Army Lists

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:22 pm

vingthorr wrote:yes, but I would think it would be such a hodge-podge of time periods

In fact it will be in meaty chunks - currently it looks like covering 3 main geographical/time zones, with a reasonable number of lists for each. Two of these will slot into existing themes, while the other will make a theme of its own, that will include armies from several other books.

But the eventual line-up has not yet been decided, so it would be futile to go into further detail at present.

Scrumpy · Post by **Scrumpy** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:48 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
vingthorr wrote:yes, but I would think it would be such a hodge-podge of time periods
In fact it will be in meaty chunks - currently it looks like covering 3 main geographical/time zones, with a reasonable number of lists for each. Two of these will slot into existing themes, while the other will make a theme of its own, that will include armies from several other books.

But the eventual line-up has not yet been decided, so it would be futile to go into further detail at present.

Since when has anything futile stopped a wargamer ??

Some of our best moves are praying for impossible odds to come off.

vingthorr · Post by **vingthorr** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:55 am

rbodleyscott wrote:
vingthorr wrote:yes, but I would think it would be such a hodge-podge of time periods
In fact it will be in meaty chunks - currently it looks like covering 3 main geographical/time zones, with a reasonable number of lists for each. Two of these will slot into existing themes, while the other will make a theme of its own, that will include armies from several other books.

that sounds better, I wouldn't buy a book for a list, but I'd buy one for a "meaty chunk"!

azrael86 · Post by **azrael86** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 5:09 pm

vingthorr wrote:
that sounds better, I wouldn't buy a book for a list, but I'd buy one for a "meaty chunk"!

Sounds like you'd be better off with pet food.

If 1500 is the end, then does this mean that the aztecs and Incas will have won?

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:40 pm

azrael86 wrote:
vingthorr wrote:
that sounds better, I wouldn't buy a book for a list, but I'd buy one for a "meaty chunk"!
Sounds like you'd be better off with pet food.

If 1500 is the end, then does this mean that the aztecs and Incas will have won?

They will both be in Blood and Gold

vingthorr · Post by **vingthorr** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:28 pm

grahambriggs wrote:
azrael86 wrote:
vingthorr wrote:
that sounds better, I wouldn't buy a book for a list, but I'd buy one for a "meaty chunk"!
Sounds like you'd be better off with pet food.

If 1500 is the end, then does this mean that the aztecs and Incas will have won?
They will both be in Blood and Gold

"won", meaning, didn't end up getting conquered

Redpossum · Post by **Redpossum** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:46 pm

vingthorr wrote:
grahambriggs wrote:
azrael86 wrote: Sounds like you'd be better off with pet food.

If 1500 is the end, then does this mean that the aztecs and Incas will have won?
They will both be in Blood and Gold
"won", meaning, didn't end up getting conquered

One could argue that the Aztecs (or their direct heirs) have conquered (or re-conquered) California within the last 20 years

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 7:01 pm

possum wrote:
vingthorr wrote:
grahambriggs wrote: They will both be in Blood and Gold
"won", meaning, didn't end up getting conquered
One could argue that the Aztecs (or their direct heirs) have conquered (or re-conquered) California within the last 20 years

Ah, but are they mostly descendants of the Aztecs, or rather Tlaxcalans etc.?

vingthorr · Post by **vingthorr** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:02 pm

possum wrote:
vingthorr wrote:
grahambriggs wrote: They will both be in Blood and Gold
"won", meaning, didn't end up getting conquered
One could argue that the Aztecs (or their direct heirs) have conquered (or re-conquered) California within the last 20 years

alot of people joke, but it's more real than many think, see these links

http://www.voluntad.org.mx/
http://www.mexica-movement.org/

Scrumpy · Post by **Scrumpy** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:51 pm

Immirgants have always been a problem in the USA. Ask any native American.

vingthorr · Post by **vingthorr** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:15 pm

Scrumpy wrote:Immirgants have always been a problem in the USA. Ask any native American.

go back far enough and everyone everywhere is an immigrant, there are no natives native to anywhere

azrael86 · Post by **azrael86** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:34 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
possum wrote:
vingthorr wrote: "won", meaning, didn't end up getting conquered
One could argue that the Aztecs (or their direct heirs) have conquered (or re-conquered) California within the last 20 years
Ah, but are they mostly descendants of the Aztecs, or rather Tlaxcalans etc.?

Or, at least in part, of the Spanish ?