Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Frank Gilson]

Very good post...

My reason for preferring two lists is NOT that more lists become
playable.

Rather, it is because as a player I am then forced to make more
decisions.

Having more decisions to make (2 lists, instead of one) means I have
more opportunity to make good choices and then demonstrate those in
tournament play.

Everybody thus has more choices to make, and learn more about
building armies and putting them into play. Better players make
better decisions and this is reflected in tournament performance.

Frank

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "mailtomikek"
<mailtomikek@y...> wrote:
> 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