Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Doug]

>The real issue is the overreaction to seeing armies chosen in open
>tourneys that have a high proportion of missile troops. Some say
>that is because missiles are 'dominant' in Warrior. I say that is
>because in an open, the key is flexibility and missile troops often
>provide the most flexibility for what you pay in army points.
>But open tourneys are an historical example of pretty much nothing.
> If I have no historical opponents worth a damn, I can make a Viking
>combat system dominant. In the relative fantasy-land of the open
>tourney - much more difficult. --Jon

That's an interesting insight for me: in a tournament setting,
"flexibility" is more important than it was to real historical
armies, since in a tournament you can come across anything; whereas
historically you knew what your enemies could do (except when someone
came up with something innovative).

However, it still admits that in a tournament setting, the most
"flexible" armies are most desirable.

Is there anything close to a concensus on what percentage of the
lists are truly Open List competetive?

Here's an off the wall, inchaoate thought about how to make all those
other armies more tournament competetive: Create a way for them to
purchase, for points, something "innovative" which would boost their
flexibility.

In a sense the lists already do this by breaking lists down into
sub-periods. After a certain date, an army adopted a new kind of
weapon, tactic, or ally. Probably most often as a _response_ to a
previously unseen innovation by someone else, sometimes as a
technological innovator.

But following that historical path hasn't made all those other armies
competetive in a tournament.

Is there a way to change the "tournament cycle" without creating utter chaos?

I'm asking-- if a Bronze Age army with composite bows had needed to
innovate against plate armor, could they have invented the longbow?
If so, maybe they should be allowed to buy their bows as longbows in
a tournament where they could run into knights.

I'm not advocating bringing 1600 points of any combination of things
without restriction.

But perhaps a list of "connections" could be created, sort of like
how the Civilization game moves from one era to the next. An army
could purchase the next "innovation" branch on the meta-list tree
even though historically it did not do so.

Something like this might allow people to paint and play the figures
they like best. Recently someone said they like knights but play a
certain list because its more competetive. If other knights could
purchase the "innovation" which makes that list "better" then the
player could paint up the army he likes better and also feel more
competetive.
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

"We will never disarm any American who seeks to protect his or her
family from fear and harm."
--President Ronald W. Reagan

"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well
regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to
arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state." --
Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights
of the People," -- later adopted by the Virginia ratification
convention, 1788

This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains
information that may be privileged, confidential or copyrighted under
applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-mail,
in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender
by return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. Unless
explicitly and conspicuously designated as "E-Contract Intended",
this e-mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment,
or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-mail does not constitute
a consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing
purposes or for transfers of data to third parties.