Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/1/2005 19:17:07 Central Daylight Time,
grimmetttim@... writes:

Jon--

I suggest that as step one in the game set up you add something like "
announce point total of opposing armies" so that we get use to factoring this
into tournament play.

Tim>>


It will be done.








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

[Tim Grimmett]

Jon--

I suggest that as step one in the game set up you add something like " announce
point total of opposing armies" so that we get use to factoring this into
tournament play.

Tim

"Holder, Scott" <Scott.Holder@...> wrote:
We've had a productive discussion on the eGroup about the pro's and con's of
soft vs. hard limits, with good arguments for both sides. FHE debated the issue
at great length, and ultimately resolved it through our internal decision-making
process. We think we're done with it, but before moving on we feel that
respect for the folks on the other side of the issue and the depth of the
discussion both call for an explanation, particularly since soft limits are
unusual when compared with other tournament gaming systems.

There are a number of reasons for soft limits, most if not all of which are
covered ... often very articulately ... by the pro-soft-limit posts on the
eGroup. While those posts might not capture everything that FHE feels is
pertinent to the discussion, they do highlight the major issues involved,
including (not in any particular order):

One has to do with providing regulars with even ranks; there are instances where
you simply need that extra cheap element cost in order to even up the ranks.

Another has to do with how units are "supposed" to be (i.e., Irr LI "should"
come in units of 6 or 8 or 10 or whatever). Again, that little extra boost in
points allows you to field units in their "standard" sizes.

A third (and probably hardest to articulate) has to do with creating personally
satisfying armies. I've been writing ancient army lists since 1976 and this has
been a common theme; hard to explain, but you often find that a list just
"snaps" together if you have 3 (or whatever) "extra" points--the list has that
just right feel, you haven't had to compromise unit sizes (even ranks for regs)
or standard unit sizes (you don't have to field that 5E unit of Irr LI Archers)
and you're happy with the list. If you go back and rewicker it for a hard
limit, in many instances (depending on the type of player you are), you just
can't make the list "work." This isn't really a competitive thing, but it does
go directly to gamer satisfaction.

Finally, we did not feel that a difference of X number of points (I have a 1599
point list, you have a 1604 point list) would affect the outcome in a game 999
times out of 1000, so given the reasons outlined above, we decided on sticking
with the soft limit.

Legitimate concerns were raised by hard limit advocates, and we wanted to
address them with meaningful limits on over-use (and abuse) of the soft limit,
which led to an increase in the over-limit "penalty." Past practice awarded a
3:1 penalty, but we all agreed that 3:1 could allow for some bizarre outcomes
should somebody deliberately play the system with an army that had an
"expensive" cheapest element. I've not seen that happen in 18 years of umpping,
but you never know and so we decided to up the penalty to 5:1. With any
penalty, no serious tourney gamer is going to give up the potential for a 5-0
win just to get an extra element, and with the 5:1 penalty on an expensive
element, you're dealing with some potentially serious points. If you're on the
cusp using the base system, you might end up not getting twice as many and at
least 300, or have a 150 difference, etc. In short, a penalty at the increased
rate makes the soft limit self-correcting and should eliminate any
serious problems.

Plus, with the soft limit penalty, a player now has to make a decision up front
when composing the army: is getting this list "just right" so important to me
that I'm willing to give up 5x the cheapest element cost for that privilege?
Such decision points are what makes Warrior such a unique and layered game
system, primarily because we have so many of them. Taking this approach
was very much in sync with the philosophy of how we approached the lists
themselves.

We understand that not everyone will agree or understand our rationale for
sticking with a soft limit on points. We're conflicted on the issue ourselves.
However, we consider it important enough in the subtleties of army composition
in Warrior to retain it as part of our recommended tournament format. We see it
as in keeping with the character of the Warrior engine (decisions/consequences)
and as acknowledging this unusual aspect of our game. Since there are many
things in Warrior that fall into this category, we think it's time now to put
this one to bed and move on. Remember too that the tournament format in the
Warrior Rules is a recommendation only (albeit one based on over 15 years of
experience) and that local organizers are always free to mandate their own
requirements.

Obviously I can do little to quell any further "tastes great, NO, less filling"
debates on this subject. However, as with other issues in the past that have
gotten to this point, FHE considers the matter to be settled, this post answers
the fundamental "why" questions and as such, we won't be answering any
additional questions that might be raised here other than to point folks to this
specific post.

scott


---------------------------------
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.



---------------------------------
Discover Yahoo!
Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing & more. Check it out!

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