Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 1/24/2003 16:18:29 Central Standard Time,
wjedwar@... writes:

> Surely given the pros and cons of each stake should cost more.
>
>

The main driver of point cost is resources (to train, to equip, to employ, to
command and control) rather than simply an expression of an opinion about
fighting value. The Warrior point system is that way so that the points both
work from a competition standpoint AND a campaign standpoint without
resorting to two sets of values.

Spiked pavises and caltrops were harder to make/obtain than stakes or chains.

Now, in some cases there is a BIG difference of opinion on whether a
particular cost matches exactly the 'in-game competitive worth' of that item.
I would argue that caltrops are far more effective than stakes - but such an
argument starts with who caltrops were 'meant for' and/or who can use them in
our lists.
Low-medium morale loose order foot would probably prefer stakes.
High morale loose order and all close order foot would definitely prefer a
portable hazard.
Note also the premium placed on those combat systems that cause more
casualties versus those that simply detract from the enemy's tac factor.

This is an excellent example. The cost is dead on for 'resource' simulation
and it is situational which is more effective with systems that cause damage
being relatively more impactful than those that prevent it. I am completely
at ease with the costs for portable obstacles and hazards and have no
intention of 'changing' them.

Jon


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

Having played WRG 7th for some 14 years now, I have always been
curious why stake costs less than caltrop. <forgive my ignorance if
this has already been addressed/corrected>

If you stop to consider the effects re the points cost, there does
seem to be some bias towards stake.

While I realise that elephants treat stake with contempt and do
suffer from caltrop (or to be more precise provide the opposing unit
which has deployed caltrop with a combat bonus) why the apaprent
error in points cost vs effect in general.

Will this be addressed in warrior?

Given the choice I would always take stake.

Surely given the pros and cons of each stake should cost more.

Thanks

John Edwards
(pro byzantine on all fronts)

cheers!

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 1/25/2003 20:32:25 Central Standard Time,
wjedwar@... writes:

> I would like some clarifications re deploying stake - is it possible
> to (once having "hammered in") deploy stake to then retrieve them and
> relocate position and then re-deploy them? I would appreciate a
> clarification on this point.
>
> Also - caltrops once deployed - can they be retrieved and be re-
> deployed (i.e. chucked out again) later on?


7.5 says 'position or removing' and that is literal.

>
> The effect of stake (-2 for fighting across an obstacle <which
> applies to any troop type except Elephant>) does seem to outweigh the
> +1 to defenders facing mounted opponents that caltrop incurs.

I did point out that there is a difference between protecting yourself from
casualties and giving out more, but I don't feel you understandf. It doesn't
matter how much I protect myself if I can't do one (or three CPF...) for
example.

>
> Additionally depending on the encounter campaigns vs tournaments
> should be treated differently. We <locally> treat campaigns
> appropriately whilst tournaments are considerably much higher profile
> when points costs of various 'things' are considered.
>

I don't understand what you said here. Warrior considers the points cost of
both, of course.

> 100 YW armies do tend to blitz the field, as do palisade armies <esp
> romans> where the victor invariably deploys behind fortificatiosn
> <stakes, palisade etc> and the attacker tries in vain to roll well in
> the hop of attaining a slim victory.

Interesting. Not a way to win a tourney. Defensive players can't win the
5-1's they need to stay in the hunt for the finals, so they tend to disappear
as their opponents refuse to make it their problem to attack such a
'spoiler'. It has tended to be self-policing over time. No such army
'blitzes the field' with out attacking at some point or a silly opponent.

>
> Please do not take this as a slur against the rules, only the odd
> discrepancy of points in some cases.

I am not aware of a discrepancy....

>
>
> I also do not demand that every list be balanced against every other
> list.

That's good...lol

>
> Perhaps this explains the proliferation of 'tourny lists' as opposed
> to those of us who play for the historical pleasure and base and run
> our units as per historical evidnce <<where permitting>>.

Hmmm. Then why so concerned with points cost????

>
> Also how can you say that providing +1 to mounte dopponents balances
> against reducing all opponents by (-2). maybe my calculator is
> broken. The last thing I want to hear is that ""it has always been
> done that way"".


I didn't say it balances. I said that in many cases, hazard is better and in
other obstacle is better. I did say that systems that cause more casualties
rather than protecting from having them done are rarer, thus another reason
for difference in cost. It seems that since all the cases you personally can
imagine you would want stakes, so you feel they are universally more useful.
Not true.
For example, if I am an close order LTS unit, stakes aren't much use. I
can't follow up over them without becoming disordered and I am already
stopping -2 of the other guys factor. But with caltrops I can follow-up
without fear and can use them againts elephants which are far more likely to
charge me than cav. I also don't take a waver test for being charged by
mounted in the open so that protective aspect of stakes is useless to me. As
there is only one or two ways in the whole game such a unit can ADD to the
casualties it causes, a hazard is a rare and wonderful thing to them and an
obstacle not at all worth it.

>
>
> I would appreciate any input.
>
>

Done :)


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

Thankyou for your response!
I appreciate the issues re campaigns and must admit I have always
played tournaments where campaign issues have never been addressed
(being able to sharpen a stout timber as opposed to requesting a
blacksmith go to the trouble of making caltrops <and paying for them>
is a big difference).

I would like some clarifications re deploying stake - is it possible
to (once having "hammered in") deploy stake to then retrieve them and
relocate position and then re-deploy them? I would appreciate a
clarification on this point.

Also - caltrops once deployed - can they be retrieved and be re-
deployed (i.e. chucked out again) later on?

The effect of stake (-2 for fighting across an obstacle <which
applies to any troop type except Elephant>) does seem to outweigh the
+1 to defenders facing mounted opponents that caltrop incurs.

Additionally depending on the encounter campaigns vs tournaments
should be treated differently. We <locally> treat campaigns
appropriately whilst tournaments are considerably much higher profile
when points costs of various 'things' are considered.

100 YW armies do tend to blitz the field, as do palisade armies <esp
romans> where the victor invariably deploys behind fortificatiosn
<stakes, palisade etc> and the attacker tries in vain to roll well in
the hop of attaining a slim victory.

Please do not take this as a slur against the rules, only the odd
discrepancy of points in some cases.

I appreciate that said 'less effective' armies should play
defensively but on that same not will never excel, so from a
tournament point of view why run that list.

I also do not demand that every list be balanced against every other
list.

Perhaps this explains the proliferation of 'tourny lists' as opposed
to those of us who play for the historical pleasure and base and run
our units as per historical evidnce <<where permitting>>.

Also how can you say that providing +1 to mounte dopponents balances
against reducing all opponents by (-2). maybe my calculator is
broken. The last thing I want to hear is that ""it has always been
done that way"".


I would appreciate any input.

thankyou

Your respectfully
John Edwards

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 1/24/2003 16:18:29 Central Standard Time,
> wjedwar@a... writes:
>
> > Surely given the pros and cons of each stake should cost more.
> >
> >
>
> The main driver of point cost is resources (to train, to equip, to
employ, to
> command and control) rather than simply an expression of an opinion
about
> fighting value. The Warrior point system is that way so that the
points both
> work from a competition standpoint AND a campaign standpoint
without
> resorting to two sets of values.
>
> Spiked pavises and caltrops were harder to make/obtain than stakes
or chains.
>
> Now, in some cases there is a BIG difference of opinion on whether
a
> particular cost matches exactly the 'in-game competitive worth' of
that item.
> I would argue that caltrops are far more effective than stakes -
but such an
> argument starts with who caltrops were 'meant for' and/or who can
use them in
> our lists.
> Low-medium morale loose order foot would probably prefer stakes.
> High morale loose order and all close order foot would definitely
prefer a
> portable hazard.
> Note also the premium placed on those combat systems that cause
more
> casualties versus those that simply detract from the enemy's tac
factor.
>
> This is an excellent example. The cost is dead on for 'resource'
simulation
> and it is situational which is more effective with systems that
cause damage
> being relatively more impactful than those that prevent it. I am
completely
> at ease with the costs for portable obstacles and hazards and have
no
> intention of 'changing' them.
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[scott holder]

Perhaps this explains the proliferation of 'tourny lists' as opposed
to those of us who play for the historical pleasure and base and run
our units as per historical evidnce <<where permitting>>.

>One thing that we do here is split the tourney format over a given weekend in
to an "all open" event and a "theme" event with the latter emphasizing histori
cal groupings. Yeah, people still optimize lists within a theme event but we
also tend to see armies hithertoo deemed unplayable. In 2003, we're all about
The Crusades in one form or another with the added wrinkle at Cold Wars of ha
ving a themed campaign tourney (or as Rob Turnball more accurately calls it an
"attrition" tourney).

scott

Thanks for the clarifications - very much appreciated by myself and
all local players.

Keep up the good work.

Regards


John


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 1/25/2003 20:32:25 Central Standard Time,
> wjedwar@a... writes:
>
> > I would like some clarifications re deploying stake - is it
possible
> > to (once having "hammered in") deploy stake to then retrieve them
and
> > relocate position and then re-deploy them? I would appreciate a
> > clarification on this point.
> >
> > Also - caltrops once deployed - can they be retrieved and be re-
> > deployed (i.e. chucked out again) later on?
>
>
> 7.5 says 'position or removing' and that is literal.
>
> >
> > The effect of stake (-2 for fighting across an obstacle <which
> > applies to any troop type except Elephant>) does seem to outweigh
the
> > +1 to defenders facing mounted opponents that caltrop incurs.
>
> I did point out that there is a difference between protecting
yourself from
> casualties and giving out more, but I don't feel you understandf.
It doesn't
> matter how much I protect myself if I can't do one (or three
CPF...) for
> example.
>
> >
> > Additionally depending on the encounter campaigns vs tournaments
> > should be treated differently. We <locally> treat campaigns
> > appropriately whilst tournaments are considerably much higher
profile
> > when points costs of various 'things' are considered.
> >
>
> I don't understand what you said here. Warrior considers the
points cost of
> both, of course.
>
> > 100 YW armies do tend to blitz the field, as do palisade armies
<esp
> > romans> where the victor invariably deploys behind fortificatiosn
> > <stakes, palisade etc> and the attacker tries in vain to roll
well in
> > the hop of attaining a slim victory.
>
> Interesting. Not a way to win a tourney. Defensive players can't
win the
> 5-1's they need to stay in the hunt for the finals, so they tend to
disappear
> as their opponents refuse to make it their problem to attack such a
> 'spoiler'. It has tended to be self-policing over time. No such
army
> 'blitzes the field' with out attacking at some point or a silly
opponent.
>
> >
> > Please do not take this as a slur against the rules, only the odd
> > discrepancy of points in some cases.
>
> I am not aware of a discrepancy....
>
> >
> >
> > I also do not demand that every list be balanced against every
other
> > list.
>
> That's good...lol
>
> >
> > Perhaps this explains the proliferation of 'tourny lists' as
opposed
> > to those of us who play for the historical pleasure and base and
run
> > our units as per historical evidnce <<where permitting>>.
>
> Hmmm. Then why so concerned with points cost????
>
> >
> > Also how can you say that providing +1 to mounte dopponents
balances
> > against reducing all opponents by (-2). maybe my calculator is
> > broken. The last thing I want to hear is that ""it has always
been
> > done that way"".
>
>
> I didn't say it balances. I said that in many cases, hazard is
better and in
> other obstacle is better. I did say that systems that cause more
casualties
> rather than protecting from having them done are rarer, thus
another reason
> for difference in cost. It seems that since all the cases you
personally can
> imagine you would want stakes, so you feel they are universally
more useful.
> Not true.
> For example, if I am an close order LTS unit, stakes aren't much
use. I
> can't follow up over them without becoming disordered and I am
already
> stopping -2 of the other guys factor. But with caltrops I can
follow-up
> without fear and can use them againts elephants which are far more
likely to
> charge me than cav. I also don't take a waver test for being
charged by
> mounted in the open so that protective aspect of stakes is useless
to me. As
> there is only one or two ways in the whole game such a unit can ADD
to the
> casualties it causes, a hazard is a rare and wonderful thing to
them and an
> obstacle not at all worth it.
>
> >
> >
> > I would appreciate any input.
> >
> >
>
> Done
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]