Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

I'm assuming Scott was talking in shorthand, i.e. since the context
of the e-mail traffic was the SHC from the Late Roman list, he was
stating that the cataphract scythed chariots from the Late Roman list
have been dropped, and not scythed chariots in general. I see no
reason to bag all scythed chariots, especially my beloved Late
Achaemenid Persian ones.

[Greg Regets]

Hi Paul ....

I was actually using Roman SHC on the EIR list as an example ... my posting
really had to deal with any troops from old lists that were purchased and
painted, then made redundent by newer lists.

I would stand to reason that since the Four Horsemen have rightfully pointed
out that changes in the rules and lists would have to have firm historical
backing, that unless they had historical evidence that your chariots didn't
exist (I can't believe I actually said that), then they will most likely be
fine .... but then, I'm not a Four Horseman, :-)

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Dobbins [mailto:psdobbins@...]
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 4:57 PM
To: WarriorRules@egroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: scythed chariots


I'm assuming Scott was talking in shorthand, i.e. since the context
of the e-mail traffic was the SHC from the Late Roman list, he was
stating that the cataphract scythed chariots from the Late Roman list
have been dropped, and not scythed chariots in general. I see no
reason to bag all scythed chariots, especially my beloved Late
Achaemenid Persian ones.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accurate impartial advice on everything from laptops to table saws.
http://click.egroups.com/1/4634/2/_/_/_/962229442/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[joncleaves]

Again, just to reassure everyone:
Scythed chariots will still be there. So paint those persians and seleucids!

The LIR cataphract chariot will not be in the rulebook.
Only the almighty and Scott know whether it will be in the list!

Jon

"Holder, Scott " wrote:

> My reasoning is
> that oftentimes when "new" opinions come out, they're determined to be bogus
> ten years down the line. A good example of this is the Hyksos list.
> Traditionally it's been viewed as the first of the "chariot peoples". There
> is now a minority, but growing, body of opinion that the Hyksos were a foot
> peoples who adopted the chariot from the Mitannians. I can tell you that
> that's the way Phil [Barker] is doing the Hyksos up in the new DBM lists.

Well, as I understand it, from conversations with people in the UK, the new DBM
chariot era lists are based on what might be called a “diffusionist” model of
chariot warfare. That is ? somebody invented the chariot, and it then spread
across the Middle East from neighbor to neighbor. The Hyksos have to arrive in
Egypt, according to this model, as infantry because the chariot hadn’t got to
their neighbors by the time they upped tents and went to the Land of the Nile.
This is a simplistic summary of a more complex process, but that is the very
basics of what gossipy wargamers think is going on.
I can’t comment on the viability of the diffusionist model for chariot
technology.

>
> Bottom line is that the army lists should be as historically accurate as a)
> the evidence allows, and b) the interpretation of the evidence allows. I'm
> not going down the slippery slope of "well, lists have always been that way so
> we'll keep it like that".

Well, one thing I have always been nervous about army lists as we are familiar
with them, is that it seems to me that most fall into one of three groups.

a) Armies with little evidence, which usually are not very effective in the
game.

b) Armies with lots of evidence, which usually are not as effective in the game
as their historical prototypes.
c) Armies somewhere in between, which usually supply this year‘s “killer”.

Paul Szuscikiewicz

[scott holder]

I'm assuming Scott was talking in shorthand, i.e. since the context
of the e-mail traffic was the SHC from the Late Roman list, he was
stating that the cataphract scythed chariots from the Late Roman list
have been dropped, and not scythed chariots in general. I see no
reason to bag all scythed chariots, especially my beloved Late
Achaemenid Persian ones.

Correct. I was referring only to the theorectical LIR scythed chariot, not
the real ones used by other armies from the Classical era.

[scott holder]

Again, just to reassure everyone:
Scythed chariots will still be there. So paint those persians and seleucids!

Yeah, and my 25mm Galations which have beeee uuuuu teeee full scythed chariots
that *still* don't hep (as we say here in Missourah) the army. Need to
remount these guys as Gauls.

The LIR cataphract chariot will not be in the rulebook.
Only the almighty and Scott know whether it will be in the list!

It won't. My approach on updating the lists will be that if there is a
consensus about the historical record on something, that's what I'll go with
even if it means changing something. A prime example is the LIR scythed
chariot. On the other hand, if there is continued debate over something, I'll
go with the "older" viewpoint or offer an "either/or" option. My reasoning is
that oftentimes when "new" opinions come out, they're determined to be bogus
ten years down the line. A good example of this is the Hyksos list.
Traditionally it's been viewed as the first of the "chariot peoples". There
is now a minority, but growing, body of opinion that the Hyksos were a foot
peoples who adopted the chariot from the Mitannians. I can tell you that
that's the way Phil is doing the Hyksos up in the new DBM lists. Me? I'm
going with the old "chariot" viewpoint on them since there are still plenty of
people out there who hold/cling to that viewpoint. Give it another five years
or so and who knows what the historical perspective will be.
A good example of that would be the Huns of ten years ago. Some guy opined
that in fact they were a foot army based on his assessment of their
pastureland. Well, five years of nitpicking later, everyone tossed that idea
out the window. Therefore, the Huns remain a cav army, as they should
be:):)

Bottom line is that the army lists should be as historically accurate as a)
the evidence allows, and b) the interpretation of the evidence allows. I'm
not going down the slippery slope of "well, lists have always been that way so
we'll keep it like that".

Don't worry--list changes will, for the most part, be evolutionary rather than
revolutionary.

Scott

[scott holder]

> >>>>GREG>>>> Once again confirming the fact that while we might argue on
> this e-list, the vast majority of us are glad you guys are in charge, :-)

What? Glad? For *Scott*?

Heh heh, the only time Galatians are *fun* is if you're playing in some
barbarian trash theme tournament, then they're pretty awesome even if the
opponent is some weenie with lots of loose order stuff that hides in the
woods--just give the ole boys hold orders and kick back on your side of the
table and wait. But man oh man, playing the Galatians against just about
anything else, particularly anything out of the Medieval period, save yourself
the time and give your opponents all the points and then head for the bar. Or
go home and rebase em as Gauls. Or buy the rule set and make some changes
that favor the Galatians, oops, that slipped out:)

Oh, OK then. But only if he brings 25mm Incas for me to play in the NICT
with .

As a kolledge gradjuate and a doktor, you should have your own 25mm lead now.
You'll get none out of me:):)

Scott

[Greg Regets]

From: Holder, Scott <FHWA> [mailto:Scott.Holder@...]

Yeah, and my 25mm Galations which have beeee uuuuu teeee full scythed
chariots
that *still* don't hep (as we say here in Missourah) the army. Need to
remount these guys as Gauls.

>>>>GREG>>>> Always thought that was a fun army .... we have a player here
in town that plays Gauls .... I have been trying to talk him into trying
these for a long time.


Bottom line is that the army lists should be as historically accurate as a)
the evidence allows, and b) the interpretation of the evidence allows. I'm
not going down the slippery slope of "well, lists have always been that way
so
we'll keep it like that".

Don't worry--list changes will, for the most part, be evolutionary rather
than
revolutionary.

>>>>GREG>>>> Once again confirming the fact that while we might argue on
this e-list, the vast majority of us are glad you guys are in charge, :-)

[Ewan McNay]

On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Greg Regets wrote:
> >>>>GREG>>>> Once again confirming the fact that while we might argue on
> this e-list, the vast majority of us are glad you guys are in charge, :-)

What? Glad? For *Scott*?

Oh, OK then. But only if he brings 25mm Incas for me to play in the NICT
with .

--
Dr. Ewan McNay - Behavioral Neuroscience, Yale University.
(203) 432-7005

[Ewan McNay]

On 29 Jun 2000, Holder, Scott <FHWA> wrote:
> Heh heh, the only time Galatians are *fun* is if you're playing in some
> barbarian trash theme tournament, then they're pretty awesome even if the
> opponent is some weenie with lots of loose order stuff that hides in the
> woods--just give the ole boys hold orders and kick back on your side of the
> table and wait. But man oh man, playing the Galatians against just about
> anything else, particularly anything out of the Medieval period, save yourself
> the time and give your opponents all the points and then head for the bar. Or
> go home and rebase em as Gauls. Or buy the rule set and make some changes
> that favor the Galatians, oops, that slipped out:)

Yeah, right.

Galatians are also pretty awesome in pike themes, and even fit into the
period . In a Doubles context, they work well as an ally for Seleucids,
too.

> As a kolledge gradjuate and a doktor, you should have your own 25mm lead now.
> You'll get none out of me:):)

Bring back the 15mm NICT! Who's with me? [postdoctoral salary, minus
cost of lead, < cost of food...]


--
Dr. Ewan McNay - Behavioral Neuroscience, Yale University.
(203) 432-7005

> From: fra paolo [mailto:paulbrewer@...]

> Well, one thing I have always been nervous about army lists as we are
familiar
> with them, is that it seems to me that most fall into one of three groups.

<snip item a>

> b) Armies with lots of evidence, which usually are not as effective in the
game
> as their historical prototypes.
> c) Armies somewhere in between, which usually supply this year's "killer".

Personally I don't see army lists as being the problem in these two
circumstances.

Rather the "equal point battle" is the problem (IMO). Armies in "real life"
were not chosen to be equal to their enemy - they were chosen to be as good
as possible within whatever restraints applied (money, supplies, population,
geography, etc.), and hopefully to be much, much better than the opposition.

Armies were not often effective historically - generals and empires made
them so.

Generals because they could use the armies in better-than-average ways -
Hannibal, Alex/Phillip, Frederick the Great/Wilhelm I(?), Adolphus Gustavus,
Napoleon all took ordinary armies and did extra-ordinary things with them
(sometimes thanks to Dad). Empires because they could organise armies to
exist, provide replacements and equipment, etc.

Without adequate leadership and/or backing an army is jsut a well armed mob,
as I'm sure someone has said before me.

Mike


_____________________________________________________________
Notice of Confidential Information - If you receive this message in error,
please notify the sender immediately. The information contained in this
e-mail may be legally privileged and is confidential. Unauthorised use,
dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message is prohibited.
_____________________________________________________________