Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Having collected my Classic list at Historicon today ( thank you for
bringing it there for me ) I read the Samnite list.

Whilst I can see the reasoning for them to be HTW armed due to the
volume of their javelins, why do they then have to pay full price for
the HTW if they cannot ignore the -2 v P & LTS at contact ?

Could they not pay a slightly cheaper price for the HTW by way of
compensation ?

Other armies seem to pay for their troop & weapon types and get
bonuses special to them ( ie Roman legionaries ) yet have no point
increment for their bonus abilities.

Still, it won't stop me from using the Samnite figures I have
purchased, looks a reasonable army under most rule sets.

Greetings Doc,
This is the biggest flaw to the Warrior engine IMO. The point system is a hold
over from the WRG days. it was flawed then and remains so today. The only
thing a point system should do is balance forces to make play even. In other
systems you pay for what type of weapon the troops have and that cost is based
on the authors valuation of the weapons usefulness. Obviously in Warrior a pike
has the same cost as an LTS, equaly obviously they don't preform the same in
actual usage. At this late point there is no way to change the system, it would
rewriting the rules and all the lists.
When all is said and done though there is always going to be some items that are
over or under valued, and its the exploitation of that is important in army
design.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "doc_scrumpy" <doc_scrumpy@y...> wrote:
> Having collected my Classic list at Historicon today ( thank you for
> bringing it there for me ) I read the Samnite list.
>
> Whilst I can see the reasoning for them to be HTW armed due to the
> volume of their javelins, why do they then have to pay full price for
> the HTW if they cannot ignore the -2 v P & LTS at contact ?
>
> Could they not pay a slightly cheaper price for the HTW by way of
> compensation ?
>
> Other armies seem to pay for their troop & weapon types and get
> bonuses special to them ( ie Roman legionaries ) yet have no point
> increment for their bonus abilities.
>
> Still, it won't stop me from using the Samnite figures I have
> purchased, looks a reasonable army under most rule sets.

Just noticed to, the Classical lists don't have any clues as to how
many command factors are allowed either. Damn typos lol.

[Mike Turner]

Jon and the other 3 are all at Historicon, so they will not answer for
awhile.

Look in the front of the book, they have gone to a "consistant" amount
of generals per army, unless stated otherwise (allies, etc.), there is
no typo (at least concerning this issue)

Mike


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "doc_scrumpy" <doc_scrumpy@y...>
wrote:
> Just noticed to, the Classical lists don't have any clues as to how
> many command factors are allowed either. Damn typos lol.

Greetings Doc,
The command factors are gone, there are no limits on them. who can
be sub units to whom are part of the notes

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "doc_scrumpy" <doc_scrumpy@y...>
wrote:
> Just noticed to, the Classical lists don't have any clues as to how
> many command factors are allowed either. Damn typos lol.

[Todd Schneider]

IIRC they pay the same price for HTW as they would for
JLS.

Only 2HCT tarmed troops pay 2 points per weapon.

Todd

--- doc_scrumpy <doc_scrumpy@...> wrote:

> Having collected my Classic list at Historicon today
> ( thank you for
> bringing it there for me ) I read the Samnite list.
>
> Whilst I can see the reasoning for them to be HTW
> armed due to the
> volume of their javelins, why do they then have to
> pay full price for
> the HTW if they cannot ignore the -2 v P & LTS at
> contact ?
>
> Could they not pay a slightly cheaper price for the
> HTW by way of
> compensation ?
>
> Other armies seem to pay for their troop & weapon
> types and get
> bonuses special to them ( ie Roman legionaries ) yet
> have no point
> increment for their bonus abilities.
>
> Still, it won't stop me from using the Samnite
> figures I have
> purchased, looks a reasonable army under most rule
> sets.
>
>
>
>

[Todd Schneider]

Actually, the reasons for that are in Oriental
Warrior.

Todd

--- doc_scrumpy <doc_scrumpy@...> wrote:

> Just noticed to, the Classical lists don't have any
> clues as to how
> many command factors are allowed either. Damn typos
> lol.
>
>
>