The Loose Association of Wargamers

I working on what I hope is my last regiment of Zulus: an UnMarried regiment.

Apart from the lack of head rings & a black as opposed to a white shield, what's the difference to them and a Married regiment? Are either the better fighters?

Do you differentiate the two on a tabletop battlefield?

donald

The wives?

No mother-in-law.

Married warriors were older (and married) and often less aggressive then the unmarried warriors.

I represent them without head rings. Shields, to my knowledge, did not differentiate married from unmarried, but rather signified their regiments. The more white, the more 'elite' they were.

Jeremy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 10:14 pm Married warriors were older (and married) and often less aggressive then the unmarried warriors.

So, a +1 in melee?

donald

YOu could try to model the aggressiveness of the young with accompanying brittleness V the steadier and more practiced older regiments with a little less dash.

A Zulu mother in law would be sheer hell.

ochoin wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:02 am

Jeremy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 10:14 pm Married warriors were older (and married) and often less aggressive then the unmarried warriors.

So, a +1 in melee?

donald

It depends on the rules I guess. I sometimes think that rules make the mistake of thinking aggressive fighters are better. I don’t think your unmarried Zulu was any better in hand to hand than a married one. They’re probably more rash and would charge in/pursue more easily.

grizzlymc wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:50 am.

A Zulu mother in law would be sheer hell.

She wouldn’t be a problem. Mostly because the Zulu culture is male centric. They would also have multiple wives and thus multiple mother in laws.

There is a thought from hell. No wonder they weren't afraid to die.

Jeremy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:25 am They would also have multiple wives and thus multiple mother in laws.

The ultimate penalty for polygamy.