Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Ok, here goes.

I will be willing to look at any COMPLETE revised point value scheme for
Warrior.

Here's the rules:
1. No promises.
2. If you send me a partial solution, I am sure I will not have time to look
at it. (i.e. no pet issues)
3. I can't get into a discussion of the merits of any single point change -
just package solutions.

Meaning: if you want your pet issue looked at, you will have to do some work
to pay for all the extra work you will make me do!

Jon
Remember that you cannot spell horseman without 'ho'

[Phil Gardocki]

Minor point, the -1 exists regardless of the order of the unit wielding it.


Yes, I know the weapon type is the ONLY one that causes a -1 in combat every bound (unless the 2HCT is disordered)

I have a problem with the justification of the "double cost" for 2HCT
weapons. If a figure is armed ONLY with a 2HCT weapon, why is the
cost double? ie 2 points instead of one?

It costs the same for a figure armed with 2HCW as it does for the same
figure armed with JLS, B.

I have heard the arguements about extra training being needed to use
it properly but feel that, since they are only training on ONE type of
weapon, they should not be penalised for the weapon type.

I have also heard the argument about the "higher technology" needed to
produce the weapon type but this same argument is not applied to
cross-bows. And let's face it, at the end of the day, a 2HCT weapon
is still a sword on the end of a stick whereas the cross-bow is VERY
upmarket compared to the bent bit of wood that makes up the average
bow.

And if memory serves, the Spanish LHI in the Tlaxcalan list can
exchange their cross bow for a HG at ZERO cost! Even more techo than
the cross bow but no cost. Add the 2HCW @ 1 point and Sh @ 1 point
and these guys kick some REAL donkey at only 9 points a pop. But the
same figure (Reg B LHI) armed only with 2HCT is ALSO 9 points without
a shield and missile weapon!

Yes, I know the weapon type is the ONLY one that causes a -1 in combat
every bound (unless the 2HCT is disordered) but I don't feel that this
is of that great a benefit seeing as how the user is counted
shieldless in the second bound of combat.

Can this be fixed????

[Ed Forbes]

Hi Steve,

My two cents for what it is worth.

You pay for the -1 against your opponent. With advantage should come
cost. In hth the 2HCT is better than 2HCW. Not to say that adding
something else to the mix does not change matters, but stright up the -1
on the opponent should cost more.

Not to say that taking a good long and hard look at the point schedule
would not be in order. My oldest rules set closest to hand is 5th
edition (1976) and the points are about the same as 7th. Some change in
7th with SHC ( -2 pt ), Elephant ( +15 pt ), and Camelery ( -2 and -5 )
but these are the only changes in points that jumps out at me.

There have been a few small (?) changes in weapon interaction since then
and the effectiveness for the figures and weapons may be out of balance
with the cost.

Jon is right in that it would need to be done as a package and doing a
full mathematical analysis from the ground up is not for the faint of
heart.

Ed F

On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 01:35:55 -0000 "Steve Honeyman"
<loki_in_oz@...> writes:
> I have a problem with the justification of the "double cost" for 2HCT
>
> weapons. If a figure is armed ONLY with a 2HCT weapon, why is the
> cost double? ie 2 points instead of one?
>

[Chris Bump]

Greg,

I like this very much. I am sure that the current point system was designed
with simplicity in mind as opposed to historical accuracy in representing
relative troop types/ weapon classes/ morale classes to each other. As long
as we all keep perspective here in the SW, it would be something that we
could try in the next tournament and I assume all capabilities (testudo,
wedge, weapon type etc...) are priced out in your list.

Would you send me one?

Chris

[Don Coon]

> My two cents for what it is worth.
>
> You pay for the -1 against your opponent. With advantage should come
> cost. In hth the 2HCT is better than 2HCW. Not to say that adding
> something else to the mix does not change matters, but stright up the -1
> on the opponent should cost more.

You mean like testudo giving a -2 to all incoming missile fire? Same
concept eh? Sorry guys I just could not resist. I know you are all tired
of my war on free testudo, but the argument that 2HCT should cost 1 supports
my position of testudo having a cost (or at least a movement penalty). Back
to being quiet about testudo.

Don

[Ed Forbes]

Don,

I agree with your premise. If the points are to be based as an equal
representation of effectiveness, items such as testudo, lance fighting
rank and a half , and others that give relative advantage should also
factor into the cost.

The example of 2HCT and lance is a good example. Is the -1 each turn
for the 2HCT worth more in relative effectivenss that rank and a half for
lance in a charge? As the 2HCT costs more than a lance, the point system
says that 2HCT is more effective. Is it true?

The search for the "killer army" is a search for the army where the
points are thought to be out of balance with effectivness ( more bang for
the buck ).
The underlying premise of the point system is to equal the armies in
relative effectiveness. More than troop and weapon factors go into this
mathematical equation.

Good players will always tend to beat less able players, but that is
outside the scope of the points system. Or mabe charging points based
aganst the player on the players win / loss akin to a golf handicap :)

Ed F

On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 05:56:17 -0600 "Donald and Jennifer Coon"
<jendon@...> writes:
> > My two cents for what it is worth.
> >
> > You pay for the -1 against your opponent. With advantage should
> come
> > cost. In hth the 2HCT is better than 2HCW. Not to say that
> adding
> > something else to the mix does not change matters, but stright up
> the -1
> > on the opponent should cost more.
>
> You mean like testudo giving a -2 to all incoming missile fire?
> Same
> concept eh? Sorry guys I just could not resist. I know you are all
> tired
> of my war on free testudo, but the argument that 2HCT should cost 1
> supports
> my position of testudo having a cost (or at least a movement
> penalty). Back
> to being quiet about testudo.
>
> Don
>
>

[Greg Regets]

I don't know if this is a "canned" solution, but I think it's a very simple
one. I used this point system for several campaigns and it worked quite
effectively.

The real problem with points as I see it is that there is not enough
variance in the cost of things. We all agree that 2HCT is better than 2HCW
but is it twice as good?

So, what I did was double the cost of everything, then adjusted the scale of
things to be a bit more reasonable. Example, the 2HCW would be 2 points, and
the 2HCT would be three, instead of four. This cuts the relative point cost
in half. There are many added benefits of this system when you start looking
at the troop types and the points now available to tinker with. If you would
like, I can send you my point system from the campaign if you think that
would help.

Greg

[Greg Regets]

I should have said that I adjusted the points for WEAPONS, not for
everything.

Sorry ... Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Regets [mailto:greg@...]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 9:28 AM
To: 'WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] Troops and weapon costs.


I don't know if this is a "canned" solution, but I think it's a very simple
one. I used this point system for several campaigns and it worked quite
effectively.

The real problem with points as I see it is that there is not enough
variance in the cost of things. We all agree that 2HCT is better than 2HCW
but is it twice as good?

So, what I did was double the cost of everything, then adjusted the scale of
things to be a bit more reasonable. Example, the 2HCW would be 2 points, and
the 2HCT would be three, instead of four. This cuts the relative point cost
in half. There are many added benefits of this system when you start looking
at the troop types and the points now available to tinker with. If you would
like, I can send you my point system from the campaign if you think that
would help.

Greg


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Phil Gardocki]

     This is a good compromise, as  opposed to giving 2HCT 1.5 ranks, or adjusting their defense to -2 or something.  We have to remember that the points system is a legacy of Rev 6, possibly earlier.  In Rev 6 the 2HCT/2HCW was 5's across the board except for LI and SHI.  And the -1 was proportionally a bigger deal as MI was "only" +2 shieldless and all else was +1 so 2HCT was effectively a shielded 2 handed cutter.  

Phil G

I should have said that I adjusted the points for WEAPONS, not for
everything.

Sorry ... Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Regets [mailto:greg@parkerwood.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 9:28 AM
To: 'WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] Troops and weapon costs.


I don't know if this is a "canned" solution, but I think it's a very simple
one. I used this point system for several campaigns and it worked quite
effectively.

The real problem with points as I see it is that there is not enough
variance in the cost of things. We all agree that 2HCT is better than 2HCW
but is it twice as good?

So, what I did was double the cost of everything, then adjusted the scale of
things to be a bit more reasonable. Example, the 2HCW would be 2 points, and
the 2HCT would be three, instead of four. This cuts the relative point cost
in half. There are many added benefits of this system when you start looking
at the troop types and the points now available to tinker with. If you would
like, I can send you my point system from the campaign if you think that
would help.

Greg