Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

I came into WRG just as 6th ended and 7th began. Accordingly I can
make no comparative judgement between the two sets of rules regarding
Ally generals verses sub generals. All I do know is that, in my
opinion, ally generals are a waste of money and prove thoroughly
unworthy of the stiff cost when compared to sub generals. I also
noticed that DBM and DBR allies are bought at a cheaper cost than
subs, and with strick consequences alloted to these cheaper
generals. I also have heard that the old 6th edition allies had
specific benefits (and weaknesses) that warranted the higher cost but
such were removed in the shift to 7th, except the cost. Is there any
plan to consider this issue in one fashon or another; something like
the DBM/DBR cost reduction, or the old 6th edition strength/weakness
enhancement? Just curious on the matter.

Kevin

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I must say that I have to agree with Kevin on this point. The risk of having
at least 1 third of your points standing around and joining the side that is
winning in their area (and not necessarily your side!) is certainly one that
I as a tournament gamer am not willing to take. Although most of us realize
that Jon is not going to make any more rules changes, I would hope that maybe
Scott could make this a list change or something like that. Couldn't we take
a historical standpoint on this issue and look at the propensity for the
various Ally generals to be unreliable, bold, Cautious, and Rash? And then
assign a points cost for reliability. Who knows? Since this is a discussion
board, does anyone else have an opinion or idea about this?

Kelly Wilkinson