Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

--- On February 16 Charles said: ---

>>
>> If a list has a line for Irr C LI @ 4 points per stand and that LI is
>> downgradable to Irr D LI @ 2 points per stand, which is the list cost
>> limit, the Irr C @ 4 points (the standard list entry) or the
>> downgrade Irr D LI @ 2 points?>>
>>
--- To which Jon replied: ---
>
> Irr D at 2 points.
>

So, this is not at _all_ how I've understood it. I can adjust, and I will. But
Jon, you should make this point clearer and more widely known. I bet a _lot_ of
guys have not been doing it this way.

What I have assumed is that "less than the cheapest element" referred to what's
happens to be on your list, rather than what could be on your list. In other
words, if something could be downgraded to D class, but on my list I don't
downgrade, then I've assumed my cheapest element was C class.

To put it another way, its the difference between cheapest actual element and
cheapest potential element on a list. If it's cheapest potential element,
that's different from what I had thought, and, by the way, is a small
disadvantage for any list that has Irr E troops on it.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

To put it another way, its the difference between cheapest actual element and
cheapest potential element on a list. If it's cheapest potential element,
that's different from what I had thought, and, by the way, is a small
disadvantage for any list that has Irr E troops on it.>>

I don't know about this actual/potential stuff. It says cheapest and they are
all potential until they are bought and then they are actual, so that
differentiation is both meaningless to me as well as not being at all part of
the rule. I don't agree that that being on different lines makes an element
less part of what can be cheapest than another.

Truth be told, I HATE this method. I have been meaning to look at taking it all
the way out of 14.0 - it does indeed slightly disadvantage a list with D'd and
E's, but then the whole original idea was to give expensive lists a break on
ease of writing, given that at 1600 points, 2-4 points is statistically
meaningless.

But I can tell ya, that I am even more strongly motivated to remove it and not
ever have to listen to it again...lol

J

[Ewan McNay]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Mark Stone wrote:
> So, this is not at _all_ how I've understood it. I can adjust, and I will. But
> Jon, you should make this point clearer and more widely known. I bet a _lot_
of
> guys have not been doing it this way.

Um, yes; everyone I know (and certainly all the lists I've seen that it
would be relevant to).

e

[Ewan McNay]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 JonCleaves@... wrote:
> To put it another way, its the difference between cheapest actual element and
> cheapest potential element on a list. If it's cheapest potential element,
> that's different from what I had thought, and, by the way, is a small
> disadvantage for any list that has Irr E troops on it.>>
>
> I don't know about this actual/potential stuff. It says cheapest and they are
all potential until they are bought and then they are actual, so that
differentiation is both meaningless to me as well as not being at all part of
the rule. I don't agree that that being on different lines makes an element
less part of what can be cheapest than another.

Well, it's the difference between the cheapest in one's actual list, and
the cheapest in the army list; probably just a case of mis-reading the
word 'list'.

I admit I thought you would back up on this after a second read. Given
that confirmation - well, a lot of lists have been illegal.

> Truth be told, I HATE this method. I have been meaning to look at taking it
all the way out of 14.0 - it does indeed slightly disadvantage a list with D'd
and E's, but then the whole original idea was to give expensive lists a break on
ease of writing, given that at 1600 points, 2-4 points is statistically
meaningless.

I kinda dislike it myself, but think on balance it is good. But, I agree
it should be more clearly stated. Most lists probably not a big deal, as
IrrD LI B is a common troop type in both lists and armies.

You might consider simply changing the 'overage charge' so that any excess
of (say) 1600 is awarded x3 to opponent at game end or some such. Or
delete completely, sure, I don't see it as a big deal. But if Mark and I
(and, as I say, everyone I've ever talked lists with) are reading/playing
it one way, I bet that's the majority .

e

[joncleaves]

> So, this is not at _all_ how I've understood it. I can adjust, and I will. But
> Jon, you should make this point clearer and more widely known. I bet a _lot_
of
> guys have not been doing it this way.

Um, yes; everyone I know (and certainly all the lists I've seen that it
would be relevant to).>>

Ok, what are we saying here? That if an element is on a list but not a main
line it has not ever been considered cheapest just because it was a downgrade
(or whatever)? I am not sure how that element would end up not being
cheaper....

J

[Ewan McNay]

No: what I (and I think) Mark have assumed is: the cheapest element *THAT
YOU ACTUALLY TAKE IN YOUR ARMY* is the limit, not the cheapest that you
*could* have taken.

So if I run an army of Reg B LMI Incas, cheapest element say 20, then I
can have an army cost of up to 1620. Even though the list might contain
some Irr D LI B peasants - I didn't take them in my *army* so they're
irrelevant here.

You're saying that they're not irrelevant here - OK, but not what I've seen.

JonCleaves@... wrote:

>>So, this is not at _all_ how I've understood it. I can adjust, and I will. But
>>Jon, you should make this point clearer and more widely known. I bet a _lot_
of
>>guys have not been doing it this way.
>
>
> Um, yes; everyone I know (and certainly all the lists I've seen that it
> would be relevant to).>>
>
> Ok, what are we saying here? That if an element is on a list but not a main
line it has not ever been considered cheapest just because it was a downgrade
(or whatever)? I am not sure how that element would end up not being
cheaper....
>
> J
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Ed Forbes]

Jon,

The assumptions was that "list" was the finial list prepared by the player, not
the army list as a whole.

I do not care which way is played, but it does need to be clearly defined as so
many people do it different from your intent.

Ed

-- JonCleaves@... wrote:

> So, this is not at _all_ how I've understood it. I can adjust, and I will. But
> Jon, you should make this point clearer and more widely known. I bet a _lot_
of
> guys have not been doing it this way.

Um, yes; everyone I know (and certainly all the lists I've seen that it
would be relevant to).>>

Ok, what are we saying here? That if an element is on a list but not a main
line it has not ever been considered cheapest just because it was a downgrade
(or whatever)? I am not sure how that element would end up not being
cheaper....

J





Yahoo! Groups Links






___________________________________________________________________
Speed up your surfing with Juno SpeedBand.
Now includes pop-up blocker!
Only $14.95/month -visit http://www.juno.com/surf to sign up today!

[joncleaves]

Well, it's the difference between the cheapest in one's actual list, and
the cheapest in the army list; probably just a case of mis-reading the
word 'list'.>>

Interesting. Obviously we have two completely divergent and large sets of
'everyone I have ever talked to'....lol

The intent was certainly not to have it be in the actual list taken - that sort
of 'limiter' only plays into the min-maxer's hands. But, neither here nor there
at this point.

I'll scrub it when I get back to 14.0. It will either be gone or much more
clearly worded, but for now it means the army list.

Jon

[joncleaves]

I do not care which way is played, but it does need to be clearly defined as so
many people do it different from your intent.>>

Well, I *do* see a commonality between the folks who say its always been done
the other way...lol

BUT! I am not totally insensitive to how something was done for years under TOG
in various locales, etc. Before we make a final decision, we'll survey groups
and umpires, etc. This, after all, is not at all a core rule, but a 14.0 item
and no need to make a big change if indeed a huge majority has been doing it a
certain way and those who run tourneys are comfortable with it.

However, besides it never having been done that way around me, I can definitely
tell you that it was absolutely not my intent to give someone +20 points just
because he took all 20-point elements. And it was not the intent of the author
of the rule that line is taken from, either...lol

Right now it is army list, not taken list. I will get back to you all on a
final resolution.

J

[Doug]

What percentage of the allowed points remains "statistically
insignificant?" Typically 1% would be 12 or 16 points, which seems
enough to buy "one more" of most element types so you can make a
legal Regular unit from the otherwise leftover points short of the
allowed AP.

And since both players will probably "round up" the actual points
difference will be less, and thus even less significant.

What should happen if one player has some points leftover and the
other goes over? He could be credited a bonus amount to encourage
players to go over only by the minimum needed, instead of taking the
maximum.
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then,
that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress
shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every
other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an
American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of
either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it
will ever remain, in the hands of the People."- Tench Coxe, 1788.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm

This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains
information that may be privileged, confidential or copyrighted under
applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-mail,
in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender
by return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. Unless
explicitly and conspicuously designated as "E-Contract Intended",
this e-mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment,
or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-mail does not constitute
a consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing
purposes or for transfers of data to third parties.