Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Todd Kaeser]

I have noticed - at least in one of the NICT lists (and on the table top at times) that Sicilian is apparently being used w/o people reading the army notes and abiding by the restrictions.

Case in point - I often see that the German or Siculo-Italian Knights are upgraded to Irreg B AND the Muslims are upgraded to Regular - big NO NO.

"If any German/Siculo-Italians are upgraded to Irr B, then the Councilar Ally-General must be used and no Muslims may be upgraded to Reg."

I'm assuming this also applies to bodyguards w/ the generals. The knights start off Irreg C and shouldn't be upgraded. If one wants to use this list I suggest using Siculo-Norman - sure you have to buy an Arab Ally General, but you get Irreg B knights AND you are legally allowed to upgrade your Muslims to Regular. No Moogs though , but you can't get it all and even in the Sicilian list you shouldn't be able to get it all.

Just my two cents on this one - I find that many people, even in the NICT don't read the restrictions on their lists and make illegal ones.

T. Kaeser

[Mark Stone]

Great point, Todd. I see two Sicilian Hohenstafen lists in the 2005 NICT, and only one of them is legal. I know we've all been guilty at times of some unintentional wishful thinking when it comes to list interpretation (Scott politely but clearly shot down my favorite way of playing Italian Condotta). But Sicilian Hohenstafen is a perennial favorite, and people should read the list notes with some care.

I've debated playing either Hohenstafen or Sicilian Norman, since I have the figures for both, but at the end of the day neither list was to my liking.

If you play Normans, then you get no shielded light infantry with missile weapons. You end up running a skirmish line of something like 2 units of LC w/B, and 3 units of LI w/JLS,Sh. That's marginal skirmisher support.

If you run Hohenstafens because you want Almughuvars, then you can't get both Reg Muslims and Irr B Germans (other than generals; note that this *start* as Irr B; the prohibition is on *upgrades*). You really have to have the Irr B knights; running 6 stands of C class knights isn't tenable. If you run the Muslims as Irr, then you want to take the bowmen as LI (Irr C LI B,Sh). But at point you're pretty much running a watered down version of Medieval Spanish, so why not just run Medieval Spanish?


-Mark Stone

[Todd Kaeser]

Actually, upon further investigation - both lists are illegal. The 2nd one also has reg and irreg muslims + irreg B German/Siculo knights.

The Sicilian list WAS and still is I guess, a fan favorite b/c it has great support troops backed by knights. The problem w/ the new list is that you cannot have irreg B knights AND regular LMI B or Jls,Sh. If you want the regular shooting of the LMI B,Sh Muslims you have to take your German/Siculo knights as Irreg C. The Moogs are the big draw for the list now.

If you don't want Moogs, but you want the reg LMI B,Sh and the Irreg B knights then the Siculo-Norman list is the way to go. There are draw backs w/ any list, like you don't get the Moogs w/ the Siculo-Normans, but such is life.

Medieval Spanish (excellent point BTW) is what a lot of others are running to get Moogs w/ Irreg B knights.

Personally, I loved Sean's NICT Papal Italian list - very interesting, but has its problems w/ matchups like pike/Elephant.

T Kaeser

[Mark Stone]

Todd,

I agree that Sean's Papal Italian list is appealing. And I *love* the colorful commentary he's given to the troop type descriptions (anyone who hasn't seen this should check out the 2005 NICT lists in the files sections).

Sean and I are at the opposite ends of list-writing philosophy, and it may be that Sean's approach is superior for placing high in the NICT. I am always looking for list balance, so that I have a little I can do against just about any foe. Sean, on the other hand, picks an approach to his list and goes all out to make the list execute that particular approach superbly. The result is some big vulnerabilities against opponents where that approach won't work, but also some big wins where people haven't anticipated that anyone would take that particular approach to that particular extreme.


-Mark Stone

[Ewan McNay]

Kudos to Todd for pointing out the illegality of the NICT Sicilian lists; part of my commentary this year, after noting that there was a problem, was planned to be a check on legality.

We really do need a list-checker, for the NICT if nothing else.

Mark - I think that Sean's approach is more likely to lead to a *win* but probably gives a lower average placing expectancy. If you miss your bad matchup, great; if not, you're toast. It's a style I favour .

[scott holder]

[quote="We really do need a list-checker, for the NICT if nothing else.[/quote]

Sigh, that's a sad commentary on my sad performance since it's my job to check lists.

Note to myself: do better this year or stop publishing NICT lists.

scott

[Ewan McNay]

Not sure whether to laugh or cry at the 'stop publishing NICT lists' alternative That can't be a useful step. It was bad enough having me whine about Derek's lack of a camp in 2004 ; having someone win the NICT only to have their list later found to be illegal would be, ah, horrendous. Having it alleged to be illegal without seeing it would be worse .

I suspect that this should not be impossible to manage, if you're willing to accept help. Possibilities:

* Have an NICT player check them, after publishing their own list - this would work for me, for instance, as no-one is going to be surprised when I turn up with Sassanids again. Downside is probably too high, though, which is that the checker would get to know all the opposing lists in advance.

* Have a non-NICT player check them. Only real downside is finding somone who combines willingness, competence, and lack of NICT qualification, but that may be tough. Might be easier to find someone who simply can't make it to H'con in a given year, and that's

* Charge Scott one round of beer per error found

* Get one of the DBM crowd to check them, in return for one of us checking their lists?

* require all NICT lists to be posted (could even be a week in advance, to allow time for error-finding and correction); downside is again probably too large, though, which is lack of any surprise.

* require exchange of lists after each game; I actually think this should be done anyway, and while it might not completely solve the issue it should get around the basic problem. Anyone using an illegal list loses that game 5-0 and then has to fix it, or something less harsh if desired. [As an aside, I took an legal list to one of my first ever WRG tournaments, but then claimed that one of my units - polish husars - had pistols when in fact they did not; this never actually came into play, it was just an error in my unit description. This came to light in post-game discussion.. Not only did I have my max win changed to a max loss, I was still made to play the other max winner in round 2. Not likely I would do that again!]

That last step, while not utterly ideal, should I think - and especially when combined with a Scott-check - essentially solve the issue. Thoughts?

[Note that this is not a big issue in the first place, really; but I know of at least one previous case (mixed morale legions where that was prohibited) and it does make a difference; in the NICT, at least, we should be able to enforce this stuff.]

[Mark Stone]

Every year we have somebody in the top clump of players who can't make the NICT even though they are qualified. I note, for example, that this week Ambrose said he would be unable to make it. Two years ago I couldn't make it. And so on.

I'd suggest that (a) Scott have primary responsibility for checking lists, but that (b) Scott solicit volunteers and have a suitable volunteer do the first check. Scott could then double-check as time and other obligations permit.

My preferred alternative, and it has some negatives, would be that all participants publish their lists a week prior to the NICT.


-Mark Stone

[scott holder]

I'm not a fan on publishing the lists in advance. I think that's one of the "joys" of the NICT, the slight shock value of who brings what and how it's composed.

The idea of having a second set of eyes check the lists is appealing. I can possibly rope some Warrior players not in the NICT to look. More blame to pass around if we get it wrong.

scott

[Todd Schneider]

Well, I suppose you could also email your list to a third party if you wanted to. I'd volunteer to look over lists, but can't guarentee I'd catch everything either.

Todd

[Ambrose Coddington]

I would actually be willing to "Help" check lists.
I am NOT volinteering to check them all.
As I will not make it (Some idiot <read me> asked for the wrong days off from work and can not change them now) <Sigh>

This might be a good solution to a recuring problem.

Ambrose

[Frank Gilson]

Note that the list notes are not 100% clear...the requirement for Irr B knights, reg muslims, and councilar ally don't jive correctly with the time period restrictions/availability.

...something minor for Scott to straighten out.

Frank doesn't have his list book handy right now

[scott holder]

Bill and I are working on that, and have been for the last 3 weeks.

scott

PS: Ambrose, great. I'll take you up on your offer but hope you can somehow weasel your days off differently, *cough* *cough* "summer colds are the worst".

scott