Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 06/09/2005 20:40:44 GMT Standard Time, JonCleaves@...
writes:

If you want to discuss the point costs of fire syphoneers or the history of
the stirrup or the existence of almughavar shields or the battlefield role of
trapezetoi, or whatever, that is totally ok by me. Once someone makes a
claim about our decision process or how we have or have not done something that
I feel incorrect, I will step in to set the record straight.
Let's not mix apples and oranges here, please.

Jon



Maybe an X rule that encompasses all the main point cost grumbles could be
drafted so that point costs reflect on table value with the X rule in force. If
nothing else it may be useful for tournament play.

I would be happy to collate such if examples and justification is posted
here unless someone more able wishes to do so.

Include points cost X rules in header.

This could lead to a new system of points costings over time. A more likely
approach than to start from scratch i think.

mark mallard


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

[Mark Stone]

--- On September 5 Kelly said: ---

> Whether the present rules person agrees or not, should not stifle discussion
> amongst members of this list. By the way, could you direct me to the posts
that > specifically discuss Byzantine fire syphoners, I'm sure it will be
interesting
> reading.

Ah, Kelly, your none-too-subtle questions are always worth a good chuckle. Keeps
the rest of us on our toes, for sure.

(1) Of course we shouldn't stifle discussion. But we should discuss points worth
discussing, which are either (a) is there an alternative basis to the current
point system worth considering, (b) is there a reason on the basis of
availability, technology, or training to think that fire syphoneer cost is
wildly out of line, and not (c) fire syphoneers cost too much for what they do
in the game.

(2) I was quite careful _not_ to say that there had been previous discussion of
fire syphoneers, but rather that what you were hinting at was an instance of a
type: namely, that the game value of some troop types doesn't match the cost.
My point was that while of course there is a mismatch, the point system has
never claimed to avoid such mismatches. It is that _latter_ point, not fire
syphoneers in particular, that has been discussed to death.

(3) No, I won't do your homework for you. If you want to find something in the
archive, you are as capable of looking it up as I am. I possess no magical
search skills to compensate for Yahoo's lame search interface.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

Well done, Mark.

I promise not to 'stifle' any discussion that does not include references to FHE
or any one of us by name. Deal?

If you want to discuss the point costs of fire syphoneers or the history of the
stirrup or the existence of almughavar shields or the battlefield role of
trapezetoi, or whatever, that is totally ok by me. Once someone makes a claim
about our decision process or how we have or have not done something that I feel
incorrect, I will step in to set the record straight.
Let's not mix apples and oranges here, please.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stone <mark@...>
To: warrior <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:37:22 +0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Byzantine question


--- On September 5 Kelly said: ---

> Whether the present rules person agrees or not, should not stifle discussion
> amongst members of this list. By the way, could you direct me to the posts
that > specifically discuss Byzantine fire syphoners, I'm sure it will be
interesting
> reading.

Ah, Kelly, your none-too-subtle questions are always worth a good chuckle. Keeps
the rest of us on our toes, for sure.

(1) Of course we shouldn't stifle discussion. But we should discuss points worth
discussing, which are either (a) is there an alternative basis to the current
point system worth considering, (b) is there a reason on the basis of
availability, technology, or training to think that fire syphoneer cost is
wildly out of line, and not (c) fire syphoneers cost too much for what they do
in the game.

(2) I was quite careful _not_ to say that there had been previous discussion of
fire syphoneers, but rather that what you were hinting at was an instance of a
type: namely, that the game value of some troop types doesn't match the cost.
My point was that while of course there is a mismatch, the point system has
never claimed to avoid such mismatches. It is that _latter_ point, not fire
syphoneers in particular, that has been discussed to death.

(3) No, I won't do your homework for you. If you want to find something in the
archive, you are as capable of looking it up as I am. I possess no magical
search skills to compensate for Yahoo's lame search interface.


-Mark Stone




Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Mark,

I'm pleased that you are amused by my "none to subtle questions." It's what
make my life worth living. I thought perhaps that since you asserted that this
specific subject had been beaten to death, you could provide me with something
to chuckle about in written form from this list. Remember, the burden of proof
belongs to he who asserts. . . I agree with Mr. X who I will not name. FHE is
happy with the current point system the way it is, but that does not prevent me
from agreeing with my old friend, Chris and his cogent comments. By the way,
how's Alex coming along on that Lizardman army?
k
Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
--- On September 5 Kelly said: ---

> Whether the present rules person agrees or not, should not stifle discussion
> amongst members of this list. By the way, could you direct me to the posts
that > specifically discuss Byzantine fire syphoners, I'm sure it will be
interesting
> reading.

Ah, Kelly, your none-too-subtle questions are always worth a good chuckle. Keeps
the rest of us on our toes, for sure.

(1) Of course we shouldn't stifle discussion. But we should discuss points worth
discussing, which are either (a) is there an alternative basis to the current
point system worth considering, (b) is there a reason on the basis of
availability, technology, or training to think that fire syphoneer cost is
wildly out of line, and not (c) fire syphoneers cost too much for what they do
in the game.

(2) I was quite careful _not_ to say that there had been previous discussion of
fire syphoneers, but rather that what you were hinting at was an instance of a
type: namely, that the game value of some troop types doesn't match the cost.
My point was that while of course there is a mismatch, the point system has
never claimed to avoid such mismatches. It is that _latter_ point, not fire
syphoneers in particular, that has been discussed to death.

(3) No, I won't do your homework for you. If you want to find something in the
archive, you are as capable of looking it up as I am. I possess no magical
search skills to compensate for Yahoo's lame search interface.


-Mark Stone


SPONSORED LINKS
Warrior Wargaming Four horsemen Miniature wargaming Wargaming terrain

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

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.


---------------------------------




---------------------------------
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

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

[scott holder]

On another note from the same list, and please pardon the spelling,
the Heteraria are allowed 1-3 elements per general. My question is (a)
do all the elements purchased have to be part of a General's unit or
is this a source of additional formations whose numbers simply depend
on the number of Generals chosen. Also, although it seems intuitive,
(b) do the number of generals selected that then allow the purchase of up
to 3 elements of the Heteraria all have to be Byzantine or does the
purchase of a Georgian sub general still allow the purchase of a
coresponding 3 elements of Heteraria?

a) no
b) no

[scott holder]

Bill has pointed out that perhaps my answer was too laconic. How bout this:

a) no - Hetaereia/Spatharioi Bodyguards do not all need to be in a unit with a
general's element
b) no - the Hetaereia/Spatharioi Bodyguard allowance applies only to Byzantine
generals.