Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

I have a suggestion, but I offer it up for discussion to the list, and not
as a formal proposal to the Four Horsemen.

One of the few things about 6th Edition that was not carried over into 7th
and which seemed regrettable, was the restricted availability in army lists
of sub and ally generals.

I think it would be worth adjusting the rule about the number of commands
to something like "Each army consists of a number of commands ranging
between 1 and the maximum available sub generals and ally generals provided
in its army list."

So, to take a random example, Scots Isles and Highlands can have only two
sub-generals. After that, the player has to take an Orkney Viking or
Dublin/Man ally general. I think some of the Book 1 lists, had only one sub
general in them at all (but I am on the verge of moving house and I have
packed that away somewhere).

Then, make the points cost for the two equal at 60.

The same principle could also be applied to the availability of command
factors, and then they wouldn't have to be different costs either. (I note
that, in fact, there were limits, although these seem set quite high.)

The advantage to the Four Horsemen is that we would have to buy their lists
to play the game.
The advantage to the players is that it reduces the number of things to
remember/look up. (Not a big advantage, I admit, in this case, but the
principle is sound.)

Finally, a formal proposal - why not make the points values per figure
points values per element where appropriate (chariot and elephant crew, for
example, would still have to be bought by the figure)? Or can one have half
elements?

Paul Szuscikiewicz

PS - Elephants are too cheap at 30 points. Their range of effect was
increased, while their points cost was kept the same as 6th edition.

> From: paulbrewer@... [mailto:paulbrewer@...]

> Finally, a formal proposal - why not make the points values per figure
> points values per element where appropriate (chariot and elephant crew,
for
> example, would still have to be bought by the figure)? Or can
> one have half elements?

Perhaps you could do the base cost per element, and the modifiers per
figure? You wouldn't want to be paying the same to give 2 LI skirmishers an
extra weapon as 4 HI.

Mike


_____________________________________________________________
Notice of Confidential Information - If you receive this message in error,
please notify the sender immediately. The information contained in this
e-mail may be legally privileged and is confidential. Unauthorised use,
dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message is prohibited.
_____________________________________________________________

[Ewan McNay]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Michael Campbell wrote:
> Perhaps you could do the base cost per element, and the modifiers per
> figure? You wouldn't want to be paying the same to give 2 LI skirmishers an
> extra weapon as 4 HI.

Ummm... but there would then still be a cost per element - as all figs on
an element have to have the same weaponry.

What did I miss? *scratches head*

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

> From: Ewan Mcnay [mailto:ewan@...]
>
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Michael Campbell wrote:
> > Perhaps you could do the base cost per element, and the modifiers per
> > figure? You wouldn't want to be paying the same to give 2 LI
skirmishers an
> > extra weapon as 4 HI.
>
> Ummm... but there would then still be a cost per element - as all figs on
> an element have to have the same weaponry.

Yes, but if you listed costs solely by element then you'd have to list the
modifiers by element too EG LI skirmsihers +2 to be "B" class, HI +4, etc.

It occurs to me that by figure is probably a simpler way of doing it for the
modifiers. It's no big deal.

Mike


_____________________________________________________________
Notice of Confidential Information - If you receive this message in error,
please notify the sender immediately. The information contained in this
e-mail may be legally privileged and is confidential. Unauthorised use,
dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message is prohibited.
_____________________________________________________________

[joncleaves]

<< I have a suggestion, but I offer it up for discussion to the list, and not
as a formal proposal to the Four Horsemen.>>

I'm extraordinarily sorry if I have scared anyone off about proposing things
for rules. We really do look hard at everything said here. I admit it is
difficult for me to listen to certain arguments that have already been
hammered over a thousand times between 7.0 and 7.6, especially if those
arguments are portrayed to newcomers on the list as being new material and
not something we have playtested almost continuously since 1988 with all the
requisite historical examinations and game results behind us. HOWEVER, I
will not just listen to everything that's said, I will endeavor to shut up
while I am doing it unless I have an entirely positive comment to make.
Please feel free to make any suggestion or recommendation you wish. Don't
hold anything back. If someone (especially someone involved in the
development of 7th from 7.0 to 7.6) brings up an issue long since decided on,
I will not say a single word. You are just going to have to trust me that
I've read it and it is on the FHE issue list.

That said, I will point out that in a situation where time is finite, it
might be better spent on working on ways to make the rules clearer to new
players than playtest 'new rules.'

<< One of the few things about 6th Edition that was not carried over into 7th
and which seemed regrettable, was the restricted availability in army lists
of sub and ally generals.>>

We are relooking at the availability of subs and allies and how many. I
think this is a great issue and I do not believe when the Warrior lists are
done they will handle this the same way 7th did.

<<Finally, a formal proposal - why not make the points values per figure
points values per element where appropriate (chariot and elephant crew, for
example, would still have to be bought by the figure)? Or can one have half
elements?>>

Paul, God bless you, but I have looked at this for a very, very long time.
On the surface, element costs are the right answer, especially as the lists
will be in terms of elements. The number of exceptions where you need
by-figure costs far exceeds crew, although, like you, I assumed those would
be the only ones. In addition, because of the ability to put figure types on
the same line that do not have the same figures/element (which you CANNOT do
on a by-element list), the element list is twice as long as the by-figure
list. I am still searching for a miracle solution.
I will keep at this, and if I can make it work, I will.
If anyone can make a by-element point value list that includes everything and
is roughly the same length as the by-figure version and we use it, you can
have your copy of Warrior free.

Jon