Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> However, we still want an historical game and these things just did
> not appear in open battles.

If tournaments were a historical game setting I would tend to agree.
But tournament games have nothing to do with history.

For instances:
- battles between armies of equal "points" are the exception rather
than the rule in history
- Most tournament matchups are between armies that could never have
faced one another geographically, let along temporally.

I played Rajputs, Sicilian Hohenstaufen's and Scythians with my
Wallachians in the last tournament up here. Frankly these games
couldn't have been more fantastic if I'd been facing Elves or Orcs.

On top of this you have chosen to write a game where some army lists
are better than others in terms of availability of choices of units,
equipment, and morale. So not all army lists are created equally, yet
they are treated as equal under the tournament rules.

So, in a tournament a player can reasonably expect to encounter an
enemy army that his army is simply not well equipped to deal with.
The ability to buy incindiaries at least allows him to "mix" things up
a bit, and throw in a compensating factor for ahistorical matchups

In addition, there seems to be a false assumption here that Incindiary
missiles are imbalancing in Tournament games. Jevon poured on the
Incindiaries when he played me at the tournament up here, and it
didn't make one whit of difference to the outcome: I still beat him,
and I didn't feel particularly hard done by. Neither was Asif's use
of incindiaries against me particularly disheartening.

All in all, I'd say leave things as they are now, and let things run
as they are. I suspect you'll find that in the end this is a tempest
in a teacup.

Have fun!
Cole

<snip fantastical tourney matchups>

I agree Cole - it's not really historical, but it is an attempt at
simulation. "What would happen if Hohenstaufen ran into
Wallachians?"

> Jevon poured on the
> Incindiaries when he played me at the tournament up here, and it
> didn't make one whit of difference to the outcome: I still beat
him,
> and I didn't feel particularly hard done by. Neither was Asif's
use
> of incindiaries against me particularly disheartening.

Okay, a couple things:

1.) Your luck that day was disgusting. From Jevon rolling up big to
blow up your LMI unit on the spot, instead of routing it back
through your army and possibly cause Vlad to rout, to my
consistently rolling down or average, you were well served by the
dice gods that day.

2.) Your use of ARTILLERY incendiaries that were unrevealed was
TOTALLY disheartening, and COMPLETELY altered the complexion of what
had been up to that point, a tense, nail biter of a match. Or had
you forgotten that I had run off your shaken Viteji with my LC, come
around your ditch, routed your LI that was defending said ditch, and
threatened to butcher Vlad over on your right flank?

Additionally, had I had the chance to support shoot you with my
incendiaries as I intended, I would have caused your cav units to
take waver tests (after being disordered for charging through the
brush I was occupying). You probably would have taken the flank
anyways, simply through numerical superiority, but I would have made
you pay for it in buckets of Wallachian blood.

As it was, I was so disgusted with my bowmen breaking before
contact (having been shaken by the artillery incendiaries in prep
shooting), and shaking 2 of my other units, that I just gave up at
that point.

Incendiaries need fixing. Your buying a ditch should not allow
you to buy incendiaries to use on an opponent.

Regards,
Asif Chaudhry

[joncleaves]

The use of any individual system, piece of gear or tactic by an army has to be
historically appropriate to that army EVEN IF vs some ahistorical opponent
appears in an open tourney setting. I would not be involved with Warrior if I
was not going to operate under that philosophy.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Cioran <ncioran@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:27:44 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Incendiary missiles and Historical Games


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> However, we still want an historical game and these things just did
> not appear in open battles.

If tournaments were a historical game setting I would tend to agree.
But tournament games have nothing to do with history.

For instances:
- battles between armies of equal "points" are the exception rather
than the rule in history
- Most tournament matchups are between armies that could never have
faced one another geographically, let along temporally.

I played Rajputs, Sicilian Hohenstaufen's and Scythians with my
Wallachians in the last tournament up here. Frankly these games
couldn't have been more fantastic if I'd been facing Elves or Orcs.

On top of this you have chosen to write a game where some army lists
are better than others in terms of availability of choices of units,
equipment, and morale. So not all army lists are created equally, yet
they are treated as equal under the tournament rules.

So, in a tournament a player can reasonably expect to encounter an
enemy army that his army is simply not well equipped to deal with.
The ability to buy incindiaries at least allows him to "mix" things up
a bit, and throw in a compensating factor for ahistorical matchups

In addition, there seems to be a false assumption here that Incindiary
missiles are imbalancing in Tournament games. Jevon poured on the
Incindiaries when he played me at the tournament up here, and it
didn't make one whit of difference to the outcome: I still beat him,
and I didn't feel particularly hard done by. Neither was Asif's use
of incindiaries against me particularly disheartening.

All in all, I'd say leave things as they are now, and let things run
as they are. I suspect you'll find that in the end this is a tempest
in a teacup.

Have fun!
Cole







Yahoo! Groups Links






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

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> The use of any individual system, piece of gear or tactic by an
army > has to be historically appropriate to that army EVEN IF vs
some
> ahistorical opponent appears in an open tourney setting. I would
> not be involved with Warrior if I was not going to operate under
> that philosophy.

I think you miss my point Jon. There are enough examples of troops
using flaming arrows in the attack AND defence of fortifications to
make me comfortable with the rules as they stand, and in addition
the flaming arrows do not appear to be unbalanced from my
experiences so far.

Taking them out would also be a mistake because they do allow a
player some flexibility against ahistorical opponents that he
wouldn't otherwise have, and hence allow some army lists to be more
competitive than they might otherwise be.

Have fun!
Cole

[joncleaves]

I see you down for 'as is', thus wrecking Ewan's 'bridge'...lol

I will say, however, that I would never leave flaming missiles - or anything
else - in the game to balance an army against an ahistorical opponent. Never.
I'm not saying anything negative about anyone or anything, just stating a core
philosophy of Warrior that is in no way negotiable. It was part of my going in
position on this project and has not changed.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Cioran <ncioran@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:27:20 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Incendiary missiles and Historical Games


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> The use of any individual system, piece of gear or tactic by an
army > has to be historically appropriate to that army EVEN IF vs
some
> ahistorical opponent appears in an open tourney setting. I would
> not be involved with Warrior if I was not going to operate under
> that philosophy.

I think you miss my point Jon. There are enough examples of troops
using flaming arrows in the attack AND defence of fortifications to
make me comfortable with the rules as they stand, and in addition
the flaming arrows do not appear to be unbalanced from my
experiences so far.

Taking them out would also be a mistake because they do allow a
player some flexibility against ahistorical opponents that he
wouldn't otherwise have, and hence allow some army lists to be more
competitive than they might otherwise be.

Have fun!
Cole









Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Ed Forbes]

My 2 cents.
Allow any to take incendiary missiles and then only allow the use of incendiary
missiles against relevant TF's.

If a case can be made for an historical army using them against opposing troops,
then allow only through a list rule.

Ed


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