Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 11/02/2005 22:29:44 GMT Standard Time, JonCleaves@...
writes:

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.

** we are not focusing on isolated pet issues - we are focusing on a change
to an accepted game engine.
**



<<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.'

**Again you miss the point, we are happy that LI and LMI are costed the
same. They have different abilities sure, but these abilities are worth about
the
same. About 99% of the costings in the game engine are fine, these list
rules are effectively tinkering with something that isnt broken. Your statement
above In fact strengthens our argument.

Try some algebra

LMI=X
LI=Y
list rule=Z


X=Y
X + Z = more than Y

or ewans example

HC= Q

Q=Q
Q + Z = more than Q

mark mallard

**



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.
** Jon we are not asking for a change to the points costings, except maybe
the 1% that has been wrong for ages..



<<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]

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/12/2005 04:55:47 Central Standard Time,
markmallard7@... writes:

we are not focusing on isolated pet issues - we are focusing on a change
to an accepted game engine.>>
[
well, we certainly are not doing *that*

**Again you miss the point, we are happy that LI and LMI are costed the
same.>>
[
The we in this is, who, exactly? lol If the measure of what needs change
is how many players it makes happy, then I would never change the points
system. the number of players who would be 'sad' at taking our production
offline
and then having to buy the lists over again dwarfs the two or three
advocating point system change here. And to those of you reading this but
posting to
me offline, I say: no worries. I said I will consider a comprehensive
system that turns out better than what we have. But we will NOT be tweaking
this
thing.

<< They have different abilities sure, but these abilities are worth about
the
same.>>
[
Well, that's one opinion. And exactly the problem. You won't get consensus
agreement of any kind except that it is good enough the way it is.


<< About 99% of the costings in the game engine are fine, these list
rules are effectively tinkering with something that isnt broken.>>
[
That we completely disagree on.

<< Your statement
above In fact strengthens our argument.>>
[
In what way??? lol


<<Try some algebra

LMI=X
LI=Y
list rule=Z


X=Y>>

Again, opinion.

<<X + Z = more than Y>>

??? Which list rule applies to LMI and not to LI? Swiss?? What on earth
have you said here? lol

<<or ewans example

HC= Q

Q=Q
Q + Z = more than Q>>

Ok, so does a K 'pay' for 1:1 dismounting? if you think so, prove it....
does it have a game effect with an appreciable 'cost'? is a mongol
dismounting the same worth, given the list it is in and their historical
opponents and
matchups, as byzantine HC being given the same ability???

Mark, you;re 'asking' the wrong 'questions'....





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

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 12/02/2005 14:19:22 GMT Standard Time, JonCleaves@...
writes:

Ok, so does a K 'pay' for 1:1 dismounting? if you think so, prove it....
**
Knights got to dismount on a 1:1 basis before any list rules were written.
This was accepted, has been accepted for a long time, to be part of the points
cost of the unit, part of the accepted game engine.
**


does it have a game effect with an appreciable 'cost'? is a mongol
dismounting the same worth, given the list it is in and their historical
opponents and
matchups, as byzantine HC being given the same ability???

Mark, you;re 'asking' the wrong 'questions'....
**
I will let it lie you have your opinion i have mine - i responded again
because others seemed to feel as i do. I will add no further comment after this
unless other (non FHE) players do.

I do not comment on here to stir things up. I comment when i am concerned.

It might be worth your while to do a survey at least, asking the
players/buyers whether they think list rules should be free though - at least
then
whatever outcome would not be just one persons opinion.

**mark mallard







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

I believe list rules that advantage or disadvantage a troop type over
and above similar types should cost more but I love the period
flavour that the list rules add.

I have a solution that those who are advantaged by list rules won't
like - List rules are only to be used when fighting period
appropriate enemy and not when in competition unless the competition
is themed for a specific period. Simple really.

I couldn't be bothered reading all the threads so if this ahs been
suggested already just ignore me.

John O

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 12/02/2005 19:46:41 GMT Standard Time,
malekithau@... writes:

I believe list rules that advantage or disadvantage a troop type over
and above similar types should cost more but I love the period
flavour that the list rules add.

I have a solution that those who are advantaged by list rules won't
like - List rules are only to be used when fighting period
appropriate enemy and not when in competition unless the competition
is themed for a specific period. Simple really.

I couldn't be bothered reading all the threads so if this ahs been
suggested already just ignore me.

John O






** A sensible solution if they are going to be free.**

mark mallard


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