Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Bard" <mwbard@t...>
wrote:
>
> > Games where everyone has an equal footing except for
skill/ability or luck
> > usualy do best in the popularity stakes.
>
> Far more important in success than absolute point equality is
placing
> terrain. This is solely skill and luck, point value doesn't affect
it.
> Should we have a surcharge for people who statistically get
the "+1" for
> native climate?

Funny you should say this I was just pondering the effects of
tropical home clime 3and OW myself. I mean every tropical climate
army always fights in tropical therefore always gets the +1.

John O

[Mike Bard]

Wipes egg of face.

It was late and I was tired...

Here we go again with the -2 at first bound.

Bound 1:
LTS Body: -> 72
2HCW Body -> 12@7 (including -2 for facing LTS) -> 72

Standoff. Each take 3CPF

Bound 2:
LTS Body: -> 54
2HCW Body: -> 18@6 (losing +1 for following up) -> 90

LTS recoils with 6 CPF total, 2HCW follows up with 6 CPF. Assume both pass
waver test for second cause of disorder.

Bound 3:
LTS Body: -> 18@3 -> 45 (they're tired now)
2HCW Body: -> 18@6 (+1 for follow up, -1 for tired) -> 90

LTS Body routs with a total of 11 fatigue. 2HCW has 7.

Same result, it just takes one extra bound. :)

Michael Bard
That Greek Hoplite Guy who still needs a Cold Wars Doubles partner.

[Mike Bard]

oops again!

I didn't even know about the fact that LTS always counted shielded at first
contact.

Fine. Have both bodies shieldless, one body is armed with JLS and the other
with 2HCW. Same point value, results should be the same as in the first
example though the JLS might break at first contact since they'd only have
18 figures fighting, not 24.

Michael Bard
That more and more unknowledgeable seeming Hoplite Player (who actually
knows the rules fairly well) who still needs a Cold Wars Doubles partner.

> -2 for facing LTS and LTS is also not shieldless at first contact. I
> actually agree with part of the point you are making, but the math is very
much in
> need of a relook....

Social War games to my mind should be fought between friends, I have a
regular opponant and we can agree to dispense with rules we think are
nonsence, e.g. When an Elephant crew gets a bow he needs to be
prompted, but if he has jls he does'nt, as far as I 'm concerned a
complete "Furphy".

But when it comes to competition events the knives are out, its "Fair
dinkum" Competition events should be handicapped, those who have been
in previous events have a score and can be handicapped accordingly.
This will give the "roughies" like me a chance to gain some points
against experienced rules wizards. After all there is no honour in
smashing a lesser opponant.

Examples.
As a Tournament winner (Master) perhaps the loss of 100 pts worth of
troops against a novice who has never played in a tournament would be
fair. Players with other results could loose other amounts according
to their rankings.

Kingo

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 03/02/2005 03:58:27 GMT Standard Time,
mwbard@... writes:

Wipes egg of face.

It was late and I was tired...

Here we go again with the -2 at first bound.

Bound 1:
LTS Body: -> 72
2HCW Body -> 12@7 (including -2 for facing LTS) -> 72

Standoff. Each take 3CPF

Bound 2:
LTS Body: -> 54
2HCW Body: -> 18@6 (losing +1 for following up) -> 90

LTS recoils with 6 CPF total, 2HCW follows up with 6 CPF. Assume both pass
waver test for second cause of disorder.

Bound 3:
LTS Body: -> 18@3 -> 45 (they're tired now)
2HCW Body: -> 18@6 (+1 for follow up, -1 for tired) -> 90

LTS Body routs with a total of 11 fatigue. 2HCW has 7.

Same result, it just takes one extra bound. :)

Michael Bard
That Greek Hoplite Guy who still needs a Cold Wars Doubles partner.




I did say identical equipment in my quote. So the above neither refutes nor
defends my argument. I have no problen with stone, paper, scissors in fact.

mark mallard


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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Mike,

The LTS guy counts shielded in the first contact. Redo your numbers.

kelly wilkinson

Michael Bard <mwbard@...> wrote:

> Games where everyone has an equal footing except for skill/ability or luck
> usualy do best in the popularity stakes.

Far more important in success than absolute point equality is placing
terrain. This is solely skill and luck, point value doesn't affect it.
Should we have a surcharge for people who statistically get the "+1" for
native climate? Should we give their opponent in a tournament a victory
point bonus to offset this.

I don't believe so, but I think that this has a far greater affect than a
few points, or even 100pts, difference.

> Two units with identical morale and equipment and points costs should
have
> identical abilities. If this is not the case there is bias, to correct it
> surely the points must be adjusted. I cannot argue the case against this
although
> jon and others are doing so strongly.

A Reg C MI figure with NO shield and LTS costs 4 points. A Reg C MI figure
with NO shield and 2HCW costs 4 points.

If the point system is exactly fair, the combat should result in mutual
anihilation. However...

Assume 2 24 figure/6 element bodies. The 2HCW fight 1 rank deep and thus
are deployed in a line 6 elements long. The LTS fight 2 deep and thus are
deployed in a line 3 elements long and 2 elements deep.

Bound 1: (both bodies charge).

LTS Body: LTSvsMI->3, +1 Charging -> 4. 24 figures fighting -> 72. Note
that there is no shieldless bonus as this is first contact with 2HCW
2HCW Body: 2HCWvsMI->5, +1 Charging -> 6, +3 Shieldess -> 9 . 12 figures
fighting -> 114

LTS Body takes 4CPF. 2HCW Body takes 3CPF. Both bodies are disordered, LTS
body recoils.

Bound 2: (2HCW follows up)

LTS Body: LTSvsMI->3, +3 Shieldlesss -> 6, -2 Disordered -> 4. 18 figures
fighting -> 54.
2HCW Body: 2HCWvsMI->5, +3 Shieldless ->8, +1 Following Up -> 9, -2
Disordered -> 7. 18 figures fighting (flankers now count) -> 108.

LTS Body takes 4 more CPF, total 8. 2HCW Body takes 2 more CPF, total 6.
LTS routs and takes 2 more for 10 total.

Look! 2HCW is unbalanced! We need to change the Point Value!

Note that I do NOT agree with this. Also note that there are more examples
of identical point value units not fighting each other to a stand still.

Special Rules for specific bodies does not unbalance the points any more
than certain weapon types being better than other weapon types.

Michael Bard
That Greek Hoplite Guy who is still looking for a Cold Wars Doubles partner






---------------------------------
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!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I like the idea of a handicap here. That means more NICT qualifiers with more
friends to visit with in Lancaster! :)

kelly wilkinson

JonCleaves@... wrote:

In a message dated 2/2/2005 23:02:11 Central Standard Time,
tors1@... writes:

Examples.
As a Tournament winner (Master) perhaps the loss of 100 pts worth of
troops against a novice who has never played in a tournament would be
fair. Players with other results could loose other amounts according
to their rankings.

Kingo >>


I know the capital region boys here in the US do exactly that. We in KC are
planning to have our next Warrior league handicap those who are qualified
for the NICT. Good idea, in my mind.

We'll just agree to disagree on the B-armed elephant thing. Of course, if
you'd like an explanation, you can send me an offline message. Please include
an explanation of 'furphy' that shows it is not perjorative...lol

Jon









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



---------------------------------
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!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

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

[Ewan McNay]

/*Out in a far-off graveyard, a semi--rotten equine is pummelled*/

Todd wrote:
[Mark wrote:]
>>It is the principle of giving an extra free ability to any troop type
>>without an associated cost that i am opposed too, however little. It
>>cannot be
>>equitable. It just is not so.
>
>
> Hmm, what else can this handicap apply to? I am not as good a player as
> Jon, so when I play him should he have fewer points on the table because
> as the stronger player, he shouldn't need them to win? A Facetious
> questions to be sure, but really, how badly does this can of worms need
> to be opened?
> Player skill and luck doesn't enter into this at all, does it?

OK, I waited long enough to be sure I was not just reacting too harshly to
this, I hope. Mark's point is just basic logic: an extra ability is
clearly something which removes equity if it is given for free. To be
ridiculous, imagine that Sassanid LC were given the special list rule to
dismount 1-for-1 as shielded Reg A LHI with 2HCT and HG. Would that still
make them no better value?

Now, it may or may not be the case that list rules and extra abilities
unbalance a given army. But trying to claim that there is no loss of
equity in the deal is silly.

>>Before the arrival of list rules every element of troops on the table
>>had a
>>cost, which had been calculated/adjusted over many years to give an
>>approximation of their usefulness resulting in fair and open battles
>>for both
>>historical and non historical opponents. This is so in every game (i
>>play a lot of
>>different games and have done for many years) that i know of, games
>>that are
>>not equal are just not as much fun for the poor mug that gets beaten
>>consistently. They ultimately give up playing.

This was Mark's continuation; it omits (importantly) the context that all
list rules are within the restriction of an army (so as someone said, Sea
Peoples even if able to use incendiaries, or whatever, are still not going
to be killer. But on a troop basis, it seems self-evidently true, and I
don't understand why (or how) it would be arguable.

>>You are certainly giving the armies with list rules an advantage at
>>no cost.
>
>
> Isn't this just perception?

Well, no. It's (simple) logic.

> Do people somehow beleive that because certain lists have certain rules
> that make them more effective against historical opponenets, they are
> somehow "getting" Overon the rest of us who only play "Normal" Lists?

Well, yes. For a real example, take the Sassanid SHC/EHC mixing rule. Is
that a big deal? Yes, it's huge. Do I run the Sass in part because of
that? Yes. Is it an advantage over lists where such is not possible? Yes.

>>I don't see how anyone can argue that this is not the case.

Me neither, hence this note.

> I think it can be argued and debated quite well. Apparently it already
> has been argued once before on the list.

Argued, true, but not with any response beyond 'it's not so' that I've
seen. Certainly not 'quite well.'

Again, note that I'm not suggesting list rules are bad overall or in any
case. I'm simply noting the obvious fact that they're bonii.

>>I always preferred that an equal "value" of troops could take on another
>>equal "value" with reasonable chances, even if one consisted of poorer
>>troops,
>>because they would be compensated with more troops.
>
>
> Great idea.
> But who gets to determine the value?
> The individual players?
> Or the guys who own the rules set?
> Both of them?

Oh, come on, Todd. This is the whole basis of the point system that
underlies the game. Really, such responses hurt whatever cause or point
of view you're espousing.

>>These equal chances are no more and the odds have now swung in favour
>>of the
>>armies with the most potent list rules, because they are effectively
>>being
>>improved at no cost.

Here Mark makes the same logic eror as above - assuming that unbalancing
given troops unbalances their armies. Not necessarily the case.

> The fact of the matter is, past history says potent list rules don't do
> anything to add to an armies appeal. Otherwise we would be seeing them
> played all the time, everywhere.
> Will Oriental Warrior change this?
> Maybe. But then many players I've talked to the past few years have
> felt that Oriental Armies, in particular the Mongols, were emasculated
> by other rules sets, and as such they never played them that much (How
> many DBA/DBM Mongol Armies do you see out there?). Now Warrior provides
> them the opportunity to play them in a historical manner, and given the
> right player, they could be very competitive.

They already were; they became unfashionable, and it can be tricky to get
big enough wins, but you should essentially be losing zero troops even
with 'old' Mongols. I'd be happy to demonstrate some time.

We also run into (as Mark Stone has noted, I think) the conflicting aims
of making a historical simulation also be a good tournament game. Let us
assume for the sake of argument that Mongols were the preeminent force of
their era. (Note the 'for sake of argument.') Should they then dominate
on the table? Not if we want anything like a good game. And IMNSHO, the
game should trump history whenever *needed*.

So if (for example) game balance requires Mongols to be vulnerable to
elephants, then even if in real life they slaughtered every pachyderm they
met, that vulnerability should be preserved. And in the current actual
case, being able to convert from troops who die to elephants into troops
who can withstand and maybe kill them is - see argument above - of course
a large bonus that is not being costed. [I am pretty sure that FHE does
not believe that game balance so requires, and that there would be
resistance to breaking said balance if it were so perceived, btw.]

> Then again, how many people think here that if two players of eqaul
> skill were matched across the tabletop, and one player had Mongols, and
> the other had a Koryo Korean List the resembles the one used to win the
> NICT two years ago, the Mongols would win Simply because of their List
> rules?

Well, yeah, quite likely. It would certainly be a huge plus. I think
your choice of this example may reflect an incomplete understanding of the
added dimension that is given. [And note that even if a given list rule
- say for the Swiss - only broke the point-value matrix when they faced
elephant armies, or whatever, that's still a *big* deal for the whole
equality-of-value raison d'etree of the point system.]

>>The lists with list rules will perform more accurately. probably
>>
>>The lists with the most/best list rules will be more popular. certainly

> Not demonstrably true. At leastnot in the Warrior community here in
> America. Just looking at the NICT qualification Lists the past two
> years bears this out.

Again, Todd, you're wrong here: looking just at the 2004 NICT, a hugely
limited sample, we see Swiss, Sassanid x2, and so on. Armies that had not
seen daylight at this level previously.

On the other hand, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, if
whatever list rules help to expand a pool of comparably competitive
armies. Indeed, I think it's a good thing. trying to argue that it won't
happen, though, is again just futile.

Enough - I think the poiints are clear by now.

E

[joncleaves]

Good post, Ewan.

Just to throw in the FHE $0.02....

-List rules are balanced by being in the list they are in. If a list performs
well against the historical opponents it performed well against, then we don't
worry about it. If it does not, rather than a complete rules rewrite, they
become a list rule candidate.

- This policy has the effect of increasing the uniqueness and 'color' of lists
as well as increasing the total number of lists thought 'competitive' on the
open tourney circuit. All good.

- The only negative I have heard that makes any kind of sense is that some lists
that don't get list rules do not get the same 'boost' to open competitiveness.
Ok. Who are we talking about here? Lists that perform the way they should
historically without any or siginifcant list rules. Vikings. The dreaded Sea
Peoples. Lithuanians... So what we have are lists that perform as they should
against historical opponents that do not necessarily serve well in open
competition. Ok,...so? Out of 276 lists, there will be such. List rules have
reduced the number. Significantly. I don't understand what the alternative is
- to give list rules to everyone even if that means they outperform history just
to have them open-tourney capable? Sorry - not happening.

-There is a method to game design that balances what seems like 'free' rules
inside a pointed list. Warrior is hardly the only game that does this. The
idea that every single thing has to be pointed and pointed perfectly correctly
to its percieved combat value is not only incorrect from a game design
standpoint - its impossible to boot...lol

Look who gets the 'best' list rules: Romans, Mongols, Macedonians....etc There
is a pattern and it is conscious...

J

[Mark Stone]

--- On February 10 Jon Cleaves said: ---

>
> There is a method to game design that balances what seems like 'free' rules
> inside a pointed list. Warrior is hardly the only game that does this. The
> idea that every single thing has to be pointed and pointed perfectly correctly
> to its percieved combat value is not only incorrect from a game design
> standpoint - its impossible to boot
>

I've tried to bite my tongue on this one, and I don't want to re-open a
discussion that Jon has deemed closed. I do, however, want to avoid having my
point of view misrepresented.

A lot of people fret that the point system in Warrior doesn't match the combat
value of the troops on the table in open tournament format. I am not, and never
have been, one of those people. Indeed I have argued the opposite in recent
posts and posts going back several years. So I really don't like, even by
implication, being lumped in with that group. You said, Jon, that's "beating a
dead horse". Fine; but it isn't the horse I rode in on.

What I object to is having a set of principles stated for what drives the point
system, and then (a) feeling that significant examples exist that those
principles have not been consistently applied, and (b) being told that I'm
somehow missing the point.

The principles, as I understand them, and I think Jon's past posts will back me
up on this, are:
- how available was the technology or resource to a given army in period;
- how expensive/complex was the technology or resource to a given army in
period;
- how much training was required to use the technology or resource for a given
army in period.

Note that "combat value" appears _nowhere_ in this list of principles.

I would think that if two things from the same geographical region and time
period cost the same number of points in the Warrior point system, but one of
them is less available, more expensive, and/or requires substantially more
training, then that's a result that is a breach of these principles.

I can certainly understand FHE responding to such a breach by saying "we aren't
going to tamper with that now or in the forseeable future". After all, an
additional principle Jon has stated is not to tamper too much with people's
expectations about the value of lead they've already invested in. But I can't
understand responding to such a breach by saying "there is no problem."

Again, I'm not looking to re-open a debate here, and I'm not looking for a
response to this post. I just want to make my point of view clear, and to
differentiate it from the "point value should equal combat value" position,
which is not, and never has been my position.


-Mark Stone

[Ewan McNay]

On the other hand, I - in my history-ignoring, game-playing ignominy - am
definitely in the 'point value should equal combat value' camp.
Otherwise, as Mark notes, you end up with the point cost of a given troop
type being variable by army, and that seems (i) silly and (ii) completely
destructive of any game balance.

I actually think that as a practical matter, said camp is self-evidently
dominant, statements of principle to the contrary, for which I am glad.
Basically, I see any departure from such as a flaw in principle - as noted
a few minutes ago, one which may be desirable to balance *armies*, but
nonetheless a flaw. A Warrior player must be assumed to come to the game
completely ignorant of history, and take the game as it stands; basing
point cost on history rather than intrinsic merit would break the game.

e

Mark Stone wrote:
>>There is a method to game design that balances what seems like 'free' rules
>>inside a pointed list. Warrior is hardly the only game that does this. The
>>idea that every single thing has to be pointed and pointed perfectly correctly
>>to its percieved combat value is not only incorrect from a game design
>>standpoint - its impossible to boot
>>
>
>
> I've tried to bite my tongue on this one, and I don't want to re-open a
> discussion that Jon has deemed closed. I do, however, want to avoid having my
> point of view misrepresented.
>
> A lot of people fret that the point system in Warrior doesn't match the combat
> value of the troops on the table in open tournament format. I am not, and
never
> have been, one of those people. Indeed I have argued the opposite in recent
> posts and posts going back several years. So I really don't like, even by
> implication, being lumped in with that group. You said, Jon, that's "beating a
> dead horse". Fine; but it isn't the horse I rode in on.
>
> What I object to is having a set of principles stated for what drives the
point
> system, and then (a) feeling that significant examples exist that those
> principles have not been consistently applied, and (b) being told that I'm
> somehow missing the point.
>
> The principles, as I understand them, and I think Jon's past posts will back
me
> up on this, are:
> - how available was the technology or resource to a given army in period;
> - how expensive/complex was the technology or resource to a given army in
> period;
> - how much training was required to use the technology or resource for a given
> army in period.
>
> Note that "combat value" appears _nowhere_ in this list of principles.

[joncleaves]

So I really don't like, even by
implication, being lumped in with that group. You said, Jon, that's "beating a
dead horse". Fine; but it isn't the horse I rode in on.>>

You misunderstand, Mark. Ewan quoted you, not I. Ewan began to flog this
overly deceased equus, not I. I have no beef with you sir...lol

J

[joncleaves]

On the other hand, I - in my history-ignoring, game-playing ignominy - am
definitely in the 'point value should equal combat value' camp. >>

Don't get me wrong, here, Ewan. I totally agree that list balance is an issue.
But point cost is not the only balancer and cannot be.

I know - you stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night and now you're feeling
like a game designer...lol No worries, it will wear off and you'll be your same
old brain-surgeon self again soom. :)

J

[Greg Regets]

DISCLAIMER: OPINIOIN ONLY ;-)

I completely agree that list rules amount to a bonus given to certain
armies, at no cost. I too think a cost should be assigned to list
rules, or every army should be given some sort of list rule.

I also do not buy the arguement that list rules were given to armies
that needed them in order to get historical results. This is true in
many cases, such as the list rules for Roman Legionaries, and untrue
in cases like the Han Chinese, an army that was already very strong,
and is now even stronger, with free list rules to boot.

All this harkens back to the days of knights that fought in wedge,
and armies that nobody played, because the knights didn't get this
free gift.

THAT SAID ... this is all a bit of wasted intellectual energy. Its
clear that FHE is not going to modify this position unless it becomes
a problem. It will not become a problem, because the game is still
rock vs. paper vs. scissors, and the fact that some armies have
sharper scissors than others, doesn't mean they are no longr able to
be crushed by rocks.

This is the beauty of Warrior, and hopefully always will be!

Thanks ... g




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> On the other hand, I - in my history-ignoring, game-playing
ignominy - am
> definitely in the 'point value should equal combat value' camp. >>
>
> Don't get me wrong, here, Ewan. I totally agree that list balance
is an issue. But point cost is not the only balancer and cannot be.
>
> I know - you stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night and now
you're feeling like a game designer...lol No worries, it will wear
off and you'll be your same old brain-surgeon self again soom.
>
> J

[Ewan McNay]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, Greg Regets wrote:
> All this harkens back to the days of knights that fought in wedge,
> and armies that nobody played, because the knights didn't get this
> free gift.

Actually, that's the perfect counteerexample to Todd's suggestion that
noone pays attention to the presence of free bonii when picking armies.
Thanks .

e