Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[chrisbump]

The Ayyubids and Syrians and various Byzantine armies are given Slingers in HW.
The Seljuks and Fatamids are not.
Same geography and time period so....
Was this an oversight or intended?
Thanks,
Chris

[chrisbump]

I am not sure of the appropriate amount of time to wait for a response before I come to the conclusion that my question is not going to be answered. Does FHE have a goal of answering a question within a certian period of time from its posting?

Just curious if it is being ignored or if the list writer is overwhelmed elsewhere and has not had the opportunity to get to it yet.

Thanks,
Chris

[joncleaves]

Scott has some personal stuff going on that is making it catch as catch can here. Please be patient.

J

[chrisbump]

Also have noticed that the Byzantine Asiatic types have the option of dropping shield and Jls in the back rank(s). This is not the case with the Seljuks and Syrians. The Ayyubids have both those troops who are mandated to have Jls,B,sh and those who can have any combination of.

I am not looking for one version or another, but rather was wondering that since these types of troops were mostly mercenary and operating in the same geographic region, shouldn't they be pretty much the same despite which army they are employed with?

Thanks,
Chris

[joncleaves]

Chris
Its that way for now, but we will look at it as we do Warrior Armies.

Jon

[scott holder]

One reason I've delayed in responding to this question is that it apparently is a "designer's notes" type of thing and not simply an errata/mistake-in type of question. Typically, we don't answer such questions.

Plus, without digging into our research on this, it's impossible for me, this many years after the fact, to give a decent "designer's notes" justification for such a decision as is being questioned here. And to be blunt, I have neither the time (hoh boy that's the truth) nor the interest at this moment to delve into this.

I should point out that Bill and I worked really hard to be systematic about issues such as the one raised here. I mean really hard. Plus, the folks who reviewed the lists also seemed to home in on such apparent discrepancies, thus, we think we caught virtually all of em. I can't tell you how many extensive email discussions Bill and I had on exactly this subject when working on any given army book. Our *first* inclination was to make such troops types the same across the board. Thus, if there is a difference, that usually means we had a reason for not being systematic across the board for "Troop Type X in Period Y". And quite often, we found that such troops types in the same period were different depending on army or nationality. Thus, it was hard in some instances to make sweeping judgements about the universalality of a specific troop type.

But, as Jon said, when we undertake the Warrior Armies tomes, this will be something we'll take a second look at.

scott