Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

I think it's easy but inaccurate to generalize regarding the type of
army that is harmed or hurt by moving between one-list and two-list
tournaments.

Relevant to this point in Warrior, because the same design
principles apply across rules systems, is the rating criterion
of "Versatility" used in a collection of army reviews which I edited
(and partly wrote) for another rules set. These included, along
with army type, sample list size, learning curve difficulty, and a
comments section with varying content, a "Versatility" rating
against a global range of opponents such as one might expect to face
in a tournament (trying to avoid overweighting the latest fad and
its responses). The range was A to D (with +/- modifiers),
reflecting mainly composition but also tactical options and factors
which in a Warrior context would include scouting and terrain
options.

"A" armies tend to be well rounded with at least some aspects of
combined arms, able to face any opponent with at least some
reasonably effective tools although other portions of the army might
be vulnerable. Failure to exploit their strengths and cover their
weaknesses could be fatal, tending to present "Difficult"
or "Moderate" rather than "Easy" learning curves and therefore
presenting considerable frustration or disappointment for the unwary
new player.

"B" armies tend to be more focused, though not usually one-
dimensional. They are often deadly against some types of opponents
and/or quite capable against a broad range, but their distinguishing
aspect is that they have an Achilles heel or broader weakness
against certain opponents (sometimes they might rate an "A" except
for some tough mutually exclusive choices). Note that because of
their focus, "B" can be far more dangerous than "A" armies to their
preferred opponents. They are not necessarily inferior to "A"
armies -- in fact, they might be more likely to win tournaments by
forcing sharp win/lose rather than drawish results. Many Knight
armies would probably fall in the "B" range. "B" armies are often a
good choice for new players, being capable but easier to run
competently than many others.

"C" armies are either (1) good against at least some types of
opponents (usually including in-period opponents), but more broadly
vulnerable to a variety of tournament opponents or (2) mediocre
across the board, winning through skill and army-specific tactical
expertise rather than a superior military system (I would expect
victory through army-specific expertise to be a very important
factor in Warrior). These armies tend to be uni-dimensional or
include suboptimal troop types and were often "Easy" armies to learn
because of the more limited viable tactical methods available.

"D" armies are, frankly, pitiful or worse from the global
perspective, lacking effective counters to a wide range of
opposition, and perhaps marginal even against historical
adversaries. While a one might happily take a "C" army to a
tournament and both have fun and score some points, "D" would often
represent "Depressing Defeat." These are the armies only a
historian or masochist could love and only a sadist would gain joy
from defeating (though jaded experts might toy with them as a
handicap). I imagine these are more common in history than in game,
where army list balance is a consideration. Any ideas as to which
specific armies might fit in this category rather than "C", and
why? Often examining a seriously deficient army has substantial
educational value in learning a game.

Given the Versatility framework above, ratings were given assuming
only one optimized list as the task of comparison becomes
geometrically more complicated when potential multiple lists for
each army are considered, even if only partial rather than full
substitution is allowed (I think something can be said for partial
substitution preserving the same basic character of the army). The
potential of alternative lists was discussed in some of the review
comments -- the most interesting part of the review for many
readers.

Learning from this . . . while all armies gain something in
absolute terms by being able to field multiple lists, whether they
gain or lose relatively in competitiveness depends on the specific
list structure and options rather than on their starting one-list
Versatility, although a few generalizations may be made.

My view is that "B" armies able to cover their Achilles heel gain
the most from having two lists, while those that can't do so suffer
because opponents are likelier to have a second list that can
counter their strength (e.g., Knight armies or Elephant armies have
tended to be classic "B" armies against which an adequate second
list can be quite valuable). "A" armies with a nice variety of
tailored options improve somewhat while "A" armies which are already
fully optimized gain nothing and therefore decline a little in
relative terms. Both "C" and "D" armies tend to suffer from having
a limited number of ways the army can be fielded (Midianites as a
C+?), so often decline relatively as they gain few additional
capabilities while more versatile opponents gain more or can even
field a second list that hamstrings the "one trick camel" in the C
or D stable. However, dual-personality "C" armies (limited by
structure to two very different compositions) can gain a great deal
if the two personalities complement each other's strengths.

My bottom-line conclusion is that a multi-list format will move some
armies up and some armies down in suitability, but on balance it
will create a wider spread between the best and the worst and create
a somewhat sharper divide between the "haves" and the "have nots."
Although I said generalizations are inaccurate, here goes: in
general, I expect, the "A" armies are the least match-up sensitive
so will continue to be playable, some "B" armies and "C" armies will
greatly improve, some armies will rise or drop between "B" and "C"
but remain playable, and the list of stay-at-home "C/C-" armies will
increase. However, the results for each specific army need to be
analyzed on an army by army basis.

Feedback on the suitability of the classification scheme for
Warrior, or conclusions as to effect of multiple lists?

Best regards,

Mike