but I tend to agree here.

Jon has said repeatedly that points cost is not just a function of utility in
the game system, but also a reflection of availability/complexity of the
technology for the time, as well as training involved in producing a particular
capability. Thus while a shield might be a more useful thing to give an MI
figure than armor that makes him HI, armor was a more difficult technology to
produce and hence costs more (2 points instead of 1). Jon has also said that
the main purpose of the point system is not to balance open competition gaming,
but rather to put costs in historical perspective for the purposes of scenario
gaming and other historical matchups.

That's fine, and by and large I agree with Jon's philosophy here. But that same
philosophy does suggest that all other things being equal, when two troop types
differ only by one having a capability, as a result of training and/or
technology, that the other lacks, then they should also differ in point cost.

This doesn't play out the same with all list rules. I can't see why Swiss should
cost more per figure than other pike-armed troops just because they are loose
order. They are loose order guys with a weapon, the same as any other loose
order troops. Nor is there anything to suggest that the Swiss went to great
lengths in terms of technology development or training to achieve what they
did. They simply did what seemed natural to them given the environs they lived
in and the foes they faced.

But Romans and Mongols seem to me to be rather a different case. If I have two
different nationalities of Reg C HI HTW,Sh, and one benefits from the Roman
interpenetration rules, fulcrum, etc. and the other does not, I cannot for the
life of me see why the point cost for the two should be the same. They don't
have the same capabilities. One went through training the other didn't. And one
benefited from difficult to replicate technology that the other lacked. Why
then, are they pointed the same?

Likewise with Tim's and Mark's concern about Mongols. If I have two different
nationalities of Reg B HC L,B,Sh, and one benefits from being able to dismount
1 for 1, counter any time it wants, and be interpenetrated by its own LC, and
the other does not have these benefits, why in the world would they cost the
same?


-Mark Stone

[Mark Stone]

--- On February 2 Jon Cleaves said: ---

>
> I would look more closely. This list IMO is not as good as the H+C list. But
> then again, I never met an H+C list I agreed with.
>

Well, I never even factor the H+C lists into consideration when making
comparisons. I just don't take them seriously, and would never resort to
playing one. A man's got to have some standards.


-Mark Stone

Sorry but, what is H+C??
Emilio.


Well, I never even factor the H+C lists into consideration when making
comparisons.>>

We have no choice but to take them into consideration - if for nothing else than
we have players playing them and have to make sure we leave no stone unturned.
Pun intended..

<< I just don't take them seriously, and would never resort to
playing one. A man's got to have some standards.>>

Something we agree upon completely.

Note that the last two NICTs were won using H+Cs..... ;)

But *that* little problem is about to be solved forever...

J




Yahoo! Groups Links

[joncleaves]

Well, I never even factor the H+C lists into consideration when making
comparisons.>>

We have no choice but to take them into consideration - if for nothing else than
we have players playing them and have to make sure we leave no stone unturned.
Pun intended..

<< I just don't take them seriously, and would never resort to
playing one. A man's got to have some standards.>>

Something we agree upon completely.

Note that the last two NICTs were won using H+Cs..... ;)

But *that* little problem is about to be solved forever...

J

[Tim Brown]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>I have to ask - surely
> the Mongols weren't the only HC with L,B cav to effectively
dismount? >>
>
> Actually, yes, from an army-wide and 'doctrinal' standpoint.
Remember, any HC can dismount. But almost all did not have the extra
riders, horses and or doctrine to do so without losing combat power.

--------->"Almost all" means there are some that did, therefore re-
examining which lists did would be helpful. I don't want to argue who
in particular. That's not my point. And not my area of expertise. But
I have read several accounts of Arabs against crusaders dismounting
as a tactic, and I think the Byzantines did as well, but I'm not
sure. Perhaps you could run these special ability rules by the group
to determine who else might they apply to before assigning them to
one particular army? I suspect there are several people with very
specialised knowledge.

>
> << Surely other armies used
> incendaries in open battles other than "Oriental Warrior" list
> armies?>>
>
> Indeed they did. And they can. But mostly they were used in siege
warfare by the 'westerners' and often simply as a matter of course
by 'easterners'. Culture matters...

----------->Perhaps. But you've severely restricted just recently who
can use for example the flaming arrows in what situations. Again,
each list should be examined if an exception exists.


> <<My point is - if it's not too obvious -
> is that you've ,meaning the FHE, opened up a can of worms by
> introducing several 'new' concepts based on the idea to 'get it
> right'. >>
>
> New? That the mongols terrified millions? That romans were the
best swordsmen of their day? That the chinese had armories with
hundreds of thousands of firelances in them? Surely these are not
new concepts....

---------> As did the Huns, Vikings, etc, etc. Where are the
terrifying special rules for those? The concept isn't new - that they
now have a gaming effect IS.

> <<You've said the FHE will re-examine the lists,>>
>
> I said we will be looking at some list minima that we may have
gotten wrong. I also know we might look at some minor things for
biblical warrior. I am not aware anyone said anything about a
wholesale revision of lists. Certainly I am not into that.

--------> I hope not , either. Just when you decide Army A suddenly
has this or that special ability you ought to examine whether other
armies had a similiar ability. Or other abilities to this or that
army.


> I am not aware of any major case where a special rule applies to x
and x doesn't have it.

--------> I'll leave it up to the experts, then, to provide you with
data.



> Again, I guess I'd consider that if I knew such a case existed.

---------> At least you're willing to listen to reason! *grin*

> The great mass of troops in ancient and medieval times were what
we'd call Irr LMI JLS, some with Sh. Militaries were designed to
either defeat that or to defeat what their neighbor came up with to
defeat that.
>
> Also, list rules are designed to cause an army to perform the way
it did *against its historical opponents*. If that has an additional
good effect in open competition - fine. But that is not the point.
Not at all.
>

----------> OK...special list rules designed for against historical
opponents should by that reason be left for the Theme competitions.
Otherwise...

> If someone's favorite list did nothing in history but beat up on
saxon women and small dogs, then they are simply not going to be
tough in an open format. I certainly am sorry this is true, but
there is not much to be done about it.

-------> Good. If the army sucked historically, it should reflect
that in open competition. If effect is what we're after, some armies
then should be carrying IPW throughout...or have special rules that
reflect their low stature.

[joncleaves]

<<Perhaps you could run these special ability rules by the group
to determine who else might they apply to before assigning them to
one particular army? I suspect there are several people with very
specialised knowledge.>>

I would revel in that. Anyone on the group is free to do that at any time.
Greg's last mail to me offline about Byzantine cav was a wonderful piece that we
will give every consideration to. Same with Greek's recommended lists. If
someone thinks there is a troop type that ought to get the same list rule as
Mongols, please do send it along. Just include your homework...


<<----------->Perhaps. But you've severely restricted just recently who
can use for example the flaming arrows in what situations. >>

Yes, a silliness I should have corrected on day one instead of waiting until
recently. That was a 7th rule without the least bit of historical justification
- it just slipped through the cracks.


<<---------> As did the Huns, Vikings,>>

The Vikings terrified no standing military. They terrified civilians... Their
battlefield rep is a myth. I'm sorry, I think they are cool, too. But who did
they beat, really?


<<--------> Just when you decide Army A suddenly
has this or that special ability you ought to examine whether other
armies had a similiar ability. Or other abilities to this or that
army.>>

It isn't sudden, Tim. I have felt games have gotten Romans and Mongols and
Hoplites and Phalangites wrong for years. Some do better than others depending
on the game system.

Note that we did not make a sudden change to the Romans or Mongols. There was
no FHE list for Marians before Imperial Warrior, nor have we ever done a Mongol
list before Oriental. We were living with borrowed stuff during a period of
transition. Now that dark age is almost over....
One of our major goals was to bury the mishmash of lists that supported 7th once
and for all and to simultaneously create a set of coherent lists owned by one
company with writers who give full access to their customers. We have never,
ever ONCE turned away a piece of historical support for a given rule or list.
We have considered in full every single one sent. We did not agree with them
all, but none was ignored.

I am not talking about posts here that say 'i hate the point system'. I am
talking about an argument backed by history that we might not be getting it
right or as a proposal for something we have not yet written. We have issued a
call to our players for input on every list book but biblical (based on time
constraints back in 2001) and even then, people known to us who know biblical
lists were contacted.

<<--------> I'll leave it up to the experts, then, to provide you with
data.>>

So, this is just a hunch we got something wrong somewhere..? lol Come on, Tim,
laugh with me...

> Again, I guess I'd consider that if I knew such a case existed.

---------> At least you're willing to listen to reason! *grin*>>

Sure, send away. Right now the spirited discussion at FHE is about hoplites.
And boy, aren't there some people out there who have sent us their
opinions...lol We are looking carefully at all of it.

<<-------> Good. If the army sucked historically, it should reflect
that in open competition. If effect is what we're after, some armies
then should be carrying IPW throughout...or have special rules that
reflect their low stature.>>

I don't think the mobs with entirely IPW qualify as 'armies' needing 'lists'....
BUT - when all the list books are published we will start doing some specialized
lists (like hawaiians....). If you have one, send it to us!

J