Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Frank Gilson]

I don't mean 170 'points' of troops below...but 170 separate actual
figures. It's a rough guideline. I consider Mark's reasoning behind
the use of a Sacred Standard a better in-depth outline.

You've got to have a unique type of army, setup, and play style to
want to buy and use a Sacred Standard. Also, Sacred Standards
available to some armies don't affect all the troops on that army.
That's a complication too.

As for Ewan's later comment on Personal Standards, why those exist
so you can trade them in for wagons or ditches or pits!

Frank

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/16/2004 4:12:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
franktrevorgilson@h... writes:
>
> > It has to be worth its points. So, the benefit it provides
> > (eagerness to Irr C/D troops) has a point value. What kind?
Well, it
> > only provides eagerness...it doesn't elevate Irr C/D to Irr B,
thus
> > I count it as worth 1/2 point per figure.>>
>
> Interesting. Of course S standards provide eagerness to all
troops, including Reg B, C, D and even irregular E. Given that the
raise of a point from Reg D to Reg C or C to B does not include
eagerness, the 1/2 point per figure isn't really a comparative
measure.
>
> And again - the point system in Warrior is not purely a relative
combat power measure. It includes the concepts of 'rarity'
and 'training difficulty' - as do many other games.
>
> >
> > So, if I have an 85 point Sacred Standard, I need to have it
give
> > eagerness to 170 Irr C/D troops! Hmmm...I don't see that
> > happening,
> > thus for me, a Sacred Standard is overcosted.>>
>
> Given that a 480p radius would permit giving eagerness to a great
many more than 170 points of troops, I am not sure why that seems to
be an issue. But I do know that those players who compete heavily
and seek to get every drop of combat power from every point (despite
the fact that that is not the only basis of point cost in Warrior)
find several Warrior choices as suboptimal. Frank and Ewan are
chief among these - and i am not speaking pejoratively, this is a
perfectly acceptable way to lok at the game, especially if you play
a lot of other competition games who *do* try to base their points
on relative combat power assessments, which Frank and Ewan do.
>
> Jon

[Ewan McNay]

Frank Gilson wrote:
> As for Ewan's later comment on Personal Standards, why those exist
> so you can trade them in for wagons or ditches or pits!

Actually, that's a good point - or my preferred option, rocks. I find
that just making a deal out of the fact that a hill placed in a
forward sector is steep *and* rocky gives one's opponent pause .

I think part of the reason that I don't rate sacred standards, though,
Jon noted: that I generally aim to win the battle at one section of
the line, and have an advancing PA there, rather than across a broader
front. That latter approach is really hard to do with anything except
a line of close foot (for resilience, to avoiding losing in detail
before winning in general) which is then really difficult to press
with at all. IMNSHO, and with exceptions - e.g. Incas.

Are you allowed to just trade in the personal standard, without trading
in the entire element?

>
> Frank Gilson wrote:
> > As for Ewan's later comment on Personal Standards, why those exist
> > so you can trade them in for wagons or ditches or pits!


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