Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 10/21/2004 08:34:37 Central Daylight Time,
greg.regets@... writes:

Interesting. I'm very curious where you might have heard that.

Perhaps the person spreading these rumors might consider posting them
here, where I can actually see who it is.

What do you want to bet that isn't going to happen. ;-)





Relax, Greg. No one is spreading rumors about you. You're not that much of
a celebrity....lol

I'm an intel officer.... let's just leave it at that.

J


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

[Greg Regets]

Interesting. I'm very curious where you might have heard that.

Perhaps the person spreading these rumors might consider posting them
here, where I can actually see who it is.

What do you want to bet that isn't going to happen. ;-)

g


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 10/20/2004 23:08:26 Central Daylight Time,
> greg.regets@g... writes:
>
> Thanks ... and stop talking smack about people you haven't
played.
>
>
>
> Struck a nerve, did I? lol
>
> That wasn't smack, just rumor. If you'd like a smack talking
demonstration,
> though, I can handle that...
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I think best painted army should get a prize from Dibbles Hobby store since Greg
brought it up. I know that I'll be sponsoring a couple of prizes myself.


kelly
PS I don't care how many list we are allowed to use. I just want to see this
thing work. I will go with whatever is decided upon.

Greg Regets <greg.regets@...> wrote:

I will have to take your word for it on the "dancing around in the
finals" point. Maybe it just never happens in my area.

I have been playing since 6th Ed., and have been in the finals more
times than I can remember, and cannot ever recall even once seeing
that happen. Most of our finals games are either dead bang shootouts,
or cautious games with 10+ bounds, where the opportunity to dance
around for that many bounds becomes problematic at best.

I think if you did that stall thing in Texas, people would either
stop inviting you, or make you wear a dress. ;-)

I would say the bigger issues are two army lists, and best painted
army ... at least from my point of view.

g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "riderofrohan2001" <yaw@m...>
wrote:
>
>
> I would vote for one list, but what the majority of players want is
> fine with me on this. One list or two? Let us know which you
prefer.
>
> > Is there any chance we can get two army lists?
>
> I think the top two players should definitely play on Sunday
morning.
> I do agree with Jon on how the points should be determined. To win
a
> tournament, I think you should have to fight and not skirmish for
3.5
> hours. If you have made it to the top 2 players in a tournament,
you
> have been fighting your battles, why change the way the scoring
works
> for the final round.
>
> > Since the individual championship is not tied to the team title,
> > could we possibly have a simple man-to-man, winner take all,
> > individual championship game between the two high scoring players
> > after three rounds? It seems like an event of this planned
stature
> > should have a champion that is not computed by points, but
computed
> > on the field of battle.
>
> Good idea, Done.
>
> > Could you possibly limit army lists to FHE lists, plus NASAMW &
WRG
> > lists still in effect ... without the Huck-Finn lists and the
wide
> > variety of list books people here in the South have never seen
> before?
>
> There can and will be. I think we should have prizes for best
painted
> army, best camp, and best terrian features. I plan several other
> prizes. On the best painted army, we can judge it ourselves or I
can
> have some local "award winning painters" who are not playing come
in a
> do the judging. Any preference?
>
> > Can there be a best painted army prize, voted on by all players
that
> > attend?
>
> Good points Greg, Thanks, Charles
>
> > Thanks ... g
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Charles Yaw" <yaw@m...>
> wrote:
> > > I received several good suggestions about the format of the
> > proposed team tournament. I am going to list a draft set of rules
> for
> > this tournament below based on those suggestions and some that
have
> > been made by Kansas City players. Please post your comments and
> > thoughts on these rules. I will also post a couple of questions
at
> > the end.
> > >
> > > 1st Annual Midwest Team Tournament.
> > >
> > > 1. The tournament can rotate among interested host cities, but
> > always will be between the Rocky Mountains and the Mississippi,
> hence
> > Midwest. The first one will be held in Kansas City on the
weekend
> of
> > MLK day.
> > >
> > > 2. The tournament is open to all teams who want to
participate.
> > Come on out East and West coast players, the BBQ is worth the
trip
> > alone.
> > >
> > > 3. Teams will be 3 players, each playing their own army. The
> best
> > two scores will count each round. Note: a 2 player team could
> > participate and not drop scores.
> > >
> > > 4. The format will be an Open 15mm tournament played with 3.5
> hour
> > rounds, 1600 points, 1 list.
> > >
> > > 5. There will be 4 rounds of play. 3 rounds on Saturday and 1
on
> > Sunday morning.
> > >
> > > 6. Armies will be matched by historical opponents and the
> > geographic region of the players as much as possible for the
first
> > two rounds. Player points will determine matches in the last two
> > rounds.
> > >
> > > 7. Scores will be keep for both teams and single player
standings
> > and awards will be given for both. Note: this makes it possible
> for
> > a player not on a team to participate.
> > >
> > > 8. Lists: All Warrior lists and other lists approved for NICT
> > play. If Oriental Warrior is out by then, we are only looking at
> the
> > Classical lists from other sources.
> > >
> > > Notes:
> > >
> > > It was suggested that different members of teams bring armies
from
> > different books. While this has merit, there are many books and
if
> > we try to limit things this way, it brings up the question of
which
> > books are chosen. I think rule 6 will help address this.
> > >
> > > We can make up teams at the tournament for players who want a
team
> > or teams who need to add a player.
> > >
> > > It was also requested that we cater BBQ for dinner during the
> > tournament. We will do this.
> > >
> > > I suggest that at the 1st Annual Midwest Team tournament, we
vote
> > among the players Present for the location of the 2006
tournament.
> > The KC group is more than willing to rotate this tournament to
other
> > sites.
> > >
> > > I will finalize these rules on Nov 15, so get your suggestions
in
> > and if you see necessary additions, let me know. I would like to
> get
> > these rules set, so we can use them for future tournaments
without a
> > lot of change.
> > >
> > > Questions:
> > >
> > > 1. Is there a team trophy out there from time past? If not do
we
> > want some type of traveling trophy?
> > >
> > > 2. If anyone comes from Pennsylvania, can you bring a case of
> > Lancaster Milk Stout? If not, I'll just have to wait until Cold
> Wars.
> > >
> > > Charles
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Hmmm... Maybe this is a good argument for a two list tournament. . .

kw

Todd Schneider <thresh1642@...> wrote:
I think "Cautious Games" with 10+ bounds in them are
to be avoided at all costs. I can see the reasoning
and logic behind playing that way, but IMO a smart
player will see this and also sit back, and the game
slows to a crawl as both sides wait for their opponent
to make a mistake that will probably never happen.

I don't mind maneuvering (as well as I can with my
army) for two hours to set up a bloody last round, but
that would require my opponent cooperating as well,
and if he snipes one of my LI units, theres no reason
for him to try to get into contact with me if I can
either beat him OR not lose to him in those last round
matchups. He walks away with a 1 point victory, in a
game thats probably 2-1 at best, and we both lose out
on placing in the top tier.

Personally, I'd rather lose 4-3 or 5-3 than win 1-0.
1-0 doesn't seem...satisfying somehow.

Todd


--- Greg Regets <greg.regets@...> wrote:
---------------------------------

I will have to take your word for it on the "dancing
around in the
finals" point. Maybe it just never happens in my area.

I have been playing since 6th Ed., and have been in
the finals more times than I can remember, and cannot
ever recall even once seeing that happen. Most of our
finals games are either dead bang shootouts, or
cautious games with 10+ bounds, where the opportunity
to dance around for that many bounds becomes
problematic at best.

I think if you did that stall thing in Texas, people
would either stop inviting you, or make you wear a
dress. ;-)

I would say the bigger issues are two army lists, and
best painted army ... at least from my point of view.

g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com,
"riderofrohan2001" <yaw@m...>
wrote:
>
>
> I would vote for one list, but what the majority of
players want is
> fine with me on this. One list or two? Let us know
which you
prefer.
>
> > Is there any chance we can get two army lists?
>
> I think the top two players should definitely play
on Sunday
morning.
> I do agree with Jon on how the points should be
determined. To win
a
> tournament, I think you should have to fight and not
skirmish for
3.5
> hours. If you have made it to the top 2 players in
a tournament,
you
> have been fighting your battles, why change the way
the scoring
works
> for the final round.
>
> > Since the individual championship is not tied to
the team title,
> > could we possibly have a simple man-to-man, winner
take all,
> > individual championship game between the two high
scoring players
> > after three rounds? It seems like an event of this
planned
stature
> > should have a champion that is not computed by
points, but
computed
> > on the field of battle.
>
> Good idea, Done.
>
> > Could you possibly limit army lists to FHE lists,
plus NASAMW &
WRG
> > lists still in effect ... without the Huck-Finn
lists and the
wide
> > variety of list books people here in the South
have never seen
> before?
>
> There can and will be. I think we should have
prizes for best
painted
> army, best camp, and best terrian features. I plan
several other
> prizes. On the best painted army, we can judge it
ourselves or I
can
> have some local "award winning painters" who are not
playing come
in a
> do the judging. Any preference?
>
> > Can there be a best painted army prize, voted on
by all players
that
> > attend?
>
> Good points Greg, Thanks, Charles
>
> > Thanks ... g
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Charles
Yaw" <yaw@m...>
> wrote:
> > > I received several good suggestions about the
format of the
> > proposed team tournament. I am going to list a
draft set of rules
> for
> > this tournament below based on those suggestions
and some that
have
> > been made by Kansas City players. Please post
your comments and
> > thoughts on these rules. I will also post a
couple of questions
at
> > the end.
> > >
> > > 1st Annual Midwest Team Tournament.
> > >
> > > 1. The tournament can rotate among interested
host cities, but
> > always will be between the Rocky Mountains and the
Mississippi,
> hence
> > Midwest. The first one will be held in Kansas
City on the
weekend
> of
> > MLK day.
> > >
> > > 2. The tournament is open to all teams who want
to
participate.
> > Come on out East and West coast players, the BBQ
is worth the
trip
> > alone.
> > >
> > > 3. Teams will be 3 players, each playing their
own army. The
> best
> > two scores will count each round. Note: a 2
player team could
> > participate and not drop scores.
> > >
> > > 4. The format will be an Open 15mm tournament
played with 3.5
> hour
> > rounds, 1600 points, 1 list.
> > >
> > > 5. There will be 4 rounds of play. 3 rounds on
Saturday and 1
on
> > Sunday morning.
> > >
> > > 6. Armies will be matched by historical
opponents and the
> > geographic region of the players as much as
possible for the
first
> > two rounds. Player points will determine matches
in the last two
> > rounds.
> > >
> > > 7. Scores will be keep for both teams and
single player
standings
> > and awards will be given for both. Note: this
makes it possible
> for
> > a player not on a team to participate.
> > >
> > > 8. Lists: All Warrior lists and other lists
approved for NICT
> > play. If Oriental Warrior is out by then, we are
only looking at
> the
> > Classical lists from other sources.
> > >
> > > Notes:
> > >
> > > It was suggested that different members of teams
bring armies
from
> > different books. While this has merit, there are
many books and
if
> > we try to limit things this way, it brings up the
question of
which
> > books are chosen. I think rule 6 will help
address this.
> > >
> > > We can make up teams at the tournament for
players who want a
team
> > or teams who need to add a player.
> > >
> > > It was also requested that we cater BBQ for
dinner during the
> > tournament. We will do this.
> > >
> > > I suggest that at the 1st Annual Midwest Team
tournament, we
vote
> > among the players Present for the location of the
2006
tournament.
> > The KC group is more than willing to rotate this
tournament to
other
> > sites.
> > >
> > > I will finalize these rules on Nov 15, so get
your suggestions
in
> > and if you see necessary additions, let me know.
I would like to
> get
> > these rules set, so we can use them for future
tournaments
without a
> > lot of change.
> > >
> > > Questions:
> > >
> > > 1. Is there a team trophy out there from time
past? If not do
we
> > want some type of traveling trophy?
> > >
> > > 2. If anyone comes from Pennsylvania, can you
bring a case of
> > Lancaster Milk Stout? If not, I'll just have to
wait until Cold
> Wars.
> > >
> > > Charles
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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.



Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!

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

[Greg Regets]

Do intel and officer go together? ;-)





--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 10/21/2004 08:34:37 Central Daylight Time,
> greg.regets@g... writes:
>
> Interesting. I'm very curious where you might have heard that.
>
> Perhaps the person spreading these rumors might consider posting
them
> here, where I can actually see who it is.
>
> What do you want to bet that isn't going to happen.
>
>
>
>
>
> Relax, Greg. No one is spreading rumors about you. You're not
that much of
> a celebrity....lol
>
> I'm an intel officer.... let's just leave it at that.
>
> J
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 10/21/2004 21:31:31 Central Daylight Time,
yaw@... writes:

This does need looked at. My first thought would be that teammates could
not play unless they would meet in round 4. Surely they would play for 1st
place.>>
Charles, I would look carefully at that. Two teammates playing each other
in round four could manipulate the game to score what they needed to to win.
My strong recommendation is that they don't play each other before the final
game. This of course means you will not have a perfect progression for the
individual 'champion', but it does seem to me you want to emphasize the team
aspect and have that be a secondary outcome.

<<It should be possible to use Scott Holder scoring for the individual
tournament and just use the game points from each round for the team score.>>
FWIW, I think this is exactly right.

Jon


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

[Patrick Byrne]

Nice Post Charles,
1. Is rule 6 meant to also say that players on the same team will not play
eachother? Say teammates play eachother, and the 3rd teammate is playing a
rookie. The two teammates could play to a 5-1 victory, and the other
teammate could get a 5 against the rookie, thusly scoring 10pts. And even
though you may not think anyone would do that (and most likely won't) the
thought is there for animosity to build on.

2. Will the Scott Holder type of scoring be used? I can't see how as his
system is per player all the way to the finish, while your suggesting taking
2 best scores each round.

3. Absolutely want a traveling Trophy.

4. Thanks for being on the ball about this... I am looking forward to this
tourney.

-PB

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Yaw" <yaw@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 6:49 PM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Midwest Team Tournament


>
> I received several good suggestions about the format of the proposed team
tournament. I am going to list a draft set of rules for this tournament
below based on those suggestions and some that have been made by Kansas City
players. Please post your comments and thoughts on these rules. I will
also post a couple of questions at the end.
>
> 1st Annual Midwest Team Tournament.
>
> 1. The tournament can rotate among interested host cities, but always
will be between the Rocky Mountains and the Mississippi, hence Midwest. The
first one will be held in Kansas City on the weekend of MLK day.
>
> 2. The tournament is open to all teams who want to participate. Come on
out East and West coast players, the BBQ is worth the trip alone.
>
> 3. Teams will be 3 players, each playing their own army. The best two
scores will count each round. Note: a 2 player team could participate and
not drop scores.
>
> 4. The format will be an Open 15mm tournament played with 3.5 hour
rounds, 1600 points, 1 list.
>
> 5. There will be 4 rounds of play. 3 rounds on Saturday and 1 on Sunday
morning.
>
> 6. Armies will be matched by historical opponents and the geographic
region of the players as much as possible for the first two rounds. Player
points will determine matches in the last two rounds.
>
> 7. Scores will be keep for both teams and single player standings and
awards will be given for both. Note: this makes it possible for a player
not on a team to participate.
>
> 8. Lists: All Warrior lists and other lists approved for NICT play. If
Oriental Warrior is out by then, we are only looking at the Classical lists
from other sources.
>
> Notes:
>
> It was suggested that different members of teams bring armies from
different books. While this has merit, there are many books and if we try
to limit things this way, it brings up the question of which books are
chosen. I think rule 6 will help address this.
>
> We can make up teams at the tournament for players who want a team or
teams who need to add a player.
>
> It was also requested that we cater BBQ for dinner during the tournament.
We will do this.
>
> I suggest that at the 1st Annual Midwest Team tournament, we vote among
the players Present for the location of the 2006 tournament. The KC group is
more than willing to rotate this tournament to other sites.
>
> I will finalize these rules on Nov 15, so get your suggestions in and if
you see necessary additions, let me know. I would like to get these rules
set, so we can use them for future tournaments without a lot of change.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. Is there a team trophy out there from time past? If not do we want
some type of traveling trophy?
>
> 2. If anyone comes from Pennsylvania, can you bring a case of Lancaster
Milk Stout? If not, I'll just have to wait until Cold Wars.
>
> Charles
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Charles Yaw]

Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Midwest Team Tournament

> Nice Post Charles,

Thanks Patrick, I just want to get this thing going.

> 1. Is rule 6 meant to also say that players on the same team will >not
play eachother? Say teammates play eachother, and the 3rd >teammate is
playing a rookie. The two teammates could play to a >5-1 victory, and the
other teammate could get a 5 against the >rookie, thusly scoring 10pts. And
even though you may not think >anyone would do that (and most likely won't)
the thought is there >for animosity to build on.

This does need looked at. My first thought would be that teammates could
not play unless they would meet in round 4. Surely they would play for 1st
place.

> 2. Will the Scott Holder type of scoring be used? I can't see how >as his
system is per player all the way to the finish, while you're >suggesting
taking 2 best scores each round.

It should be possible to use Scott Holder scoring for the individual
tournament and just use the game points from each round for the team score.

> 3. Absolutely want a traveling Trophy.

Any suggestions on what this should be?

> 4. Thanks for being on the ball about this... I am looking >forward to
this tourney.
>
> -PB
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Charles Yaw" <yaw@...>
> To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 6:49 PM
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Midwest Team Tournament
>
>
> >
> > I received several good suggestions about the format of the proposed
team
> tournament. I am going to list a draft set of rules for this tournament
> below based on those suggestions and some that have been made by Kansas
City
> players. Please post your comments and thoughts on these rules. I will
> also post a couple of questions at the end.
> >
> > 1st Annual Midwest Team Tournament.
> >
> > 1. The tournament can rotate among interested host cities, but always
> will be between the Rocky Mountains and the Mississippi, hence Midwest.
The
> first one will be held in Kansas City on the weekend of MLK day.
> >
> > 2. The tournament is open to all teams who want to participate. Come
on
> out East and West coast players, the BBQ is worth the trip alone.
> >
> > 3. Teams will be 3 players, each playing their own army. The best two
> scores will count each round. Note: a 2 player team could participate and
> not drop scores.
> >
> > 4. The format will be an Open 15mm tournament played with 3.5 hour
> rounds, 1600 points, 1 list.
> >
> > 5. There will be 4 rounds of play. 3 rounds on Saturday and 1 on
Sunday
> morning.
> >
> > 6. Armies will be matched by historical opponents and the geographic
> region of the players as much as possible for the first two rounds.
Player
> points will determine matches in the last two rounds.
> >
> > 7. Scores will be keep for both teams and single player standings and
> awards will be given for both. Note: this makes it possible for a player
> not on a team to participate.
> >
> > 8. Lists: All Warrior lists and other lists approved for NICT play.
If
> Oriental Warrior is out by then, we are only looking at the Classical
lists
> from other sources.
> >
> > Notes:
> >
> > It was suggested that different members of teams bring armies from
> different books. While this has merit, there are many books and if we try
> to limit things this way, it brings up the question of which books are
> chosen. I think rule 6 will help address this.
> >
> > We can make up teams at the tournament for players who want a team or
> teams who need to add a player.
> >
> > It was also requested that we cater BBQ for dinner during the
tournament.
> We will do this.
> >
> > I suggest that at the 1st Annual Midwest Team tournament, we vote among
> the players Present for the location of the 2006 tournament. The KC group
is
> more than willing to rotate this tournament to other sites.
> >
> > I will finalize these rules on Nov 15, so get your suggestions in and if
> you see necessary additions, let me know. I would like to get these rules
> set, so we can use them for future tournaments without a lot of change.
> >
> > Questions:
> >
> > 1. Is there a team trophy out there from time past? If not do we want
> some type of traveling trophy?
> >
> > 2. If anyone comes from Pennsylvania, can you bring a case of Lancaster
> Milk Stout? If not, I'll just have to wait until Cold Wars.
> >
> > Charles
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Greg Regets]

Our old team scoring method used the raw score between the two
players, and applied it to the team's score.

Example, if David Beeson was on a San Antonio team and Jon Cleaves
was on a Kansas City team, and David beat Jon 500 to 250, the San
Antonio team would add 250 to their running total, and the Kansas
City team would subtract 250 from theirs.

The thought was three-fold, a)strength of opponents really does not
have any bearing on a team game, b) when two players from different
teams match up, the scoring emphasis is doubled, c)when players from
the same team play each other, the team score ends up being a wash.

g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 10/21/2004 21:31:31 Central Daylight Time,
> yaw@m... writes:
>
> This does need looked at. My first thought would be that
teammates could
> not play unless they would meet in round 4. Surely they would
play for 1st
> place.>>
> Charles, I would look carefully at that. Two teammates playing
each other
> in round four could manipulate the game to score what they needed
to to win.
> My strong recommendation is that they don't play each other before
the final
> game. This of course means you will not have a perfect
progression for the
> individual 'champion', but it does seem to me you want to
emphasize the team
> aspect and have that be a secondary outcome.
>
> <<It should be possible to use Scott Holder scoring for the
individual
> tournament and just use the game points from each round for the
team score.>>
> FWIW, I think this is exactly right.
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

The old 7th Front Range Challenge used the same system. However that event was
*only* a team event where team members did not play each other.

<<The thought was three-fold, a)strength of opponents really does not
have any bearing on a team game>>

However, I must disagree on this point. We are going to have wildly different
play levels at this event and it is important, I think, to take that into
account. It may not need to be factored into the team score, true, but it does
need to be taken into account in teams of who plays whom after round one.

<< b) when two players from different
teams match up, the scoring emphasis is doubled, c)when players from
the same team play each other, the team score ends up being a wash.>>

Again, if one team is forced to an internal game and another competitive team is
not, this really screws team one. I would suggest strongly not creating a
situation where team members play each other - a wash would be deadly and a
complete show stopper to a two-man team.

Just my $0.02
J

[Charles Yaw]

> Charles, I would look carefully at that. Two teammates playing each
> other in round four could manipulate the game to score what they >
>needed to win.
> My strong recommendation is that they don't play each other before
the final game. This of course means you will not have a perfect
>progression for the individual 'champion', but it does seem to me you
>want to emphasize the team aspect and have that be a secondary
>outcome.

Round 4 will be the final round unless we figure out a way to play 5
rounds. And I agree, we need to look at this.

Charles

[Steve Hollowell]

Do people really feel a need for an individual championship... enough to the
extent that it could conflict with the team challenge? I thought the whole team
aspect was the focus of this event.

riderofrohan2001 <yaw@...> wrote:


> Charles, I would look carefully at that. Two teammates playing each
> other in round four could manipulate the game to score what they >
>needed to win.
> My strong recommendation is that they don't play each other before
the final game. This of course means you will not have a perfect
>progression for the individual 'champion', but it does seem to me you
>want to emphasize the team aspect and have that be a secondary
>outcome.

Round 4 will be the final round unless we figure out a way to play 5
rounds. And I agree, we need to look at this.

Charles







Yahoo! Groups Links









__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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

[Patrick Byrne]

Idea 1: I'm a big fan of something like the Stanley Cup that has names
engraved on it.
Idea 1a: Out side of a cup, one could make an 11x17 wood plaqard that gets
1"x3" brass plates nailed to it each year. When the plaqard gets full, add
2 more 8 1/2"x11" plaqards to it via hinges. When those get full, well,
call it successful enough to graduate to a silver Stanley Cup!

-PB




----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Yaw" <yaw@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 9:30 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Midwest Team Tournament


>
>
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Midwest Team Tournament
>
> > Nice Post Charles,
>
> Thanks Patrick, I just want to get this thing going.
>
> > 1. Is rule 6 meant to also say that players on the same team will >not
> play eachother? Say teammates play eachother, and the 3rd >teammate is
> playing a rookie. The two teammates could play to a >5-1 victory, and the
> other teammate could get a 5 against the >rookie, thusly scoring 10pts.
And
> even though you may not think >anyone would do that (and most likely
won't)
> the thought is there >for animosity to build on.
>
> This does need looked at. My first thought would be that teammates could
> not play unless they would meet in round 4. Surely they would play for
1st
> place.
>
> > 2. Will the Scott Holder type of scoring be used? I can't see how >as
his
> system is per player all the way to the finish, while you're >suggesting
> taking 2 best scores each round.
>
> It should be possible to use Scott Holder scoring for the individual
> tournament and just use the game points from each round for the team
score.
>
> > 3. Absolutely want a traveling Trophy.
>
> Any suggestions on what this should be?
>
> > 4. Thanks for being on the ball about this... I am looking >forward to
> this tourney.
> >
> > -PB
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Charles Yaw" <yaw@...>
> > To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 6:49 PM
> > Subject: [WarriorRules] Midwest Team Tournament
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I received several good suggestions about the format of the proposed
> team
> > tournament. I am going to list a draft set of rules for this tournament
> > below based on those suggestions and some that have been made by Kansas
> City
> > players. Please post your comments and thoughts on these rules. I will
> > also post a couple of questions at the end.
> > >
> > > 1st Annual Midwest Team Tournament.
> > >
> > > 1. The tournament can rotate among interested host cities, but always
> > will be between the Rocky Mountains and the Mississippi, hence Midwest.
> The
> > first one will be held in Kansas City on the weekend of MLK day.
> > >
> > > 2. The tournament is open to all teams who want to participate. Come
> on
> > out East and West coast players, the BBQ is worth the trip alone.
> > >
> > > 3. Teams will be 3 players, each playing their own army. The best
two
> > scores will count each round. Note: a 2 player team could participate
and
> > not drop scores.
> > >
> > > 4. The format will be an Open 15mm tournament played with 3.5 hour
> > rounds, 1600 points, 1 list.
> > >
> > > 5. There will be 4 rounds of play. 3 rounds on Saturday and 1 on
> Sunday
> > morning.
> > >
> > > 6. Armies will be matched by historical opponents and the geographic
> > region of the players as much as possible for the first two rounds.
> Player
> > points will determine matches in the last two rounds.
> > >
> > > 7. Scores will be keep for both teams and single player standings and
> > awards will be given for both. Note: this makes it possible for a
player
> > not on a team to participate.
> > >
> > > 8. Lists: All Warrior lists and other lists approved for NICT play.
> If
> > Oriental Warrior is out by then, we are only looking at the Classical
> lists
> > from other sources.
> > >
> > > Notes:
> > >
> > > It was suggested that different members of teams bring armies from
> > different books. While this has merit, there are many books and if we
try
> > to limit things this way, it brings up the question of which books are
> > chosen. I think rule 6 will help address this.
> > >
> > > We can make up teams at the tournament for players who want a team or
> > teams who need to add a player.
> > >
> > > It was also requested that we cater BBQ for dinner during the
> tournament.
> > We will do this.
> > >
> > > I suggest that at the 1st Annual Midwest Team tournament, we vote
among
> > the players Present for the location of the 2006 tournament. The KC
group
> is
> > more than willing to rotate this tournament to other sites.
> > >
> > > I will finalize these rules on Nov 15, so get your suggestions in and
if
> > you see necessary additions, let me know. I would like to get these
rules
> > set, so we can use them for future tournaments without a lot of change.
> > >
> > > Questions:
> > >
> > > 1. Is there a team trophy out there from time past? If not do we
want
> > some type of traveling trophy?
> > >
> > > 2. If anyone comes from Pennsylvania, can you bring a case of
Lancaster
> > Milk Stout? If not, I'll just have to wait until Cold Wars.
> > >
> > > Charles
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Charles Yaw]

This is a good point Steven. A couple of issues have come up about
the scoring that need to be addressed. I am much more interested in
the team aspect of this tournament than trying to make sure we run a
balanced individual tournament. If that means we only have a team
tournament, well that is the primary focus.

And to Patrick, great ideas on the team trophy.

Charles

>Steven Hollowell wrote:
> Do people really feel a need for an individual championship...
>enough to the extent that it could conflict with the team
>challenge? I thought the whole team aspect was the focus of this
>event.
>

[Greg Regets]

Is anyone possibly looking for a teammate for this event, which I
believe is January 15, 16 in Kansas City?

I'm not the worst player in the world and would like to attend, but
do not think a team from my area is going to be a going concern.

Perhaps some other strays like myself might be interested. If so,
please be so kind as to email me at:

greg.regets@...

Thanks ... g