Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Greg Preston]

Dear all,

I am working on some "x-points" down here is Oz. They are like
"x-rules" but relate to point amendments.

I am interested in the notion of Allied generals vs Sub- Generals.

I was particularly interested in the idea in some Warrior lists that it
is possible to "upgrade" some sub-generals to allied generals.

By way of history:

In TOG 5th Edition there was no distinction between Sub and Allied
Generals- they were all sub-generals (or allied generals if you like)
and had a standard set of things they could do and cost 50pts.

With the introduction of TOG 6th Edition there was a new class of
General the allied general. The sub-general cost 50pts and the Allied
general cost 75pts. The generals shared some common traits and the
allied general had a set of "different" things that they could do.
Specifically, they were better at being able to control their own
troops. They were able to use one of those +/- modifiers on a waver
test were a sub-general couldn't use this as effectively. (remember the
joys of the 6th waver test ?!)

TOG 7 seem to do away with the "game" advantages ie no advantage in the
waver etc for an allied compared to a sub. but retain the points
difference. In fact now there seemed to be things which the allied
general was worse at (can't be 2IC etc)

Now that we have all left these TOG things behind us I am revisiting
these issues.

In warrior, I can see many advantages in using an Allied general in
order use the troops which are attributed to the allied general in list
selection.

However when it comes to use on the table, I can only see benefits for
the sub general over the allied general. I cannot think of a case in a
game where I would prefer to have an allied general rather than a
sub-general. I certainly can't see the 25pt value difference.

I would be interested in others thoughts on this- is there something I
am missing ?

Cheers,

Greg Preston

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/10/2003 21:59:17 Central Daylight Time,
edgdp@... writes:

> However when it comes to use on the table, I can only see benefits for
> the sub general over the allied general. I cannot think of a case in a
> game where I would prefer to have an allied general rather than a
> sub-general. I certainly can't see the 25pt value difference.
>
> I would be interested in others thoughts on this- is there something I
> am missing ?
>

I'm not trying to involve myself in this, believe me, but I do feel the need
to point out that the point values in Warrior are driven *more* by the cost
in effort and money to train, equip and control the various troops rather
than *only* a pure measure of 'combat effectiveness in competition games' or
'relative worth to the player'. This is so the point value system can be
both used for competition games AND campaign games.

That said, as I offered during the Warrior playtest, I am willing to consider
any COMPLETE point value system (meaning one that addresses all troop types
and other costed items and not just a few you have a beef with) that has been
playtested across all periods and trrop types as an alternate to the one we
use. I'd love to see what you come up with.

Jon


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

[Greg Regets]

Hey Jon ...

I'm going to put together a small campaign around here to test your campaign
rules. If you like, we could try out a some small changes to the point system
at the same time, and post the results here, or to you offline.

Greg

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/12/2003 4:15:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, gar@...
writes:

> Hey Jon ...
>
> I'm going to put together a small campaign around here to test your campaign
> rules.>>

Awesome. We are on turn 9 of our 9-player game. We have five battels this turn
and one player is in all five - death or glory!!!

<< If you like, we could try out a some small changes to the point system
> at the same time, and post the results here, or to you
> offline.>>

I will be happy to look at it. It isn't something I am asking for - it would
have to be something you just *had* to do on your own...lol
And offline, please.

Jon
>
> Greg