Slander and Warbands

From: Richard, Jeff <Jeff.Richard_at_metrokc.gov>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 09:18:56 -0700


In a nit, George "suspicious of exactly 50 states" Harris writes:

>Cor, if the defenders of HW such as Nick Brooke and Simon Hibbs have
>to resort to malicious slander and indiscriminate mudslinging when people
>suggest that HW might not be well suited to all types of gaming, imagine
the
>depths of irrational invective and fabricated ad hominem attacks to which
>they will sink when thorough and detailed criticisms of the rules are
>finally made...

Chill out George. I do not think that Nick and Simon's comments regarding HW can reasonably be called "malicious slander and indiscriminate mudslinging" - not by a mile. Furthermore, the HW rules are not in a final form yet, so what is the point of arguing about them? For additional questions, may I suggest consulting David Dunham's HW FAQ a few digests ago?

Trevor Browne writes:
>A warband is a quite commonly used term in wargames circles in WRG's De
>Bellis Multitudinis it is defined as 'all irregular foot that rely on an
>impetuous and ferocious collective charge to sweep away enemy foot, rather
>than on individual skill. The Celtic warbands (Gauls and ancient Britons
>etc.) are classed as 'Fast' which means 'fighting in a loose formation
>emphasizing speed in the charge'. I don't expect you to have known this
>but its probably what Steve meant by Celtic warbands. That one's not a
>moan just a suggestion.

That sounds like an adequate description of the stereotypical Orlanthi military through the ages. Movement, ferocious charges, wind and destructive storms tend to be associated with Orlanthi battles. Of course, at

My main caveat is that to get a good flavor of Orlanthi warfare, borrow from more sources than just the Celts - some additional good sources of inspiration are the Anglo-Saxons, the Vikings, the early Normans, the Iroquois, etc.

Jeff


Powered by hypermail