Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ewan McNay]

On Fri, 13 May 2005, Mark Stone wrote:
> I will attempt to make it clear to the unenlightened (*grin*). See below.

Oh, yeah. That's me .

Once again, though, I'm actually going to go off slightly from the
argument presented. I think a more important *first* question about
two-lists is whether there exists a fairly small set of armies whose
potency is greatly increased by this format, unbalancing the system. I
think this may be the case.

Now, I have more experience in the previous set of lists, so I'm going to
use them as an example, realising that (i) that's a significantly weaker
argument these days and (ii) jon will rotate one more time. (i) is
important - the new lists may alleviate this; I just don't have the depth
of thought into them yet.

But, with those caveats: a two-list setup made some armies - e.g.
Seleucids, Bactrians, Sicilians, probably Byzantines, Late Romans, maybe
Khmer - so powerful that it was difficult for others to compete, and I
think that the list of such armies was *small*. Basically, the attribute
of being able to field two very different lists is a huge benefit versus
those armies that can only be run one basic way. The extreme, which I've
referred to in the past and certainly is no longer true, is Seleucid
SHC-army versus El-army.

I think that many armies - almost all, really - get better with two lists
available. However, the amount by which that small set get better is so
large that it makes the field too nonlevel, I think.

> I think we've all speculated at one point or another about what it would be
like
> to run in an "army-list free tournament": one where you build whatever list or
> lists you want, constrained only by the points system in Warrior. I can even
> imagine taking that to the extreme that you describe, where you write out a
> different list for each opponent you face. Given that we've already conceded
to
> ahistorical matchups in an open tourney format, why not go all the way?

This wasn't my thought, actually - I was assuming that you were restricted
by a given written list, but could choose from it in any way for each
opponent army. I think that removes your objection (2) and alleviates
(1) and (3) (which last I like). But it's kind of an strawman anyway.

> First, it gives us a more intricate and more nuanced game. This is independent
> of whether a wider variety of armies actually get played. Ewan concedes as
much
> below, and I won't debate it further. I will concede that a different kind of
> thought and creativity is required to play a tightly constrained game well,
but
> I've been there, done that, and that's why I don't play chess anymore.

I'm not sure that the end result is actually as rosy: the potential for
more nuance is there, but if the reality were that only five armies ever
got played by top players, intricacy would go down in practice. Yes,
that's an extreme.

> Second, it gives us more varied and a wider variety of armies, which is an
> excellent way to showcase our hobby to others and attract interest. Note that
> "more varied armies" is not the same as "wider vareity of armies": the former
> simply means that a wider variety of figures, units, etc. gets used; the
latter
> means this variety is spread across a a wider number of army lists.
>
> I guess it is the former that I consider a no-brainer: if a tournament allows
2N
> army lists instead of N army lists, people are going to use a wider variety of
> figures, units, etc. To make it concrete: I'll play my Later Paleologan
> Byzantines in either a one list or two list format, but only in a two list
> format will the "Moogs" ever make an appearance.

Sure; this one I buy, but with the same caveat: you may see a wider range
of Seleucid figures on the table, but if ten of the twelve armies are
Seleucid, then the overall variety obviously suffers.

Right now I enjoyed the variety of armies in the NICT and elsewhere. I
think that practically, that argues strongly for one-list having worked
here.

> The question is really this: are there a significant number of good one list
> armies that suffer in a two list format? It can't be that the one list armies
> themselves get worse; it can only be that their opponents get better, and
> enough better to take a one list army out of contention.

Agreed.

> Frankly, I can't see how this could happen. If my army only has one viable way
> of being put together, even in a one list tourney format I still have to think
> of playing in a major tourney like the NICT in terms of how I would match up
> against any of a couple dozen possible army configurations (one list of any of
> the two dozen or so armies I might end up fighting). Changing that to four
> dozen possible army configurations doesn't really change the scope of the
> problem any.

I think this is a nonsequitur. OK, your challenge with hoplites may not
change much. But your opponents are (i) more likely to have a list that's
designed with fighting heavy foot in mind, and (ii) benefitting from
additional flexibility while you're not.

> And think of the specifics. Armies like Midianites and Burmese have been
> suggested as examples of fairly monolithic, one list armies. But no one, in a
> two list format, is going to take a specifically anti-Midianite or
anti-Burmese
> army.

I think this is not true. If I'm running Khmer, for example, I can now
take a foot-heavy list (which will destroy those two opponents) and an
elephant-heavy list (when I come against a medieval knightish list). How
can it not be the case the the Midianites and Burmese are significantly
les viable as a tournament-winner under this setup than is the Khmer.

[You might argue that the Khmer is an outlier. That's actually good for
me . If there are only one or two armies that get such bonii, and they
were already top-rank, well: my point entirely.]

> My point is there are certain armies -- and they tend to be one-list armies --
> that force your opponent to respond to you, rather than embody a response you
> might make to a potential opponent. I can't see that such armies are at all
> disadvantaged in a two-list format.

I think I disagree with your axiom, and hence your conclusion: even if
those one-list asrmies get to force the terms of engagement, they have
stayed at a constant level of potency while you have increased - and even
if you have not increased against them, for whatever reason, you have done
so elsewhere.

> So that, I guess, is my argument. I think the burden of proof is to explain
why
> 2N armies would get spread across fewer lists than N armies. Given that many
> one list armies are just as viable in a two list format, and given that many
> armies are more viable in a two list format, I can't see any other conclusion
> than that the two list format encourages a wider variety of armies.

Once again, the axioms are swept under the argumental carpet rather .
Given that Seleucids are the only viable list in a two-list format*, I
can't see any other conclusion than that the two list format reduces the
variety of armies.

[*I don't of course believe this.]

Which leaves us probably where Jon noted: at needing actual figures. To
resolve it, we'd need to agree on lists of which armies are
NICT-win-viable in the two formats, and I just don't have the time for
that right now.

E