Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Kelly Wilkinson]

In list 29, Roman Hastati have the option to upgrade to HI from MI but the Princepes do not. Is this a typo or was there some historical battle that the more senior Princepes don't get armor?


KW

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Okaaaaay... Since no one has answered, I suppose I will try to qualify this question to be worthy of an answer. . . This comes from Duncan Head's, "Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars 359 BC-146BC. Page 158. The passage is describing Hastati and Princepes and their weaponry/armor etc. . .

[scott holder]

These fall under the "Designer's Notes" category. We typically do not answer these types of questions, hence the crickets chirping.

Bill might not be so hard nosed about it but if there's ever a non-response to something posted here, it's because I feel it's another "justify why you did this" type of question the kind of which, again, we typically don't answer.

scott

[joncleaves]

Its not a typo, Kel.

The issue with answering these type questions with *why* is that quite often the poster then tries to get one of us into an "I don't agree, and here's my proof" cycle. SOLELY to use this as an example - and NOT to get into it over hastatus armor - we don't think Duncan's passage is representative of the programmatic arming of entire blocks of troops. Sure, some princeps of this era had better than average armor. But Warrior deals in groupings of troops in the hundreds. You are certainly welcome to - and should in my opinion - place the occasional more-armored princeps in your otherwise "MI" units.

Now, if we gave answers like the above and all we ever got was "got it, thanks" instead of it being perceived as an invitation to endlessly relook closed issues based on secondary or tertiary sources like those armies and enemies books, then we might do it more often.

J

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Scott and Jon,

Thanks for replying . To be honest, if I ever play list 29, I would only purchase those unit types as MI(from the inner power gamer in me! ) for tournament purposes, but based on the core Camillan list and others it just didn't seem to be consistant too me. One of the NUMEROUS great things about FHE is that you guys do a great job of being consistant in your army lists when it comes to troop types that can be allies in armies outside of their list. I just saw something that didn't seem right and wanted to bring it up to your attention. These list books are a massive undertaking and occasionally errata occurs. I just thought this might have been one of those,though . Thanks again for your response and I will consider this issue closed.

Kelly
PS Got it!

[Noel White]

Please pardon my rudeness,

But I think it is very poor attitude to take, Scott.
Most of us are asking questions because we don't know any better, and we would like to fix that. We all don't have access to the same books, schooling and experience as some of you fellows. When list options don't make sense to us, we often ask questions -- who better to ask than the ones who wrote the list! They are the ones who ultimately know why a choice was made to include this or that.

The majority of questions are not personal attacks, as your post seems to suggest.

I for one, like to ask questions regarding list options, so I can choose the ones I think are most suitable (though they may inhibit tabletop victory). For instance, some list options are only relevent to a particular battle or campaign.
There is plenty of conflicting historical information and it is easy to be lead far astray by a few low-quality books.

Keep in mind that you don't have to argue with people to answer "design" questions. There will always be some @$$hole who will try, but just don't argue with him/her -- it's one in a hundread really!

I'll be running some demo games at a local store soon, and I know the folks who will pick-up Warrior will have lots of (stupid) questions. I don't want to have to tell them not to bother with the official forum because they don't answer those. Every other wargame forum I've seen has people tripping over their CAPSLOCK to answer design-type questions. They are proud of their hard work.

So please, reconsider your position. We could use your noggin for the forces of good wargames fun.

Noel.

[joncleaves]

No worries, Noel. Scott can be a little grumpy at times.

If you ask a question and don't get an answer in a reasonable time, PM me.

J

[Tom McMillen]

>>Now, if we gave answers like the above and all we ever got was "got it, thanks" instead of it being perceived as an invitation to endlessly relook closed issues based on secondary or tertiary sources like those armies and enemies books, then we might do it more often. >>

Well,that's... interesting.

[joncleaves]

The fundamental issue is this.

There are certain Warrior players who have certain pet issues. From time to time they will raise these issues "innocently" on the forum, despite previous public and private discussions on our part regarding those issues, our views on them and the fact that we consider the matter closed. To the average forum reader, this looks like an innocuous request for some background on some decision we made - why wouldn't we answer? Well, the reason is, we have already been over that issue in very unpleasant detail with that poster and he knows it. Or we have been over one like it and he knows our philosophy on the overall issue but is using a so-called "new" angle or direction to essentially re-ask the same old question. We have even had instances of guys using alternate forum names or asking friends who are new to the game to try and re-open these issues.

Scott, who has killed himself on the list books and is about to essentially go through a large part of that process again, has a low tolerance for this sort of thing.
As do I, but I am a hair more sensitive to how his "bug off" answers might sound to a new player who does not get what is going on and who may never have heard the issue before.

So, if you really think we missed something, please let us know. if you don't get an answer in a couple days, PM me.

If, instead, you have a personal problem with stirrups, almughavars, samnites, incendiary ox carts, trapezetoi or non-skirmishing EHC, I'm sorry, but we are not going to go over it again. Its all there in the archive...lol

J

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Jon said,