Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

Allow two list variants. I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it. If you
allow two list variants, then a larger number of armies become viable. This is
almost a mathematical truism. A number of lists have one vulnerability if taken
one way (say, elephants) and another vulnerability if taken another way (say,
knights). So people don't play such lists in serious competition. Not only are
we limiting the number of viable armies by restricting competition to one list,
but we are limiting the variety in lists that are played, as they tend towards a
safe, homogenized, middle ground. Look at the armies that finished in the top
third at Cold Wars and the top third in the NICT, and tell me how much variety
there really is (recognizing that a handful of army types can be instantiated
on many different army lists). Enough already! Can we go back to two lists now,
please?

Random thought on number of rounds in the NICT. I'd prefer fewer rounds and
fewer days. If it meant going back to a separate 15mm and 25mm champion, I'd
probably opt for that over trying to figure out how to take almost a week out
of my work/family life next year.


-Mark Stone

[John Murphy]

Some crazy ideas just too unorthodox (technically that would make
them heterodox or therfore heretical wouldn't it) for anyone else to
suggest...

Crazy #1. Instead of causing scheduling headaches by splitting days
at H-con, why not simply move the entire prelim rounds to Cold Wars?
Play the first 3 rounds of the NICT at Cold Wars then use Sat-Sun at
Historicon to play the final four rounds. Thus giving you a whole 7
rounds (way more than enough) without tramping on top of any other
tournaments. Less burnout factor this way too.

Crazy #2. One, two list, schmoo list. Select a 1,000 point (pick a
number) "core" army. Use it every game. To this you add 600 points
(pick a number) of whatever in God's green earth you like off your
army list for your chosen period/region/etcetera. Only restriction
is both the "core" and the whole version for each game are tourney-
legal lists for your army.

Yeah, these will happen! Right!

[Todd Kaeser]

Crazy #1. Instead of causing scheduling headaches by splitting days
at H-con, why not simply move the entire prelim rounds to Cold Wars?
Play the first 3 rounds of the NICT at Cold Wars then use Sat-Sun at
Historicon to play the final four rounds. Thus giving you a whole 7
rounds (way more than enough) without tramping on top of any other
tournaments. Less burnout factor this way too.

>> This would effectively limit the field even more than the 2 day format. I
know that making Cold Wars for me has become more and more difficult for me due
to its timing. I'd be in agreement with Markowitz at taking a look at "not
touching the theme" point of view. While I missed playing in the mini (1200 pts
is a much cleaner game in my view) I feel the 5 round tournament gave a clearer
picture of a champion.

Todd Kaeser




Crazy #2. One, two list, schmoo list. Select a 1,000 point (pick a
number) "core" army. Use it every game. To this you add 600 points
(pick a number) of whatever in God's green earth you like off your
army list for your chosen period/region/etcetera. Only restriction
is both the "core" and the whole version for each game are tourney-
legal lists for your army.

Yeah, these will happen! Right!




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

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I like Crazy idea #2!

John <jjmurphy@...> wrote:Some crazy ideas just too unorthodox
(technically that would make
them heterodox or therfore heretical wouldn't it) for anyone else to
suggest...

Crazy #1. Instead of causing scheduling headaches by splitting days
at H-con, why not simply move the entire prelim rounds to Cold Wars?
Play the first 3 rounds of the NICT at Cold Wars then use Sat-Sun at
Historicon to play the final four rounds. Thus giving you a whole 7
rounds (way more than enough) without tramping on top of any other
tournaments. Less burnout factor this way too.

Crazy #2. One, two list, schmoo list. Select a 1,000 point (pick a
number) "core" army. Use it every game. To this you add 600 points
(pick a number) of whatever in God's green earth you like off your
army list for your chosen period/region/etcetera. Only restriction
is both the "core" and the whole version for each game are tourney-
legal lists for your army.

Yeah, these will happen! Right!



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!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.

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

[Ewan McNay]

Mark Stone wrote:

> Allow two list variants. I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it. If you
> allow two list variants, then a larger number of armies become viable. This is
> almost a mathematical truism.

Hey, I get to disagree with Mark .

I agree that a player's choices from a list, taken in isolation,
cannot be harmed/reduced by alowing two lists.

However, I think that that there are a relatively small number of
lists which allow for such great flexibility as to make them
significantly superior under such a format; if one accepts this, then
allowing two (or more!) lists actually *reduces* the number of viable
tournament armies, because the lists that were previously OK but have
no bonus from being allowed to field a second version are no longer
competitive.

An extreme example is my Seleucids; when two lists were permitted, I
took one with 10 elephants (my 'general' list) and one with no
elephants but (I think) 4 units of SHC and some EHC, for use against
irregular LMI/MI barbarian types. This was a huge plus for me, but an
even more enormous negative for any barbarian opponent, rendering (to
me) such armies unplayable. It's pretty rare that a barbarian foot
guy can do anything but field masses of barbarian foot.

Late Romans are another classic example. Even my Persians might do
well, going from a LC army to a close foot, double-armed force as
needed. But if say a Khmer can go from having 22 elephants against
knight armies to 4 or so (but huge numbers of LHI) against Mixtecs,
there aren't going to be too many Mixtecs.

> A number of lists have one vulnerability if taken
> one way (say, elephants) and another vulnerability if taken another way (say,
> knights). So people don't play such lists in serious competition. Not only are
> we limiting the number of viable armies by restricting competition to one
list,
> but we are limiting the variety in lists that are played, as they tend towards
a
> safe, homogenized, middle ground. Look at the armies that finished in the top
> third at Cold Wars and the top third in the NICT, and tell me how much variety
> there really is (recognizing that a handful of army types can be instantiated
> on many different army lists). Enough already! Can we go back to two lists
now,
> please?

So, I think that going to two lists would leave us a much smaller
number, but the only way to tell (given that we've had all new lists
since the last major multi-list comp) is to try it, I guess.

> Random thought on number of rounds in the NICT. I'd prefer fewer rounds and
> fewer days. If it meant going back to a separate 15mm and 25mm champion, I'd
> probably opt for that over trying to figure out how to take almost a week out
> of my work/family life next year.

And of course Mark and I disagree here also. Had to happen some time .

Ewan

[Todd Schneider]

Wouldn't going to a two list format also arbitrily
limit the number of lists played, as smarter, savvier
players will choose a list that gives them the best of
both options, and leave those lists that look
intriguing but aren't as flexible back home?
That is, if you go to a two list format, you won't see
lists like the Silla Koreans, or the Burmese, Berber,
Mdianites, or lists along those lines at the NICT.

Todd

[Paul Georgian]

In a message dated 8/10/2004 7:18:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, Todd
Schneider
writes:

>>Wouldn't going to a two list format also arbitrily
limit the number of lists played, as smarter, savvier
players will choose a list that gives them the best of
both options, and leave those lists that look
intriguing but aren't as flexible back home?
That is, if you go to a two list format, you won't see
lists like the Silla Koreans, or the Burmese, Berber,
Mdianites, or lists along those lines at the NICT.<<



Lurk mode off-


Well, just my personal opinion, but from strictly an observer's viewpoint, I
would consider it a good thing that gimmicky armies that historically were
insignificant or ineffective (or both in the case of the Midianites) become
less attractive to players in the NICT (BTW, I've had this opinion unwaveringly
since 6th edition as those who know me can attest to.). Then the really h
istorically effective armies of history might have a better chance of coming to
the fore.

I know, I know. It's only a dream. :-)

Lurk mode on-

Paul G.






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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Todd,

You can bet on the fact that unless I can paint up a different army, I will
be playing Burmese no matter what. In fact, even when allowed more than one
list, I usually end up playing only one anyway. I still think it would be nice
to allow more than one for players (especially those that bring hopless lists
such as Hoplite Greeks ) to adjust to Ahistorical out of period opponents. By
the way, thanks again for the cool shavings for my caltrops! Charles, if your
reading this, I plan on purchasing lots of caltrops for Mr. Elephants and Mr.
Catboy!

kelly

Todd Schneider <thresh1642@...> wrote:
Wouldn't going to a two list format also arbitrily
limit the number of lists played, as smarter, savvier
players will choose a list that gives them the best of
both options, and leave those lists that look
intriguing but aren't as flexible back home?
That is, if you go to a two list format, you won't see
lists like the Silla Koreans, or the Burmese, Berber,
Mdianites, or lists along those lines at the NICT.

Todd

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!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

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

[Mark Mallard]

Hi,

Although in the UK and am not directly involved i have a voice in the
international scene. I feel that the weaker lists do better in a one list only
environment. They already have little to choose from, that is what makes them
weak in a lot of cases and of course the converse is true for the stronger
lists. So on this issue im a one list man and always will be.

If i took my hoplites to a tourney it would have to be a one lister.

mark mallard






Todd,

You can bet on the fact that unless I can paint up a different army, I will
be playing Burmese no matter what. In fact, even when allowed more than one
list, I usually end up playing only one anyway. I still think it would be nice
to allow more than one for players (especially those that bring hopless lists
such as Hoplite Greeks ) to adjust to Ahistorical out of period opponents. By
the way, thanks again for the cool shavings for my caltrops! Charles, if your
reading this, I plan on purchasing lots of caltrops for Mr. Elephants and Mr.
Catboy!

kelly

Todd Schneider <thresh1642@...> wrote:
Wouldn't going to a two list format also arbitrily
limit the number of lists played, as smarter, savvier
players will choose a list that gives them the best of
both options, and leave those lists that look
intriguing but aren't as flexible back home?
That is, if you go to a two list format, you won't see
lists like the Silla Koreans, or the Burmese, Berber,
Mdianites, or lists along those lines at the NICT.

Todd

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Mark,

I suspect that I'd take more light infantry against a army consisting of
loads of mounted if I could with a list consisting of HK and heavier types. I
think that having more options is better in most situations. That is what has
drawn me to Warrior. There are so many options in tactics, list choice, terrain
usage, etc. . . And I suspect that many opponents could adapt to common foes
and thier army content to enhance their chances on any given battlefield. Which
is one reason I would favor more than one list option for people who wish it. As
I said before, I usually take one list as I am becoming lazy when it comes to
making lists. The fact is, I didn't look at creating my NICT list until the last
moment to send to Scott Holder. I'm content with one list usage for myself but
don't understand the need to limit others who wish to have a second option. I
come to play and will happily fight my army against any such opponent.

kelly

markmallard77@... wrote:

Hi,

Although in the UK and am not directly involved i have a voice in the
international scene. I feel that the weaker lists do better in a one list only
environment. They already have little to choose from, that is what makes them
weak in a lot of cases and of course the converse is true for the stronger
lists. So on this issue im a one list man and always will be.

If i took my hoplites to a tourney it would have to be a one lister.

mark mallard






Todd,

You can bet on the fact that unless I can paint up a different army, I will
be playing Burmese no matter what. In fact, even when allowed more than one
list, I usually end up playing only one anyway. I still think it would be nice
to allow more than one for players (especially those that bring hopless lists
such as Hoplite Greeks ) to adjust to Ahistorical out of period opponents. By
the way, thanks again for the cool shavings for my caltrops! Charles, if your
reading this, I plan on purchasing lots of caltrops for Mr. Elephants and Mr.
Catboy!

kelly

Todd Schneider <thresh1642@...> wrote:
Wouldn't going to a two list format also arbitrily
limit the number of lists played, as smarter, savvier
players will choose a list that gives them the best of
both options, and leave those lists that look
intriguing but aren't as flexible back home?
That is, if you go to a two list format, you won't see
lists like the Silla Koreans, or the Burmese, Berber,
Mdianites, or lists along those lines at the NICT.

Todd



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!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

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