Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

People have raised the issue of points cost for various upgrades once again
(i.e. why the extra point for 2HCT, why does 1 1/2 rank lance cost the same as
the old lance, etc.). Lemme through in my $.02 worth.

From a purely game mechanics perspective, the point costs are skewed. Jon has
also been very clear -- repeatedly -- that game mechanics are not the only
consideration. There is a realism factor as well, namely what was the training
cost, and to some extent what was the materials/technology cost.

But yes, it is true, that just in terms of game mechanics, the point costs are
skewed. The most egregious example of this is the fact that it costs two points
to upgrade from MI/LMI to HI/LHI, but it only costs one point to add a shield.
In 95% of all situations you'll see on the table, having shieled MI/LMI is far
superior to having shiedless HI/LHI.

But you really have to ask the next question: does this skewing matter? I'd
argue that it does not. We all work with the same system, and the same army
lists. Over time we learn to discriminate more and less efficient point
expenditures. We shy away from those things on an army list that are a waste of
points, and learn to optimize those things on a list that are efficient uses of
points.

If there were a major army that, overall, was penalizing by the skewing of the
points system then I might be persuaded that there's a real issue here. But
honestly I don't see any list that is thus disadvantaged as a whole.

In Warrior, as in life, if something costs too much, then don't buy it.


-Mark Stone

[Patrick Byrne]

I'd like to say that, I know someone who went from EIR to MIR because (but
not solely because), for the cost to reduce from Heavy to Medium armor is
offset by the pick-up of the D and JLS. In fact, he would probably argue
that not only is it offset, but the units ability is greatly increased.

I personally am one of those Generals that believes that weapons with that
have pluses and minuses should be costed similarly. IE 2HCW + High Factors,
Shielded at first contact, Usable in woods; - no opponent negatives. 2HCT +
High Factors, Shielded at first contact, gives opponent negatives; - not
usable in woods. These ought to cost the same (and more than SA of which
2HCW are not)

Then and only then, the Army lists should dictate what the armies fought
with and the quantities of what is allowed.

Higher costs shouldn't be a factor of increased training, the weapon serves
to functions, or the cost of the material. Let the Army list deal with
these aspects of rarity.

Furthermore, the whole weapons point base is only a factor if you are
creating your own army. Which I have not seen to date outside of FanWar.


However, with all this being said. It is very hard for me to get worked up
about this because the rules are already set. They work. And they not
going to change (as I understand it).
-PB


> From: Mark Stone <mark@...>
> Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 16:26:34 +0000
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [WarriorRules] cost
>
> People have raised the issue of points cost for various upgrades once again
> (i.e. why the extra point for 2HCT, why does 1 1/2 rank lance cost the same as
> the old lance, etc.). Lemme through in my $.02 worth.
>
> From a purely game mechanics perspective, the point costs are skewed. Jon has
> also been very clear -- repeatedly -- that game mechanics are not the only
> consideration. There is a realism factor as well, namely what was the training
> cost, and to some extent what was the materials/technology cost.
>
> But yes, it is true, that just in terms of game mechanics, the point costs are
> skewed. The most egregious example of this is the fact that it costs two
> points
> to upgrade from MI/LMI to HI/LHI, but it only costs one point to add a shield.
> In 95% of all situations you'll see on the table, having shieled MI/LMI is far
> superior to having shiedless HI/LHI.
>
> But you really have to ask the next question: does this skewing matter? I'd
> argue that it does not. We all work with the same system, and the same army
> lists. Over time we learn to discriminate more and less efficient point
> expenditures. We shy away from those things on an army list that are a waste
> of
> points, and learn to optimize those things on a list that are efficient uses
> of
> points.
>
> If there were a major army that, overall, was penalizing by the skewing of the
> points system then I might be persuaded that there's a real issue here. But
> honestly I don't see any list that is thus disadvantaged as a whole.
>
> In Warrior, as in life, if something costs too much, then don't buy it.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Piggybacking off of Pat (Pat I hope you have a strong back! ), it seems that
IPW which takes two hands, counts the user shieldless and has the same factors
as a SA, should be costed much less than currently priced. In fact, they should
be counted as a point savings for the figure class since they are so
dibilitating!
Kelly
Patrick <cuan@...> wrote:I'd like to say that, I know someone who went from
EIR to MIR because (but
not solely because), for the cost to reduce from Heavy to Medium armor is
offset by the pick-up of the D and JLS. In fact, he would probably argue
that not only is it offset, but the units ability is greatly increased.

I personally am one of those Generals that believes that weapons with that
have pluses and minuses should be costed similarly. IE 2HCW + High Factors,
Shielded at first contact, Usable in woods; - no opponent negatives. 2HCT +
High Factors, Shielded at first contact, gives opponent negatives; - not
usable in woods. These ought to cost the same (and more than SA of which
2HCW are not)

Then and only then, the Army lists should dictate what the armies fought
with and the quantities of what is allowed.

Higher costs shouldn't be a factor of increased training, the weapon serves
to functions, or the cost of the material. Let the Army list deal with
these aspects of rarity.

Furthermore, the whole weapons point base is only a factor if you are
creating your own army. Which I have not seen to date outside of FanWar.


However, with all this being said. It is very hard for me to get worked up
about this because the rules are already set. They work. And they not
going to change (as I understand it).
-PB


> From: Mark Stone <mark@...>
> Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 16:26:34 +0000
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [WarriorRules] cost
>
> People have raised the issue of points cost for various upgrades once again
> (i.e. why the extra point for 2HCT, why does 1 1/2 rank lance cost the same as
> the old lance, etc.). Lemme through in my $.02 worth.
>
> From a purely game mechanics perspective, the point costs are skewed. Jon has
> also been very clear -- repeatedly -- that game mechanics are not the only
> consideration. There is a realism factor as well, namely what was the training
> cost, and to some extent what was the materials/technology cost.
>
> But yes, it is true, that just in terms of game mechanics, the point costs are
> skewed. The most egregious example of this is the fact that it costs two
> points
> to upgrade from MI/LMI to HI/LHI, but it only costs one point to add a shield.
> In 95% of all situations you'll see on the table, having shieled MI/LMI is far
> superior to having shiedless HI/LHI.
>
> But you really have to ask the next question: does this skewing matter? I'd
> argue that it does not. We all work with the same system, and the same army
> lists. Over time we learn to discriminate more and less efficient point
> expenditures. We shy away from those things on an army list that are a waste
> of
> points, and learn to optimize those things on a list that are efficient uses
> of
> points.
>
> If there were a major army that, overall, was penalizing by the skewing of the
> points system then I might be persuaded that there's a real issue here. But
> honestly I don't see any list that is thus disadvantaged as a whole.
>
> In Warrior, as in life, if something costs too much, then don't buy it.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


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



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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

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