Are the points values in the list designed from 1st ed or 2nd ed? I'd be using this list against lists from AoA2 which have the increased points cost as against 1st ed lists.
Was a little confused by this bit -The Japanese katana could be used one- and two-handed and to parry as well. Therefore samurai on foot may use the katana either as a normal sword/hand weapon or to parry (+1 Save in close combat only). This choice may be altered for each combat round and must be made before the opponent makes his to Hit rolls.
When splitting up the fighting models in parrying and two-handed swordsmen, you have to divide the armour Saves proportionally with a minimum of one for the smallest group.
Example: of a front rank of 6 samurai, 4 choose to parry and 2 to use their swords two-handed. Their opponent scores 3 hits. Two save with a +1, one with a +0. Only the models who did not parry (and survived) may strike back. In this case a maximum of 2 since the other 4 parried.
Should all instances of "two-handed" in that passage be read as a standard hand-weapon as per WAB?
The example is a little confusing as well. Why are only the front rank of samurai choosing? An opposing unit could get more hits than there are models in the front rank, what happens to the excess hits? The numbers used in the example are nice and neat but what if the opposing unit gets 4 hits in that example, do you automatically round up (i.e. they'd be split 3 and 1)?
I do think this is a weak part of the rules (the only one I might add
). It's cumbersome and a bit awkward for what it's trying to achieve. I think you'd be better off either awarding a permanent +1 save to Samurai units (and increasing the points cost as a result), forcing the entire unit to choose rather than individual models, or doing away with it altogether.