Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Scott H: take note so I don't have to email you separately!

1. I am working the Irr A item.
2. Lists are not just for tourneys. On that basis, I'd leave P stds and AGs
alone. Sure, maybe not the best bang for some folks' tourney buck, but the pts
are still good historically, where generals WANTED to be seen. Note that a P
also makes prompting/changing orders (in Warrior) easier as 'destination in
sight will include the destination being able to see the general! AGs are taken
to bring certain troops to the army - extra points seems right to that end.
Leaving both alone pending any FHE opinion counter to the above.
3. Shooting only rear rank: I'd prohibit it unless someone can show me some
examples of it happening. Agree with Ewan that any way we go, it will be stated
explicitly.

Note that the one reason that I, for one, will never use to make a change is
'not tourney effective.' And this from the original power gamer!
Jon

[Ewan McNay]

I suspect that this will be the first of several msgs; my brain is not
together enough to put everything down at once.

(i) The current points system, from 6th, makes AGs more expensive than
Subs. Under 6th, this made sense; under 7th - and hence presumably under
Warrior - it doesn't. AGs are less reliable (because of the chance of
changing sides; a rareish event but a devestating one), less flexible
(only commanding their own troops, in general) and have I think only the
one small benefit of removing a -1 in the first round of hth. Put another
way, when was the last time that you saw anyone (a) chose to buy an AG
rather than Sub, or (b) pay to upgrade to an AG if possible?

(ii) P standards (not PA, which do have a value) are essentially a
liability: they make it easier to see a general routing or dying, and
offer no benefit. In the UK, the cost of all P standards was eliminated
under 7th; I would suggest that the same be done for warrior (and, if
desired, all generals be assumed to have one).

(iii) Shooting by rear ranks. This is rules-legal (i.e. shooting with a
rear rank while the front rank remain shielded) but not Scott-legal. I
think that it should be fine - seems like an eminiently likely and
historical tactic to me - but if it is determined not to be, should be
explicitly forbidden.

Dave's point on IrrA and orders is a good one.

--
Dr. Ewan McNay - Behavioral Neuroscience, Yale University.
(203) 432-7005

[joncleaves]

<<And paying more for a liability (General turning on you or having a rout more
visible) is a bad idea.>>

Those items are not solely liabilities.

In the case of the P standard, a general who is easier to see also makes it
easier to give orders/prompts (7.6 did not say this very well, Warrior will) and
to make other units impetuous (general charging in the front rank within 240p).
A case of the good with the bad, not just all bad.

In the case of an ally general, the +25 points (like irregular command factors
and the +3 minutes to prompt irregulars) reflect the difficulties involved in
commanding troops outside of established professional command structures (such
as they were). As for being a liability, the number one reason anyone takes
allies (historically or in tournaments) is to get the number and type of troops
the ally brings to the fight. The possibility of turning sides (which, by the
way, has happened to me twice in the same tourney) is a possible liability, but
must be looked at as part of the whole system. Good with bad, not all bad.


<<This is an area where you may have to invent a rule whole cloth verses just
modifying an existing rule. Either that or reduce the cost of the Ally Generals
and Standards.>>

At the moment, FHE is looking at:
1. Allies in a list that ONLY has allies. If we do anything here, it'll
probably be a list rule.
2. Ensuring the rule text makes it clear that charging impetuously along with
your general and the minutes being spent on a prompt are influenced by the unit
in question being able to see the general.

We think the points for AGs and P standards, however, are fine. But, we're
still listening.
Jon

[Phil Gardocki]

Having designed games before, I know the balance between reality and
playability is a hard one. But I am also of the opinion that a
decision in a game MUST matter. So if player is required to pay 25
points more for a general, or 5/10 points more for a standard, then
the decision to do so must make a difference. And paying more for a
liability (General turning on you or having a rout more visible) is
a
bad idea. This is an area where you may have to invent a rule whole
cloth verses just modifying an existing rule. Either that or reduce
the cost of the Ally Generals and Standards.
Phil

ok, I went back through the thread and found this; which answered a
good part of my question.

However, since you "are still listening" let me propose that an ally
general also be allowed to use one of the characteristics generally
reserved for the CIC; but only effecting that Ally's command (ie. all
troops in an ally-general's command are eager when the Ally's banner
is within 240 paces of the enemy and advancing). This would do more
to set him aside from a sub-general than merely saying that he brings
troops to bear that would normally not be available.

My biggest problem to this "troop availablity" rationalization is
that, for the most part, these "generally unavailable troops" are
also generally unavailable in there own lists (ie. Korean MI, LTS, B,
1/2Pa Allies are only available in the Ming Chinese List), which,
honestly, makes the aforementioned justification rather meaningless.

It may be just me, but there has got to be something a little bit
more than "troop availablity" to justify the increased cost.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Kevin
will understand if he receives the perfunctory "x-file" reply


--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> <<And paying more for a liability (General turning on you or having
a rout more visible) is a bad idea.>>
>
> Those items are not solely liabilities.
>
> In the case of the P standard, a general who is easier to see also
makes it easier to give orders/prompts (7.6 did not say this very
well, Warrior will) and to make other units impetuous (general
charging in the front rank within 240p). A case of the good with the
bad, not just all bad.
>
> In the case of an ally general, the +25 points (like irregular
command factors and the +3 minutes to prompt irregulars) reflect the
difficulties involved in commanding troops outside of established
professional command structures (such as they were). As for being a
liability, the number one reason anyone takes allies (historically or
in tournaments) is to get the number and type of troops the ally
brings to the fight. The possibility of turning sides (which, by the
way, has happened to me twice in the same tourney) is a possible
liability, but must be looked at as part of the whole system. Good
with bad, not all bad.
>
>
> <<This is an area where you may have to invent a rule whole cloth
verses just modifying an existing rule. Either that or reduce the
cost of the Ally Generals and Standards.>>
>
> At the moment, FHE is looking at:
> 1. Allies in a list that ONLY has allies. If we do anything here,
it'll probably be a list rule.
> 2. Ensuring the rule text makes it clear that charging impetuously
along with your general and the minutes being spent on a prompt are
influenced by the unit in question being able to see the general.
>
> We think the points for AGs and P standards, however, are fine.
But, we're still listening.
> Jon