Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

--- On April 27 Wanax Andron said: ---

> I'm not trying to be difficult Mark, but I think you and Ewan are
> failing to see the main premiss here of taking worthless troops and
> make them work. You help in that vien would be most welcome since I
> encourage and respect your opinions.

If you want to take an unusual list and play it in a sub-optimal manner, then
that's your choice; I'm just not sure what commentary I have to offer at that
point.

You made reference in replying to Ewan about not wanting to settle for a "safe"
army. I have two comments in that regard. First, it seems to me that's exactly
what you _are_ doing. If you take sub-optimal troops and ever manage to win,
you can claim generalship as the reason for victory; if you lose, you can just
blame the army. If that isn't a safe out, I don't know what is.

And frankly I think the whole notion of safe/killer armies is over-hyped. These
things have always gone in cycles, and always will.

I've played knight armies since the early days of 7th when the dominant armies
of the day were Late Romans and Seleucids, and all of us "cav players" were
scoffed at. You can argue that things are different now with lance fighting in
a rank and a half, but I don't see that has changed the balance of power any at
all. Back then we all played wedging armies such as Teutonic Knights or
Sicilian Hohenstaufen or Burgundian Ordannance. The rules don't make me more
likely to play a cav army, they just give me a wider variety of choices
(presumably exactly what FHE intended).

Given the preponderance of cavalry armies now, it boggles my mind that we don't
see more elephant armies at major tournaments. As powerful as the 100 Years'
War English are, a competent player should be able to take Khmer with a Burmese
Ally and feel very comfortable matching up against the English. I'm sure the
pendulum will swing.

And I think that part of Derek's success last year was the surprise factor. I've
been pondering the impact of Warrior's change in shooting arc rules for a
couple of years now, but Derek was the first top caliber player to really take
that idea to its logical extreme. He showed up with an army few had heard of
and pretty much no one had played against, meaning that he had a tactical plan
for each battle and his opponents had to improvise.

And to carry that thought a bit further, Derek's Koreans have some gaping
weaknesses. The best armies to exploit those weaknesses with? Probably one or
two armies in Biblical Warrior (no, not Midianites...). Which ones, and how to
do it, I'll leave as a thought exercise for you. ;-)

One of the great joys of Warrior is the number and variety of viable armies to
choose from. You don't have to play the same old army, or kind of army, you see
everyone else playing. But if you are going to play an army, play it to the
best of its ability. Otherwise you are doing yourself, your opponent, and the
game a disservice.


-Mark Stone

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> --- On April 27 Wanax Andron said: ---
If you take sub-optimal troops and ever manage to win,
> you can claim generalship as the reason for victory; if you lose,
you can just
> blame the army. If that isn't a safe out, I don't know what is.

Well, like most humans I will take credit if due. Unlike the
character your comments above paint, I am totally in dissagreement.
In my often repeated definition, a "safe" troop is one that helps you
by it's nature. Reg B are always eagar and thus help with waver
tests. SHC are safe from most shooting due to the -1 factor for
bows. Regular LMI with missiles add an additional elements worth of
firepower to factor per 3 elements. Each of these are "safety"
troops. They will help the general extract himself from overreaching
or bad dicing.

it doesn't mean they are safe to play with. Everyone rolls a "1" on
wavers from time to time.

I'm just not sure why these things seem to get stuck in your craw?
If you prefer, we can refer to non-safety troops as "sub-optimal",
but it is just a reverse definition to mine.


> And frankly I think the whole notion of safe/killer armies is over-
hyped. These
> things have always gone in cycles, and always will.

And I agree. But that doesn't mean I have to adhere to the cycle, so
I don't. I never will, for that matter, as some of use prefer the
challenge of overcoming difficulties like shieldless MC.


First I think, as stated above, you misunderstood "safety army" as
some kind of army on training wheels. Then I think that you perhaps
felt afronted by my inclusion of one of your favorite troop types.
IMO, nothing about the killer/patzer army cycle is relevant to what
I'm talking about. I don't think I've put forth a "killer" army idea
to discuss yet. And to tell you the truth, I don't think I'd give a
sh*t about what others value in how to make a "killer" army. I've
learned years ago how to make "killer lists", but no one makes
workable lists from crap these days.

I valued your opinion as I respect it when leveled with civility, but
it is your option. I look to those I respect for advice. Ewan gives
it straight up and "brutish", but he is keying on the elements. I'm
unsure why you are reluctant to see the value of unusual troop
combinations.

> Given the preponderance of cavalry armies now, it boggles my mind
that we don't
> see more elephant armies at major tournaments. As powerful as the
100 Years'
> War English are, a competent player should be able to take Khmer
with a Burmese
> Ally and feel very comfortable matching up against the English. I'm
sure the
> pendulum will swing.

I agree. I also think the next cycle will be neither K or El. The
next big thing will be Close order dual armed, artillery and
ditches...I'd bet a beer on it!


> One of the great joys of Warrior is the number and variety of
viable armies to
> choose from. You don't have to play the same old army, or kind of
army, you see
> everyone else playing. But if you are going to play an army, play
it to the
> best of its ability. Otherwise you are doing yourself, your
opponent, and the
> game a disservice.

Exactly why I look forward to possitive criticisms here on this list
from you and, frankly, anyone willing to participate. This is my
entire reasoning for posting such armies. Let us review. I've
posted armies of First Crusade, Med. German, Huns, Early Ottomans,
Romans, and a number of others. In none of these list do I state or
believe I have an answer to a championship. I do think they all bear
looking at, but this is just my opinion. Personally I think it would
be a blast to run Early Otts as huge mobile shooting platforms.

Wanax

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/27/2004 2:09:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
spocksleftball@... writes:

> Reg B are always eagar and thus help with waver
> tests.>>

Reg B are not always eager.

I do not myself agree with the 'safe troops' theory, but I do think, like Han
and Silla Korean, that there are armies out there to win with that we have not
collectively explored enough,,,

[Ewan McNay]

Wanax Andron wrote:
> Mark Stone noted:
>>Given the preponderance of cavalry armies now, it boggles my mind
> that we don't see more elephant armies at major tournaments. As powerful as
the 100 Years'
>>War English are, a competent player should be able to take Khmer
> with a Burmese Ally and feel very comfortable matching up against the English.

Yep. Those Burmese get damn expensive, though.

> I agree. I also think the next cycle will be neither K or El. The
> next big thing will be Close order dual armed, artillery and
> ditches...I'd bet a beer on it!

It's a bet. Ditches are not (I think) going to be
tournament-winning, because they essentially rely on the
willingness of the opponent to come play with them. And one
cannot rely on that.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
> > I agree. I also think the next cycle will be neither K or El.
The
> > next big thing will be Close order dual armed, artillery and
> > ditches...I'd bet a beer on it!
>
> It's a bet. Ditches are not (I think) going to be
> tournament-winning, because they essentially rely on the
> willingness of the opponent to come play with them. And one
> cannot rely on that.

Done! Next NICT army to win will have all three options: Dual armed
close order, artillery, and dithces in forward zone...

Of course I'm refering to Romans EIR would be my bet, but those
Severan middle look good too!

Wanax

[Ewan McNay]

Wanax Andron wrote:

> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
>
>>>I agree. I also think the next cycle will be neither K or El.
>
> The
>
>>>next big thing will be Close order dual armed, artillery and
>>>ditches...I'd bet a beer on it!
>>
>>It's a bet. Ditches are not (I think) going to be
>>tournament-winning, because they essentially rely on the
>>willingness of the opponent to come play with them. And one
>>cannot rely on that.
>
>
> Done! Next NICT army to win will have all three options: Dual armed
> close order, artillery, and dithces in forward zone...

Now... (not that I object to buying you a beer regardless!): the
bet is presumably that these options must actually be *taken*,
right? As otherwise a majority of lists probably qualify .