Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

I've been giving a lot of thought to how we could add variety to the mix of
armies used at tournaments, and the style of battles fought. One of the
problems, I think, is that (a) very little of history is about fair and open
battles fought between armies of equal size, and (b) some armies' strengths are
only revealed in contexts other than an equal fair and open battle.

To give one example: Skanderbeg's Albanians were greatly feared by the Ottoman
Turks, but as an ambushing, skirmishing, guerilla force rather than a field
army. The same could be said for the Norman-era Welsh, or Scots Isles and
Highlanders: these were armies whose greatest success was in small encounters
of unequal numbers, where victory was more a matter of getting off the field
alive than outright defeating an opponent.

Of course these are the very considerations that are meant to come out in a
campaign system, where battles then occur in that larger campaign context. But
I have been wondering how we could do something to spice up competition battles
with some of that variety.

Here's my proposal:
Sliding Point 1200 Point Open:

1. The default size for an army is 1200 points.
2. Armies may have as few as 900 points, or as many as 1500.
3. Players can only have 1 variant of their list.
4. If neither army is above 1200 points, then the point difference between them
creates a pool of "matching points" available to the lower point army.
5. If neither army is below 1200 points, then the point difference between them
creates a pool of "matching points" available to the lower point army.
6. If one army is below 1200 points and the other is above 1200 points, then the
lower point army has two pools of "matching points" available to it: one pool is
equal to the point difference between it and 1200 points, and one pool is equal
to the point difference between its opponent and 1200 points.
7. For each pool of "matching points" available to you, you earn one extra game
point for each normal game point earned, until you have exhausted your pool of
matching points.
8. At the start of the game each player rolls a D6. If both roll a 1, then the
battle is not fair and open, but instead is determined by an additional die
roll:
1: Accidental Encounter (see Section 15 of the rules)
2-4: Attack on Marching Force; the player with fewer points is the attacker (see
section 15 of the rules)
5-6: Nigh Surprise; the player with fewer points is the attacker (see section 15
of the rules)

Example 1:
Player A has 1150 points in his army, and Player B has 950. Player B has 100
matching points available to him. At the end of the battle, Player A has
killed/routed/shaken 210 points of Player B's. Player B has
killed/routed/shaken 305 points of Player A's. Normally such a game would be
scored as a 2-2 draw. Under this system, however, the first 100 game points
Player B earns also earn him 100 matching points, raising his final game point
score to 405, and making this a 4-2 victory for Player B.

Example 2:
Player A as 1300 points in his army, and Player B has 950. Player B has two
pools of matching points avaiable to him: one of 100 points, for the difference
between Player A's total and 1200; one of 250 points, for the difference between
his own total and 1200. At the end of the battle, Player A has
killed/routed/shaken 220 points, and Player B has killed/routed/shaken 185
points. Normally this would be scored as a 2-1 victory for Player A. Under this
system, however, Player B earns 100 points from the first pool of matching
points, and 185 points from the second pool of matching points, raising his
score to 470, enough for a 5-2 victory over Player A.

Example 3:
Player A has 1500 points in his army, and Player B has 950. As per example 2,
except that Player B's pools of matching points are 300 and 250 points
respectively. At the end of the battle, Player A has killed/routed/shaken 450
points, while Player B has killed/routed/shaken nothing. Player B is unable to
benefit from any of his matching points, and Player A wins 5-0.

This sort of tournament format could really open up a lot more armies to being
viable, and a lot more ways of constructing an army as being viable. You could,
for example, attempt to come in with overwhelming force at 1500 points.
Alternatively, you could come in with a small, skirmishing, highly maneuverable
army where you think you can definitely kill 100-200 points without losing much
of anything yourself. Either approach, or any in between, could be successful.


-Mark Stone

[Larry Essick]

> I've been giving a lot of thought to how we could add variety to the mix of
> armies used at tournaments, and the style of battles fought.

Mark,

This is brilliant! Great job and great idea!

Larry

[Todd Schneider]

Mark,

Do you know if this particular format has been used
before?

Todd


--- Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
I've been giving a lot of thought to how we could add
variety to the mix of
armies used at tournaments, and the style of battles
fought. One of the
problems, I think, is that (a) very little of history
is about fair and open
battles fought between armies of equal size, and (b)
some armies' strengths are
only revealed in contexts other than an equal fair and
open battle.

To give one example: Skanderbeg's Albanians were
greatly feared by the Ottoman
Turks, but as an ambushing, skirmishing, guerilla
force rather than a field
army. The same could be said for the Norman-era Welsh,
or Scots Isles and
Highlanders: these were armies whose greatest success
was in small encounters
of unequal numbers, where victory was more a matter of
getting off the field
alive than outright defeating an opponent.

Of course these are the very considerations that are
meant to come out in a
campaign system, where battles then occur in that
larger campaign context. But
I have been wondering how we could do something to
spice up competition battles
with some of that variety.

Here's my proposal:
Sliding Point 1200 Point Open:

1. The default size for an army is 1200 points.
2. Armies may have as few as 900 points, or as many as
1500.
3. Players can only have 1 variant of their list.
4. If neither army is above 1200 points, then the
point difference between them
creates a pool of "matching points" available to the
lower point army.
5. If neither army is below 1200 points, then the
point difference between them
creates a pool of "matching points" available to the
lower point army.
6. If one army is below 1200 points and the other is
above 1200 points, then the
lower point army has two pools of "matching points"
available to it: one pool is
equal to the point difference between it and 1200
points, and one pool is equal
to the point difference between its opponent and 1200
points.
7. For each pool of "matching points" available to
you, you earn one extra game
point for each normal game point earned, until you
have exhausted your pool of
matching points.
8. At the start of the game each player rolls a D6. If
both roll a 1, then the
battle is not fair and open, but instead is determined
by an additional die
roll:
1: Accidental Encounter (see Section 15 of the rules)
2-4: Attack on Marching Force; the player with fewer
points is the attacker (see
section 15 of the rules)
5-6: Nigh Surprise; the player with fewer points is
the attacker (see section 15
of the rules)

Example 1:
Player A has 1150 points in his army, and Player B has
950. Player B has 100
matching points available to him. At the end of the
battle, Player A has
killed/routed/shaken 210 points of Player B's. Player
B has
killed/routed/shaken 305 points of Player A's.
Normally such a game would be
scored as a 2-2 draw. Under this system, however, the
first 100 game points
Player B earns also earn him 100 matching points,
raising his final game point
score to 405, and making this a 4-2 victory for Player
B.

Example 2:
Player A as 1300 points in his army, and Player B has
950. Player B has two
pools of matching points avaiable to him: one of 100
points, for the difference
between Player A's total and 1200; one of 250 points,
for the difference between
his own total and 1200. At the end of the battle,
Player A has
killed/routed/shaken 220 points, and Player B has
killed/routed/shaken 185
points. Normally this would be scored as a 2-1 victory
for Player A. Under this
system, however, Player B earns 100 points from the
first pool of matching
points, and 185 points from the second pool of
matching points, raising his
score to 470, enough for a 5-2 victory over Player A.

Example 3:
Player A has 1500 points in his army, and Player B has
950. As per example 2,
except that Player B's pools of matching points are
300 and 250 points
respectively. At the end of the battle, Player A has
killed/routed/shaken 450
points, while Player B has killed/routed/shaken
nothing. Player B is unable to
benefit from any of his matching points, and Player A
wins 5-0.

This sort of tournament format could really open up a
lot more armies to being
viable, and a lot more ways of constructing an army as
being viable. You could,
for example, attempt to come in with overwhelming
force at 1500 points.
Alternatively, you could come in with a small,
skirmishing, highly maneuverable
army where you think you can definitely kill 100-200
points without losing much
of anything yourself. Either approach, or any in
between, could be successful.


-Mark Stone



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

[joncleaves]

Mark

Good stuff. Mind if I make it an alternate format listed in the new rulebook?

J

[Mark Stone]

--- On August 30 Todd Schneider said: ---

> Mark,
>
> Do you know if this particular format has been used before?

I rather doubt it, since I just dreamed it up this weekend.

What I have seen is players in pick-up games using differing point totals as a
way of equalizing between players of different skill levels. This is similar to
what is sometimes done in chess where players with different skill levels get
different amounts of time on their clocks.

I started by thinking about that, and then by thinking about certain scenario
games where the point totals are by no means equal but the goal isn't
necessarily kill everything in sight either.

If I get a chance to "test drive" this tournament format this year some time,
then I'll do so. Unfortunately my #1 priority right now is winning a
tournament, not organizing one, so that I can again qualify for the NICT.


-Mark Stone

[Mark Stone]

--- On August 30 Jon Cleaves said: ---

> Mark
>
> Good stuff. Mind if I make it an alternate format listed in the new rulebook?
>
> J

Jon,

By all means. Though we should probably try it out at least once first.


-Mark

[joncleaves]

Jon,

By all means. Though we should probably try it out at least once first.>>

Yes, of course. I guess I assumed you were planning on doing that soon and I
would take the final version.

[Chris Bump]

Only similar, but Don Carter used to have a system of bidding that we used while
in Oklahoma. Each side would blindly bid points on a tournament battle and the
lower bidder got to pick the army of his choice at the point level he bid.
Obviously opponents were preset as was terrain so that each bidder could make an
assessment. He also used to run scenario battles where each side had certain
objectives that they had to achieve in order to win. The other side did not see
his opponents scenario card and so could only use battlefield intel to try and
discern what his opponent wanted to accomplish in a given battle. Sometimes it
was just take and hold a hill, other times it was as difficult as make contact
with the enemy CiC and kill him.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Stone
To: warrior
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] alternate tourney formats


--- On August 30 Todd Schneider said: ---

> Mark,
>
> Do you know if this particular format has been used before?

I rather doubt it, since I just dreamed it up this weekend.

What I have seen is players in pick-up games using differing point totals as a
way of equalizing between players of different skill levels. This is similar
to
what is sometimes done in chess where players with different skill levels get
different amounts of time on their clocks.

I started by thinking about that, and then by thinking about certain scenario
games where the point totals are by no means equal but the goal isn't
necessarily kill everything in sight either.

If I get a chance to "test drive" this tournament format this year some time,
then I'll do so. Unfortunately my #1 priority right now is winning a
tournament, not organizing one, so that I can again qualify for the NICT.


-Mark Stone

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Ewan McNay]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Mark Stone wrote:
> Player A has 1150 points in his army, and Player B has 950. Player B has 100
> matching points available to him. At the end of the battle, Player A has
> killed/routed/shaken 210 points of Player B's. Player B has
> killed/routed/shaken 305 points of Player A's. Normally such a game would be
> scored as a 2-2 draw. Under this system, however, the first 100 game points
> Player B earns also earn him 100 matching points, raising his final game point
> score to 405, and making this a 4-2 victory for Player B.

I may have missed some detail - and it's not really important, given that
the format was just invented - but should the pool in this case not be 200
points, according to your plan? And hence a result of 505-210, for a 5-2?