Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/18/2005 16:43:31 Central Standard Time,
greg.regets@... writes:

Please forgive me in advance when I laugh my a$$ off in a year or
so ... when you "fix" the problem you now say doesn't exist, then
take all the credit. >>




Clearly dead issue has a different meaning in Texas. I apologize for not
knowing what the right words to say are to tell someone to stop wasting forum
time on a non-issue...

Don't hold your breath waiting to laugh. If someone came to me today with a
comprehensive change to the point system that is clearly better (as opposed
to just different), I couldn't import it in less than about five years even
if I wanted to. Just for starters, we'd have to let the entire run of army
list books run out and then reprint the lists with the new point values. This
would include major playtesting (at the expense of other projects) and market
research to determine if we would actually gain customers instead of losing
them by making the change.

A year from now, I will not be mucking with the point system. I will be
demo-ing Warrior Battles.

You're right about two things - 1, I don't think a problem exists. 2, if
one did I can be sure no one would be fixing it but me and I would indeed be
deserving of all the credit....lol

There is a reason why I keep offering to look at a better point system and
yet not be planning to change the one we have....

J



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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/18/2005 18:12:05 Central Standard Time,
greg.regets@... writes:

My point is about historical balance between historically matched
armies ... based on free points given to one side over the other,
with no real historical reason.

You don't understand that point because a)you are in general a
tournament guy out looking for an advantage, b)you never really
listen to anyone until they are ready to be a complete jerk to you on
this board.

I'm just doing my part ... >>


I have taken this off list with Greg. This is not the kind of behavior I
find acceptable here. I am not banning him because he only called himself a
jerk. But I will say my patience on such posts is near its end.

J








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

[Ed Forbes]

At the expense of whipping a dead horse, buying, or not buying, shields for the
back ranks is not a competitive fairness issue.

The two can have compleatly different outcomes, and becomes a matter of playing
style and use, not fairness.

I tend to want my line troops that I expect to stick around to have shields in
all ranks as I never want them to count shieldless to the front. My shock troops
generally only need them in the front rank as I tend not care about subsequent
rounds counting them shieldless when disordered.

Not buying shields for all ranks can have serious problems and carry a price
built into the game. Save some points on the unit, but gain the potential to
lose combat staying power.

This is a compleatly different issue than allowing more or less total points to
one side or the other.

Ed



___________________________________________________________________
Speed up your surfing with Juno SpeedBand.
Now includes pop-up blocker!
Only $14.95/month -visit http://www.juno.com/surf to sign up today!

[Ewan McNay]

Ed - disorder does not affect shielded status (the shield of the front
rank is always counted), unlike armour class.

I agree that it's a different issue; but the game cost of not buying (say)
shields for more than 1/2 a pike block is pretty damn minimal, whereas the
point saving can be substantial. In some cases - e.g. an IrrD MI B
Seleucid bow block - those shields would be a substantial fraction of the
cost of the unit!

eforbes100@... wrote:

>
> At the expense of whipping a dead horse, buying, or not buying, shields for
the back ranks is not a competitive fairness issue.
>
> The two can have compleatly different outcomes, and becomes a matter of
playing style and use, not fairness.
>
> I tend to want my line troops that I expect to stick around to have shields in
all ranks as I never want them to count shieldless to the front. My shock troops
generally only need them in the front rank as I tend not care about subsequent
rounds counting them shieldless when disordered.
>
> Not buying shields for all ranks can have serious problems and carry a price
built into the game. Save some points on the unit, but gain the potential to
lose combat staying power.
>
> This is a compleatly different issue than allowing more or less total points
to one side or the other.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Speed up your surfing with Juno SpeedBand.
> Now includes pop-up blocker!
> Only $14.95/month -visit http://www.juno.com/surf to sign up today!
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[joncleaves]

_________________________
Not buying shields for all ranks can have serious problems and carry a price
built into the game. Save some points on the unit, but gain the potential to
lose combat staying power.

This is a compleatly different issue than allowing more or less total points to
one side or the other.>>

Ed>>
No worries, Ed. Rest assured that I recognize that.
J


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

Greetings Ed,
You let your troops get disordered? You raise a point in that shielding or
not shielding rear ranks is a cost benifits game. Going over points is just a
benifit.

The problem with a point system, no matter how its devised is subject to abuse,
many gamers feel it is their duty to exploit the system. I admit that in the
past I have been known to tweak my army to make use of the lists quirks, that is
part of why I played the army I played. I would say what makes warriors system
so different is that unlike many games you have minimums to deal with and have
to buy troops by the stand.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "eforbes100@j..." <eforbes100@j...> wrote:
>
> At the expense of whipping a dead horse, buying, or not buying, shields for
the back ranks is not a competitive fairness issue.
>
> The two can have compleatly different outcomes, and becomes a matter of
playing style and use, not fairness.
>
> I tend to want my line troops that I expect to stick around to have shields in
all ranks as I never want them to count shieldless to the front. My shock troops
generally only need them in the front rank as I tend not care about subsequent
rounds counting them shieldless when disordered.
>
> Not buying shields for all ranks can have serious problems and carry a price
built into the game. Save some points on the unit, but gain the potential to
lose combat staying power.
>
> This is a compleatly different issue than allowing more or less total points
to one side or the other.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Speed up your surfing with Juno SpeedBand.
> Now includes pop-up blocker!
> Only $14.95/month -visit http://www.juno.com/surf to sign up today!

[Ed Forbes]

My troops tend to get disordered due to the failings of their commander more
than anything the opponent does to them.

Ed

-- "Terry Dix" <notalent@...> wrote:

Greetings Ed,
You let your troops get disordered? ;-)

___________________________________________________________________
Speed up your surfing with Juno SpeedBand.
Now includes pop-up blocker!
Only $14.95/month -visit http://www.juno.com/surf to sign up today!

[Greg Regets]

With all due respect Ed (and others) ... it is only your opinion that
back rank shields/weapons is not a competitive issue.

Clearly Ewan to some extent, and myself to a HUGE extent, do not
agree. I recall a very good post by Mark Stone not long ago where he
indicated that a certain list was not as desirable, because you had
to buy back rank shields. Clearly Mark does not agree on some level.

Thats exactly my point. I'm not saying you are wrong, and you should
not be saying I am worng. We are BOTH right, for us! Why not let each
player decide for himself if he thinks it is worth it to have, or not
worthy is, to have or not have these shields or unused weapons?

That is the only fair way to play it. That way neither side has to
knuckle under to the opinion of the other. We both get our way!!!

Why on Earth would anyone not want that?

On top of all that, does anyone really have any hard and fast
evidence that so many armies did not have these shields in back
ranks? If so, lets see it! It clearly exists in some instances, but
for others, one has to wonder.

Baring hard and fast evidence, it becomes a cost savings issue ...
nothing more, and by default must be a competitive fairness issue.

That is my opinion of course, but again, why should one opinion have
to knuckle under to the other, when there is no clear reason to not
give both exactly what they want?

Thanks ... g




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
>
> _________________________
> Not buying shields for all ranks can have serious problems and
carry a price
> built into the game. Save some points on the unit, but gain the
potential to
> lose combat staying power.
>
> This is a compleatly different issue than allowing more or less
total points to
> one side or the other.>>
>
> Ed>>
> No worries, Ed. Rest assured that I recognize that.
> J
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

Overall, this is a dead issue, at least as far as my particiaption in it is
concerned. But there was one part of Greg's recent post that I feel needs
addressing for different reasons.

He said:

"On top of all that, does anyone really have any hard and fast
evidence that so many armies did not have these shields in back
ranks?"

One should realize that there is generally little evidence of any nation/group
deliberately making units that had the first four ranks of men with shields and
the remainder without.

What is actually happening is that the lists - which first and foremost must be
as accurate as we can make them historically - grant options where the evidence
is mixed, where the evidence is unclear or where troops shifted armament or
training over time *within* the time period of the line they are on.

In such a case where troops have an 'any' upgrade for shields, for example, that
may be because in actuality some had them and some did not or where the
richer/more successful of them had them and others did not or where the evidence
of shield use is mixed, etc.

Note also that if some of a unit possessed shields - because they had more money
or because they were the stronger fighters and captured them from their enemies
- then those with shields would often indeed be at the fore of the formation....

If a tourney player uses that 'any' shield line to give half of his unit shields
and the other half none, that's fine by us. But let's not forget why it is that
way in the first place. One certainly cannot complain of any perceived
'historical inaccuracy' of that situation while one's Sassanids are fighting
someone's Hundred Years War English....

It is NOT being done to give some armies some sort of competitive break that
others do not.

J


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

[Greg Regets]

I know it is a dead issue Jon ... and that is really a shame.

There is no down side, and a nice upside for players.

Who remembers how nice it was when all lances went to 1.5 ranks, not
just the freebee wedge ones?

Again, it is a damn shame Jon, because you are taking a stand where
there is nothing to lose, and much to gain.

As someone pointed out, its your game and you can do whatever you
want.

Thanks ... g




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
>
> Overall, this is a dead issue, at least as far as my particiaption
in it is concerned. But there was one part of Greg's recent post
that I feel needs addressing for different reasons.
>
> He said:
>
> "On top of all that, does anyone really have any hard and fast
> evidence that so many armies did not have these shields in back
> ranks?"
>
> One should realize that there is generally little evidence of any
nation/group deliberately making units that had the first four ranks
of men with shields and the remainder without.
>
> What is actually happening is that the lists - which first and
foremost must be as accurate as we can make them historically - grant
options where the evidence is mixed, where the evidence is unclear or
where troops shifted armament or training over time *within* the time
period of the line they are on.
>
> In such a case where troops have an 'any' upgrade for shields, for
example, that may be because in actuality some had them and some did
not or where the richer/more successful of them had them and others
did not or where the evidence of shield use is mixed, etc.
>
> Note also that if some of a unit possessed shields - because they
had more money or because they were the stronger fighters and
captured them from their enemies - then those with shields would
often indeed be at the fore of the formation....
>
> If a tourney player uses that 'any' shield line to give half of his
unit shields and the other half none, that's fine by us. But let's
not forget why it is that way in the first place. One certainly
cannot complain of any perceived 'historical inaccuracy' of that
situation while one's Sassanids are fighting someone's Hundred Years
War English....
>
> It is NOT being done to give some armies some sort of competitive
break that others do not.
>
> J
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

<< I know it is a dead issue Jon ... and that is really a shame.>>

Ok, just so I know we are both talking about the same thing -

What I was saying was a dead issue was a relook at the point system without a
comprehensive solution. Its also a dead issue to me that we have some lines
with 'any' shield upgrades. I am not aware of one that is in error.

Were you referring to something else?

J


-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Regets <greg.regets@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:18:39 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: competitive fairness issue




I know it is a dead issue Jon ... and that is really a shame.

There is no down side, and a nice upside for players.

Who remembers how nice it was when all lances went to 1.5 ranks, not
just the freebee wedge ones?

Again, it is a damn shame Jon, because you are taking a stand where
there is nothing to lose, and much to gain.

As someone pointed out, its your game and you can do whatever you
want.

Thanks ... g




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
>
> Overall, this is a dead issue, at least as far as my particiaption
in it is concerned. But there was one part of Greg's recent post
that I feel needs addressing for different reasons.
>
> He said:
>
> "On top of all that, does anyone really have any hard and fast
> evidence that so many armies did not have these shields in back
> ranks?"
>
> One should realize that there is generally little evidence of any
nation/group deliberately making units that had the first four ranks
of men with shields and the remainder without.
>
> What is actually happening is that the lists - which first and
foremost must be as accurate as we can make them historically - grant
options where the evidence is mixed, where the evidence is unclear or
where troops shifted armament or training over time *within* the time
period of the line they are on.
>
> In such a case where troops have an 'any' upgrade for shields, for
example, that may be because in actuality some had them and some did
not or where the richer/more successful of them had them and others
did not or where the evidence of shield use is mixed, etc.
>
> Note also that if some of a unit possessed shields - because they
had more money or because they were the stronger fighters and
captured them from their enemies - then those with shields would
often indeed be at the fore of the formation....
>
> If a tourney player uses that 'any' shield line to give half of his
unit shields and the other half none, that's fine by us. But let's
not forget why it is that way in the first place. One certainly
cannot complain of any perceived 'historical inaccuracy' of that
situation while one's Sassanids are fighting someone's Hundred Years
War English....
>
> It is NOT being done to give some armies some sort of competitive
break that others do not.
>
> J
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Greg Regets]

Whatever!!! Its a dead topic to me.

Please forgive me in advance when I laugh my a$$ off in a year or
so ... when you "fix" the problem you now say doesn't exist, then
take all the credit. ;-)

g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> << I know it is a dead issue Jon ... and that is really a shame.>>
>
> Ok, just so I know we are both talking about the same thing -
>
> What I was saying was a dead issue was a relook at the point system
without a comprehensive solution. Its also a dead issue to me that
we have some lines with 'any' shield upgrades. I am not aware of one
that is in error.
>
> Were you referring to something else?
>
> J
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:18:39 -0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: competitive fairness issue
>
>
>
>
> I know it is a dead issue Jon ... and that is really a shame.
>
> There is no down side, and a nice upside for players.
>
> Who remembers how nice it was when all lances went to 1.5 ranks,
not
> just the freebee wedge ones?
>
> Again, it is a damn shame Jon, because you are taking a stand where
> there is nothing to lose, and much to gain.
>
> As someone pointed out, its your game and you can do whatever you
> want.
>
> Thanks ... g
>
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> >
> >
> > Overall, this is a dead issue, at least as far as my
particiaption
> in it is concerned. But there was one part of Greg's recent post
> that I feel needs addressing for different reasons.
> >
> > He said:
> >
> > "On top of all that, does anyone really have any hard and fast
> > evidence that so many armies did not have these shields in back
> > ranks?"
> >
> > One should realize that there is generally little evidence of any
> nation/group deliberately making units that had the first four
ranks
> of men with shields and the remainder without.
> >
> > What is actually happening is that the lists - which first and
> foremost must be as accurate as we can make them historically -
grant
> options where the evidence is mixed, where the evidence is unclear
or
> where troops shifted armament or training over time *within* the
time
> period of the line they are on.
> >
> > In such a case where troops have an 'any' upgrade for shields,
for
> example, that may be because in actuality some had them and some
did
> not or where the richer/more successful of them had them and others
> did not or where the evidence of shield use is mixed, etc.
> >
> > Note also that if some of a unit possessed shields - because they
> had more money or because they were the stronger fighters and
> captured them from their enemies - then those with shields would
> often indeed be at the fore of the formation....
> >
> > If a tourney player uses that 'any' shield line to give half of
his
> unit shields and the other half none, that's fine by us. But let's
> not forget why it is that way in the first place. One certainly
> cannot complain of any perceived 'historical inaccuracy' of that
> situation while one's Sassanids are fighting someone's Hundred
Years
> War English....
> >
> > It is NOT being done to give some armies some sort of competitive
> break that others do not.
> >
> > J
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Greg Regets]

My point has NOTHING to do with the point system.

My point is about historical balance between historically matched
armies ... based on free points given to one side over the other,
with no real historical reason.

You don't understand that point because a)you are in general a
tournament guy out looking for an advantage, b)you never really
listen to anyone until they are ready to be a complete jerk to you on
this board.

I'm just doing my part ... ;-)

g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 3/18/2005 16:43:31 Central Standard Time,
> greg.regets@g... writes:
>
> Please forgive me in advance when I laugh my a$$ off in a year or
> so ... when you "fix" the problem you now say doesn't exist, then
> take all the credit. >>
>
>
>
>
> Clearly dead issue has a different meaning in Texas. I apologize
for not
> knowing what the right words to say are to tell someone to stop
wasting forum
> time on a non-issue...
>
> Don't hold your breath waiting to laugh. If someone came to me
today with a
> comprehensive change to the point system that is clearly better
(as opposed
> to just different), I couldn't import it in less than about five
years even
> if I wanted to. Just for starters, we'd have to let the entire
run of army
> list books run out and then reprint the lists with the new point
values. This
> would include major playtesting (at the expense of other projects)
and market
> research to determine if we would actually gain customers instead
of losing
> them by making the change.
>
> A year from now, I will not be mucking with the point system. I
will be
> demo-ing Warrior Battles.
>
> You're right about two things - 1, I don't think a problem
exists. 2, if
> one did I can be sure no one would be fixing it but me and I would
indeed be
> deserving of all the credit....lol
>
> There is a reason why I keep offering to look at a better point
system and
> yet not be planning to change the one we have....
>
> J
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Chris Bump]

I have to agree completely with Greg's post here. I find it hard to believe
that evidence exists that so many armies, particularly oriental armies were so
cost efficient in arming certian troops with shields and others not. I am
bracing myself for the "no evidence to suggest otherwise argument" that is so
impossible to refute.
Chris

>
> From: "Greg Regets" <greg.regets@...>
> Date: 2005/03/18 Fri PM 09:45:06 GMT
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: competitive fairness issue
>
>


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

[joncleaves]

We have already stated our 'answer' to this in this thread. It should not be
more than a few messages away from Greg's post.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: cncbump@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com; WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:09:53 +0000
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: competitive fairness issue



I have to agree completely with Greg's post here. I find it hard to believe
that evidence exists that so many armies, particularly oriental armies were so
cost efficient in arming certian troops with shields and others not. I am
bracing myself for the "no evidence to suggest otherwise argument" that is so
impossible to refute.
Chris

>
> From: "Greg Regets" <greg.regets@...>
> Date: 2005/03/18 Fri PM 09:45:06 GMT
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: competitive fairness issue
>
>


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




Yahoo! Groups Links






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