Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Chris Bump]

Scott,
In the Nikephorian list you costed the fire syphoners at 56 pts per
element. Can this be correct? 14 pts per figure for Regular C LMI?
Since they fire at double effect I thought that maybe they would be
costed at double, but even that would only be 8pts per figure or 32pts
per element.

I wondered even further that since they still defend and are shot as
only 4 figures per element (as opposed to the 8 you appear to be
costing them at) if it would not be more appropriate to cost them at
1.5 x cost per figure as opposed to the 2x that they appear to be.

In any case I wanted to confirm if it was your intent to cost the
element of 4 each Reg C LMI the same as 8 each Reg B LHI.

Clearly if you have corrected this in the clarifications, then I
apologize for rehashing an already solved item.
Thanks,
Chris

[Frank Gilson]

Scott will surely reply, but note that fire syphoneers and other
such troops don't just fire at double effect, they use
the 'incendiary' line...the most powerful shooting factor line.

Also, such fire has some advantages:
1) disorders mounted if even 1CPF is reached, when ANY of the fire
is incendiary
2) foot troops who normally would get to 'stand halted' if they
received sufficient prep fire, have to waver instead if hit by
incendiary missiles

Frank

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "cncbump" <cncbump@v...> wrote:
> Scott,
> In the Nikephorian list you costed the fire syphoners at 56 pts
per
> element. Can this be correct? 14 pts per figure for Regular C
LMI?
> Since they fire at double effect I thought that maybe they would
be
> costed at double, but even that would only be 8pts per figure or
32pts
> per element.
>
> I wondered even further that since they still defend and are shot
as
> only 4 figures per element (as opposed to the 8 you appear to be
> costing them at) if it would not be more appropriate to cost them
at
> 1.5 x cost per figure as opposed to the 2x that they appear to be.
>
> In any case I wanted to confirm if it was your intent to cost the
> element of 4 each Reg C LMI the same as 8 each Reg B LHI.
>
> Clearly if you have corrected this in the clarifications, then I
> apologize for rehashing an already solved item.
> Thanks,
> Chris

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "cncbump" <cncbump@v...> wrote:
> Scott,
> In the Nikephorian list you costed the fire syphoners at 56 pts per
> element. Can this be correct? 14 pts per figure for Regular C LMI?
> Since they fire at double effect I thought that maybe they would be
> costed at double, but even that would only be 8pts per figure or 32pts
> per element.
>
> I wondered even further that since they still defend and are shot as
> only 4 figures per element (as opposed to the 8 you appear to be
> costing them at) if it would not be more appropriate to cost them at
> 1.5 x cost per figure as opposed to the 2x that they appear to be.
>
> In any case I wanted to confirm if it was your intent to cost the
> element of 4 each Reg C LMI the same as 8 each Reg B LHI.
>
> Clearly if you have corrected this in the clarifications, then I
> apologize for rehashing an already solved item.
> Thanks,
> Chris

Page 96 of the Warrior rules:

Extra to equip figure with fire projector or naptha:
Reg +10, Irr +15

Rich

[Chris Bump]

hand gunners have the same effects and are costed at exactly the same
as any other infantry armed with a single weapon. Further troops who
use fire arrows use the same table, have a greater range, fire at
full effect over one full rank etc and only pay 1pt extra for the
priveleges.
Points well made Frank, but I don't think they sustain the cost of
the Byzantine elements.
Chris

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Gilson"
<franktrevorgilson@h...> wrote:
> Scott will surely reply, but note that fire syphoneers and other
> such troops don't just fire at double effect, they use
> the 'incendiary' line...the most powerful shooting factor line.
>
> Also, such fire has some advantages:
> 1) disorders mounted if even 1CPF is reached, when ANY of the fire
> is incendiary
> 2) foot troops who normally would get to 'stand halted' if they
> received sufficient prep fire, have to waver instead if hit by
> incendiary missiles
>
> Frank
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "cncbump" <cncbump@v...> wrote:
> > Scott,
> > In the Nikephorian list you costed the fire syphoners at 56 pts
> per
> > element. Can this be correct? 14 pts per figure for Regular C
> LMI?
> > Since they fire at double effect I thought that maybe they would
> be
> > costed at double, but even that would only be 8pts per figure or
> 32pts
> > per element.
> >
> > I wondered even further that since they still defend and are shot
> as
> > only 4 figures per element (as opposed to the 8 you appear to be
> > costing them at) if it would not be more appropriate to cost them
> at
> > 1.5 x cost per figure as opposed to the 2x that they appear to be.
> >
> > In any case I wanted to confirm if it was your intent to cost the
> > element of 4 each Reg C LMI the same as 8 each Reg B LHI.
> >
> > Clearly if you have corrected this in the clarifications, then I
> > apologize for rehashing an already solved item.
> > Thanks,
> > Chris

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Excellent post Chris,

One would think this is merely a WRG holdover that has slipped
past. It certainly would be cool if someone were to check into this.

kw







--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "cncbump" <cncbump@v...> wrote:
> hand gunners have the same effects and are costed at exactly the
same
> as any other infantry armed with a single weapon. Further troops
who
> use fire arrows use the same table, have a greater range, fire at
> full effect over one full rank etc and only pay 1pt extra for the
> priveleges.
> Points well made Frank, but I don't think they sustain the cost of
> the Byzantine elements.
> Chris
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Gilson"
> <franktrevorgilson@h...> wrote:
> > Scott will surely reply, but note that fire syphoneers and other
> > such troops don't just fire at double effect, they use
> > the 'incendiary' line...the most powerful shooting factor line.
> >
> > Also, such fire has some advantages:
> > 1) disorders mounted if even 1CPF is reached, when ANY of the
fire
> > is incendiary
> > 2) foot troops who normally would get to 'stand halted' if they
> > received sufficient prep fire, have to waver instead if hit by
> > incendiary missiles
> >
> > Frank
> >
> > --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "cncbump" <cncbump@v...>
wrote:
> > > Scott,
> > > In the Nikephorian list you costed the fire syphoners at 56
pts
> > per
> > > element. Can this be correct? 14 pts per figure for Regular
C
> > LMI?
> > > Since they fire at double effect I thought that maybe they
would
> > be
> > > costed at double, but even that would only be 8pts per figure
or
> > 32pts
> > > per element.
> > >
> > > I wondered even further that since they still defend and are
shot
> > as
> > > only 4 figures per element (as opposed to the 8 you appear to
be
> > > costing them at) if it would not be more appropriate to cost
them
> > at
> > > 1.5 x cost per figure as opposed to the 2x that they appear to
be.
> > >
> > > In any case I wanted to confirm if it was your intent to cost
the
> > > element of 4 each Reg C LMI the same as 8 each Reg B LHI.
> > >
> > > Clearly if you have corrected this in the clarifications, then
I
> > > apologize for rehashing an already solved item.
> > > Thanks,
> > > Chris

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 9/5/2005 16:05:42 Central Standard Time,
mark@... writes:

One can, of course, question whether availability, technology, and training
is a
good basis for a point system, but I doubt Jon is going to be very
interested in
such questions given that that issue has been thrashed out endlessly on this
list.




We will, however, as we have said from the start, look at any submission of
a complete point system. It remains to be seen if we ever relook it, but I
can tell you it won't be this year....

Jon


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Mark Stone]

--- On September 5 Kelly said: ---

> Excellent post Chris,
>
> One would think this is merely a WRG holdover that has slipped
> past. It certainly would be cool if someone were to check into this.
>
> kw

Guys, this topic has been beaten to _death_ on this mailing list. This may be a
new example, but it's the same old story.

You are _never_ going to win an argument with Jon about how the point cost for
something works by appealing to its value in game-play terms. Jon has said over
and over that he point system is not, and never has been based on the game value
of something.

Points are, as I understand it, based on the availability of manpower for a
given troop type, the complexity of the technology involved given the
historical period, and the difficulty in training a given troop type to perform
the function in question.

Fire syphoneers represent probably the most complex technology of the time, and
a non-trivial training task to avoid self-immolation. It seems to me that those
factors account for the point cost, and those factors alone.

One can, of course, question whether availability, technology, and training is a
good basis for a point system, but I doubt Jon is going to be very interested in
such questions given that that issue has been thrashed out endlessly on this
list.


-Mark Stone

[Bill Chriss]

Mark Stone said:

> Fire syphoneers represent probably the most complex technology of the
> time, and
> a non-trivial training task to avoid self-immolation.


This, I think, is a conservative statement with which any serious
historian can agree. I always enjoy Mark's posts, but I particularly
enjoyed the colorful and precise use of the English language in this one!


-Greek (or, if you like, Byzantine)

[Chris Bump]

Well then the response, assuming one was ever coming, might have
been, "the cost is correct". I was writing with the thought that the
current costing could have been a clerical mistake and thought that
my final points might have made that clear.
"I wanted to confirm if it was your intent to cost the
element of 4 each Reg C LMI the same as 8 each Reg B LHI."
Apparently not.

Your points make sense Mark. Frankly, I don't recall having ever
seen the points you make made previously, but that certainly does not
mean that they haven't appeared on this site. I am way past trying
to convince FHE to make any changes. As Jon as often written, they
have their understanding of history... and that is pretty much the
end of it. If the writings of Marius can't inspire a change I
certianly can't.

I don't subscribe to your premise that the fire syphoners represent
any more of a complex technology or requirement for training than the
early handguns of their time. However, if that is the position of
FHE they no doubt priced the figs as they deemed appropriate. I was
just confirming because it seemed excessive to me and because Holy
Warrior was the second list book released. As I recall the earlier
lists were more fraught with errors than the later books have been.
Chris

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> --- On September 5 Kelly said: ---
>
> > Excellent post Chris,
> >
> > One would think this is merely a WRG holdover that has slipped
> > past. It certainly would be cool if someone were to check into
this.
> >
> > kw
>
> Guys, this topic has been beaten to _death_ on this mailing list.
This may be a
> new example, but it's the same old story.
>
> You are _never_ going to win an argument with Jon about how the
point cost for
> something works by appealing to its value in game-play terms. Jon
has said over
> and over that he point system is not, and never has been based on
the game value
> of something.
>
> Points are, as I understand it, based on the availability of
manpower for a
> given troop type, the complexity of the technology involved given
the
> historical period, and the difficulty in training a given troop
type to perform
> the function in question.
>
> Fire syphoneers represent probably the most complex technology of
the time, and
> a non-trivial training task to avoid self-immolation. It seems to
me that those
> factors account for the point cost, and those factors alone.
>
> One can, of course, question whether availability, technology, and
training is a
> good basis for a point system, but I doubt Jon is going to be very
interested in
> such questions given that that issue has been thrashed out
endlessly on this
> list.
>
>
> -Mark Stone

[Chris Bump]

Well there you go. Question answered.
Thanks Rich.
Chris
--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Rich Crosby" <rcrosby@i...>
wrote:
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "cncbump" <cncbump@v...> wrote:
> > Scott,
> > In the Nikephorian list you costed the fire syphoners at 56 pts
per
> > element. Can this be correct? 14 pts per figure for Regular C
LMI?
> > Since they fire at double effect I thought that maybe they would
be
> > costed at double, but even that would only be 8pts per figure or
32pts
> > per element.
> >
> > I wondered even further that since they still defend and are shot
as
> > only 4 figures per element (as opposed to the 8 you appear to be
> > costing them at) if it would not be more appropriate to cost them
at
> > 1.5 x cost per figure as opposed to the 2x that they appear to be.
> >
> > In any case I wanted to confirm if it was your intent to cost the
> > element of 4 each Reg C LMI the same as 8 each Reg B LHI.
> >
> > Clearly if you have corrected this in the clarifications, then I
> > apologize for rehashing an already solved item.
> > Thanks,
> > Chris
>
> Page 96 of the Warrior rules:
>
> Extra to equip figure with fire projector or naptha:
> Reg +10, Irr +15
>
> Rich

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 9/5/2005 17:41:55 Central Standard Time,
cncbump@... writes:

Well then the response, assuming one was ever coming, might have
been, "the cost is correct". I was writing with the thought that the
current costing could have been a clerical mistake and thought that
my final points might have made that clear.
"I wanted to confirm if it was your intent to cost the
element of 4 each Reg C LMI the same as 8 each Reg B LHI."
Apparently not. >>
My fault. I saw Rich's post and since it was correct, didn't think to back
it up with the official response. Didn't mean to keep you waiting, Chris.



Your points make sense Mark. Frankly, I don't recall having ever
seen the points you make made previously, but that certainly does not

mean that they haven't appeared on this site.>>
Mark is indeed correct that the discussion of the point system has taken
place here on more than one occasion. He may have assumed that given your
length of membership on the group that you had seen it. Unfortunately, the
yahoo
group search function blows, so it is hard to catch up on old discussions - I
will summarize:

FHE is comfortable with the point system as a whole and has no intent to
change it in the near future. If we do change it, it will be after a thorough
review of the *entire* system and will not be nicks and cuts applied to
'eaches'. The current system has the distinct and unique advantage of having
thousands of games using this engine under its belt. We're not going to make a
reactionary isolated change in the face of that.
We have offered, since before Warrior was published, to review any complete
point system provided to us. Especially one that has had any decent amount
of playtesting provided. In the five years of that offer, no one has taken us
up on it - and for a very good reason. It would (will?) be a first class
grade A bitch to do better than what we have. We are choosing to spend our
limited time on other projects.

We are not saying no to the idea of a relook in the fture. But think
through the impact on our published list books for an idea of the initial
obstacles
involved....

I am way past trying
to convince FHE to make any changes. As Jon as often written, they
have their understanding of history... and that is pretty much the
end of it. If the writings of Marius can't inspire a change I
certianly can't.>>
This sort of comment does not inspire me to be overly helpful to the
speaker. And never will. I listen to more than any game designer I know will
tolerate. Name dropping Marius as though a reading of him is absolute and
translates directly into obvious game mechanics changes means nothing to me.



I don't subscribe to your premise that the fire syphoners represent
any more of a complex technology or requirement for training than the
early handguns of their time.>>
Clearly. Yet Mark said it exactly correctly. I understand you disagree,
Chris. That in and of itself does not make either one of us wrong.

Jon


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Mark,

I was not addressing said person. And I do not presume to argue anything in
regard to Chris' excellent point. All I mentioned was the fact that this is a
WRG holdover, which it is. Whether the present rules person agrees or not,
should not stifle discussion amongst members of this list. By the way, could you
direct me to the posts that specifically discuss Byzantine fire syphoners, I'm
sure it will be interesting reading.

Sincerely,

kw

Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
--- On September 5 Kelly said: ---

> Excellent post Chris,
>
> One would think this is merely a WRG holdover that has slipped
> past. It certainly would be cool if someone were to check into this.
>
> kw

Guys, this topic has been beaten to _death_ on this mailing list. This may be a
new example, but it's the same old story.

You are _never_ going to win an argument with Jon about how the point cost for
something works by appealing to its value in game-play terms. Jon has said over
and over that he point system is not, and never has been based on the game value
of something.

Points are, as I understand it, based on the availability of manpower for a
given troop type, the complexity of the technology involved given the
historical period, and the difficulty in training a given troop type to perform
the function in question.

Fire syphoneers represent probably the most complex technology of the time, and
a non-trivial training task to avoid self-immolation. It seems to me that those
factors account for the point cost, and those factors alone.

One can, of course, question whether availability, technology, and training is a
good basis for a point system, but I doubt Jon is going to be very interested in
such questions given that that issue has been thrashed out endlessly on this
list.


-Mark Stone



SPONSORED LINKS
Warrior Wargaming Four horsemen Miniature wargaming Wargaming terrain

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Bill,

You're a riot!

kelly

hrisikos@... wrote:
Mark Stone said:

> Fire syphoneers represent probably the most complex technology of the
> time, and
> a non-trivial training task to avoid self-immolation.


This, I think, is a conservative statement with which any serious
historian can agree. I always enjoy Mark's posts, but I particularly
enjoyed the colorful and precise use of the English language in this one!


-Greek (or, if you like, Byzantine)






SPONSORED LINKS
Warrior Wargaming Four horsemen Miniature wargaming Wargaming terrain

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Chris Bump]

Actually, a little research on my part would have borne out the
answer. In the general concepts at the head of the Holy list book it
speaks to the page in the rules book that answers the question I
asked. I still think the cost excessive, but do not presume to ask
for a change.

On another note from the same list, and please pardon the spelling,
the Heteraria are allowed 1-3 elements per general. My question is
do all the elements purchased have to be part of a General's unit or
is this a source of additional formations whose numbers simply depend
on the number of Generals chosen. Also, although it seems intuitive,
do the number of generals selected that then allow the purchase of up
to 3 elements of the Heteraria all have to be Byzantine or does the
purchase of a Georgian sub general still allow the purchase of a
coresponding 3 elements of Heteraria?
Thanks,
Chris

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> Mark,
>
> I was not addressing said person. And I do not presume to
argue anything in regard to Chris' excellent point. All I mentioned
was the fact that this is a WRG holdover, which it is. Whether the
present rules person agrees or not, should not stifle discussion
amongst members of this list. By the way, could you direct me to the
posts that specifically discuss Byzantine fire syphoners, I'm sure it
will be interesting reading.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
kw
>
> Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> --- On September 5 Kelly said: ---
>
> > Excellent post Chris,
> >
> > One would think this is merely a WRG holdover that has slipped
> > past. It certainly would be cool if someone were to check into
this.
> >
> > kw
>
> Guys, this topic has been beaten to _death_ on this mailing list.
This may be a
> new example, but it's the same old story.
>
> You are _never_ going to win an argument with Jon about how the
point cost for
> something works by appealing to its value in game-play terms. Jon
has said over
> and over that he point system is not, and never has been based on
the game value
> of something.
>
> Points are, as I understand it, based on the availability of
manpower for a
> given troop type, the complexity of the technology involved given
the
> historical period, and the difficulty in training a given troop
type to perform
> the function in question.
>
> Fire syphoneers represent probably the most complex technology of
the time, and
> a non-trivial training task to avoid self-immolation. It seems to
me that those
> factors account for the point cost, and those factors alone.
>
> One can, of course, question whether availability, technology, and
training is a
> good basis for a point system, but I doubt Jon is going to be very
interested in
> such questions given that that issue has been thrashed out
endlessly on this
> list.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Warrior Wargaming Four horsemen Miniature wargaming Wargaming
terrain
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Chris Bump]

I never fully understand where you come from in your responses. I
have not proclaimed you wrong in this exchange. I have not asked for
nor suggested a change in your point system. My comment about
inspiring change was not directed to you but to Mark, who I think
(IMO) went off on his own tangent. I do not seek nor have I
requested rationalizations as to why you have made your decisions. I
am ambivilent as to what you decide to do with regards to future
changes to the rules. I asked a question for the sake of
clarification. You are right. Rich's response nailed it, I wrote as
much once I read it.
Chris

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 9/5/2005 17:41:55 Central Standard Time,
> cncbump@v... writes:
>
> Well then the response, assuming one was ever coming, might have
> been, "the cost is correct". I was writing with the thought that
the
> current costing could have been a clerical mistake and thought
that
> my final points might have made that clear.
> "I wanted to confirm if it was your intent to cost the
> element of 4 each Reg C LMI the same as 8 each Reg B LHI."
> Apparently not. >>
> My fault. I saw Rich's post and since it was correct, didn't think
to back
> it up with the official response. Didn't mean to keep you
waiting, Chris.
>
>
>
> Your points make sense Mark. Frankly, I don't recall having ever
> seen the points you make made previously, but that certainly does
not
>
> mean that they haven't appeared on this site.>>
> Mark is indeed correct that the discussion of the point system has
taken
> place here on more than one occasion. He may have assumed that
given your
> length of membership on the group that you had seen it.
Unfortunately, the yahoo
> group search function blows, so it is hard to catch up on old
discussions - I
> will summarize:
>
> FHE is comfortable with the point system as a whole and has no
intent to
> change it in the near future. If we do change it, it will be after
a thorough
> review of the *entire* system and will not be nicks and cuts
applied to
> 'eaches'. The current system has the distinct and unique advantage
of having
> thousands of games using this engine under its belt. We're not
going to make a
> reactionary isolated change in the face of that.
> We have offered, since before Warrior was published, to review any
complete
> point system provided to us. Especially one that has had any
decent amount
> of playtesting provided. In the five years of that offer, no one
has taken us
> up on it - and for a very good reason. It would (will?) be a
first class
> grade A bitch to do better than what we have. We are choosing to
spend our
> limited time on other projects.
>
> We are not saying no to the idea of a relook in the fture. But
think
> through the impact on our published list books for an idea of the
initial obstacles
> involved....
>
> I am way past trying
> to convince FHE to make any changes. As Jon as often written,
they
> have their understanding of history... and that is pretty much the
> end of it. If the writings of Marius can't inspire a change I
> certianly can't.>>
> This sort of comment does not inspire me to be overly helpful to
the
> speaker. And never will. I listen to more than any game designer
I know will
> tolerate. Name dropping Marius as though a reading of him is
absolute and
> translates directly into obvious game mechanics changes means
nothing to me.
>
>
>
> I don't subscribe to your premise that the fire syphoners
represent
> any more of a complex technology or requirement for training than
the
> early handguns of their time.>>
> Clearly. Yet Mark said it exactly correctly. I understand you
disagree,
> Chris. That in and of itself does not make either one of us wrong.
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]