Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/28/2005 16:57:55 Central Standard Time, ncioran@...
writes:

I say this from a wide experience. The vitality of every tournament
system I have played in (which has been several, and always very
competitively) has been directly related to how frequently changes to
rules and lists/units/ships/whatever are made. >>


Well, given that 99% of those systems are non-historical, it is easy to
change the lists themselves every so often to keep things 'fresh' (and sell
more
figures....)
We don't have that option. Nor will the core rules change.

But I do agree that some periodic shake up of the tourney rules themselves
might be in order and/or the use of alternate formats. And this is the
direction we are likely to go.

J








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

Its good to see this topic raised.

One of my early realizations looking at the army lists was that they
were not balanced for tournament play. It only takes a moment or two
to see that some lists have a far greater variety of options and
flexibility, while others are far more limited.

And sadly that means that not all armies are created equal for
tournament play. So what you get is the hard nosed players
gravitating to what they perceive as the winning lists. The best
players perceive correctly, and go on to win. Its also clear from
reviewing the posted army lists that certain lists are chosen
repeatedly by the same players, and that they remain competitive over
time.

Unfortunately, in my experience this is a sign of a stagnant
tournament system. If the same players consistent rank at the top
playing the same armies, its a disincentive to new players to invest
the effort required to be competive, especially if they're not
interested in the "winning" lists.

I've also seen an entrenched resistance to change from a number of the
best players on this list on several topics related to tournaments,
and that says to me that they've gotten comfortable, and are
protecting their position to the detriment of the system as a whole,
particularly with regard to encouraging new players to participate.

I say this from a wide experience. The vitality of every tournament
system I have played in (which has been several, and always very
competitively) has been directly related to how frequently changes to
rules and lists/units/ships/whatever are made.

And its not like the best are ever really knocked out by these
changes. They usually remain on top if they're willing to adapt to
change.

Have fun!
Cole

[Todd Schneider]

WSell, certain lists do have certain strengths, and in
the right hands they do quite well.

Other lists are also a good combination of units, and
I think you'd be hard pressed to find one that wasn't
also pretty powerful in it's own time period.

Ultimately, from my POV, it's not that some Armies
have other advatages, or are more powerful, it's if
the "right" armies are the ones that have this.

I have no issues if Alexandrian Macedonians, or Early
Imperial Romans, Mongols or Sassinids or Han play
tough and win a lot of games. On the other hand, if
we see lists like Iayzges Sarmations winning on a
regular basis, then I think theres a legitimate
problem.

Todd
--- Nicholas Cioran <ncioran@...> wrote:
>
> Its good to see this topic raised.
>
> One of my early realizations looking at the army
> lists was that they
> were not balanced for tournament play. It only
> takes a moment or two
> to see that some lists have a far greater variety of
> options and
> flexibility, while others are far more limited.
>
> And sadly that means that not all armies are created
> equal for
> tournament play. So what you get is the hard nosed
> players
> gravitating to what they perceive as the winning
> lists. The best
> players perceive correctly, and go on to win. Its
> also clear from
> reviewing the posted army lists that certain lists
> are chosen
> repeatedly by the same players, and that they remain
> competitive over
> time.
>
> Unfortunately, in my experience this is a sign of a
> stagnant
> tournament system. If the same players consistent
> rank at the top
> playing the same armies, its a disincentive to new
> players to invest
> the effort required to be competive, especially if
> they're not
> interested in the "winning" lists.
>
> I've also seen an entrenched resistance to change
> from a number of the
> best players on this list on several topics related
> to tournaments,
> and that says to me that they've gotten comfortable,
> and are
> protecting their position to the detriment of the
> system as a whole,
> particularly with regard to encouraging new players
> to participate.
>
> I say this from a wide experience. The vitality of
> every tournament
> system I have played in (which has been several, and
> always very
> competitively) has been directly related to how
> frequently changes to
> rules and lists/units/ships/whatever are made.
>
> And its not like the best are ever really knocked
> out by these
> changes. They usually remain on top if they're
> willing to adapt to
> change.
>
> Have fun!
> Cole
>
>
>
>

Jon Cleaves wrote:
>Well, given that 99% of those systems are non-historical, it is easy
>to change the lists themselves every so often to keep things 'fresh'
>(and sell more > figures....)
> We don't have that option. Nor will the core rules change.
>
>But I do agree that some periodic shake up of the tourney rules
>themselves might be in order and/or the use of alternate formats.
>And this is the direction we are likely to go.

Actually, I believe I can convincingly argue that a historical
rules/list set has a greater responsibility to change due to the rate
that new scholarship and sources have revised our knowledge of how
things worked on historical battlefields.

Consider the option to remove shields from Super Heavy Knights on
late period lists. I'm assuming that this is due to the convincing
iconography representing fifteenth century knights shieldless in most
cases. In Warrior this results in them being more vulnerable to
missile fire and weaponry, but slightly less expensive.

But primary sources now show us they didn't stop carrying shields
because they were willing to be a little less protected, the shield
vanishes because the armour becomes so good that they simply don't
need it any longer. Perhaps the best example is Fiore de Liberi, who
writes in 1410 in "Fior di Battaglia" that you can try to strike an
opponents armour and penetrate it, but you're not going to succeed.

In fact, the book, which was his system of training for the household
knights of the Marquis of Ferrara, doesn't mention the shield once.
Not once. In 1410 the shield is a dead issue as far as the
progenitor of all the Italian schools of fencing is concerned. The
protection armour provides has moved beyond the need for one. So
really, the option to remove shields from SHK within the context of
the ruleset doesn't make sense.

New sources also reveal a number of items that aren't considered by
the ruleset. Liberi's students are taught to expect swords,
warhammers, and daggers to be thrown at them by their opponents.
Another source, Leon Battista Alberti, indicates that a gentleman
should be able to "hurl a lance" from horseback, which only a moments
consideration should reveal as a horrifying alternative to the
couched lance charge not covered by the rules.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. The old myths about the
longbow have foundered even if Mark Stone is perpetuating them in
other threads. Its funny to note that while he argues that the
effectiveness of missile fire leads to the "withering" of shock
cavalry, the use of cavalry in shock tactics continued to exist long
after the longbow had vanished from the battlefield, and past the
invention of the machine gun.

Have fun!
Cole

[joncleaves]

<<Actually, I believe I can convincingly argue that a historical
rules/list set has a greater responsibility to change due to the rate
that new scholarship and sources have revised our knowledge of how
things worked on historical battlefields.>>

Well, I am not convinced...lol

New scholarship does not necessarily equal good scholarship. A GREAT deal of
what is being written today is revisionist crap. There is no way Warrior will
jump around and change rules with every new PhD dissertation. It is a core
element of our philosophy.

We *may* add, as an option, something truly convincing to a list, but the core
rules aren't changing.

J


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

[scott holder]

> Consider the option to remove shields from Super Heavy Knights on
> late period lists. I'm assuming that this is due to the convincing
iconography representing fifteenth century knights shieldless in most
cases. In Warrior this results in them being more vulnerable to
missile fire and weaponry, but slightly less expensive.

> But primary sources now show us they didn't stop carrying shields
> because they were willing to be a little less protected, the shield
vanishes because the armour becomes so good that they simply don't
need it any longer.

Um, have you purchased Feudal Warrior? We deliberately crafted the
later SHK with exactly this in mind and explain it in the notes.

scott