That's a little bit insulting. Perhaps you should have tried to read my comment for what it was- I was just challenging your kind of odd assertions about 1e and the 1980s, which were belied by my actual experience.
Good grief, I was there, long before 1e. I'm using 1e as a good baseline example as it has a fairly extensive mix of classes and is still pretty close in its themes and mechanics to OD&D. I see nothing 'odd' about any of my assertions. You would have to be specific.
The issue with your assertions are threefold- the first is that a retroclone of a Warlord class into 1e rules doesn't really fit, because 1e is a very different system. It doesn't mean it can't be done- but it wouldn't be anything like what you think of as a "warlord."
I disagree. Without going to the lengths of making a class writeup Tony Vargas already did a 2e writeup that seems perfectly reasonable to me. The main difference here is obviously 4e uses AEDU power system, which allows for a lot more variety of explicit class mechanics. As Tony has done I'd simply advocate emulating the core class features and several of the more salient general capabilities of the class (IE to direct your allies attacks, inspire them, impose disadvantages on the enemy, etc).
The second is that huge numbers of semi- and unofficial classes were created. Everything from duellist to swashbucker to incantrix. And I never saw a Warlord, or had mechanics resembling what you would call a Warlord, at the time. So, again, your assertions seem odd.
Well, the Cavalier from UA includes some warlord like elements. I'd have to sift through a lot of really old magazines and such to see what else falls out, but the concept itself isn't that new. Certainly when WotC wrote 4e they went back and picked out what they thought were central character concepts and rebuilt classes around them. Warlord was one of those. It doesn't come from nowhere.
The final one is saying that the reading material demands a Warlord- and Conan (for example) is the one of the best you come up with? I think that a slightly different archetype was created for him in 1e, both originally (as a fighter) and later (UA, 1985).
People making classes is an exceptionally time-honored tradition. Go on, make your own warlord class. Love it. But perhaps it might be best to not tell people what their own lived experiences are?
I can equally say the same thing, but I don't see where I've told you what YOUR 'experiences' were, I've just pointed out that it would be a perfectly valid and thematic class choice to include in any edition of D&D. Again, I know you hate it when I say this, but WHY ARE YOU SO ADAMANT about this? Its a very solid idea for a class that a LOT of people like, yet somehow there's this diehard cadre of people that insist that somehow 1e covered it all and nothing new should be added because it will actually ruin the game!!!??? WTF?
By the way- the monk thing is right. It's the whole, "We have a European medieval fantasy world. We're going to put in some kung fu, because that's cool. But, um, we're not really going to make that explicitly clear." But it doesn't support you- the monk class was controversial at the time.
I'm not sure what it "doesn't support". My mentioning the monk was to illustrate that even the classes which were included weren't always the most central concepts, some were just wacky stuff that someone (EGG) thought was fun. So lets stop worshipping that selection like its sacred and deviation is going to wreck the game.
