Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Dear Jon and list,
Sometime back (I've been away) the following was posted.


"The biggest change to 14.0 is that while
players may exceed the stated points limit of a tournament by the cost of the
cheapest element they take, they give 5 times the overage to their opponent as
game points. For example, if you have a 1605 point list, you will give 25
points to your opponents.

Jon"

Given that some players have already posted reservations about having to "give"
their opponents a point to improve their own scores in a tournament, it seems to
me that the system of penalization (5 times overage) listed above actually
encourages players to go over the points total. That is to say, by going over
by even one point, I guarantee that my opponent will score a tournament point
without having to go through the tedious process of letting one of my units be
routed.
This seems wrong both ways. Let's have a hard cap, and make people work
for their 5-1, if that's the kind of victory they think they want. I still
can't see even the glimmer of a reason for any player to go over the required
points total. As I said before... either it doesn't matter, in which case the
APPEARENCE of fairness requires all armies to be equal, or it does matter, in
which case, all armies must be equal.

Yours,
Chris Cameron

[joncleaves]

Chris, this is the way 14.0 will read. If you are looking for the reasoning
behind it, I would suggest Scott or Jake or Bill may be best able to articulate
it.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Christian and Sarah <cgc.sjw@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 27 May 2005 11:36:50 -0400
Subject: [WarriorRules] Changes to Scoring


Dear Jon and list,
Sometime back (I've been away) the following was posted.


"The biggest change to 14.0 is that while
players may exceed the stated points limit of a tournament by the cost of the
cheapest element they take, they give 5 times the overage to their opponent as
game points. For example, if you have a 1605 point list, you will give 25
points to your opponents.

Jon"

Given that some players have already posted reservations about having to "give"
their opponents a point to improve their own scores in a tournament, it seems to
me that the system of penalization (5 times overage) listed above actually
encourages players to go over the points total. That is to say, by going over
by even one point, I guarantee that my opponent will score a tournament point
without having to go through the tedious process of letting one of my units be
routed.
This seems wrong both ways. Let's have a hard cap, and make people work
for their 5-1, if that's the kind of victory they think they want. I still
can't see even the glimmer of a reason for any player to go over the required
points total. As I said before... either it doesn't matter, in which case the
APPEARENCE of fairness requires all armies to be equal, or it does matter, in
which case, all armies must be equal.

Yours,
Chris Cameron









Yahoo! Groups Links






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

Jon Cleaves wrote:
> Chris, this is the way 14.0 will read. If you are looking for the
>reasoning behind it, I would suggest Scott or Jake or Bill may be best
>able to articulate it.

I'm really sorry to hear this, as this is, in my not so humble opinion,
taking a bad idea (allowing people to go over) and making it worse
(allowing them to gain another advantage in the tournament from doing
so on top of getting the extra unit)

Here's an example to illustrate.

Bob and Doug enter a tournament. Bob has a 1600 point list, Doug has a
1601 point list.

Bob crushes his three opponents wins 401+ to 0 every game, and hence
scores 5-0, 5-0, and 5-0, for a total of 15 points.

Doug does the same, but becuase he's TAKEN an extra point, he scores 5-
1, 5-1, and 5-1, hence GIVING himself 3 extra points to win the tourney
with per 14.5.

I can't see this fitting anyone's definition of fair play, and if it
does, I don't want to play in the same tournament as them.

This brings me back to the hard point limit. What is so objectionable
about a level playing field? Its considered fair in EVERY other
tournament system I've seen, and I've neither seen or heard a good
argument for Warrior being any different.

And as the poll shows at majority of people who care enough to vote
think a hard limit is a good idea, its time to discard the old way as a
bad idea and move forward with a level playing field.

Thanks
Cole

[Mark Stone]

--- On May 27 Cole said: ---

>
> Here's an example to illustrate.
>
> Bob and Doug enter a tournament. Bob has a 1600 point list, Doug has a
> 1601 point list.
>
> Bob crushes his three opponents wins 401+ to 0 every game, and hence
> scores 5-0, 5-0, and 5-0, for a total of 15 points.
>
> Doug does the same, but becuase he's TAKEN an extra point, he scores 5-
> 1, 5-1, and 5-1, hence GIVING himself 3 extra points to win the tourney
> with per 14.5.
>

What you, Christian, and (earlier) Ewan are all assuming is that there's an
advantage to letting your opponent score points. Now, this isn't actually one
of those debates I have an opinion on (shocker, I know), but let's not build
unproven assumptions into the discussion.

Taking Cole's example above, how is it that Bob and Doug didn't meet in the
third round? This can only happen if (a) there are a fairly large number of
entrants in the tournament, and (b) somebody else scored 5 point victories in
the first two rounds (and, by definition, didn't play either Bob or Doug in the
first two rounds).

My point is that once you start fleshing this out, it isn't at all clear what
the overall impact of a 5-0 win vs. a 5-1 win is on tournament standings.
That's why Scott and Jon have pleaded for someone to back this sort of claim up
by looking at actual tournament results.

As one of four people involved in the worst abuse of the old scoring system, I
welcomed the current system when Scott brought it into tournament play. And
while I can't say I fully understand why the mechanics are what they are, I can
say that I've yet to play in a Scott-scored tournament where the final result
seemed out of line. Given what a mess things can be with a system that does
produce out of line results, I'm inclined to say "if it ain't broke, don't fix
it."


-Mark Stone

Greetings Mark,
We will be using the rules scoring system then tomorrow?
Also do you have any draft animals I could borrow for baggage. It seems in
their haste my bactrians left their infantry at home.
Terry Dix

Given what a mess things can be with a system that does
> produce out of line results, I'm inclined to say "if it ain't broke, don't fix
> it."
>
>
> -Mark Stone

Exactly what is so hard about not going over points. So it means you need to
finess things a bit to stay under, but reallly that's not that difficult.


Chris Ryall

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

Mark, I've changed the order of my responses to your comments, as
they make more sense that way...

Mark Stone wrote:
> Given what a mess things can be with a system that does produce out
> of line results, I'm inclined to say "if it ain't broke, don't fix
> it."

I agree with you. The scoring system wasn't broken before, and after
some consideration I came to appreciate benefits of it. My problem
is with the CHANGE that Jon and Scott want to introduce into the
scoring system to fix a different problem, namely players going over
on point totals.

My example was intended to illustrate a situation where the change to
the scoring system would make for a very unfair outcome to a
tournament.

> Taking Cole's example above, how is it that Bob and Doug didn't
> meet in the third round?

In a sixteen player tournament it is entirely possible to have Bob
and Doug play three games without meeting, and Score 5-0 (or 5-1).

> My point is that once you start fleshing this out, it isn't at all
> clear what the overall impact of a 5-0 win vs. a 5-1 win is on
> tournament standings. That's why Scott and Jon have pleaded for
> someone to back this sort of claim up by looking at actual
> tournament results.

Actual tournament results are actually irrelevant, as for fair play
you must be ready to deal with hypothetical situations, as sooner or
later they will come up. The key element is that the change to the
scoring system allows for unfair outcomes to tournaments.

What I am arguing is leave the scoring system as it currently is, and
have a hard cap on points, as the solution Jon and Scott have stated
that they are going to implement allows for unfair outcomes to
tournaments.

Have fun
Cole

[joncleaves]

For the record, i do not want this change. I am just supporting it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Cioran <ncioran@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 31 May 2005 16:30:57 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Changes to Scoring


Mark, I've changed the order of my responses to your comments, as
they make more sense that way...

Mark Stone wrote:
> Given what a mess things can be with a system that does produce out
> of line results, I'm inclined to say "if it ain't broke, don't fix
> it."

I agree with you. The scoring system wasn't broken before, and after
some consideration I came to appreciate benefits of it. My problem
is with the CHANGE that Jon and Scott want to introduce into the
scoring system to fix a different problem, namely players going over
on point totals.

My example was intended to illustrate a situation where the change to
the scoring system would make for a very unfair outcome to a
tournament.

> Taking Cole's example above, how is it that Bob and Doug didn't
> meet in the third round?

In a sixteen player tournament it is entirely possible to have Bob
and Doug play three games without meeting, and Score 5-0 (or 5-1).

> My point is that once you start fleshing this out, it isn't at all
> clear what the overall impact of a 5-0 win vs. a 5-1 win is on
> tournament standings. That's why Scott and Jon have pleaded for
> someone to back this sort of claim up by looking at actual
> tournament results.

Actual tournament results are actually irrelevant, as for fair play
you must be ready to deal with hypothetical situations, as sooner or
later they will come up. The key element is that the change to the
scoring system allows for unfair outcomes to tournaments.

What I am arguing is leave the scoring system as it currently is, and
have a hard cap on points, as the solution Jon and Scott have stated
that they are going to implement allows for unfair outcomes to
tournaments.

Have fun
Cole






Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/1/2005 06:57:19 Central Daylight Time, ncioran@...
writes:

Jon Cleaves wrote:
> For the record, i do not want this change. I am just supporting it.

Would you mind terribly if I asked why, and who does want it?

Thanks
Cole>>


As I have said, Scott, Bill or Jake would all be better able to articulate
the reasoning behind this rule.

Jon








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

Jon Cleaves wrote:
> For the record, i do not want this change. I am just supporting it.

Would you mind terribly if I asked why, and who does want it?

Thanks
Cole