Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/10/2005 17:03:09 Central Standard Time,
greg.regets@... writes:

CLEARLY, the point I was making, which was why I saved it for the
closing, is that no matter how one feels about list rules, be it pro
or con ... the final word is that in a rock v. paper v. scissors type
game, making one of the three areas stronger, does not by default
eliminate it's weaknesses.>>



Actually you were making a case that we were wrong to not consider pointing
list rules while also saying that the fact we use list rules to make lists
perform historically was untrue. I'll skip quoting you, but it is there in the
archive. The former is quite beyond practicability, even if it were
necessary, which it isn't. The latter is an insult and quite uninformed.

This other point above is one I did indeed choose not to address because I
don't personally find it relevant, even if I agreed with your definition of
rock v paper v scissors type game - which I do not.

Sorry, Greg, I am not at all attacking you (despite being called a liar). I
am telling you that there is no mechanical need for list rule point costs
the way we have done them. They are achieving exactly what we set out to do
and no one has offered proof otherwise - just griping on a horse already
declared dead.

I can out-beat dead horses with anyone. I am so tired of having to read
about this issue from folks who do not design games and either don't know what
they are talking about or are only advocating point cost changes that they
perceive will right some perceived inequity done to them (or their lists) that
I
have decided to fight fire with fire and let the reasonable among us choose
the delete key. Ewan, at least, is just trying to make the case for the
ideal, however unachievable.

I am also continually amused that this thread, like the ones before it,
always ignores my call for someone to frickin' put up and send us a point system
instead of making unsupportable claims about this or that pet issue.

So, let's do it or let it go.

J


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/10/2005 17:59:54 Central Standard Time,
greg.regets@... writes:

Are you not the same Jon that back when you were writing this set,
insisted that the point system was fine as is?>>


I do think it is fine as is. I don't think anyone could do better in under
a few years. I don't think the majority of our playership wants us to take
the game offline that long. I think we might give it a go after the other
more important projects are wrapped up and we have time to look at it the only
way it can be - comprehensively.

<<Every time I don't agree with you, does that mean I'm calling you a
liar?>>

Nope. But that isn't what happened. I said we use the list rules as a
means of balancing lists against historical performance. You said that was
untrue. The conclusion is....?

J







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

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 10/02/2005 23:25:56 GMT Standard Time, JonCleaves@...
writes:

CLEARLY, the point I was making, which was why I saved it for the
closing, is that no matter how one feels about list rules, be it pro
or con ... the final word is that in a rock v. paper v. scissors type
game, making one of the three areas stronger, does not by default
eliminate it's weaknesses.>>



Actually you were making a case that we were wrong to not consider pointing
list rules while also saying that the fact we use list rules to make lists
perform historically was untrue. I'll skip quoting you, but it is there in
the
archive. The former is quite beyond practicability, even if it were
necessary, which it isn't. The latter is an insult and quite uninformed.

This other point above is one I did indeed choose not to address because I
don't personally find it relevant, even if I agreed with your definition of
rock v paper v scissors type game - which I do not.

Sorry, Greg, I am not at all attacking you (despite being called a liar).
I
am telling you that there is no mechanical need for list rule point costs
the way we have done them. They are achieving exactly what we set out to
do
and no one has offered proof otherwise - just griping on a horse already
declared dead.
** jon pardon me - i thought this issue dead as i got little support- until
now. This seems to be your opinion - if you you believe it is the consesus
why not do a survey here to prove it..


I can out-beat dead horses with anyone. I am so tired of having to read
about this issue from folks who do not design games and either don't know
what
they are talking about or are only advocating point cost changes that they
perceive will right some perceived inequity done to them (or their lists)
that I
have decided to fight fire with fire and let the reasonable among us choose
the delete key. Ewan, at least, is just trying to make the case for the
ideal, however unachievable.

** that is unfair - i tried to buy TOG - you were lucky -caught Barker in a
good mood or something. I design games too, my campaign rules would have been
a big seller if TOG hadn't gone t**ts up.
**


I am also continually amused that this thread, like the ones before it,
always ignores my call for someone to frickin' put up and send us a point
system
instead of making unsupportable claims about this or that pet issue.

**
I have already said on this forum that some list rulres only need to cost a
few points per unit, others maybe up to a point per figure. It would not be
difficult, we could do it by consesus if you like.



So, let's do it or let it go.



** mark mallard


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/10/2005 18:50:21 Central Standard Time,
markmallard7@... writes:

I have already said on this forum that some list rulres only need to cost a
few points per unit, others maybe up to a point per figure. It would not be
difficult, we could do it by consesus if you like.>>


That I have to see. Please go right ahead!

Jon








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

[joncleaves]

I completely agree that list rules amount to a bonus given to certain
armies, at no cost. I too think a cost should be assigned to list
rules, or every army should be given some sort of list rule.>>

Ok, I will stomp on this damned dead horse a while longer...lol

Riddle me this, Batman. How much should a pike cost? Right now it is one
point. Is that right? It's the same as a morale upgrade. Is that fair?
balanced? Is a P 'worth' the same as LTS? As HTW? Is a 74 point 4E Reg C MI P
Sh unit exactly the same combat value as half of a 148 point Knight subgeneral?
What if they are both in rough terrain?

I take the same MI P unit and you take a 55 point Irr A LMI 1/2 2HCT, 1/2 JLS,
Sh unit. Is that a fair fight? Seems like the P should win - they cost more
after all...

Well, yes, Jon, but we were talking about list rules - quit hitting us with
these unanswerable rhetoricals about individual weapon and morale costs. Fair
enough, says I....lol

How about that durned Mongol dismount rule, then? Seems hardly fair - other HC
have to dismount 1 for 2, Mongols get 1 for 1 'for free'. Well, wait a
minute... K get to dismount 1 for 1 universally. Hmmm is that reflected in
their point cost? Do you know? Have those damned knights been getting that
'for free' all this time? bastards...lol
How about the fact that when Irreg Cav dismount they lose a morale grade?
Should that mean that Irr Cav should be cheaper? Well, they are - but is that
why? How much cheaper? Half a point? The same amount as a Pike?

Madness. As is the idea that there is a single game (or professional military
model, for that matter) that contains a point system that perfectly reflects
combat value. No such exists because no such *can* exist. Among the many
reasons that is true is the fact that combat value is SITUATIONAL....lol

But heck, so are these complaints...lol Where's the complaint that never being
uneasy is 'free'? Where's the complaint that staff sling and longbow 'cost' the
same? Where's the complaint that B morale and an infantry shield 'cost' the
same? I know the answer.... ;)

<<I also do not buy the arguement that list rules were given to armies
that needed them in order to get historical results.>>

Really? Those damned lying Four Horsemen...lol

<< This is true in
many cases, such as the list rules for Roman Legionaries, and untrue
in cases like the Han Chinese, an army that was already very strong,
and is now even stronger, with free list rules to boot.>>

Like combat value, the above is a subjective opinion. One I disagree with
strongly - no surprise.

Army list games are a specialty of mine. I play them, make them - even do them
for the US Military. Its what i do and next to my darling wife and
princess-daughters, what I live for...

Lists have to be balanced TWO ways. One is a best guess, good enough point
value. The other is SYNERGYSTICALLY. An army of 1600 points of all Irr B LMI
HTW JLS Sh is not balanced with an army of 1600 points of El and El-proof SHC
despite the fact that they cost the same amount of points. The El/SHC blocks
will walk up to the LMI, give them two causes of unease and let the SHC hit the
LMI at a standstill to be followed by the El next bound: game over (if it wasn't
on the initial charge).

Given the synergy issue, (also known as rock/paper/scissors, but that phrase
only touches on the real aspects of synergy) there will be lists that cannot be
balanced correctly vis-a-vis their historical opponents through the
substantially arbitrary (as they must be) point values alone. The state of the
art in army list games is to solve synergy through 'list rules' balancing. And
yes, there is a state of the art in game design as it is a learnable knowledge
area not every layman is born possessing...lol

But heck, this horse stomping feels so good, I am going to be especially
magnanimous - yet again I offer to anyone who has angst about the point system
to offer up for completely serious and open-minded consideration a point system
for Warrior. It must include every item in 17.0 and all list rules. As it
can't be done by 'tweaks', the only solution is a comprehensive alternative.
And I am making the serious and genuine offer (as I have for four years...) to
consider any such offered up.

Why don't we do that ourselves? We don't need it. The point system works as
good as any could work (and has thousands of games with this engine under its
belt...) and list rules will be used to combat ahistorical synergy problems.

Well, there is certainly more, but we'll see if we have reduced this horse to a
pool of DNA yet or not first...

All with a smile
Jon

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/10/2005 20:21:30 Central Standard Time,
JonBecker@... writes:

Personally, I think mobile baggage camps need to include the cost of being
mobile. I mean come on, how come just because someone left their infantry
at home they get to wheel their beef and cheese areound the table while the
rest of us with slow enough moving infantry to keep up with a baggage camp
have to have one that's stationary.

And if I have more ammo on my baggage camp do I have to pay for the extra?>>


Thanks, Jon for putting this in perspective...lol

Seriously, though - I am absolutely into looking at an alternate points
system proposal. I know I kid around a lot here, but I want people to know
that
I genuinely would love to be proven wrong that one that serves us better can
be done simply.

I am talking about a complete solution, though. I have no interest in a
proposal to slap a points value on a particular list rule.

J








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

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:

> I completely agree that list rules amount to a bonus given to certain
> armies, at no cost. I too think a cost should be assigned to list
> rules, or every army should be given some sort of list rule.>>
>
> Ok, I will stomp on this damned dead horse a while longer...lol

[Note that the quoted para is not mine.]

> Riddle me this, Batman. How much should a pike cost? Right now it is
> one point. Is that right? It's the same as a morale upgrade. Is that
> fair? balanced? Is a P 'worth' the same as LTS? As HTW? Is a 74
> point 4E Reg C MI P Sh unit exactly the same combat value as half of a
> 148 point Knight subgeneral? What if they are both in rough terrain?
>
> I take the same MI P unit and you take a 55 point Irr A LMI 1/2 2HCT,
> 1/2 JLS, Sh unit. Is that a fair fight? Seems like the P should win -
> they cost more after all...
>
> Well, yes, Jon, but we were talking about list rules - quit hitting us
> with these unanswerable rhetoricals about individual weapon and morale
> costs. Fair enough, says I....lol

Nope. To answer such (completely non-rhetorical) questions is the role of
a point system. Of course, the value of things is situational. I even
agree that trying to have a point system that takes such situations into
account is likely unworkably complex. But overall, if the MI P are
consistently less successful than those IrrA LMI - then your point system
is flawed. [And, yes, there are problems that lead to lack of equity on
even that level. Should a pike cost the same as an LTS? No - it's
clearly better. But we, your players, are generous enough not to attack
such things. [[ ]] Having everything go to 10x the current cost, then
tweaking smaller fractions, would allow for finetuning, for example - but
I expect that it would not be actually wanted by most players.]

> How about that durned Mongol dismount rule, then? Seems hardly fair -
> other HC have to dismount 1 for 2, Mongols get 1 for 1 'for free'.
> Well, wait a minute... K get to dismount 1 for 1 universally. Hmmm is
> that reflected in their point cost? Do you know? Have those damned
> knights been getting that 'for free' all this time? bastards...lol How
> about the fact that when Irreg Cav dismount they lose a morale grade?
> Should that mean that Irr Cav should be cheaper? Well, they are - but
> is that why? How much cheaper? Half a point? The same amount as a
> Pike?

Once again, you miss the point: whatever factors need to be taken into
account in (say) knight point cost, including but not limited to 1-for-1
dismounting, should be so taken. Ditto for (say) regular HC.

Now you take some subset of said HC and given them extra abilities with no
negatives. Clearly your original point cost can no longer be accurate
(or, it was not so to begin with). This is the point that (apparently)
you do not wish to concede, despite it being self-evident.

As you should remember, I posted a few missives back about army-wise
balancing, and approved of such. But seriously, are you really missing
the above points?

> Madness. As is the idea that there is a single game (or professional
> military model, for that matter) that contains a point system that
> perfectly reflects combat value. No such exists because no such *can*
> exist. Among the many reasons that is true is the fact that combat
> value is SITUATIONAL....lol

OK. If you want to say 'our point allocations are not intended to even
slightly balance different troops types on a game basis, too bad' and be
done with it, you can. I think it would be reprehensible. Assuming
that's not the case, it is the point system's role to provide such
balancing - ACROSS all situations.

> But heck, so are these complaints...lol Where's the complaint that
> never being uneasy is 'free'? Where's the complaint that staff sling
> and longbow 'cost' the same? Where's the complaint that B morale and
> an infantry shield 'cost' the same? I know the answer.... ;)

You do? These are utter strawmen. Never being uneasy is part of the
benefit of being A class, for which one pays. Both B morale and a shield
cost points; it is suggested by the point system that they are of roughly
equivalent value, overall, but even if not so they are clearly defined
point-bought benefits, at least. Again, I'm having trouble believing that
you are missing the point (pun, alas, intended).

> Why don't we do that ourselves? We don't need it. The point system
> works as good as any could work (and has thousands of games with this
> engine under its belt...) and list rules will be used to combat
> ahistorical synergy problems.

'as good as any could work'? Unlikely. But like qwerty, it's here to
stay, fine. That's an entirely separate issue from *adding* new benefits
and deciding that their cost should be zero. If you added a new class of
knights, LSHK, who could enter close order terrain and charge across rough
terrain without being disordered, but were otherwise just like current
SHK, would you expect an uproar if the costs were the same? I expect so.
If you gave such benefits as a list rule, then, why should the reaction
be any different?

OK, I'm done - Greg is correct that I see no transigence. On a game
basis, AS I'VE SAID, I have no gripe (at least yet). But on a logic
basis, ack - the defense is horrendous.

E, still at the HIExpress

[joncleaves]

Oh, Ewan, we *do* agree. I too think that the current point system does not
perfectly represent combat value - or at least my opinion of it. In fact, if I
were going to open the Pandora's box of tweaking - the first thing i'd do is
increase the cost of LI... Talk about your list rules...whoa! Evadability,
don't cause wavers for routing, march through rough terrain at top speed,
interpenetrate everyone...great stuff. A comp might say they 'should be' twice
what they cost now... Sure, I see the logic of which you speak. But the more
important thing you referenced was what our players might want.....

Not two of which would have the same opinion on the realtive cost of a list
rule...lol

It isn't that I think the point system is perfect - it is that the alternative
positively makes me shudder. We could possibly make one that is marginally
better - granted. Unfortunately I am quite well aware of what that would take -
and it is informative that someone would actually suggest it. I can only
conclude that folks are generally ignorant of what a rework of the points system
would actually entail. And that is not a slam. I am ignorant of biokinetics.
I am not angered by that fact, I simply leave that to people who know what they
are doing...

Now, what we are really disagreeing on, in my mind, and by we I include more
people that just Ewan and Jon, is that what we should be doing is assigning
point values for individual combat capabilities where such is not currently
obvious and only for CERTAIN rules and not for others.

Yet, the ability to interpenetrate, who causes and takes wavers, who goes
through terrain and how and when, who does better in a bigger unit, who gets and
gives tactical factors on the combat table, who fights in how many ranks, who
has what missile range... somehow none of these things comes up in these
'discourses' despite the fact that they have precisely the same nature as list
rules and have 'been around' forever.

I don't think the naysayers on point values really want to go into why that is
and what this is really about - but hey, if we want to go there, I'll jump...

One last chance to let this horse become glue...lol

J

[Greg Regets]

Jon ...

CLEARLY, the point I was making, which was why I saved it for the
closing, is that no matter how one feels about list rules, be it pro
or con ... the final word is that in a rock v. paper v. scissors type
game, making one of the three areas stronger, does not by default
eliminate it's weaknesses.

Chariots can be given a list rule that makes them always up4 in
combat, with unprompted charges, and ten ranks behind them
fighting ... but that will not save them against crossbowmen shooting
at them from inside brush.

I really feel it is very unfair when you take snippets out of
people's posts and respond to them in a vacumn, without taking into
consideration the context under which they were made.

Thanks ... g





--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> I completely agree that list rules amount to a bonus given to
certain
> armies, at no cost. I too think a cost should be assigned to list
> rules, or every army should be given some sort of list rule.>>
>
> Ok, I will stomp on this damned dead horse a while longer...lol
>
> Riddle me this, Batman. How much should a pike cost? Right now it
is one point. Is that right? It's the same as a morale upgrade. Is
that fair? balanced? Is a P 'worth' the same as LTS? As HTW? Is a
74 point 4E Reg C MI P Sh unit exactly the same combat value as half
of a 148 point Knight subgeneral? What if they are both in rough
terrain?
>
> I take the same MI P unit and you take a 55 point Irr A LMI 1/2
2HCT, 1/2 JLS, Sh unit. Is that a fair fight? Seems like the P
should win - they cost more after all...
>
> Well, yes, Jon, but we were talking about list rules - quit hitting
us with these unanswerable rhetoricals about individual weapon and
morale costs. Fair enough, says I....lol
>
> How about that durned Mongol dismount rule, then? Seems hardly
fair - other HC have to dismount 1 for 2, Mongols get 1 for 1 'for
free'. Well, wait a minute... K get to dismount 1 for 1
universally. Hmmm is that reflected in their point cost? Do you
know? Have those damned knights been getting that 'for free' all
this time? bastards...lol
> How about the fact that when Irreg Cav dismount they lose a morale
grade? Should that mean that Irr Cav should be cheaper? Well, they
are - but is that why? How much cheaper? Half a point? The same
amount as a Pike?
>
> Madness. As is the idea that there is a single game (or
professional military model, for that matter) that contains a point
system that perfectly reflects combat value. No such exists because
no such *can* exist. Among the many reasons that is true is the fact
that combat value is SITUATIONAL....lol
>
> But heck, so are these complaints...lol Where's the complaint that
never being uneasy is 'free'? Where's the complaint that staff sling
and longbow 'cost' the same? Where's the complaint that B morale and
an infantry shield 'cost' the same? I know the answer....
>
> <<I also do not buy the arguement that list rules were given to
armies
> that needed them in order to get historical results.>>
>
> Really? Those damned lying Four Horsemen...lol
>
> << This is true in
> many cases, such as the list rules for Roman Legionaries, and untrue
> in cases like the Han Chinese, an army that was already very strong,
> and is now even stronger, with free list rules to boot.>>
>
> Like combat value, the above is a subjective opinion. One I
disagree with strongly - no surprise.
>
> Army list games are a specialty of mine. I play them, make them -
even do them for the US Military. Its what i do and next to my
darling wife and princess-daughters, what I live for...
>
> Lists have to be balanced TWO ways. One is a best guess, good
enough point value. The other is SYNERGYSTICALLY. An army of 1600
points of all Irr B LMI HTW JLS Sh is not balanced with an army of
1600 points of El and El-proof SHC despite the fact that they cost
the same amount of points. The El/SHC blocks will walk up to the
LMI, give them two causes of unease and let the SHC hit the LMI at a
standstill to be followed by the El next bound: game over (if it
wasn't on the initial charge).
>
> Given the synergy issue, (also known as rock/paper/scissors, but
that phrase only touches on the real aspects of synergy) there will
be lists that cannot be balanced correctly vis-a-vis their historical
opponents through the substantially arbitrary (as they must be) point
values alone. The state of the art in army list games is to solve
synergy through 'list rules' balancing. And yes, there is a state of
the art in game design as it is a learnable knowledge area not every
layman is born possessing...lol
>
> But heck, this horse stomping feels so good, I am going to be
especially magnanimous - yet again I offer to anyone who has angst
about the point system to offer up for completely serious and open-
minded consideration a point system for Warrior. It must include
every item in 17.0 and all list rules. As it can't be done
by 'tweaks', the only solution is a comprehensive alternative. And I
am making the serious and genuine offer (as I have for four years...)
to consider any such offered up.
>
> Why don't we do that ourselves? We don't need it. The point
system works as good as any could work (and has thousands of games
with this engine under its belt...) and list rules will be used to
combat ahistorical synergy problems.
>
> Well, there is certainly more, but we'll see if we have reduced
this horse to a pool of DNA yet or not first...
>
> All with a smile
> Jon

[Greg Regets]

Are you not the same Jon that back when you were writing this set,
insisted that the point system was fine as is?

Every time I don't agree with you, does that mean I'm calling you a
liar?

Do you actually think you can divine someone else's meaning, better
than that actual person?

How are you able to buy hats?

Thanks ... g






--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2/10/2005 17:03:09 Central Standard Time,
> greg.regets@g... writes:
>
> CLEARLY, the point I was making, which was why I saved it for the
> closing, is that no matter how one feels about list rules, be it
pro
> or con ... the final word is that in a rock v. paper v. scissors
type
> game, making one of the three areas stronger, does not by default
> eliminate it's weaknesses.>>
>
>
>
> Actually you were making a case that we were wrong to not consider
pointing
> list rules while also saying that the fact we use list rules to
make lists
> perform historically was untrue. I'll skip quoting you, but it is
there in the
> archive. The former is quite beyond practicability, even if it
were
> necessary, which it isn't. The latter is an insult and quite
uninformed.
>
> This other point above is one I did indeed choose not to address
because I
> don't personally find it relevant, even if I agreed with your
definition of
> rock v paper v scissors type game - which I do not.
>
> Sorry, Greg, I am not at all attacking you (despite being called a
liar). I
> am telling you that there is no mechanical need for list rule
point costs
> the way we have done them. They are achieving exactly what we set
out to do
> and no one has offered proof otherwise - just griping on a horse
already
> declared dead.
>
> I can out-beat dead horses with anyone. I am so tired of having
to read
> about this issue from folks who do not design games and either
don't know what
> they are talking about or are only advocating point cost changes
that they
> perceive will right some perceived inequity done to them (or their
lists) that I
> have decided to fight fire with fire and let the reasonable among
us choose
> the delete key. Ewan, at least, is just trying to make the case
for the
> ideal, however unachievable.
>
> I am also continually amused that this thread, like the ones before
it,
> always ignores my call for someone to frickin' put up and send us a
point system
> instead of making unsupportable claims about this or that pet issue.
>
> So, let's do it or let it go.
>
> J
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/11/2005 15:59:33 Central Standard Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

Jon - not sure that your comments on LI (implying highly undercosted) and
the point system as a whole (stated as only marginally improvable) are
consistent.>>


They are, of course. My comments on LI were an analogical observation that
this topic continues to focus on isolated pet issues and not a comprehensive
whole.


<<And still not convinced that you see the distinction being drawn between
costs of a troop type in general, and costs of a uniquely-advantaged
version of that troop type. Noone but you is yet attempting to have an
argument about LI vs SHK; we are all discussing (e.g.) HC vs HC*.>>

LI and LMI (and MI) are costed the same. LI possesses a number of special
non-weapon-factor qualities the others do not, making LI into LMI* - to use
your jargon. Yet the 'we all' don't want to discuss those issues, just the
ones that pertain to certain perceived 'unfairnesses' happening *to* 'we all.'

I do agree that it is possible to write a point system that is better than
ours. I do not agree that it can be done in an amount of time and with the
resources available that justifies choosing that task over the ones we have
chosen instead. The one we have is plenty good enough to get us through what
the players have asked us to do vice stopping all of that to mess with the
point system for a couple years and then rewrite all the lists to match.
That's
all. If your arguing that it is possible to make a better one, you'll get no
argument from me. If your arguing we should work on that instead of our
chosen program for the next few years or that the current one is so bad it
should be fixed at whatever cost to the game system and our marketing plan, I
completely disagree - and so does the playership in general.

<<But it's 5 p.m. on Friday. Enjoy the weekend.>>

Weekends are always enjoyable, especially Valentine's! Same back at ya!

J







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

[Ewan McNay]

Jon - not sure that your comments on LI (implying highly undercosted) and
the point system as a whole (stated as only marginally improvable) are
consistent.

And still not convinced that you see the distinction being drawn between
costs of a troop type in general, and costs of a uniquely-advantaged
version of that troop type. Noone but you is yet attempting to have an
argument about LI vs SHK; we are all discussing (e.g.) HC vs HC*.

But it's 5 p.m. on Friday. Enjoy the weekend.

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 JonCleaves@... wrote:

>
> Oh, Ewan, we *do* agree. I too think that the current point system does not
perfectly represent combat value - or at least my opinion of it. In fact, if I
were going to open the Pandora's box of tweaking - the first thing i'd do is
increase the cost of LI... Talk about your list rules...whoa! Evadability,
don't cause wavers for routing, march through rough terrain at top speed,
interpenetrate everyone...great stuff. A comp might say they 'should be' twice
what they cost now... Sure, I see the logic of which you speak. But the more
important thing you referenced was what our players might want.....
>
> Not two of which would have the same opinion on the realtive cost of a list
rule...lol
>
> It isn't that I think the point system is perfect - it is that the alternative
positively makes me shudder. We could possibly make one that is marginally
better - granted. Unfortunately I am quite well aware of what that would take -
and it is informative that someone would actually suggest it. I can only
conclude that folks are generally ignorant of what a rework of the points system
would actually entail. And that is not a slam. I am ignorant of biokinetics.
I am not angered by that fact, I simply leave that to people who know what they
are doing...
>
> Now, what we are really disagreeing on, in my mind, and by we I include more
people that just Ewan and Jon, is that what we should be doing is assigning
point values for individual combat capabilities where such is not currently
obvious and only for CERTAIN rules and not for others.
>
> Yet, the ability to interpenetrate, who causes and takes wavers, who goes
through terrain and how and when, who does better in a bigger unit, who gets and
gives tactical factors on the combat table, who fights in how many ranks, who
has what missile range... somehow none of these things comes up in these
'discourses' despite the fact that they have precisely the same nature as list
rules and have 'been around' forever.
>
> I don't think the naysayers on point values really want to go into why that is
and what this is really about - but hey, if we want to go there, I'll jump...
>
> One last chance to let this horse become glue...lol
>
> J
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Jon,

In light of the fact that Monday is Valentines Day and I certainly don't
want to be on the receiving end of a re-enactment of the Saint Valentines
Massacre, would you like to postpone to the following monday? Or any other day
of your choosing? I am flexable. Just name the time and place and I will likely
agree.

Kelly W



Weekends are always enjoyable, especially Valentine's! Same back at ya!

J


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do?

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

[Todd Schneider]

Kelly, Are you referring to your league game?

Todd

kelly wilkinson wrote:

>Jon,
>
> In light of the fact that Monday is Valentines Day and I certainly don't
want to be on the receiving end of a re-enactment of the Saint Valentines
Massacre, would you like to postpone to the following monday? Or any other day
of your choosing? I am flexable. Just name the time and place and I will likely
agree.
>
> Kelly W
>
>
>
>Weekends are always enjoyable, especially Valentine's! Same back at ya!
>
>J
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
> The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do?
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Yup, I just realized that our game was set for Monday which is Valentines Day.
Jon may have not realized that, so I thought I'd see if he would rather change
the league game to a different time.

Todd <thresh1642@...> wrote:
Kelly, Are you referring to your league game?

Todd

kelly wilkinson wrote:

>Jon,
>
> In light of the fact that Monday is Valentines Day and I certainly don't want
to be on the receiving end of a re-enactment of the Saint Valentines Massacre,
would you like to postpone to the following monday? Or any other day of your
choosing? I am flexable. Just name the time and place and I will likely agree.
>
> Kelly W
>
>
>
>Weekends are always enjoyable, especially Valentine's! Same back at ya!
>
>J
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
> The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do?
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005





Yahoo! Groups Links










---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

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