Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Chris Damour]

Folks,
OK, after H'con I drove back to GA long enough to clear my desk of
work and then I headed off again to Nags Head, NC to go to the beach with
my family, see my sister before she goes to Ho Chi Minh City for two years
and see my 6 month old nephew for the first time. Consequently, this is
the first opportunity that I have had to sit back and write up my after
action report. As I am getting older, the memory is fading some and any
errors that creep into the narrative are unintention and by no means
should be construed as an attempt to "put the best spin on things".
Since I had to be the acting HHIC until I could turn the reins over
to Eric at the general membership meeting I only planned to play in the
NICT. However, we had an odd number of players in the 15mm mini so I
borrowed Jaime Gentry's Sarmatians; figures, list, dice and all, and took
the field.
I had two units of 4 stands of Irr C LC B; one unit of 3 stands of
1/2 Irr A, 1/2 Irr C LC B; a SG with two stands of Irr B HC L,B and four
units of 6 stands of Irr B HC L,B; one of which was the CinC. The terrain
for all three battles was to my liking and out-and-out favored me in the
second game against Todd. (The one I lost, go figure...) Unsurprisingly,
I outscouted all three opponents.

In my first game I faced Alex Vaeth (sp?) playing Feudal French. He
had an LI CB unit, one (or two?) LC JLS, Sh one six stand unit of close
order foot and Knights, lots of Knights! His CinC was EHK and all the
rest were HK. I believe that he ran something like two four stand units
and three two stand units.
There was one hill on my right on Alex's side and the LI deployed
there. My head-hunting girls marched up there, laughed at the feeble
crossbow bolts, charged and routed them destroying them during the second
bound of combat. Now they can get married. They then marched around the
back of Alex's army, and spent the rest of the game tying up Alex's
CinC.
I sorta-kinda recall one of my LC units rolling long on a pursuit and
catching and then routing one of his LC units. I do not believe that Alex
failed any wavers and his army closed in behind my guys, who spent the
rest of the game being chased across the back of Alex's army. (I got
disordereded by charing through brush and never recovered maybe?)
The other very memorable occurance was one of my six stand HC units
faced off against two, 2-stand HK units. I rolled up in the prep fire
against one of them and the both charged me. The tired and disordered HK
unit pursued long and caught me and then did not even do a fatugue when he
rolled even. I countered to face and routed him the following bound.
5-something to me. I am pretty sure that Alex killed at least one of
the 18 man HC units, but I am not positive.

OK, second round I am facing Todd "I don't need sleep. I'm the father
of a 10 week old" Kaeser playing the dreaded Aztec. There may have been a
single brush in the centerish rear of Todd's side, but I think thta it was
an open board. Todd deployed in a corner and wheeled out to fight. I was
not getting any flanks so I lined 'em up and charged in. Todd failed one
waver and I rolled a +3 or +4 in the other fight and so I routed two units
on contact. Todd did not fail any other waver tests and my boys were
dragged from their saddles and sacrificed by the Nahuatl speaking
Mafiosi. A very quick and decisive defeat of the Iages Brotherhood of
Steppe Peoples.

In my last game I was attacking Devin (I think...) Lowe who was
playing Middle Assyrian. It was an ugly, ugly matchup for him. Because
of his LHI/HI I believe that he actually had fewer units than I did. I
remember a steep, rocky hill (and perhaps a major water feature?) on my
left that he kept, and a HC unit that sheltered behind it. I think that I
killed everything else in the army. It was just plain unfair. I thought
that he did the best he could considering the circumstances and he staved
off defeat as long as possible. I hope that I was able to convey to him
how impressed that I was that he lasted as long as he did. Good job guy.

In the NICT I was playing the Patrician Romans. I like this army for
several reasons. Except for the Germans, every troops on the board has a
missile weapon. Because of that, theer is not single army type that I am
afraid of facing. I believe that the Patricians have a solution for all
possible opponents. And, because my Legions do not have HTW, folks are
willing to attck them instead of avoiding them like the plague. As anyone
who nows me will tell you, I want to fight. Finally, there are a whole
grunchload of D morale troops in the army and when all 'ya roll for morale
dice are "1", "5" and "6" anyway, why pay for morale that is never used?
The final reason is that the army that I used was painted by my buddy
Keith Felger and I think that he did an amazing job. It was a joy to play
with such well painted troops. I used an Eastern army (the CinC was the
Magister Militum Praesentalis I) so I did not have Franks. Instead I had
Scirians and Heruls. Big deal, they were still MI HTW, Sh... My list
was:

CinC, A Std, 5 Reg A HC L, B, Sh
24 Reg D MI 2/3 JLS, D, Sh; 1/3 B, Sh
2x 12 Reg D MI 2/3 JLS, D, Sh; 1/3 B, Sh
2x 24 Irr C MI HTW, Sh
12 Reg D LI JLS, D, Sh

SG, 5 Reg A HC L, B, Sh
3x 24 Reg D LMI 2/3 JLS, D, Sh; 1/3 B, Sh
24 Reg B LMI B, Sh
2x 6 Reg C HC L, B, Sh
12 Reg D LC B, Sh
4x 4 Reg D LC JLS, Sh

My first opponent was Mike Mallachi playing his equally gorgeous
Nikephorean Byzantine. An army from the same geographic area! Seeing as
we both were playing maneuver armies, we naturally cluttered up the
table. We both rolled for and got major water features, and there were
some large brushes all across the right side of the table (from my
perspective).
I deployed my CinC to the left and my sub to the right. A theme that
was to last the entire tourney. Mike deployed his cavalry command, which
included three 8-man SHC units (one the SG) on his right and the CinC on
his left. He had a block of Russ to fight in the open and Varangians,
Peltastoi and Isaurian (?) archers supported by more cavalry to fight in
the brush. He and I agree that his error was going into the brush to fight
me rather than holding back and letting me come out of it. It extended his
line too much, allowed me to concentrate missile fire on a Varangian
(18 or 24 Irr B LHI 2HCW, JLS, Sh) unit and with a lucky up in prepfire I
got it both tired and disorderd and I routed it on contact in HTH because
he was shieldless. This caused his center to crack. On his right I was
equally lucky. I forced his SHC SG and another Kataphractoi unit (the SG
non-impetuous and the other impetuous) to charge my LI. My LI routed
through Rodulf's Heruls (How sad am I? I named every unit...) and Mike
converted into them. I then rolled +3 in HTH winding up 6@6 on each while
he stayed 6@5 and 6@4. I had my CinC (in skirmish) next to one of the 12
man Legion units shooting at his third Kat unit which was
deployed 2 elements wide so he could charge both. Because he did not buy
shields for his SHC if I roll +1 in the prep fire I force him to waver or
stand. I instead rolled -3 and missed him completely. He charged and my
CinC evaded short. He did not roll +3 to rout the Legion on contact and in
the subsequent bound I slammed in with my CinC impetuously and he
routed. It was a 5-1 victory to me.

In my second game I played against Mike Kelly's Ayubid Egyptians. I
was amazed (and gravely concerned!) because I understood that Mike had a
bad match (the LIR army?) his first game and he was obviously on a
roll. Terrain wise, the battle field was like the first game except that
there was only one MWF on my left. I deployed the same way that I had
the first game and my troops got to about the same place they had been
against Mike. Jake came by at least twice and said "Chris, this is where
you were three hours ago! Why don't you move!" Funny guy that
Mr. Kovel...
Mike had one unit of EHK; lots of regular L, B, Sh HC; some LC and a
few six man LMI fanatics. On bound 2, Mike charged my LI which shook and
evaded through the Heruls again. My CinC recovered them in the next
bound. Also on bound three he charged Odoacer's Scirians with the EHK and
pushed them back. Those heroes rolled +2 in their HTH dishing out 6@5, so
his Knights were winning, but they knew they were in one hell of a
tussle. On bound 4 I charged my CinC impetuously into his Knights and he
sent two HC units into the disordered Teutonic tribesmen. Mike rolls -1
(goes to 0) with his first HC unit, -1 (goes to 0) with the second HC
unit and -3! (goes to -2) with his knights. He does 66 casualties to
the Scirians who passed their waver. The Scirians and my CinC roll even
(I might have rolled down with the CinC but morale/general brought it
back), the knights rout and my CinC converts into the next HC in
line. Mike resigns the game. 5-0 my way. When I asked Mike why he did not
try for more points he told me that he has gotten tired of fighting to
the bitter end when it is hopeless. Plus he went and sold $2000.00 worth
of stuff at the flea market in the time that are game was "supposed" to
run! Good for you Mike, you dang sure deserved better luck than you had.

In my last game, I was faced off against Robert Turnbull playing
Early Seleucids. He had two 32 figure pike units, three (four?) 16 figure
peltast units, two big LI units, one 6 figure EHC L unit, three or four HC
L units (including the CinC and SG), two or three 4 figure LC JLS, Sh
units, one scythed chariot and FOUR(!) units of 2 E with a 2 element
detachment of LI.
I do not believe that there was a water feature in this game but Rob
threw woods on his left and center and I had some brush in my right rear
and his right rear. He force marched the pike and chariot from the edge of
the woods to his right as well as putting one Tarantine LC at the
center(ish) of the board to prevent me marching around his left
flank. (Yeah right, as if I did not know that the Indian LI were hiding
in the woods!) He had most of his army deployed behind the pike, tough he
did have some cavalry, one peltast unit and one elephant in the brush on
his righthand side of the table.
Because of the constricted table I had the Germans deployed in
column. I move forward with my guys so that I could get the big Legion
unit as well as one of the auxilia units shooting at his lefthand pike
unit. I marched most of my cavalry from my right to my left to support my
LI who I hoped to get into the disordered elephant. I shook the Heruls out
into a two element wide unit and I was keeping my boys eager by
(caustiously!) approaching the Army Standard.
The Scirians (still in column mind you) impetuously charged his
righthand phalanx that was deployed 4 elements wide and 2 deep. I was
going to hit him, disorder him, and then finish him off with the lance
armed cavalry. The Scirians roll -1 and do 30 casualties to a 32 and thus
do not disorder him. All that cavalry look at the solid wall of steady
long pointy horse killers and think seriously about asking for a different
assignment. And Chris starts to think that this is going to be a repeat of
two years ago when the Prussian attack on Dave Markowitz's pike failed
(also by about 2 as I recall, missed routing him by >>that<<
much...). Over close to the woods, Rob charged the Heruls with an
impetuous SG and the chariot. The Heruls were pushed back and the chariot
went away.
During the next bound, Rob charges a peltast unit at one 12 man
Legion, hits the other 12 man Legion with an elephant attack column and
charged the Heruls and my 24 man Legion unit with his other 32 man pike
unit, which was 4 elements deep. During prep fire I had gotten a luck up
against this unit, the Argyspides and they were disordered. He took
and passed his waver so that they wuld not have to halt. His peltasts push
back my legion, but do not disorder it. He expands the Peltast unit
out so that he will have 14 figures fighting next bound unless I send
cavalry into the front (I could not get to a flank) of one element. His
pike roll +2 and rout the Scirians but no one cares! (This also became a
recurring theme during the rest of the day. My other 12 man Legion sends
the pachderms back out of there happy that they are not routed and the
Heruls get pushed back by the cavalry/Argyspides and shake.
As Rob says in his write up, when I charged his peltast unit they
shook and then routed. Of 6 or 7 units that saw this, only the Tarantine
unit passed it's waver test. All of those shaken units routed
subsequently and I also got the Tarantines. The Heruls get pushed back
again but pass their waver. At some point right about now Rob emerges from
the woods behind the flank of the Auxilia Archers who decide to roll a
"6" for a waver even though they are B morale.
On the last turn of the game I decide that I am going to attempt to
snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and send my CinC impetously into
the front of Rob's peltast unit that is pushing back the 12 man Legion
that had fought the elephants. Given even dice rolls he would rout the
Legion and I felt that I had to save it. Never mind that only the CinC and
perhaps one other unit would notice... Again as Rob points out, God
watches over fools, drunks and lovers and my CinC rolls +3 and actually
wins the combat even though the peltasts do not shake when charged. And I
wind up with a 5-2 victory. Again, a great game and one which was decided
by luck more than anything. I definately feel that Rob deserved better.

I understand that Jake ran the numbers and if we played a final round
and I got 1 point than it would be impossible for anyone to catch
me. Since he (and everyone else) agreed that I was going to kill
SOMETHING, they decided to call the tourney there. Thus after being so
close, so mant times, I finally eeked out a victory in the NICT. I was in
shock and it just did not seem real. Todd Kaeser (who was to be my fourth
round opponent) told me that was exactly how he felt after his NICT
victory.
I very much appreciate the congratulations that I have received from
all my friends and will definately offer rematches to those who have
requested such! <<grin>>

--
Chris Damour

[joncleaves]

Awesome report Chris. Luck-schmuck. No one deserves it more.


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

[Ewan McNay]

damourc wrote:
> CinC, A Std, 5 Reg A HC L, B, Sh
> 24 Reg D MI 2/3 JLS, D, Sh; 1/3 B, Sh
> 2x 12 Reg D MI 2/3 JLS, D, Sh; 1/3 B, Sh
> 2x 24 Irr C MI HTW, Sh
> 12 Reg D LI JLS, D, Sh
>
> SG, 5 Reg A HC L, B, Sh
> 3x 24 Reg D LMI 2/3 JLS, D, Sh; 1/3 B, Sh
> 24 Reg B LMI B, Sh
> 2x 6 Reg C HC L, B, Sh
> 12 Reg D LC B, Sh
> 4x 4 Reg D LC JLS, Sh

Is the NICT one list now? [I think that would be a positive thing,
btw] Or did you just decide to go with the one list and demonstrate
that real men don't need two? :)

> In my last game, I was faced off against Robert Turnbull playing
> Early Seleucids. He had two 32 figure pike units, three (four?) 16 figure
> peltast units, two big LI units, one 6 figure EHC L unit, three or four HC
> L units (including the CinC and SG), two or three 4 figure LC JLS, Sh
> units, one scythed chariot and FOUR(!) units of 2 E with a 2 element
> detachment of LI.

What Seleucid list was this? Whatever it is, it sounds as though it
avoids the main problem with other lists of having too few peltasts - so
I would like to know . The 2-element LI detachments sound somewhat
odd, I have to say. If there are only 8 Els available, I'd probably
have run 1x2 and 2x3, but I've also used a list with 5x2 - so 4x2 is not
too outre.

> The Scirians (still in column mind you) impetuously charged his
> righthand phalanx that was deployed 4 elements wide and 2 deep. I was
> going to hit him, disorder him, and then finish him off with the lance
> armed cavalry. The Scirians roll -1 and do 30 casualties to a 32 and thus
> do not disorder him. All that cavalry look at the solid wall of steady
> long pointy horse killers and think seriously about asking for a different
> assignment. And Chris starts to think that this is going to be a repeat of
> two years ago when the Prussian attack on Dave Markowitz's pike failed
> (also by about 2 as I recall, missed routing him by >>that<<
> much...). Over close to the woods, Rob charged the Heruls with an
> impetuous SG and the chariot. The Heruls were pushed back and the chariot
> went away.

It does sound as though your Heruls and Scirians achieved their
designated role of magnet for opposing attacks, and fulfilled it
admirably.

> On the last turn of the game I decide that I am going to attempt to
> snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and send my CinC impetously into
> the front of Rob's peltast unit that is pushing back the 12 man Legion
> that had fought the elephants.

Yeah... when I did this (last game of the NICT maybe 5 years ago?) my
Seleucid CinC rolls -3 and Dave S rolls +3, killing the guy dea on the
spot. How to go from champion to not in about two seconds...

> I very much appreciate the congratulations that I have received from
> all my friends and will definately offer rematches to those who have
> requested such! <<grin>>

Well, let me add to them: congratulations, Chris.

Ewan

[Ewan McNay]

damourc wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Ewan wrote:

> > Yeah... when I did this (last game of the NICT maybe 5 years ago?) my
> > Seleucid CinC rolls -3 and Dave S rolls +3, killing the guy dea on the
> > spot. How to go from champion to not in about two seconds...
> Respectfully Ewan, the difference is that I had a 50/50 chance of
> shaking him with the charge and if he does NOT shake with even die rolls I
> recoil, your shieldless HC vs. his impetuous EHK rout unless you roll
> up/he rolls down...wait he was tired (and disordered?) when you charged,
> right? Never mind, prima facie, your plan was no stupider than mine! (Mine
> just turned out better! <<nyah, nyah, nyah>>)

Well, not quite - he was in block and not (I believe) impetuous, I was
in wedge, shielded, and impetuous.

Still, you are quite correct, you now have one more NICT than I do....

:-P

[Ewan McNay]

Ewan wrote:
> Well, not quite - he was in block and not (I believe) impetuous, I was
> in wedge, shielded, and impetuous.

I forgot to mention - after the 6-factor swing, I didn't rout. So far,
so good. However, the +3 and -3 resulted in a dead CinC - and lots of
people were upset by that.

> Still, you are quite correct, you now have one more NICT than I do....

This, however, still stands :)

E

[Chris Damour]

On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Ewan wrote:
> damourc wrote:
> > CinC, A Std, 5 Reg A HC L, B, Sh
> > 24 Reg D MI 2/3 JLS, D, Sh; 1/3 B, Sh
> > 2x 12 Reg D MI 2/3 JLS, D, Sh; 1/3 B, Sh
> > 2x 24 Irr C MI HTW, Sh
> > 12 Reg D LI JLS, D, Sh
> >
> > SG, 5 Reg A HC L, B, Sh
> > 3x 24 Reg D LMI 2/3 JLS, D, Sh; 1/3 B, Sh
> > 24 Reg B LMI B, Sh
> > 2x 6 Reg C HC L, B, Sh
> > 12 Reg D LC B, Sh
> > 4x 4 Reg D LC JLS, Sh
>
> Is the NICT one list now? [I think that would be a positive thing,
> btw] Or did you just decide to go with the one list and demonstrate
> that real men don't need two?
The NICT is still a two list tourney. And while I did not go into
it with the intention of proving that "Real Men®" only need one list, I
honestly can not think how else I would organize this army at 1600
points. I don't know, I might swap some units around between commands,
but I believe that would still be considered "one list". While there are
more troops in the list that could be bought, I purchased all the
auxilia, legions (there might be 4 more figures, i.e. one stand, of JLS
armed available...), LC B Sh and HC in the list. The rest I either don't
want (EHC L B Sh) or can not afford (more LC JLS Sh, more germans).

> > In my last game, I was faced off against Robert Turnbull playing
> > Early Seleucids. He had two 32 figure pike units, three (four?) 16 figure
> > peltast units, two big LI units, one 6 figure EHC L unit, three or four HC
> > L units (including the CinC and SG), two or three 4 figure LC JLS, Sh
> > units, one scythed chariot and FOUR(!) units of 2 E with a 2 element
> > detachment of LI.
>
> What Seleucid list was this? Whatever it is, it sounds as though it
> avoids the main problem with other lists of having too few peltasts - so
> I would like to know . The 2-element LI detachments sound somewhat
> odd, I have to say. If there are only 8 Els available, I'd probably
> have run 1x2 and 2x3, but I've also used a list with 5x2 - so 4x2 is not
> too outre.
It was one of the "new" Hutchby and Clark(e) lists. I think that Rob
(and everyone else!) was anticipating lots of knight armies, thus he
probably anted as many elephant uses as possible. I personally have only
ever used elephants in 2 element units, but I can definately see the
argument for 3 element units.

> It does sound as though your Heruls and Scirians achieved their
> designated role of magnet for opposing attacks, and fulfilled it
> admirably.
Yes they did, and looked dang stylish while doing so!

> > On the last turn of the game I decide that I am going to attempt to
> > snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and send my CinC impetously into
> > the front of Rob's peltast unit that is pushing back the 12 man Legion
> > that had fought the elephants.
>
> Yeah... when I did this (last game of the NICT maybe 5 years ago?) my
> Seleucid CinC rolls -3 and Dave S rolls +3, killing the guy dea on the
> spot. How to go from champion to not in about two seconds...
Respectfully Ewan, the difference is that I had a 50/50 chance of
shaking him with the charge and if he does NOT shake with even die rolls I
recoil, your shieldless HC vs. his impetuous EHK rout unless you roll
up/he rolls down...wait he was tired (and disordered?) when you charged,
right? Never mind, prima facie, your plan was no stupider than mine! (Mine
just turned out better! <<nyah, nyah, nyah>>)

--
Chris Damour

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/13/2002 06:54:43 Central Daylight Time,
spocksleftball@... writes:


> Generally speaking, the two list tournament setup is a crutch for those hell
> bent on building unbalanced armies in order to win at all cost. One list
> is all that is needed.

Boyd you are amazing. Do you have any more startling generalizations
custom-designed to incite anger in the reader this morning, or will it just
be the one today? Just because you have a right to free speech doesn't mean
it should be used without care.

I of course totally dissent from the above view, despite liking both kinds of
tournaments.

Two list tournaments were developed to ease somewhat the problems of
ahistorical matchups in open tourneys. One list tourneys seem better to me
in theme settings, but you cannot always ask the player to play theme as his
or her army may have an extremely limited range of historical opponents and
therefore have much reduced playing opportunities.

<sigh>
Jon


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

Is the NICT one list now? [I think that would be a positive thing,
btw] Or did you just decide to go with the one list and demonstrate
that real men don't need two? :)


Generally speaking, the two list tournament setup is a crutch for those hell
bent on building unbalanced armies in order to win at all cost. One list is all
that is needed. Of course, I couldn't play the list Chris profered, but then I
am a manic gamer, not a good one :)

boyd







---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs

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

[Ewan McNay]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 JonCleaves@... wrote:
> spocksleftball@... writes:
> > Generally speaking, the two list tournament setup is a crutch for those hell
> > bent on building unbalanced armies in order to win at all cost. One list
> > is all that is needed.
>
> Boyd you are amazing. Do you have any more startling generalizations
> custom-designed to incite anger in the reader this morning, or will it just
> be the one today? Just because you have a right to free speech doesn't mean
> it should be used without care.

:)

> I of course totally dissent from the above view, despite liking both kinds of
> tournaments.
>
> Two list tournaments were developed to ease somewhat the problems of
> ahistorical matchups in open tourneys. One list tourneys seem better to me
> in theme settings, but you cannot always ask the player to play theme as his
> or her army may have an extremely limited range of historical opponents and
> therefore have much reduced playing opportunities.

I think the major problem with two (or more!) list tourneys is that
they are disproportionately helpful to some armies (extreme case being my
old-book Seleucids, who can move from an elephant-and-pike outfit to a SHC
outfit with minimal overlap; LIR are another classic case) while not
really helping others at all (can anyone think of more than one way to run
a Midianite??). Given that, I think that they actually make ahistorical
matchups often worse, allowing for one side to customise while the other
cannot.

But then, I never won an NICT, so...
;)

E

[joncleaves]

<< I think the major problem with two (or more!) list tourneys is that they are
disproportionately helpful to some armies ... while not really helping others at
all (can anyone think of more than one way to run a Midianite??). >>

Yep. And those are Amelikytes, actually.

<< Given that, I think that they actually make ahistorical
> matchups often worse, allowing for one side to customise
> while the other cannot.>>

Thanks, Ewan for expressing an opinion and not using crutch or the extremely
annoying and unexplainable 'win at all costs' phrase.

<<> But then, I never won an NICT, so...>>

Clearly that has nothing to do with a person's ability to express an opinion
here. So, don't sweat it.

[Greg Regets]

I like two or even three lists, for a completely different reason. I find it
enjoyable to try playing an army in several different ways. I wonder if we might
consider mixing the two idea. Allow one, two or even three lists, but require
players to use all lists in a tournament. That way, you might make an
anti-elephant list, but not draw any elephant heavy armies. You would then end
up having to play it against an army for which it was not designed. Ewan's case
is a perfect example. I would imagine he buys the SHC list to use against
barbarian trash armies. Wouldn't is be amusing if in the third game, he was
forced to play it against Teutonic knights?

OK, perhaps amusing is not the word I'm looking for. :-)

Congratulations to Chris, on his victory .... Greg


----- Original Message -----
From: JonCleaves@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Belated Historicon Report (Kinda Long)...



<< I think the major problem with two (or more!) list tourneys is that they
are disproportionately helpful to some armies ... while not really helping
others at all (can anyone think of more than one way to run a Midianite??). >>

Yep. And those are Amelikytes, actually.

<< Given that, I think that they actually make ahistorical
> matchups often worse, allowing for one side to customise
> while the other cannot.>>

Thanks, Ewan for expressing an opinion and not using crutch or the extremely
annoying and unexplainable 'win at all costs' phrase.

<<> But then, I never won an NICT, so...>>

Clearly that has nothing to do with a person's ability to express an opinion
here. So, don't sweat it.



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT



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



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



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

Well Gee, I appologize. I had no design to piss anyone off. I kind of have a
pet peave that a person should develop a list that fights all comers. I didn't
expect to alarm anyone to the point at which they would feel threatened by my
opinion. And yes, I am amazing, thank you.
boyd
JonCleaves@... wrote:In a message dated 8/13/2002 06:54:43 Central Daylight
Time,
spocksleftball@... writes:


> Generally speaking, the two list tournament setup is a crutch for those hell
> bent on building unbalanced armies in order to win at all cost. One list
> is all that is needed.

Boyd you are amazing. Do you have any more startling generalizations
custom-designed to incite anger in the reader this morning, or will it just
be the one today? Just because you have a right to free speech doesn't mean
it should be used without care.

I of course totally dissent from the above view, despite liking both kinds of
tournaments.

Two list tournaments were developed to ease somewhat the problems of
ahistorical matchups in open tourneys. One list tourneys seem better to me
in theme settings, but you cannot always ask the player to play theme as his
or her army may have an extremely limited range of historical opponents and
therefore have much reduced playing opportunities.

<sigh>
Jon


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


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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



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



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs

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