Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[scott holder]

I've uploaded two sample lists: Sea Peoples and Romano-British. I've also
included their Fast Warrior versions.

Sea Peoples is from Biblical Warrior. The substantive work on those lists is
complete. All we're doing now is fleshing out the Notes section and proofing
the thing. There will be 36 lists in Biblical Warrior.

Romano-British is from Dark Age Warrior. Curently 26 of the 35 lists in that
book are completed. Once done, they will be sent to various people for
substantive comment, play balance, and proofing. I already have those people
lined up. So what you see on this list *might* change although in this
particular case, if it does change, it'll be around the edges. Dark Age
Warrior will be available at Cold Wars 2002 at the latest.

I will most likely begin work on either Holy Warrior or Feudal Warrior after I
get done with the Dark Ages.

Enjoy.

Scott
List Ho

[Don Coon]

> I've uploaded two sample lists: Sea Peoples and Romano-British. I've
also
> included their Fast Warrior versions.
>

When the new lists come out, the invalidate all previous lists correct?
Will it be clear which lists are superseded?

Don

[joncleaves]

Don, that is a somewhat complex issue.

In your basement, you can play any list you feel is compatible. We at FHE
would certainly prefer you used ours and have made them fully compatible and
think they are the best researched.

For the NASAMW, I believe that the Executive Committee voted at Historicon to
supercede all other lists with the FHE list when that list was published -
for the purposes of NASAMW sponsored events. Old WRG 7th compatible lists
will be useful until they are superceded. FHE offered to produce and post on
the web at no charge a sheet that showed which of our army 'naming
conventions' applied to which armies would be 'superceded'. For example,
what lists would our Sumerian list superceded exactly?
When the rules are published, we will also puiblish a conversion sheet for
list rule type issues such as 'wedge' and 'slashing sword' etc. for those
'unsuperceded' lists that have such.

Two different issues. As with rules, terrain, competition design, scenario
design, x-rules, army lists, etc. you can do what you want in the privacy of
your own home, in your group or at an event you run. 'Supercession' is an
issue for the Society to handle.

From FHE's perspective, the game is designed to be played with the rules as
written and with our army lists.

Jon

[joncleaves]

As far as lead staying useful, Don, I am EXTREMELY sensitive to that. My
guiding philosophy, particularly with lists after biblical, is to allow options
where research shows more than one possible interpretation of a troop type
rather than come down hard one way or the other. The evidence will have to be
overwhelming for me to support choosing one historical interpretation over
another.

The historical recreator can choose the option he or she feels correct.

The tournament player can choose the option he or she feels is 'best'.

This increases the chances that any given Warrior player who already has an army
is not going to have to buy lots of new stuff, do a lot of rebasing or (and I
HATE this) have a bunch of figures become 'invalid'.

Jon

[Don Coon]

> In your basement, you can play any list you feel is compatible. We at FHE
> would certainly prefer you used ours and have made them fully compatible
and
> think they are the best researched.
>
> For the NASAMW, I believe that the Executive Committee voted at Historicon
to
> supercede all other lists with the FHE list when that list was published -
> for the purposes of NASAMW sponsored events. Old WRG 7th compatible lists
> will be useful until they are superceded. FHE offered to produce and post
on
> the web at no charge a sheet that showed which of our army 'naming
> conventions' applied to which armies would be 'superceded'.

This is what I was looking for. Of course we can play as we please in the
kitchen, but we really want to know what the rest of the world is doing too,
especially NASAMW. We will most likely convert to FHE lists as soon as they
are available. Hope all my lead stays useful.

Don

[Mike Turner]

Jon, Sort of like another game system we won't mention?

-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 9:11 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Sample Lists!


As far as lead staying useful, Don, I am EXTREMELY sensitive to that. My
guiding philosophy, particularly with lists after biblical, is to allow
options where research shows more than one possible interpretation of a
troop type rather than come down hard one way or the other. The evidence
will have to be overwhelming for me to support choosing one historical
interpretation over another.

The historical recreator can choose the option he or she feels correct.

The tournament player can choose the option he or she feels is 'best'.

This increases the chances that any given Warrior player who already has an
army is not going to have to buy lots of new stuff, do a lot of rebasing or
(and I HATE this) have a bunch of figures become 'invalid'.

Jon


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Greg Regets]

I hear ya ...

Many of us here are getting into 25mm armies, and sort of having to buy blind. Considering the cost of Foundry figures, it will be a tough pill to swallow if things come out drastically different.
I would also hope that we don't see entire armies of IRR A troops, based on a statement written on a coin, ~winks~

G

-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@aol.com [mailto:JonCleaves@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 9:11 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Sample Lists!


As far as lead staying useful, Don, I am EXTREMELY sensitive to that.  My guiding philosophy, particularly with lists after biblical, is to allow options where research shows more than one possible interpretation of a troop type rather than come down hard one way or the other.  The evidence will have to be overwhelming for me to support choosing one historical interpretation over another.
The historical recreator can choose the option he or she feels correct.

The tournament player can choose the option he or she feels is 'best'.

This increases the chances that any given Warrior player who already has an army is not going to have to buy lots of new stuff, do a lot of rebasing or (and I HATE this) have a bunch of figures become 'invalid'.
Jon

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/IMSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Speaking as a purest Tibetan player who never played that abomination of a list, Good job List Ho. David

[scott holder]

When the new lists come out, the invalidate all previous lists correct?
Will it be clear which lists are superseded?

>I will have something on my Chief Umpire's page which will be linked from the
nasamw.org site. I won't have any listing of this type until after a list
book is published.

>Also, everyone please remember that what lists may or may not be used is
entirely at the discression of the person(s) running any given tournament.
However, at any tournament *I* run, only *our* lists will be allowed:):)

>So, when Biblical Warrior makes its grand appearance at Fall In, I'll hafta
put out supercession guidelines for Old WRG lists, New WRG lists, and the
first Book of Hosts.

>Just a reminder, the 6-7 "new world" lists will not be published per se but
will be made available "free" online. And no, "Mound Builders" will not be a
list. The "new world" lists just don't really fit into the whole geographic
concept of the Warrior army list booklets. I actually have done work on the
Aztecs before and had drafted some of the early pre-publication versions of
the list for DBM. I'm guessing that I'll do these lists after I do Holy or
Feudal Warrior since it'll be a nice break from routine.

>There will be 276 army lists when everything is done. No Mound Builders, no
Fijians, no Dog Peoples:):)

>To reiterate, army list booklets are planned in the following *rough* order
of publication:

Biblical Warrior
Dark Age Warrior
Holy Warrior
Feudal Warrior
Imperial Warrior
Classical Warrior
Oriental Warrior
New World Warrior (lists online)

>Again, I might flip flop production on Holy or Feudal and will do New World
between those two books or just before I wade into the Imperial morass of Late
Romans and such.

Scott
List Ho

[scott holder]

Hope all my lead stays useful.

>I would say that for the most part, most, repeat most, lead will remain
useful. As a 25mm player with loads of money and time invested in this, I'm
loathe to change things in such a way as to make one particular army totally
useless. That being said, I do expect army lists to result in players having
to possibly rebase a couple of units or add something here or there.

Scott

[scott holder]

Many of us here are getting into 25mm armies, and sort of having to buy
blind. Considering the cost of Foundry figures, it will be a tough pill to
swallow if things come out drastically different.

I would also hope that we don't see entire armies of IRR A troops, based on
a statement written on a coin, ~winks~

>Lemme again stress that if you buy an army and focus on the core units in
existing lists, you're not going to go wrong. Things will be different, but
that's gonna be more "around the edges" and not anything overly (in my mind)
drastically different. I mean what we're talking about here might be more
weapon related which won't usually impact on figures.

>I have 10,000 25mm figures, of which roughly 7,500 are 25mm
ancients/medievals. I've been thru the pain and agony of a BIG switch (from
6th to 7th) and seen the social dislocation resulting from army list swings.
I will be sensitive to that as we progress.

>But I also want to make it clear that if there is clear data (and widespread
consensus) on something that is new and different, the list(s) will reflect
that. Now that doesn't mean I'm gonna start making changes based on 2 PhDs
who have some revisionist view of the Hyksos (which is a wonderful example of
this).

>Remember that in the case of things like Feudal Warrior, the foundation of
the new lists will be the NASAMW revisions. That's not to say they're gonna
be exactly like those lists (cuz there are quirks and goofs in em), but it
will get you in the right direction.

>And if you're doing something Classical or Oriental, you really have no
worries there since much of what I'll do is simply clean up much of the
existing work. Word of warning to anyone running Tibetans: they're ain't
gonna be no EHK option for em like there is in the "new" WRG lists. They're
gonna be SHC/EHC like they *should* be.

Scott
List Ho

[Greg Regets]

Actually Scott, I think most of us are very glad to see new lists. There is little doubt that much of what has been published lately list wise, falls in the area of "super lists".
Who better than a skilled and experienced referee to come up with balanced lists!

Take care ... G

-----Original Message-----
From: Holder, Scott <FHWA> [mailto:Scott.Holder@fhwa.dot.gov]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 12:23 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] Sample Lists!


Many of us here are getting into 25mm armies, and sort of having to buy
blind. Considering the cost of Foundry figures, it will be a tough pill to
swallow if things come out drastically different.

I would also hope that we don't see entire armies of IRR A troops, based on
a statement written on a coin, ~winks~

>Lemme again stress that if you buy an army and focus on the core units in
existing lists, you're not going to go wrong.  Things will be different, but
that's gonna be more "around the edges" and not anything overly (in my mind)
drastically different.  I mean what we're talking about here might be more
weapon related which won't usually impact on figures.

>I have 10,000 25mm figures, of which roughly 7,500 are 25mm
ancients/medievals.  I've been thru the pain and agony of a BIG switch (from
6th to 7th) and seen the social dislocation resulting from army list swings.
I will be sensitive to that as we progress.

>But I also want to make it clear that if there is clear data (and widespread
consensus) on something that is new and different, the list(s) will reflect
that.  Now that doesn't mean I'm gonna start making changes based on 2 PhDs
who have some revisionist view of the Hyksos (which is a wonderful example of
this).

>Remember that in the case of things like Feudal Warrior, the foundation of
the new lists will be the NASAMW revisions.  That's not to say they're gonna
be exactly like those lists (cuz there are quirks and goofs in em), but it
will get you in the right direction.

>And if you're doing something Classical or Oriental, you really have no
worries there since much of what I'll do is simply clean up much of the
existing work.  Word of warning to anyone running Tibetans:  they're ain't
gonna be no EHK option for em like there is in the "new" WRG lists.  They're
gonna be SHC/EHC like they *should* be.

Scott
List Ho
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                   

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/IMSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Scott my Guardian Angel must have whispered in your ear. Over the
weekend, I was just looking at the boxes of Romano-brits I bought
about a year ago from Foundry and was wondering if I was every going
to get to use them and VOILA Here pops up the very list. Thank you
Scott. Now I just have to paint them . So Many Figures, So Little
Time.--





- In WarriorRules@y..., "Holder, Scott <FHWA>" <Scott.Holder@f...>
wrote:
> I've uploaded two sample lists: Sea Peoples and Romano-British.
I've also
> included their Fast Warrior versions.
>
> Sea Peoples is from Biblical Warrior. The substantive work on
those lists is
> complete. All we're doing now is fleshing out the Notes section
and proofing
> the thing. There will be 36 lists in Biblical Warrior.
>
> Romano-British is from Dark Age Warrior. Curently 26 of the 35
lists in that
> book are completed. Once done, they will be sent to various people
for
> substantive comment, play balance, and proofing. I already have
those people
> lined up. So what you see on this list *might* change although in
this
> particular case, if it does change, it'll be around the edges.
Dark Age
> Warrior will be available at Cold Wars 2002 at the latest.
>
> I will most likely begin work on either Holy Warrior or Feudal
Warrior after I
> get done with the Dark Ages.
>
> Enjoy.
>
> Scott
> List Ho

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Good thing I sold my Tibetans to Tom Keegan! I was
getting accustomed to getting my butt whipped as EHK
L,B, 1/2 shield. Happy rebasing Tom! Too bad there
will be no flexibility with people who have existing
armies. There's nothing that I hate more than
rebasing, well. . . road marches with wet boots and
socks I think beat that out but I don't have to do
that crap anymore! I recall Phil writing about
Armenian cavalry really being EHC instead of SHC but
allowed either because so many people owned the SHC
version. Too bad this type of flexiblitiy cannot be
allowed.

Kelly
P.S. Tom, I bet your glad I didn't use Rennaisance ink
flocking gel and static grass with those bevelled
bases! That would be a nightmare to rebase!
--- "Holder, Scott <FHWA>" <Scott.Holder@...>
wrote:
> Many of us here are getting into 25mm armies, and
> sort of having to buy
> blind. Considering the cost of Foundry figures, it
> will be a tough pill to
> swallow if things come out drastically different.
>
> I would also hope that we don't see entire armies of
> IRR A troops, based on
> a statement written on a coin, ~winks~
>
> >Lemme again stress that if you buy an army and
> focus on the core units in
> existing lists, you're not going to go wrong.
> Things will be different, but
> that's gonna be more "around the edges" and not
> anything overly (in my mind)
> drastically different. I mean what we're talking
> about here might be more
> weapon related which won't usually impact on
> figures.
>
> >I have 10,000 25mm figures, of which roughly 7,500
> are 25mm
> ancients/medievals. I've been thru the pain and
> agony of a BIG switch (from
> 6th to 7th) and seen the social dislocation
> resulting from army list swings.
> I will be sensitive to that as we progress.
>
> >But I also want to make it clear that if there is
> clear data (and widespread
> consensus) on something that is new and different,
> the list(s) will reflect
> that. Now that doesn't mean I'm gonna start making
> changes based on 2 PhDs
> who have some revisionist view of the Hyksos (which
> is a wonderful example of
> this).
>
> >Remember that in the case of things like Feudal
> Warrior, the foundation of
> the new lists will be the NASAMW revisions. That's
> not to say they're gonna
> be exactly like those lists (cuz there are quirks
> and goofs in em), but it
> will get you in the right direction.
>
> >And if you're doing something Classical or
> Oriental, you really have no
> worries there since much of what I'll do is simply
> clean up much of the
> existing work. Word of warning to anyone running
> Tibetans: they're ain't
> gonna be no EHK option for em like there is in the
> "new" WRG lists. They're
> gonna be SHC/EHC like they *should* be.
>
> Scott
> List Ho
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/