Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Hi there.

I'm Cole Cioran, a new Warrior player from Toronto. I've been gaming
for 25 years, and played my third and fourth games of Warrior at at
the tournament at Pandamonium. Happily I won one and lost one (in a
bye fortunately . Since then I've joined and been lurking on this
list for a few weeks.

I missed the poll start, but I can't let this one slide without
comment. I've played and run a number of different wargaming
tournament systems. Some personal high points including a Sunday
Patrol win in SFB at Origins and Best General in a 40K Grand Tourney.

I understand that historically an overage of some amount has been
allowed in Warrior tournaments. This has not been my experience
anywhere else, and frankly it strikes me as both unfair and frankly
fairly non-sensical.

On the latter, a limit is a limit, and if you don't have a hard limit
some joker is going to find a way to abuse it.

On the former, it only takes a quick look at some of the lists to see
that its unfair. If you allow an overage of the lowest cost unit
chosen someone with a list with low cost required elements is goingly
to be unfairly penalized compared to someone with only high cost
required units.

Now, allowing someone to go over by the lowest cost element in the
army list is slightly better, but even still there is room for some
disparity.

Now, I'm sure some will think that I'm new, and don't know any better
the important reason they should be allowed to go over the limit.
Its clear from the poll that there is a strong feeling it should be
allowed.

But frankly, the most important thing about playing in a tournament
is that you have a level playing field, so what is being put to the
test is the skill of the players. Allowing a player to go over
merely allows an unfair advantage to those who can do so most
effectively. And while those who abuse the system may enjoy the
benefit they derive from it, its no fun for anyone else.

So, a belated vote for a limit is a limt...

Have fun
Cole Cioran

[scott holder]

> I understand that historically an overage of some amount has been
> allowed in Warrior tournaments. This has not been my experience
> anywhere else, and frankly it strikes me as both unfair and
frankly
> fairly non-sensical.

OTOH, I feel it ends up being not unfair and makes some amount of
sense. The way the lists are structured, you oftentimes simply
cannot put together the "perfect" list (for you) unless, for
example, the total in the list comes out to 1604 points (or whatever
small overage from the assigned limit). Every person putting
together a list strives for whatever they want out of that list and
by permitting the overage that we have done all these years, we
permit folks to use a list that might otherwise be ignored simply
because they can't make it work at exactly 1600 points. Sounds
absurd at one level, I know but it's that nuanced character of
Warrior that makes us love the game so much:):)

As for being unfair, if you put Frank Gilson and me across the table
from each other, in an Open environment, each with our hyper-
competitive army of choice, and let's say my list comes out to 1607
points and Franks comes in at 1598 points, believe me, that 9 point
difference won't make a bit of difference. Okay, Frank's a better
player than me but let's say you get two players of equal caliber,
again, my experience is that it doesn't make any difference.

Take that one step further, the Northern VA guys were running local
tourneys last year where I *think* participants who were already
NICT qualified had to put together lists that were significantly
smaller than everybody else (as in at least 100 points or more, Tim
Grimmett can comment on this). Guess what? It didn't make any
difference, the same guys who were really good still won despite
having smaller armies.

I don't have a point difference threshold in mind in terms of when
this might make a difference between players of equal skill but feel
safe in that probably anything within 25 points of each other is
noise.

scott

[joncleaves]

Welcome, Cole.

For the record, I agree with you - although the Warrior author, I still game in
many other systems and I know your observation that allowing an overage is not
done in any other tourney is absolutely accurate.

It looks very strongly as though the standard tourney format in the rulebook
will contain a hard limit. I have some more data to gather, but if it had to be
decided today, that is what I would do.

Of course and as always, a tourney organizer is free to do what he or she wants.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Cioran <ncioran@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:03:04 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Tourney Limits (was Poll results for WarriorRules)




Hi there.

I'm Cole Cioran, a new Warrior player from Toronto. I've been gaming
for 25 years, and played my third and fourth games of Warrior at at
the tournament at Pandamonium. Happily I won one and lost one (in a
bye fortunately . Since then I've joined and been lurking on this
list for a few weeks.

I missed the poll start, but I can't let this one slide without
comment. I've played and run a number of different wargaming
tournament systems. Some personal high points including a Sunday
Patrol win in SFB at Origins and Best General in a 40K Grand Tourney.

I understand that historically an overage of some amount has been
allowed in Warrior tournaments. This has not been my experience
anywhere else, and frankly it strikes me as both unfair and frankly
fairly non-sensical.

On the latter, a limit is a limit, and if you don't have a hard limit
some joker is going to find a way to abuse it.

On the former, it only takes a quick look at some of the lists to see
that its unfair. If you allow an overage of the lowest cost unit
chosen someone with a list with low cost required elements is goingly
to be unfairly penalized compared to someone with only high cost
required units.

Now, allowing someone to go over by the lowest cost element in the
army list is slightly better, but even still there is room for some
disparity.

Now, I'm sure some will think that I'm new, and don't know any better
the important reason they should be allowed to go over the limit.
Its clear from the poll that there is a strong feeling it should be
allowed.

But frankly, the most important thing about playing in a tournament
is that you have a level playing field, so what is being put to the
test is the skill of the players. Allowing a player to go over
merely allows an unfair advantage to those who can do so most
effectively. And while those who abuse the system may enjoy the
benefit they derive from it, its no fun for anyone else.

So, a belated vote for a limit is a limt...

Have fun
Cole Cioran








Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Tim Grimmett]

I've been asked to confirm Scott's observation below.

It is true. When designing a handicap system for the gaming group here, I found
that players with 1400 point armies (ie already qualified for the NICT) playing
an army of their choice "routinely" beat unqualified players and won
tournaments. While other factors were involved--the desire of qualified players
to tinker with a 1600 point list and pratice with the army they wanted to take
to the NICT--the fact that a 200 point decrement when constructing an army list
was not a sufficient handicap lead to the development of the current handicap
system ( a straight +200 points when victory is determined at the end of the
game).

Tim

irobot00 <Scott.Holder@...> wrote:

Take that one step further, the Northern VA guys were running local
tourneys last year where I *think* participants who were already
NICT qualified had to put together lists that were significantly
smaller than everybody else (as in at least 100 points or more, Tim
Grimmett can comment on this). Guess what? It didn't make any
difference, the same guys who were really good still won despite
having smaller armies.


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page

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

[joncleaves]

I have no trouble believing that a better player can play handicapped and still
win.

However, that is not the issue.

The trouble I have with being allowed to go over - besides not seeing any good
reason *to* allow it - is that it is not balanced and fair. One player wants
to take Irr E, so he can only go over by 1.5 points. Another decides to take an
expensive list (Burg Ord, for example) and since his least expensive element is
20 points he can go over by 20. While I don't think 20 points in a 1600 point
list is a big deal, I also see no reason why I should be explaining to new
players why we allow this when no one else does. Even the appearance of
something being unfair is unnecessary.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Grimmett <grimmetttim@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:06:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Tourney Limits (was Poll results for
WarriorRules)



I've been asked to confirm Scott's observation below.

It is true. When designing a handicap system for the gaming group here, I found
that players with 1400 point armies (ie already qualified for the NICT) playing
an army of their choice "routinely" beat unqualified players and won
tournaments. While other factors were involved--the desire of qualified players
to tinker with a 1600 point list and pratice with the army they wanted to take
to the NICT--the fact that a 200 point decrement when constructing an army list
was not a sufficient handicap lead to the development of the current handicap
system ( a straight +200 points when victory is determined at the end of the
game).

Tim

irobot00 <Scott.Holder@...> wrote:

Take that one step further, the Northern VA guys were running local
tourneys last year where I *think* participants who were already
NICT qualified had to put together lists that were significantly
smaller than everybody else (as in at least 100 points or more, Tim
Grimmett can comment on this). Guess what? It didn't make any
difference, the same guys who were really good still won despite
having smaller armies.


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page

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




Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Ewan McNay]

I actually see this as an aid to fairness, in a small way; those armies
that are burdened by being full of expensive elements rather than having
IrrD LI B available get to have a *tiny* leeway allowed. If the cheapest
element is 20, and your army thus far is 1581 but - because you're
expensive regulars - you can't sensibly have that odd element, so your
effective maximum is 1561 - then how is that any 'fairer'?

JonCleaves@... wrote:

> I have no trouble believing that a better player can play handicapped and
still win.
>
> However, that is not the issue.
>
> The trouble I have with being allowed to go over - besides not seeing any good
reason *to* allow it - is that it is not balanced and fair. One player wants
to take Irr E, so he can only go over by 1.5 points. Another decides to take an
expensive list (Burg Ord, for example) and since his least expensive element is
20 points he can go over by 20. While I don't think 20 points in a 1600 point
list is a big deal, I also see no reason why I should be explaining to new
players why we allow this when no one else does. Even the appearance of
something being unfair is unnecessary.
>
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Grimmett <grimmetttim@...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:06:14 -0800 (PST)
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Tourney Limits (was Poll results for
WarriorRules)
>
>
>
> I've been asked to confirm Scott's observation below.
>
> It is true. When designing a handicap system for the gaming group here, I
found
> that players with 1400 point armies (ie already qualified for the NICT)
playing
> an army of their choice "routinely" beat unqualified players and won
> tournaments. While other factors were involved--the desire of qualified
players
> to tinker with a 1600 point list and pratice with the army they wanted to take
> to the NICT--the fact that a 200 point decrement when constructing an army
list
> was not a sufficient handicap lead to the development of the current handicap
> system ( a straight +200 points when victory is determined at the end of the
> game).
>
> Tim
>
> irobot00 <Scott.Holder@...> wrote:
>
> Take that one step further, the Northern VA guys were running local
> tourneys last year where I *think* participants who were already
> NICT qualified had to put together lists that were significantly
> smaller than everybody else (as in at least 100 points or more, Tim
> Grimmett can comment on this). Guess what? It didn't make any
> difference, the same guys who were really good still won despite
> having smaller armies.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Make Yahoo! your home page
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[joncleaves]

If indeed this is true, but a 20 point difference doesn't matter - why isn't
1580 vs 1600 just as viable as 1620 vs 1600? If 20 points doesn't matter, a
hard limit allows us to avoid the perception of imbalance and does not require
constant explanation.

As far as doing cheetah flips to accomodate the one time in 10,000 where the
only way one player can get every element he wants in a super expensive army is
to permit an overage - I'm not into it. At all.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:29:19 -0500
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Tourney Limits (was Poll results for
WarriorRules)



I actually see this as an aid to fairness, in a small way; those armies
that are burdened by being full of expensive elements rather than having
IrrD LI B available get to have a *tiny* leeway allowed. If the cheapest
element is 20, and your army thus far is 1581 but - because you're
expensive regulars - you can't sensibly have that odd element, so your
effective maximum is 1561 - then how is that any 'fairer'?

JonCleaves@... wrote:

> I have no trouble believing that a better player can play handicapped and
still win.
>
> However, that is not the issue.
>
> The trouble I have with being allowed to go over - besides not seeing any good
reason *to* allow it - is that it is not balanced and fair. One player wants
to take Irr E, so he can only go over by 1.5 points. Another decides to take an
expensive list (Burg Ord, for example) and since his least expensive element is
20 points he can go over by 20. While I don't think 20 points in a 1600 point
list is a big deal, I also see no reason why I should be explaining to new
players why we allow this when no one else does. Even the appearance of
something being unfair is unnecessary.
>
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Grimmett <grimmetttim@...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:06:14 -0800 (PST)
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Tourney Limits (was Poll results for
WarriorRules)
>
>
>
> I've been asked to confirm Scott's observation below.
>
> It is true. When designing a handicap system for the gaming group here, I
found
> that players with 1400 point armies (ie already qualified for the NICT)
playing
> an army of their choice "routinely" beat unqualified players and won
> tournaments. While other factors were involved--the desire of qualified
players
> to tinker with a 1600 point list and pratice with the army they wanted to take

> to the NICT--the fact that a 200 point decrement when constructing an army
list
> was not a sufficient handicap lead to the development of the current handicap
> system ( a straight +200 points when victory is determined at the end of the
> game).
>
> Tim
>
> irobot00 <Scott.Holder@...> wrote:
>
> Take that one step further, the Northern VA guys were running local
> tourneys last year where I *think* participants who were already
> NICT qualified had to put together lists that were significantly
> smaller than everybody else (as in at least 100 points or more, Tim
> Grimmett can comment on this). Guess what? It didn't make any
> difference, the same guys who were really good still won despite
> having smaller armies.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Make Yahoo! your home page
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




Yahoo! Groups Links






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

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:

>I actually see this as an aid to fairness, in a small way; those
armies that are burdened by being full of expensive elements rather
than having IrrD LI B available get to have a *tiny* leeway allowed.<

I have to agree with Ewan on this.

If the overage is limited to one element (or one point less than one
element, as I originally understood it to be), the most by which an
army full of expensive troop types will outpoint its opponent is
slightly less than that one element. Versus an army stuck at 1581
points without a legal purchase option, an army with cheap troops
could conceivably outpoint its opponent by a full, albeit inexpensive
and low-powered, unit.

One element, even if pricey probably won't have much impact on the
balance of play. A two-element unit of shieldless, RegD LI probably
won't be particularly significant, either - unless that extra unit is
the difference between a command becoming demoralized or not. Though
of course, that extra 20-point "freebie" could get itself attached to
a staff element, thus saving the opposing command from demoralization
as well. (And, yes, the above two cases are both truly hair-splitting
examples).

Personally, my only other experiences with point-based scenario
generation have been with Advanced Squad Leader and Warmaster. ASL
does allow an overspend by the cost of one of a nation's half-squads
when drawing up a DYO, so some other systems do use a soft PV limit,
even if not under tournament conditions.

Warmaster, prohibits any overspending, but isn't really applicable
either as all of the units are priced in multiples of 5 with the
added ability to tailor the final point total by the addition of
magic items, obviating any need to be over, or under, budget. I'm
guessing many other point-system games that maintain hard tournament
point limits are similarly tidy in their application.

[Mark Stone]

A couple of months ago when this discussion started, I seem to recall Jon saying
that this wasn't a core part of the game system, and therefore he didn't have a
strong view on how it should be, and would be inclined to go with the majority
view. This seemed entirely consistent with the FHE policy of abiding by
well-established traditions in our group when the underlying game is not
affected. This is of a piece, for example, with playing at 1600 points instead
of 1500, or playing on 8'x5' tables instead of 8'x4'.

All of these are subject to change by any local tournament organizer, as Jon
often reminds us, but there is a standard we follow, and that standard is based
on the traditional way of doing things we have come to expect.

You can come up with rational arguments for both a hard 1600 point limit and the
traditional overage system. We can spend the next two weeks rehashing those
arguments on this list, and I'll wager that not a single opinion will be
changed.

My expectation when this discussion first started, and when the poll was put up,
was that unless there was a clear vote in favor of a hard limit that tradition,
as in other aspects of our tournament rules structure, would be maintained. Not
only is there no clear vote in favor of a hard limit, but more people voting
favored the traditional overage system than any other.

Jon, you are of course a minority of one who can overrule anyone or indeed
everyone else if you so desire. Please don't. Obviously you do have strong
feelings on this matter, and they are not without merit. But I appeal to you to
abide by the larger principle that you yourself laid out, namely that tampering
with tournament traditions that are outside the core rules is not a good idea
without a clear and compelling reason.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

<<One element, even if pricey probably won't have much impact on the
balance of play.>>

I agree. Which is why 1590 vs 1600 is just as valid as 1600 vs 1610.....lol. I
am listening to all sides, but I will say that one can't use the argument that
an element's cost not mattering is a point *against* a hard limit....

J

-----Original Message-----
From: Miles <yapisu2003@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 18:45:29 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Tourney Limits (was Poll results for WarriorRules)




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:

>I actually see this as an aid to fairness, in a small way; those
armies that are burdened by being full of expensive elements rather
than having IrrD LI B available get to have a *tiny* leeway allowed.<

I have to agree with Ewan on this.

If the overage is limited to one element (or one point less than one
element, as I originally understood it to be), the most by which an
army full of expensive troop types will outpoint its opponent is
slightly less than that one element. Versus an army stuck at 1581
points without a legal purchase option, an army with cheap troops
could conceivably outpoint its opponent by a full, albeit inexpensive
and low-powered, unit.

One element, even if pricey probably won't have much impact on the
balance of play. A two-element unit of shieldless, RegD LI probably
won't be particularly significant, either - unless that extra unit is
the difference between a command becoming demoralized or not. Though
of course, that extra 20-point "freebie" could get itself attached to
a staff element, thus saving the opposing command from demoralization
as well. (And, yes, the above two cases are both truly hair-splitting
examples).

Personally, my only other experiences with point-based scenario
generation have been with Advanced Squad Leader and Warmaster. ASL
does allow an overspend by the cost of one of a nation's half-squads
when drawing up a DYO, so some other systems do use a soft PV limit,
even if not under tournament conditions.

Warmaster, prohibits any overspending, but isn't really applicable
either as all of the units are priced in multiples of 5 with the
added ability to tailor the final point total by the addition of
magic items, obviating any need to be over, or under, budget. I'm
guessing many other point-system games that maintain hard tournament
point limits are similarly tidy in their application.






Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[joncleaves]

A couple of months ago when this discussion started, I seem to recall Jon
saying
that this wasn't a core part of the game system, and therefore he didn't have a
strong view on how it should be, and would be inclined to go with the majority
view. >>

True enough. But if it is split, we don't have a majority view to go on. If
that turns out to be the case, we'll do what we think is best for the game - as
always.

J



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

[Greg Regets]

OPINION:

The very same people that are now insisting that this little handful
of points DO matter, because of competitive fairness, are the EXACT
SAME PEOPLE that not a week or two ago, were insisting that huge
savings gained by not buying back rank shields WAS NOT a competitive
fairness issue, and did not give an advantage.

The arguement used to support that position a week or two ago, is now
being used to support THE EXACT OPPOSITE position today.

I'm beginning to think some of you are President Bush in disguise. ;-)

greg



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> A couple of months ago when this discussion started, I seem to
recall Jon saying
> that this wasn't a core part of the game system, and therefore he
didn't have a
> strong view on how it should be, and would be inclined to go with
the majority
> view. This seemed entirely consistent with the FHE policy of
abiding by
> well-established traditions in our group when the underlying game
is not
> affected. This is of a piece, for example, with playing at 1600
points instead
> of 1500, or playing on 8'x5' tables instead of 8'x4'.
>
> All of these are subject to change by any local tournament
organizer, as Jon
> often reminds us, but there is a standard we follow, and that
standard is based
> on the traditional way of doing things we have come to expect.
>
> You can come up with rational arguments for both a hard 1600 point
limit and the
> traditional overage system. We can spend the next two weeks
rehashing those
> arguments on this list, and I'll wager that not a single opinion
will be
> changed.
>
> My expectation when this discussion first started, and when the
poll was put up,
> was that unless there was a clear vote in favor of a hard limit
that tradition,
> as in other aspects of our tournament rules structure, would be
maintained. Not
> only is there no clear vote in favor of a hard limit, but more
people voting
> favored the traditional overage system than any other.
>
> Jon, you are of course a minority of one who can overrule anyone or
indeed
> everyone else if you so desire. Please don't. Obviously you do have
strong
> feelings on this matter, and they are not without merit. But I
appeal to you to
> abide by the larger principle that you yourself laid out, namely
that tampering
> with tournament traditions that are outside the core rules is not a
good idea
> without a clear and compelling reason.
>
>
> -Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

Thanks, Greg. I wasn't going to be the first one to point this out, but I am
VERY glad someone did point it out. :)

J

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Regets <greg.regets@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 19:12:45 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Tourney Limits (was Poll results for WarriorRules)




OPINION:

The very same people that are now insisting that this little handful
of points DO matter, because of competitive fairness, are the EXACT
SAME PEOPLE that not a week or two ago, were insisting that huge
savings gained by not buying back rank shields WAS NOT a competitive
fairness issue, and did not give an advantage.

The arguement used to support that position a week or two ago, is now
being used to support THE EXACT OPPOSITE position today.

I'm beginning to think some of you are President Bush in disguise. ;-)

greg



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> A couple of months ago when this discussion started, I seem to
recall Jon saying
> that this wasn't a core part of the game system, and therefore he
didn't have a
> strong view on how it should be, and would be inclined to go with
the majority
> view. This seemed entirely consistent with the FHE policy of
abiding by
> well-established traditions in our group when the underlying game
is not
> affected. This is of a piece, for example, with playing at 1600
points instead
> of 1500, or playing on 8'x5' tables instead of 8'x4'.
>
> All of these are subject to change by any local tournament
organizer, as Jon
> often reminds us, but there is a standard we follow, and that
standard is based
> on the traditional way of doing things we have come to expect.
>
> You can come up with rational arguments for both a hard 1600 point
limit and the
> traditional overage system. We can spend the next two weeks
rehashing those
> arguments on this list, and I'll wager that not a single opinion
will be
> changed.
>
> My expectation when this discussion first started, and when the
poll was put up,
> was that unless there was a clear vote in favor of a hard limit
that tradition,
> as in other aspects of our tournament rules structure, would be
maintained. Not
> only is there no clear vote in favor of a hard limit, but more
people voting
> favored the traditional overage system than any other.
>
> Jon, you are of course a minority of one who can overrule anyone or
indeed
> everyone else if you so desire. Please don't. Obviously you do have
strong
> feelings on this matter, and they are not without merit. But I
appeal to you to
> abide by the larger principle that you yourself laid out, namely
that tampering
> with tournament traditions that are outside the core rules is not a
good idea
> without a clear and compelling reason.
>
>
> -Mark Stone






Yahoo! Groups Links






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

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>Which is why 1590 vs 1600 is just as valid as 1600 vs 1610.....lol.<

My turn to agree. But the example Ewan used, and I followed up upon,
involved being short of the legal limit by twenty points. Like I
said, that's conceivably a full unit, which point for point can
affect gameplay more than a single element.

Using your above point discrepancies, perhaps a fairer, if messier,
solution is to limit the final point value to within narrow range,
say 5 or 10 points of the nominal tournament total. If my cheapest
element is 20 points and I'm at 1581 (per the example), I get to go
to 1601; if I'm already at 1591, tough luck. That way a point dense
army isn't stranded 19 points shy of the ideal, but neither can it
game the system to hit 1615 or 1620 against an opponent at exactly
1600 points.

That said, I can live with whichever of the two proposed final norms
is adopted. All the armies I'm inclined toward have plenty of D class
LI.;-)

[Mark Stone]

--- On March 18 Greg Regets said: ---
>
> The very same people that are now insisting that this little handful
> of points DO matter, because of competitive fairness, are the EXACT
> SAME PEOPLE that not a week or two ago, were insisting that huge
> savings gained by not buying back rank shields WAS NOT a competitive
> fairness issue, and did not give an advantage.
>
> The arguement used to support that position a week or two ago, is now
> being used to support THE EXACT OPPOSITE position today.
>
>I'm beginning to think some of you are President Bush in disguise.
>
>> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote....
>>

Greg,

I'm sure this was inadvertent on your part, but I don't want to be lumped with
those discussing the merits of the point system in general or the cost of
shields in particular.

Let me clarify my view, AGAIN: I don't think the point system is fair, in the
sense that I don't think equal points spent always get you equallly effective
troops. I also don't think it is the intention or design of the point system to
achieve that result. It is on that _latter_ basis that I choose not to take
issue with how shields are handled, and why I remained silent on that debate
despite your (no doubt inadvertent) implication to the contrary in the quote
above.

I do think the point system is flawed on its own terms, namely that availability
of resources, availability of technology, and required level of training (Jon's
alleged principles for underpinning the point system) do not enable you to
derive the points we use in some important cases. However, lest I be accused of
beating some dead horse or other, I don't want to raise that issue for debate.

Just clarifying. Nothing more.


-Mark Stone