Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Scott,

I want to echo some of the thoughts rambling through this thread
regarding reducing point totals. I and I feel most gamers, don't have
a problem with this as long as:

1. List Minima is reduced by one third regardless of the list (I
pointed out some Feudal/Holy Warrior lists and a few had a tough time
getting less than 1600. With minimums, some lists are right around
the low 1500's)

2. List maxima is allowed to increase by 20 percent as long as
minimums are also increased by the same proportion. This will help
with some of the older 6th edition lists that had a hard time getting
to 1200 let alone 1600 points (please note that these lists may be on
the superceded list)

I think part of the issue is that 1600 points in 25mm scale covers
more than the same point value in 15mm because of table sizes. While
at first glance it might seem that covering the table gets players
into combat faster, in reality it seems to slow game play because
flanks are more readily protected IMHO.

I have not favored lower point values because of issues with lists.
Also, lower point values favor "cheap troop" armies. Many medieval
armies tend to get disproportionately smaller when total points per
army is reduced IMHO. I think Greg mentioned that LC tends to
dominate once the point values lower since there is a lot more
manuever room now that troops take up less real estate on the table.
I would just caution anyone having tournaments with less points per
army unless adjustments are made to minima/maxima and possible table
size.

I don't have a problem with shorter rounds with less points as long
as we do what I have stated. I believe there are some smaller
tournaments that are at 1250 that adjust table sizes and lists. Or am
I mistaken in this belief? Seems to me someone may have already
figured it out.

For big tournies, I don't mind the two day thing. But in all honesty,
if I could finish in one day, I would prefer it. 3 hour rounds with
1250 points would allow 4 rounds in one day. You could then have 3
regular rounds and a one round playoff. For big tournies (more than
16 players), I think you have to seriously look at having extra
rounds. These can be either playoff rounds or elimination rounds. I
know that total points can be different but point totals don't
reflect quality of opponents.

I like the way they do it at sports tournaments with double-
elimination. Winners stay in the winner bracket until a loss. Top
finishing loser bracket players (usually one or two) advance to semi-
finals. This usually ensures that the top four players/teams are in
the semi's. This whole issue of points tends to alienate new players
(unless they are thick-skinned or warned in advance) and also favors
those that match up well (luck of the draw) by either having a
favorable army matchup or facing a weaker player.

Anyway, I have rambled on too much!

Any other thoughts....

Chris Tebo

[scott holder]

1. List Minima is reduced by one third regardless of the list (I
pointed out some Feudal/Holy Warrior lists and a few had a tough time
getting less than 1600. With minimums, some lists are right around
the low 1500's)

>That is incorrect. One of the things Bill and I do is go thru the lists and
build them in a "typical" manner with standard unit sizes etc. We then see what
the minimums dictate in terms of "minimum army size". A couple of lists have
minimums that get into the low 700s but most are below that. We do this with
the next to final draft. We then tweak minimums accordingly both up and down.
I have my list(s) that list this from DAW, HW, NWW, FeudWar somewhere but again,
virtually all lists have reasonable minimums if purchased in standard unit
sizes. I can absolutely guarantee you that *no* list's minimums approach 1000
points much less 1500. Oops, Tlaxcallans led by Cortez is the only one that
gets high but that was a concious decision on our part. And as Jon has pointed
out before, it's still viable (in his mind) at 1200 points.

I believe there are some smaller tournaments that are at 1250 that adjust table
sizes and lists. Or am I mistaken in this belief? Seems to me someone may have
already figured it out.

>Um, for the better part of 10 years now, NASAMW has run the "Mini" tourney with
1200 point lists (no adjustments for mins/maxs and none planned) on a 6x5 table
for 25mm, 4x4 table for 15mm. This past year, we've experimented with playing
the Mini on a "standard" table size, especially because we knew that many theme
year armies would end up playing in the Mini and it seemed both appropriate and
appropriate to experiment. As I said in an earlier post, we're now going back
to "mini" table size for the forseeable future.

For big tournies, I don't mind the two day thing. But in all honesty,
if I could finish in one day, I would prefer it. 3 hour rounds with
1250 points would allow 4 rounds in one day. You could then have 3
regular rounds and a one round playoff.

>At 1600 points, that's what we've been doing for the better part of a decade.
"X" number of folks make the cut and play one round on Sunday. Seems to work
well with the numbers we've attracted.

This usually ensures that the top four players/teams are in
the semi's. This whole issue of points tends to alienate new players
(unless they are thick-skinned or warned in advance) and also favors
those that match up well (luck of the draw) by either having a
favorable army matchup or facing a weaker player.

>None of which applies in the current system I use at the NASAMW tourneys. I
ruthlessly "Swiss Pair" people (winners play winners) to that the top players
are assured of meeting each other nlt the third round. Case in point, the two
leading players after 3 rounds of this year's NICT, Rob and Ted, had 15 and 14
points respectively. Obviously they played each other in the 4th and final
round. Moreover, the weighted scoring system penalizes people with "weak" draws
in that their final score reflects how well their opponents did over the course
of 3-4 rounds of gaming. We've been using the present system for 9 years now
and it works well. FWIW.

Scott

Scott,

I may have been looking at taking any ally and this may be where the
issue arrises But it still holds true for some non-FHE lists
which have not been superceded by new lists.

I still stick by my statement regarding reducing/increasing minimums
and maximums though :-)

What is the optimum army size based on the new lists? Just curious...
It seems to me that the old 6th lists varied on optimum sizes.
Granadine comes to mine in the old lists. I don't think you could get
to 1600 if you wanted to!

My statement regarding 4 rounds per day was meant for all tournaments
and not the NICT per se. In Texas, we haven't had a 4 round day that
I can remember... We do seem to go for 3.5 hour rounds down here.

Oh, and I stick by my statement regarding scale. 1600 points with
25mm is fine for the Medieval/Dark Age battlefield but it will be
difficult to simulate army tactics such as Mongols used. There isn't
enough room to move 1600 points in 15mm on a 6X4 foot table takes
up less room proportionately than 1600 points of 25mm figures on an
8X5 table. Stand widths increase by 50% when going from 15mm to 25mm
(40mm stand width in 15mm scale; 60mm stand width in 25mm
respectively) So, if stands increase in width by 50%, tables in 25mm
scale should be 9X6; which isn't practical since industrial tables
are not this length. So we are giving up 14 square feet or 25% table
surface in proportion to this scale (8X5 is 40Sqft and 9X6 is 54Sqft)
So if we are giving up this amount of surface, to have the same game
in 25mm as we have in 15mm would require reducing point totals by the
same or near same proportion. Reducing a 1600 point 25mm army by 20%
leaves us 1280 points; reducing by 25% leaves us 1200. Reducing
points and table size basically leaves us where we started with
regards to surface area. Hmmm, is this where 1250 points on an 8X5
table idea comes from?

This, IMHO, is why infantry has become so important in the NICT. Jon
states this in his AAR. The proportion of LC decreases in 25mm scale.
Great for a lot of armies, awful for Mongols and other hordes. The
game is different; not better and not worse. This is why some armies
are better in 25mm than in 15mm. Armies such as Viking, Early
Imperial Roman, Burgundian Ordonnance, etc. are much better 25mm
armies than in 15mm. The only exception being when you get your
favored matchup or terrain rolls! ;-)

I am glad to see so many armies listed at the NICT. Its good to know
that everyone is trying new armies. Its also gratifying to see armies
formally not used as much performing better.

I thank you, the FHE and the list editors for balancing the lists. I
find them much more playable, competitive and enjoyable than ever
before. Just think; I can actually play my ancestral Condotta army
and have a chance!

Anyway, I am not attacking here at all. What I am saying is that
there are other opinions out here and all too often the lurkers among
us don't say much for whatever reason. Maybe a poll or two is in
order?

Thanks for your time and your earlier responses,

Chris Tebo