Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ewan McNay]

I suppose I should be extra-clear, also: I carefully responded only to
Jon's assertion that a set limit was somehow fairer (and disagreed). I
made no comment on the level of 'fairness' involved in other variances.
Nor have I (nor would I) ever claim that not being able to avoid rear-rank
shields is not unfavourable (how many negatives can I fit into a
sentence?). I merely noted that this was a case where I thought
army/history allowed for variance in a legit way that did not break the game.

I really do try to be very precise in what I write, although I may not
always achieve such. This is, after all, a forum for loophole-finders vs.
loophole-closers .

Mark Stone wrote:

>
> --- On March 18 Greg Regets said: ---
>
>>The very same people that are now insisting that this little handful
>>of points DO matter, because of competitive fairness, are the EXACT
>>SAME PEOPLE that not a week or two ago, were insisting that huge
>>savings gained by not buying back rank shields WAS NOT a competitive
>>fairness issue, and did not give an advantage.
>>
>>The arguement used to support that position a week or two ago, is now
>>being used to support THE EXACT OPPOSITE position today.
>>
>>I'm beginning to think some of you are President Bush in disguise.
>>
>>
>>>--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote....
>>>
>
>
> Greg,
>
> I'm sure this was inadvertent on your part, but I don't want to be lumped with
> those discussing the merits of the point system in general or the cost of
> shields in particular.
>
> Let me clarify my view, AGAIN: I don't think the point system is fair, in the
> sense that I don't think equal points spent always get you equallly effective
> troops. I also don't think it is the intention or design of the point system
to
> achieve that result. It is on that _latter_ basis that I choose not to take
> issue with how shields are handled, and why I remained silent on that debate
> despite your (no doubt inadvertent) implication to the contrary in the quote
> above.
>
> I do think the point system is flawed on its own terms, namely that
availability
> of resources, availability of technology, and required level of training
(Jon's
> alleged principles for underpinning the point system) do not enable you to
> derive the points we use in some important cases. However, lest I be accused
of
> beating some dead horse or other, I don't want to raise that issue for debate.
>
> Just clarifying. Nothing more.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Charles Yaw]

Amen to Nicholas' comments below. I too have gamed in a number of
systems before coming to Warrior a few years ago. I have always
mangaged to find a way to write a list that came out to the point
limit, whatever it was and whatever army I was using. Does an army
always come out exactly the way we want it to on the first draft of
the list, NO, but allowing points to leak over doesn't really help
this.
At present, when I write a Warrior list, the number I am working
toward IS NOT 1600, it is X points over 1600, depending on the list.
I am willing to bet many players are doing the same thing. A hard
cap limit is a simple ruling that will affect everyone in an equal
manner.

> Nicholas Cioran wrote:
> On the latter, a limit is a limit, and if you don't have a hard
limit
> some joker is going to find a way to abuse it.
>
> On the former, it only takes a quick look at some of the lists to
see
> that its unfair. If you allow an overage of the lowest cost unit
> chosen someone with a list with low cost required elements is
goingly
> to be unfairly penalized compared to someone with only high cost
> required units.
>
> Now, allowing someone to go over by the lowest cost element in the
> army list is slightly better, but even still there is room for some
> disparity.
>
> Now, I'm sure some will think that I'm new, and don't know any
better
> the important reason they should be allowed to go over the limit.
> Its clear from the poll that there is a strong feeling it should be
> allowed.
>
> But frankly, the most important thing about playing in a tournament
> is that you have a level playing field, so what is being put to the
> test is the skill of the players. Allowing a player to go over
> merely allows an unfair advantage to those who can do so most
> effectively. And while those who abuse the system may enjoy the
> benefit they derive from it, its no fun for anyone else.
>
> So, a belated vote for a limit is a limt...
>
> Have fun
> Cole Cioran

What about 2% of the stated pointlimit? Would be mighty 3 points when
speaking of 1500 or 1600 point armies - not much room to exploit, but
maybe enough to not leave the poor burgundians stranded at 1561 points...
(One percent rounded up would fulfill the same purpose allowing for 2
points in that case)

Just a thought.

Cheers Michael

--
nice surf, Grey~O°>
http://adean.deviantart.com

Rome did not build an Empire by holding meetings...

[joncleaves]

<<Ewan: I suppose I should be extra-clear, also: I carefully responded only to
Jon's assertion that a set limit was somehow fairer (and disagreed).>>

I was unclear myself, apparently. I am concerned with the 'perception' of
unfairness. Newer players are perceiving the ability to go over as unfair and
unnecessary. In my view, I can see their point on the former. As for the
latter, I would assert that is unnecessary in fact, not just in perception. But
that's just me...

<< This is, after all, a forum for loophole-finders vs.
loophole-closers .>>

Oh no!! Loophole-closers are most welcome here. Please! lol

J


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

[Ewan McNay]

Ah, precision: yes, I was noting that this was a forum for the *debate*
between the two sides, not that the former were welcomed at the expense of
the latter...

JonCleaves@... wrote:

>
> <<Ewan: I suppose I should be extra-clear, also: I carefully responded only to
> Jon's assertion that a set limit was somehow fairer (and disagreed).>>
>
> I was unclear myself, apparently. I am concerned with the 'perception' of
unfairness. Newer players are perceiving the ability to go over as unfair and
unnecessary. In my view, I can see their point on the former. As for the
latter, I would assert that is unnecessary in fact, not just in perception. But
that's just me...
>
> << This is, after all, a forum for loophole-finders vs.
> loophole-closers .>>
>
> Oh no!! Loophole-closers are most welcome here. Please! lol
>
> J
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Mike Turner]

I run tournaments for several different game systems in different
CON's and venues. If players and spectators see 1600 pts, that
should be the fact, 1600/or less. No one should have to read the
fine print, or have to have played in the last tournament to
know, "oh yeah, it SAYS 1600 pts, but you can slip a few in over
depending on your list".

Warrior is a tournament game, viewed by a lot of people in different
places, countries, etc. A standard, a hard one, is the best thing.
It stops the "questions" of someone having what could/can be viewed
as having an unfair advantage. Why open the system up for that kind
of criticism? Isn't that, more important than that extra stand?

Mike




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> <<Ewan: I suppose I should be extra-clear, also: I carefully
responded only to
> Jon's assertion that a set limit was somehow fairer (and
disagreed).>>
>
> I was unclear myself, apparently. I am concerned with
the 'perception' of unfairness. Newer players are perceiving the
ability to go over as unfair and unnecessary. In my view, I can see
their point on the former. As for the latter, I would assert that is
unnecessary in fact, not just in perception. But that's just me...
>
> << This is, after all, a forum for loophole-finders vs.
> loophole-closers .>>
>
> Oh no!! Loophole-closers are most welcome here. Please! lol
>
> J
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]