Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[scott holder]

Before everybody jumps on the "Scott and Bill forgot to say specifically who in my >insert favorite list with incendiary expendable gimmick here< list can "carry" incendiary expendables, thus, I've got this GREAT idea........slow down. This week at the latest, I'll have errata up covering all the lists that have these and who in said lists can carry them.

And it won't be the exotic stuff that'll kill everything from elephants to M-1 tanks.

scott

[scott holder]

Let me add that as we further examine this, we might change the numbers available. That'll be in errata as required.

A reminder to all: once you launch one of these things, that giant sucking sound you hear is your opponents getting those points.

Once again, anybody going into an event or compiling a list that lives and dies by gimmicks, be prepared to die by them. It's something we're obviously still tweaking after all these years. And while I like this stuff in our lists, I fully understand that none of this stuff should dominate ANY list. If it does, or we find out that it will, we'll do something about it.

scott

[Mike Turner]

sniff, sniff......

Is that frying bacon I smell, burning Oxen?

or angered List Author?


Mike

[Bill Chriss]

Okay, okay. I for one get the message loud and clear. But, as a player who likes a few strategems here and there to spice things up and provide some leveling effect for those of us who choose not to play "killer" armies, I have to say that my porcine troops have never done much in a game other than add a little color and aroma. Usually, as Scott reminds us, they just end up as a mechanism for giving the other player 40 points. Now I consider that pretty generous of me in terms of a sacrifice just to get my non-cutthroat/historian player jollies.

Frankly, I'm beginning to personally get a bit sensitive about this, and i don't quite understand why this seems to be the hot topic going into H'con. I think everyone would have to agree that the Greek has not been one on this or the previous forum to ever whine that other armies are too strong, or shouldn't be able to _________(fill in blank with your favorite rant). Quite the contrary. So could everyone kick back a bit or go pick on some scythed chariots or fire lances or rock walls or something? Just leave me my little unobtrusive pigs and the occasional gully or avalanche, and you'll still have all those hoplites and peltasts to kick around. I won't complain.

And I DO appreciate Scott's reminders to read the rules carefully and not expect more than the rules allow. I'm even painting up new insignia so everyone will know who has the pigs, since the black book apparently requires this now. Heck, maybe i should save the points and buy more troops or play a non-Greek army and actually try to win a tournament for once . No, that way lies madness!!!!

[joncleaves]

Greek, it isn't you or the Hellenes. We have discovered that some loose language and maxima in the army lists - not yours - has lead to abuses Scott did not intend.

Jon

[Bill Chriss]

Thanks, Jon. I'll lay off the bottle tonight then.

[John Garlic]

Hey Greek,

I admire your principles. I'm just glad my Hebrews don't have to deal with the flamin' bacon

John Garlic

[scott holder]

Yeah Bill, lord knows I'm not picking on you and your hapless Greeks.

It's just that me, Bill and the review staff (note how I'm collectively blaming everybody ) didn't scrutinize the relative numbers of these things as we should have. You and I share the same general philosophy, it seems, regarding strategems. Because of the granularity of Warrior, strategems often take on a larger role than they historically had and it's *hard* at our level to get the balance right. But when the strategems become the raison d'etre of an army, that means the list writer has screwed up since inevitably, the power gamer will find the hole and rush to fill it. I spent years, first interpreting, then getting it down in writing, to get scythed chariots "right". I probably spent the first five years of the TOG cursing their very existence at every tourney I umped. Thus, if anybody thinks me or Bill intended for something like incendiary expendables to be a replay of the early daze of scythed chariots.......keep thinking cuz it ain't gonna happen.

Some people on philisophical principles, *hate* expendables and don't think they should be a part of the game. I disagree because in some instances they have significant historical merit for being included. They also add color to a game that many of us play precisely because of the coloar. And if done correctly from the list writer's perspective, they offer those decision points not only in player list composition but in deployment and counter-measures that are a primary feature of Warrior.

Thus endeth my screed for the day.

scott

[joncleaves]

Ok, ok, hate is such a strong word...lol

Yes, I have a famous dislike for those things found in 16.0. But to clarify my thoughts on this, it isn't really that I would remove them from the game entirely - however simple a solution that would be - but I do think that without some real restraint in how the lists are constructed, they have an effect on the game way out of proportion to my view of their historical effect.

A couple of stands of flaming pigs helps the Hellenes, fine. It becomes the avowed doctrine of all things Spanish or Ming - not right. A handful of archers shoot flaming arrows at a wooden wall, fine. A Warrior battle looks like Dresden - not right....

J

[scott holder]

In a rules context, Jon often uses the word "intended". As an ump and certainly loads of players agree, intent goes out the window during a tourney when all we have is the B&W on the page. If that runs counter to the intent, Jon goes home and on Monday, has it clarified even if it's 180 degrees the other direction.

I don't bring this up to rehash the subject but to highlight the fact that that exact same philosophy can be applied to lists. Bill and I have an intent with each and every list we've done and if we've written it in such a way as to allow for that intent to be seriously compromised, we'll do exactly what Jon does, go back and make sure it doesn't happen again.

Part of the "problem" is that we simply can't playtest or review from all angles every single aspect of the game, thus, stuff like this happens. What Jon just said echoes my thoughts on strategems and how they impact any list in which they are present. They are not, or should not, be a fundamental part of the list. They should provide an interesting tactical component to the overall construct of the list, nothing more. When someone finds out that they can finagle the extant wording to make them "more", then we shall be swift in resolving that!

scott

[Ewan McNay]

Would someone care to share the "power-gaming" loophole that I apparently missed here? Must be out of practice.

On the other hand, I *do* have a sure-fire antidote to the close foot-killing weapon for Punic 2007...

[Mark Stone]