Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Reading Mark's reply makes me think I came off too strongly. Let me
state I like many of the changes and think the game is better
overall and quicker. I think some of the quickness can be attributed
to the rules changes, but I also think some of it can be attributed
to people leaving this game for others during the lean years at the
end of TOG. During the lean years post TOG those who played were
more experienced at the game. They (we) seemed more agressive and
the unwirtten rule seemed to be fight. I think the newer players
have benefited from learning this aggressiveness from their early
stages and the negative reenforcement of playing slow-keep away
games.

The note was just a flight of fancy to state we (the players)
have caused the list rules by complaining about rules previously.
What I would hate to see though, is rules changing in response to
complaints and percieved injustices that is prevalent in many other
games. I praise Jon and the rest for being unwilling to allow the
cycle of whinning to occur by promising to not change the rules.
Note, I say rules, not just core rules, but rules including list
rules. (Will Biblical Warrior 2 mean Dark ages Warrior needs to be
looked at which means Fueadal, etc.? ala my poor Skaven and Jevon's
poor Orcs?)

I also thought it was an interesting correlation between
predominately Reg B armies needing special rules compared to any
other and have always believed they were screwed by the retire/march
change. Maybe I think there should be list rules for all Reg B's?
No, because many have more than adequate support troops or are being
helped by list rules (but armies which are required to be 50%+ Reg B
should maybe get a list rule if the other rules changes didn't help
them. What could Grenadenes get to help them Mark?). But I also
don't want to see tons of email about how every list rule should
cost something, because those paying for Reg B's are paying for a
lot of nothing compared to their Ir B (free cause of unease and
impetuousness for both cav and infantry) counterparts (Reg B's are
worth about 0.5 points more than Reg C's, Reg A's worth about 1
point more than Reg C (unease the key here, although unimpetuoes
infantry does mitigate it a bit). I won't mention Reg A (I am glad
the all Reg A Swiss was gotten away with) compared to Ir A. Just
consider the high cost of those Reg B's to be the cost of the list
rule (assume 160 figs for the predomiately Reg B armies, so 80
points, 5% total army). And for those who don't (and I believe
shouldn't) get the list rules on other lists (read that lone group
of Mongols or Romans), I believe you shouldn't. Maybe if you buy an
allied General and a command (make those alies more valuable
although I already like the +1 like CinC) you get the list rule
because now there is enough of you to actually work your national
tactics. Should Mongols be able to go through all HC that is not
Mongol? Even knights? Note the Swiss are required to have an Ally
general on all lists except Early Burgundian. That list has such
poor morale (mostly D) that the Swiss list rule doesn't change much.
But not buying a Swiss Ally on Condotta would ensure everyone played
Venice with Swiss hanging arround.

In conclusion, the overpriced Reg B pays for the list rules
and list rules shouldn't be used for contingents unless also forced
to buy an Ally general.

Sean

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/18/2005 20:14:27 Central Standard Time,
sscott04@... writes:

I also thought it was an interesting correlation between
predominately Reg B armies needing special rules compared to any
other and have always believed they were screwed by the retire/march
change.>>

Sean, I have looked at this comment and can only say I cannot yet tell if
that is coincidence or trend with meaning. I will give it more thought, but I
can tell you that the list rules were solely based on historical performance
issues and nothing else.

The decision to prevent retirement and marching in the same bound is one we
are perfectly comfortable with and it was made very carefully with a lot of
analysis and playtesting. I am not really sorry that Warrior does not play
like 7th in this area as this is one of the areas that 7th got totally wrong
from an historical standpoint. Yes, I am well aware of what players were doing
with 7th in this area, and no I do not feel it was historically correct in
any way. For the most part, ancient armies were set on a path when deployed
that was monstrously hard to change in the face of the enemy. Warrior
reflects this. Players were certainly doing crafty stuff with 7th-style
retirements
and I know some wish they could do those things under Warrior as well. But
there's no way that is gonna change....No part of our design philosophy
contained the idea that we would keep something from 7th in conflict with our
view
of history just because players were used to doing it that way. And if you
think about it, you'll see that is a sensical decision.

There were many ways to overcome the constraints of a single rules set to
cover 4400 years. We chose list rules: state of the art, 'colorful' and
individualized.

Jon






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