Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Greg Regets]

It seems to me (INDICATES OPINION) than quite a few armies are
gaining a pretty substantial benefit because they don't have to buy
shields for back ranks. A friend of mine showed me a list the other
day that saved 162 points, just on this alone. This was not some
third rate army getting a few extra points, but a real powerhouse
army, basically getting to play with 1762 points. This might not be
all that good for competitive balance (INDICATES OPINION).

Here are a few suggestions to consider:

1. Allow other armies to gain from this benefit, by removing shields
from back ranks.

2. Make the list allowed range of "any", mean you can give any of the
troops shields, but in whole units.

3. Make troops that fight more than one rank, fight as shieldless if
any fighting ranks are not given shields (subject to the rules of
when troops count as shieldless, of course).

This may seem like a little thing, but little things tend to add up.
I remember coaching football in a weight restricted youth league many
years ago, and the league saw fit to give certain teams weight wavers
because they were not traditional football powers, and they
complained about losing kids that were over the weight. Sure enough,
when they showed up for games, every kid they had was over the
weight, and they outweighed every other team by ten pounds a kid. In
youth football, that is substantial. Naturally, all six playoff teams
were teams that got weight wavers. Probably not the best thing for
game balance, and in my opinion (INDICATES OPINION) neither is
allowing already powerful armies, to get extra point savings by not
having to purchase back rank shields, while other armies do.

Thanks ... g

[Ewan McNay]

Gee, Greg. How can you make such absolute statements without suggetsing
that they might be just opinions?

Greg Regets wrote:

>
> It seems to me (INDICATES OPINION) than quite a few armies are
> gaining a pretty substantial benefit because they don't have to buy
> shields for back ranks. A friend of mine showed me a list the other
> day that saved 162 points, just on this alone. This was not some
> third rate army getting a few extra points, but a real powerhouse
> army, basically getting to play with 1762 points. This might not be
> all that good for competitive balance (INDICATES OPINION).
>
> Here are a few suggestions to consider:
>
> 1. Allow other armies to gain from this benefit, by removing shields
> from back ranks.
>
> 2. Make the list allowed range of "any", mean you can give any of the
> troops shields, but in whole units.
>
> 3. Make troops that fight more than one rank, fight as shieldless if
> any fighting ranks are not given shields (subject to the rules of
> when troops count as shieldless, of course).
>
> This may seem like a little thing, but little things tend to add up.
> I remember coaching football in a weight restricted youth league many
> years ago, and the league saw fit to give certain teams weight wavers
> because they were not traditional football powers, and they
> complained about losing kids that were over the weight. Sure enough,
> when they showed up for games, every kid they had was over the
> weight, and they outweighed every other team by ten pounds a kid. In
> youth football, that is substantial. Naturally, all six playoff teams
> were teams that got weight wavers. Probably not the best thing for
> game balance, and in my opinion (INDICATES OPINION) neither is
> allowing already powerful armies, to get extra point savings by not
> having to purchase back rank shields, while other armies do.
>
> Thanks ... g
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Greg Regets]

Just making sure Ewan. ;-)

Any thoughts on the actual meat of the post?

g




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:
> Gee, Greg. How can you make such absolute statements without
suggetsing
> that they might be just opinions?
>
> Greg Regets wrote:
>
> >
> > It seems to me (INDICATES OPINION) than quite a few armies are
> > gaining a pretty substantial benefit because they don't have to
buy
> > shields for back ranks. A friend of mine showed me a list the
other
> > day that saved 162 points, just on this alone. This was not some
> > third rate army getting a few extra points, but a real powerhouse
> > army, basically getting to play with 1762 points. This might not
be
> > all that good for competitive balance (INDICATES OPINION).
> >
> > Here are a few suggestions to consider:
> >
> > 1. Allow other armies to gain from this benefit, by removing
shields
> > from back ranks.
> >
> > 2. Make the list allowed range of "any", mean you can give any of
the
> > troops shields, but in whole units.
> >
> > 3. Make troops that fight more than one rank, fight as shieldless
if
> > any fighting ranks are not given shields (subject to the rules of
> > when troops count as shieldless, of course).
> >
> > This may seem like a little thing, but little things tend to add
up.
> > I remember coaching football in a weight restricted youth league
many
> > years ago, and the league saw fit to give certain teams weight
wavers
> > because they were not traditional football powers, and they
> > complained about losing kids that were over the weight. Sure
enough,
> > when they showed up for games, every kid they had was over the
> > weight, and they outweighed every other team by ten pounds a kid.
In
> > youth football, that is substantial. Naturally, all six playoff
teams
> > were teams that got weight wavers. Probably not the best thing
for
> > game balance, and in my opinion (INDICATES OPINION) neither is
> > allowing already powerful armies, to get extra point savings by
not
> > having to purchase back rank shields, while other armies do.
> >
> > Thanks ... g
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

[Ewan McNay]

Well... yeah, it's a plus when I can give my LI B shields for only the
front rank. And I like having Sassanid SHC shielded backed by unshielded
EHC (although that has some costs!).

I even think that your suggestion of 'fighting ranks' needing to be
shielded is clever and sensible. I'd support it, probably.

But I don't think this is honestly a huge issue. 162 points? That's a
*lot* of half-shielded foot. And even than it's on the same level as
being able to have pike blocks with one element of C class in a Reg D
unit, vs. having to be all C class. So it doesn't *really* bother me.

Greg Regets wrote:

>
> Just making sure Ewan.
>
> Any thoughts on the actual meat of the post?
>
> g
>
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
> wrote:
>
>>Gee, Greg. How can you make such absolute statements without
>
> suggetsing
>
>>that they might be just opinions?
>>
>>Greg Regets wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It seems to me (INDICATES OPINION) than quite a few armies are
>>>gaining a pretty substantial benefit because they don't have to
>
> buy
>
>>>shields for back ranks. A friend of mine showed me a list the
>
> other
>
>>>day that saved 162 points, just on this alone. This was not some
>>>third rate army getting a few extra points, but a real powerhouse
>>>army, basically getting to play with 1762 points. This might not
>
> be
>
>>>all that good for competitive balance (INDICATES OPINION).
>>>
>>>Here are a few suggestions to consider:
>>>
>>>1. Allow other armies to gain from this benefit, by removing
>
> shields
>
>>>from back ranks.
>>>
>>>2. Make the list allowed range of "any", mean you can give any of
>
> the
>
>>>troops shields, but in whole units.
>>>
>>>3. Make troops that fight more than one rank, fight as shieldless
>
> if
>
>>>any fighting ranks are not given shields (subject to the rules of
>>>when troops count as shieldless, of course).
>>>
>>>This may seem like a little thing, but little things tend to add
>
> up.
>
>>>I remember coaching football in a weight restricted youth league
>
> many
>
>>>years ago, and the league saw fit to give certain teams weight
>
> wavers
>
>>>because they were not traditional football powers, and they
>>>complained about losing kids that were over the weight. Sure
>
> enough,
>
>>>when they showed up for games, every kid they had was over the
>>>weight, and they outweighed every other team by ten pounds a kid.
>
> In
>
>>>youth football, that is substantial. Naturally, all six playoff
>
> teams
>
>>>were teams that got weight wavers. Probably not the best thing
>
> for
>
>>>game balance, and in my opinion (INDICATES OPINION) neither is
>>>allowing already powerful armies, to get extra point savings by
>
> not
>
>>>having to purchase back rank shields, while other armies do.
>>>
>>>Thanks ... g
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Greg Regets]

Well, when you throw in mounted at two points a shield, it can become
a bigger deal, very, very quickly.

Just to be fair, I've always hated these kind of "list convenient"
things, so it might be just a pet peve with me.

That said, I saved my 16 points on my two Knights of St. John LMI CB
units without shields in the back, just like anyone else would.

Of course, 16 points is one thing, over 100 is another.

g




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:
> Well... yeah, it's a plus when I can give my LI B shields for only
the
> front rank. And I like having Sassanid SHC shielded backed by
unshielded
> EHC (although that has some costs!).
>
> I even think that your suggestion of 'fighting ranks' needing to be
> shielded is clever and sensible. I'd support it, probably.
>
> But I don't think this is honestly a huge issue. 162 points?
That's a
> *lot* of half-shielded foot. And even than it's on the same level
as
> being able to have pike blocks with one element of C class in a Reg
D
> unit, vs. having to be all C class. So it doesn't *really* bother
me.
>
> Greg Regets wrote:
>
> >
> > Just making sure Ewan.
> >
> > Any thoughts on the actual meat of the post?
> >
> > g
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Gee, Greg. How can you make such absolute statements without
> >
> > suggetsing
> >
> >>that they might be just opinions?
> >>
> >>Greg Regets wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>It seems to me (INDICATES OPINION) than quite a few armies are
> >>>gaining a pretty substantial benefit because they don't have to
> >
> > buy
> >
> >>>shields for back ranks. A friend of mine showed me a list the
> >
> > other
> >
> >>>day that saved 162 points, just on this alone. This was not some
> >>>third rate army getting a few extra points, but a real
powerhouse
> >>>army, basically getting to play with 1762 points. This might not
> >
> > be
> >
> >>>all that good for competitive balance (INDICATES OPINION).
> >>>
> >>>Here are a few suggestions to consider:
> >>>
> >>>1. Allow other armies to gain from this benefit, by removing
> >
> > shields
> >
> >>>from back ranks.
> >>>
> >>>2. Make the list allowed range of "any", mean you can give any
of
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>troops shields, but in whole units.
> >>>
> >>>3. Make troops that fight more than one rank, fight as
shieldless
> >
> > if
> >
> >>>any fighting ranks are not given shields (subject to the rules
of
> >>>when troops count as shieldless, of course).
> >>>
> >>>This may seem like a little thing, but little things tend to add
> >
> > up.
> >
> >>>I remember coaching football in a weight restricted youth league
> >
> > many
> >
> >>>years ago, and the league saw fit to give certain teams weight
> >
> > wavers
> >
> >>>because they were not traditional football powers, and they
> >>>complained about losing kids that were over the weight. Sure
> >
> > enough,
> >
> >>>when they showed up for games, every kid they had was over the
> >>>weight, and they outweighed every other team by ten pounds a
kid.
> >
> > In
> >
> >>>youth football, that is substantial. Naturally, all six playoff
> >
> > teams
> >
> >>>were teams that got weight wavers. Probably not the best thing
> >
> > for
> >
> >>>game balance, and in my opinion (INDICATES OPINION) neither is
> >>>allowing already powerful armies, to get extra point savings by
> >
> > not
> >
> >>>having to purchase back rank shields, while other armies do.
> >>>
> >>>Thanks ... g
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

[Ewan McNay]

Something like a Mongol certainly benefits, agreed. And yes, having to
have all of your lancers shielded to count as such would make sense (Jon,
please note said suggestion/comment). Otherwise - yeah, not going to
worry *too* much.

Greg Regets wrote:

>
> Well, when you throw in mounted at two points a shield, it can become
> a bigger deal, very, very quickly.
>
> Just to be fair, I've always hated these kind of "list convenient"
> things, so it might be just a pet peve with me.
>
> That said, I saved my 16 points on my two Knights of St. John LMI CB
> units without shields in the back, just like anyone else would.
>
> Of course, 16 points is one thing, over 100 is another.
>
> g
>
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
> wrote:
>
>>Well... yeah, it's a plus when I can give my LI B shields for only
>
> the
>
>>front rank. And I like having Sassanid SHC shielded backed by
>
> unshielded
>
>>EHC (although that has some costs!).
>>
>>I even think that your suggestion of 'fighting ranks' needing to be
>>shielded is clever and sensible. I'd support it, probably.
>>
>>But I don't think this is honestly a huge issue. 162 points?
>
> That's a
>
>>*lot* of half-shielded foot. And even than it's on the same level
>
> as
>
>>being able to have pike blocks with one element of C class in a Reg
>
> D
>
>>unit, vs. having to be all C class. So it doesn't *really* bother
>
> me.
>
>>Greg Regets wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Just making sure Ewan.
>>>
>>>Any thoughts on the actual meat of the post?
>>>
>>>g
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Gee, Greg. How can you make such absolute statements without
>>>
>>>suggetsing
>>>
>>>
>>>>that they might be just opinions?
>>>>
>>>>Greg Regets wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It seems to me (INDICATES OPINION) than quite a few armies are
>>>>>gaining a pretty substantial benefit because they don't have to
>>>
>>>buy
>>>
>>>
>>>>>shields for back ranks. A friend of mine showed me a list the
>>>
>>>other
>>>
>>>
>>>>>day that saved 162 points, just on this alone. This was not some
>>>>>third rate army getting a few extra points, but a real
>
> powerhouse
>
>>>>>army, basically getting to play with 1762 points. This might not
>>>
>>>be
>>>
>>>
>>>>>all that good for competitive balance (INDICATES OPINION).
>>>>>
>>>>>Here are a few suggestions to consider:
>>>>>
>>>>>1. Allow other armies to gain from this benefit, by removing
>>>
>>>shields
>>>
>>>
>>>>>from back ranks.
>>>>
>>>>>2. Make the list allowed range of "any", mean you can give any
>
> of
>
>>>the
>>>
>>>
>>>>>troops shields, but in whole units.
>>>>>
>>>>>3. Make troops that fight more than one rank, fight as
>
> shieldless
>
>>>if
>>>
>>>
>>>>>any fighting ranks are not given shields (subject to the rules
>
> of
>
>>>>>when troops count as shieldless, of course).
>>>>>
>>>>>This may seem like a little thing, but little things tend to add
>>>
>>>up.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I remember coaching football in a weight restricted youth league
>>>
>>>many
>>>
>>>
>>>>>years ago, and the league saw fit to give certain teams weight
>>>
>>>wavers
>>>
>>>
>>>>>because they were not traditional football powers, and they
>>>>>complained about losing kids that were over the weight. Sure
>>>
>>>enough,
>>>
>>>
>>>>>when they showed up for games, every kid they had was over the
>>>>>weight, and they outweighed every other team by ten pounds a
>
> kid.
>
>>>In
>>>
>>>
>>>>>youth football, that is substantial. Naturally, all six playoff
>>>
>>>teams
>>>
>>>
>>>>>were teams that got weight wavers. Probably not the best thing
>>>
>>>for
>>>
>>>
>>>>>game balance, and in my opinion (INDICATES OPINION) neither is
>>>>>allowing already powerful armies, to get extra point savings by
>>>
>>>not
>>>
>>>
>>>>>having to purchase back rank shields, while other armies do.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks ... g
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>