Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Mark Stone wrote:
>I think the deeper problem is that we, as a group, don't actually
>know what we want from a points system, and even when we think we
>know, if we actually got it we wouldn't like it.

My grandmother always told me to be careful, or I might get what I
want :)

But seriously, before going into details, as things seem to be
devolving, discussion of the purpose of the points system is very
valuable, as if we can agree on this, then the rest of the
discussion can be more focussed.

In general, my feeling is that when two players play a game, the
goal is to determine who is the better, and importantly luckier,
player. After all, this isn't chess. But like chess, if one player
were to have better pieces, the game would be about proving that the
handicapped player is much better than his opponent.

So, my question is do we care if the point system doesn't do a good
job of balancing out the pieces?

Becuase I like to play in tournaments, I'd say yes. When I lose, I
want it to be because of how good my opponent is, not how good his
pieces are. The more the pieces you bring to the table influence
the outcome of a game, the less interested I am in the game.

That said, I'm interested in Warrior, and I don't think the point
system is awful. However, the scope of tournament gaming does mean
that the holes in the system do tend to be glaring, and as such I'd
recommend we look at the point system in detail.

But by the same measure, an comittee is terrible at designing
things. Far better, as John has said before, for people to propose
a complete revised system (preferably with supporting documentation
for changes) and then comment on them indvidually.

Thanks
Cole

[Bill Chriss]

>
> Becuase I like to play in tournaments, I'd say yes. When I lose, I
> want it to be because of how good my opponent is, not how good his
> pieces are. The more the pieces you bring to the table influence
> the outcome of a game, the less interested I am in the game.
>
> That said, I'm interested in Warrior, and I don't think the point
> system is awful. However, the scope of tournament gaming does mean
> that the holes in the system do tend to be glaring, and as such I'd
> recommend we look at the point system in detail.
>
> But by the same measure, an comittee is terrible at designing
> things. Far better, as John has said before, for people to propose
> a complete revised system (preferably with supporting documentation
> for changes) and then comment on them indvidually.
>
> Thanks
> Cole


I agree with this part. Accepting Ewan's critique, though, it appears this
al1 pretty much boils down to two things:

1.Costing list rules (here we go again), and
2. Modifying troop costs to try to improve play balance, e.g., pike should
cost more than LTS, etc., etc.

I want to return to one of Mark's points: that there is an advantage to
contrarianism. If everyone is going to totally ruthlessly select army
configurations based totally on hypothetical point maximization, then
those of us with contrarian tendencies may end up with an edge, although
we use armies that are not 'cost-effective.' This is why, for example,
knuckleball pitchers can be very effective, especially if batters are all
psyched up to face fastballs. It is, as Mark has said, much more complex
and interrelated than might first appear.......which is good. So my advice
is that everyone should max out on Burmese elephants so that's all my
little Reg B LHI LTS, JLS, Sh Greeks will ever have to face!

-Greek


-Greek

[Tim Grimmett]

Part of the appeal of Warrior is that you *do* get to pick and design the
pieces. These pieces' power varies from game to game based on matchups.

A great deal of the success one player has over another has to do with how he
designs an army, organizes it, thinks through a doctine of how to fight, and
lastly implements it on the battlefield. The focus appears to be on the last
part.

Everytime Ewan stomps my face in a tournament it is because he outthinks me in
every phase of the game I've described, often before we dice for terrain, thus
ensuring luck will have a minimal impact.

Whatever point system is (re)designed will be subject to the same series of
criticisms.

In some form or another we all like a point system to frame this game: for
example I've heard no suggestion that FHE do away with lists and FHE dictates
what an army consists of (like in FW).




Nicholas Cioran <ncioran@...> wrote:

In general, my feeling is that when two players play a game, the
goal is to determine who is the better, and importantly luckier,
player. After all, this isn't chess. But like chess, if one player
were to have better pieces, the game would be about proving that the
handicapped player is much better than his opponent.


Becuase I like to play in tournaments, I'd say yes. When I lose, I
want it to be because of how good my opponent is, not how good his
pieces are. The more the pieces you bring to the table influence
the outcome of a game, the less interested I am in the game.

That said, I'm interested in Warrior, and I don't think the point
system is awful. However, the scope of tournament gaming does mean
that the holes in the system do tend to be glaring, and as such I'd
recommend we look at the point system in detail.








---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.

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