Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Dave Markowitz]

A few points about this year's NITC format:

1. Although it would not have made a difference this year, I liked the five
battle format. We have an undisputed champion, even if it's Derek:). However,
the 12:00 Thursday start time left some on the sidelines. Such things as an
early Sunday battle could be helpful. I also think that the theme could be
staggered, to allow for a Friday game. In short, I think the "we can't touch
the theme format" assumption needs to be discussed. My guess is, as with most
scheduling conflicts, a creative solution exists that allows most people to make
the trip.

2. For the past few years, the one list tourney format has taken hold.
Although I guess I'm fine with it, it penalizes lists that have flexibility,
such as Late Romans. The big beneficiaries of this format are lopsided lists,
such as my Midianites (Axtecs and Koreans also fall in this group). In a two
list format, my guess is that they would face many a person's "heavey-missile"
list. My guess is that we'd see more of the later Byzantine and other armies if
one could go with an infantry and cav option. I'd think about rotating the one
list/two list tourney formats, as I think different formats promote varied army
use.

Dave.

[Frank Gilson]

I'd agree with everything Dave says...I think 5 rounds was fine, but
we could fit them in without using Thursday....if it came down to
only 4 rounds (using Sunday morning) or having to use Thursday, I'd
drop back down to 4 rounds.

I think my opinion that 2 list versions is better is already known.

Frank

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, DMarkowitz@a... wrote:
>
> A few points about this year's NITC format:
>
> 1. Although it would not have made a difference this year, I
liked the five battle format. We have an undisputed champion, even
if it's Derek:). However, the 12:00 Thursday start time left some
on the sidelines. Such things as an early Sunday battle could be
helpful. I also think that the theme could be staggered, to allow
for a Friday game. In short, I think the "we can't touch the theme
format" assumption needs to be discussed. My guess is, as with most
scheduling conflicts, a creative solution exists that allows most
people to make the trip.
>
> 2. For the past few years, the one list tourney format has taken
hold. Although I guess I'm fine with it, it penalizes lists that
have flexibility, such as Late Romans. The big beneficiaries of
this format are lopsided lists, such as my Midianites (Axtecs and
Koreans also fall in this group). In a two list format, my guess is
that they would face many a person's "heavey-missile" list. My
guess is that we'd see more of the later Byzantine and other armies
if one could go with an infantry and cav option. I'd think about
rotating the one list/two list tourney formats, as I think different
formats promote varied army use.
>
> Dave.

[Ewan McNay]

Hmm. On the one-list/two-list thing, I think (despite my one-list
heritage) that it's worth having two lists some years, so agree.

On the scheduling, I am still at the 'more rounds are good' point. If
starting at noon on Thurs is effectively the same as starting Thurs a.m.
(which I'm not convinced of), then start Thurs a.m. and play seven rounds,
including Sunday. Or, as Dave suggests, put a Theme round on Thurs p.m.
and have an NICT round on Fri.

One recent UK idea had been to have a Friday session where you play as
many games as you can fit. That would be interesting, too...

...lots of possibilities. Spreading over two events is even possible.
Anyone volunteering to collate this stuff?

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, Frank Gilson wrote:

> I'd agree with everything Dave says...I think 5 rounds was fine, but
> we could fit them in without using Thursday....if it came down to
> only 4 rounds (using Sunday morning) or having to use Thursday, I'd
> drop back down to 4 rounds.
>
> I think my opinion that 2 list versions is better is already known.
>
> Frank
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, DMarkowitz@a... wrote:
> >
> > A few points about this year's NITC format:
> >
> > 1. Although it would not have made a difference this year, I
> liked the five battle format. We have an undisputed champion, even
> if it's Derek:). However, the 12:00 Thursday start time left some
> on the sidelines. Such things as an early Sunday battle could be
> helpful. I also think that the theme could be staggered, to allow
> for a Friday game. In short, I think the "we can't touch the theme
> format" assumption needs to be discussed. My guess is, as with most
> scheduling conflicts, a creative solution exists that allows most
> people to make the trip.
> >
> > 2. For the past few years, the one list tourney format has taken
> hold. Although I guess I'm fine with it, it penalizes lists that
> have flexibility, such as Late Romans. The big beneficiaries of
> this format are lopsided lists, such as my Midianites (Axtecs and
> Koreans also fall in this group). In a two list format, my guess is
> that they would face many a person's "heavey-missile" list. My
> guess is that we'd see more of the later Byzantine and other armies
> if one could go with an infantry and cav option. I'd think about
> rotating the one list/two list tourney formats, as I think different
> formats promote varied army use.
> >
> > Dave.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Doug]

>A few points about this year's NITC format:
>
>1. Although it would not have made a difference this year, I liked
>the five battle format. We have an undisputed champion, even if
>it's Derek:). However, the 12:00 Thursday start time left some on
>the sidelines. Such things as an early Sunday battle could be
>helpful. I also think that the theme could be staggered, to allow
>for a Friday game. In short, I think the "we can't touch the theme
>format" assumption needs to be discussed. My guess is, as with most
>scheduling conflicts, a creative solution exists that allows most
>people to make the trip.

Outside the box thinking-- Since by definition the NICT players are
high caliber, do they really need to play in the first round of a
Theme? If you could come up with a scoring method, they could get a
bye for a Theme round and use the time to play a round of the NICT.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/3/2004 07:45:12 Central Daylight Time,
Harlan.D.Garrett@... writes:

Are you only polling attendees or are all NASAMW members. It would be
interesting to compare the results of both groups. I beat we would see a
clear difference between the two.



The answer to this question has already been debated endlessly. Let's keep
the discussion here limited to recommending alternate format ideas to Scott.
NASAMW political issues are for NASAMWList.

Thanks for your support in this matter.

Jon


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

[scott holder]

I will again be polling players and these issues will be subjects in the poll.
Remember, what we did this year was the result of clear majorities of those
voting. See previous posts here regarding results.

scott

[Harlan Garrett]

Are you only polling attendees or are all NASAMW members. It would be
interesting to compare the results of both groups. I beat we would see a
clear difference between the two.

-----Original Message-----
From: Holder, Scott [mailto:Scott.Holder@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 6:34 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] NITC Format

I will again be polling players and these issues will be subjects in the
poll. Remember, what we did this year was the result of clear majorities of
those voting. See previous posts here regarding results.

scott


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/IMSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


Yahoo! Groups Links

[Kelly Wilkinson]

As far as point 1 goes, I like the way we did our Nict/theme format. To me, it
is a nice break to be able to play in the theme. As for point 2, I
wholeheartedly agree with Dave about the 2 list tourney. You will note that I
usually play Burmese in 25mm and this is a one list pony for me (the status quo
benefits me). But here is my take on an open tournament as opposed to a themed
event. In the open, one is liable to hit many non-historical opponents that
could be outright mis-matches. Take Rome for instance, When they went to invade
the Parthians, they brought Armenian allies (Horse Archers and Cataphracts) When
invading the Dacians, perhaps an EHI option would be available and local allies
or suitable troops could be made available.

kelly

DMarkowitz@... wrote:

A few points about this year's NITC format:

1. Although it would not have made a difference this year, I liked the five
battle format. We have an undisputed champion, even if it's Derek:). However,
the 12:00 Thursday start time left some on the sidelines. Such things as an
early Sunday battle could be helpful. I also think that the theme could be
staggered, to allow for a Friday game. In short, I think the "we can't touch
the theme format" assumption needs to be discussed. My guess is, as with most
scheduling conflicts, a creative solution exists that allows most people to make
the trip.

2. For the past few years, the one list tourney format has taken hold.
Although I guess I'm fine with it, it penalizes lists that have flexibility,
such as Late Romans. The big beneficiaries of this format are lopsided lists,
such as my Midianites (Axtecs and Koreans also fall in this group). In a two
list format, my guess is that they would face many a person's "heavey-missile"
list. My guess is that we'd see more of the later Byzantine and other armies if
one could go with an infantry and cav option. I'd think about rotating the one
list/two list tourney formats, as I think different formats promote varied army
use.

Dave.

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!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.

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

It's probably a little late to be adding my opinion to this one, but I took
the time to read what everyone had to say on this and gave it a lot of
thought.

I like the single list model, despite the fact my own army would benefit
greatly from having an alternate list. My army has something to beat almost
any opponent, but if you try to put it all on one list you end up an army
that has no focus. I think there is some merit in having to pick a fighting
doctrine and then make the most of it. I also agree that 2 lists benefits me
more than it does the armies that are already worse off than mine. I found
that argument the most persuasive.

Allan