Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

In a message dated 6/25/00 9:31:01 PM Central Daylight Time,
campbellm@... writes:

<<
Of interest, what/where is rev 7?
>>

In a message dated 6/25/00 9:33:49 PM Central Daylight Time,
phgamer@... writes:

<< Rev 7 refers to all the incremental changes to the WRG Ancients/Medieval
Rules system from 7.0 (1985) to 7.6 (1999). It was a major change from Rev
6, which dominated the ancients rules for a number of years before 1985.
Philip Gardocki
>>


ahhh 6th when Romans and Aztecs could rule ) vaughn

[joncleaves]

<< I begin to wonder if my belief that elephants are cheap, and the
reluctance of FHE to raise the points value reflect the biases of our
different wargaming milieus.>>

The guys who make up FHE have both served and played extensively overseas and
have played folks in tourneys here that are not from here. Our 'reluctance'
is not based on 'different wargaming milieus.' It is based on not seeing any
reason to change the elephant value. Playtesting and analysis reveals the
60p vice 80p disorder 'zone' is a relatively meaningless change as both 60p
and 80p have almost the same characteristics 'game-wise' (close foot charge
range, missile short range, etc.). In my personal opinion, if an elephant
player can regularly derive advantage out of those 20p, he deserves 'cheap'
elephants.

<< This does raise some potential matters of “cultural differences� that
FHE might not have sufficient information about which could affect the
potential for the success of Warrior outside North America.
But then again, maybe not.>>

See above. Maybe not is my opinion.

<< We just don’t have a sufficient database to establish an informed
opinion, and that’s my real concern. >>

Actually, Paul, we have hundreds of games where 30-point-elephant-based
armies are not dominating their competition.
If elephant armies were blowing away their opponents across all army types,
I'd be into this issue like Sherlock Holmes. I think we have a 'sufficient
database' and it has not established a problem.

Jon

In a message dated 6/25/00 9:51:10 PM Central Daylight Time,
campbellm@... writes:

<<
As opposed to Romans and Inca (IRRC - was it them who had slings and darts
for all?)?!
>>
LOL no it was the aztecs....the "america's" version of the Romans )

Vaughn McCurry

[Phil Gardocki]

I think you will find that the British tournaments of the early 90's were
mostly rev 6 based. The British were very late in accepting Rev 7, many
jumped to DBM without ever owning a copy.

Philip Gardocki

(610) 495-7923 (answering machine)
(610) 495 8937
When the avalanche falls, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.
-----Original Message-----
From: fra paolo <paulbrewer@...>
To: WarriorRules@egroups.com <WarriorRules@egroups.com>
Date: Sunday, June 25, 2000 7:28 PM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Elephants and Army Popularity


>I had hoped to provide a contribution to the list that would offer more
>evidence on why elephants are cheap at 30 points and should cost more.
> However, in the course of researching it, I discovered that the
>figures I had planned to use indicating army performance under 7th
>Edition just did not exist. I refer to Gavin Pearson’s analysis
>published in the March 1998 Slingshot, the Official Journal of the
>Society of Ancients. This is entirely based on US tournaments, but
>Indian armies of the kind with a herd of elephants weren’t used.
> I was surprised at this, because in British tournaments during the
>early 1990s, Indian armies seemed common.
> I begin to wonder if my belief that elephants are cheap, and the
>reluctance of FHE to raise the points value reflect the biases of our
>different wargaming milieus.
> This does raise some potential matters of “cultural differences” that
>FHE might not have sufficient information about which could affect the
>potential for the success of Warrior outside North America.
> But then again, maybe not.
> We just don’t have a sufficient database to establish an informed
>opinion, and that’s my real concern.
>
>Paul Szuscikiewicz
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
>1. Fill in the brief application
>2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
>3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR
>http://click.egroups.com/1/5197/2/_/_/_/961975714/
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>

Attachment: vcard [not shown]

[Phil Gardocki]

Rev 7 refers to all the incremental changes to the WRG Ancients/Medieval
Rules system from 7.0 (1985) to 7.6 (1999). It was a major change from Rev
6, which dominated the ancients rules for a number of years before 1985.
Philip Gardocki

(610) 495-7923 (answering machine)
(610) 495 8937
When the avalanche falls, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Campbell <campbellm@...>
To: 'WarriorRules@egroups.com' <WarriorRules@egroups.com>
Date: Sunday, June 25, 2000 10:28 PM
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] Elephants and Army Popularity


>> From: Philip Gardocki [mailto:phgamer@...]
>>
>> I think you will find that the British tournaments of the early 90's were
>> mostly rev 6 based. The British were very late in accepting Rev 7, many
>> jumped to DBM without ever owning a copy.
>
>Of interest, what/where is rev 7?
>
>I've seen 7.6, although most games here are still 7.5.
>
>Mike
>
>
>_____________________________________________________________
>Notice of Confidential Information - If you receive this message in error,
>please notify the sender immediately. The information contained in this
>e-mail may be legally privileged and is confidential. Unauthorised use,
>dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message is prohibited.
>_____________________________________________________________
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>BeMANY, where eGroups members SAVE on long distance.
>http://click.egroups.com/1/4121/2/_/_/_/961986530/
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>

Attachment: vcard [not shown]

> From: Philip Gardocki [mailto:phgamer@...]
>
> I think you will find that the British tournaments of the early 90's were
> mostly rev 6 based. The British were very late in accepting Rev 7, many
> jumped to DBM without ever owning a copy.

Of interest, what/where is rev 7?

I've seen 7.6, although most games here are still 7.5.

Mike


_____________________________________________________________
Notice of Confidential Information - If you receive this message in error,
please notify the sender immediately. The information contained in this
e-mail may be legally privileged and is confidential. Unauthorised use,
dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message is prohibited.
_____________________________________________________________

> From: jvmc2@... [mailto:jvmc2@...]
>
> ahhh 6th when Romans and Aztecs could rule ) vaughn

As opposed to Romans and Inca (IRRC - was it them who had slings and darts
for all?)?! :-)

Mike


_____________________________________________________________
Notice of Confidential Information - If you receive this message in error,
please notify the sender immediately. The information contained in this
e-mail may be legally privileged and is confidential. Unauthorised use,
dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message is prohibited.
_____________________________________________________________

[Ewan McNay]

Hi Paul (and all)

There was a brief (couple of years, maybe only one) period in
which Indian armies were popular under 7th. However, the reason for their
popularity wasn't really the elephants, but the chariots: at that time the
rules stated that all crew fought on contact. With a fully loaded Indian
chariot, that was something like ten figures per element frontage on
contact...

...when this was changed, the Indians went away .

Ewan

On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, fra paolo wrote:

> I had hoped to provide a contribution to the list that would offer more
> evidence on why elephants are cheap at 30 points and should cost more.
> However, in the course of researching it, I discovered that the
> figures I had planned to use indicating army performance under 7th
> Edition just did not exist. I refer to Gavin Pearsons analysis
> published in the March 1998 Slingshot, the Official Journal of the
> Society of Ancients. This is entirely based on US tournaments, but
> Indian armies of the kind with a herd of elephants werent used.
> I was surprised at this, because in British tournaments during the
> early 1990s, Indian armies seemed common.
> I begin to wonder if my belief that elephants are cheap, and the
> reluctance of FHE to raise the points value reflect the biases of our
> different wargaming milieus.
> This does raise some potential matters of cultural differences that
> FHE might not have sufficient information about which could affect the
> potential for the success of Warrior outside North America.
> But then again, maybe not.
> We just dont have a sufficient database to establish an informed
> opinion, and thats my real concern.
>
> Paul Szuscikiewicz
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
> 1. Fill in the brief application
> 2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
> 3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR
> http://click.egroups.com/1/5197/2/_/_/_/961975714/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>

--
Dr. Ewan McNay - Behavioral Neuroscience, Yale University.
(203) 432-7005

[Ewan McNay]

On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 jvmc2@... wrote:
> ahhh 6th when Romans and Aztecs could rule ) vaughn

You mean that you don't think that they do under 7th? :)

[OK, so the Roman trick of having umpteen 6-man legion and auxilia wedges
has gone; but Aztecs are relatively better, I think, and LIR is still one
of the top choices..]

--
Dr. Ewan McNay - Behavioral Neuroscience, Yale University.
(203) 432-7005

I had hoped to provide a contribution to the list that would offer more
evidence on why elephants are cheap at 30 points and should cost more.
However, in the course of researching it, I discovered that the
figures I had planned to use indicating army performance under 7th
Edition just did not exist. I refer to Gavin Pearson’s analysis
published in the March 1998 Slingshot, the Official Journal of the
Society of Ancients. This is entirely based on US tournaments, but
Indian armies of the kind with a herd of elephants weren’t used.
I was surprised at this, because in British tournaments during the
early 1990s, Indian armies seemed common.
I begin to wonder if my belief that elephants are cheap, and the
reluctance of FHE to raise the points value reflect the biases of our
different wargaming milieus.
This does raise some potential matters of “cultural differences” that
FHE might not have sufficient information about which could affect the
potential for the success of Warrior outside North America.
But then again, maybe not.
We just don’t have a sufficient database to establish an informed
opinion, and that’s my real concern.

Paul Szuscikiewicz

I had hoped to provide a contribution to the list that would offer more
evidence on why elephants are cheap at 30 points and should cost more.
However, in the course of researching it, I discovered that the
figures I had planned to use indicating army performance under 7th
Edition just did not exist. I refer to Gavin Pearson’s analysis
published in the March 1998 Slingshot, the Official Journal of the
Society of Ancients. This is entirely based on US tournaments, but
Indian armies of the kind with a herd of elephants weren’t used.
I was surprised at this, because in British tournaments during the
early 1990s, Indian armies seemed common.
I begin to wonder if my belief that elephants are cheap, and the
reluctance of FHE to raise the points value reflect the biases of our
different wargaming milieus.
This does raise some potential matters of “cultural differences” that
FHE might not have sufficient information about which could affect the
potential for the success of Warrior outside North America.
But then again, maybe not.
We just don’t have a sufficient database to establish an informed
opinion, and that’s my real concern.

Paul Szuscikiewicz

On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Ewan Mcnay wrote:

> Hi Paul (and all)
>
> There was a brief (couple of years, maybe only one) period in
> which Indian armies were popular under 7th. However, the reason for their
> popularity wasn't really the elephants, but the chariots: at that time the
> rules stated that all crew fought on contact. With a fully loaded Indian
> chariot, that was something like ten figures per element frontage on
> contact...
>
> ...when this was changed, the Indians went away.

Buddy of mine built an Indian army under early 7th. It was certainly the
chariots that were the charm.

Had one of those buggers contacted to front and flank by Spartan hoplites
and couldn't kill the damn thing. Nasty, nasty.

Didn't Burmese elephants get the same silly advantage for a while?

John Meunier

[Ewan McNay]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, John Francis Meunier wrote:
> Didn't Burmese elephants get the same silly advantage for a while?

Yes; and they were actually much, much nastier because they still fight
when they didn't advance last turn, unlike chariot horses.

Burmese elephants, though, suffer from (i) being part of a Burmese army
, and (ii) being *so* damn expensive. The cost is appropriate, but it
means that if you buy the 9 (?) that you're allowed, there's too little
else in the army. And even if the crew fight all around (which they still
do, incidentally, one of the idiocies that Warrior will doubtless clear up
is the fact that currently, more chariot/elephant crew can fight you if
you charge their rear than if you you charge their front), the elephants
don't .

A common approach to Burmese, at least in the UK, was to have two huge
elephants units and essentially hide the rest of the army behind them.
This works well. I saw this taken to its logical extreme by a Burmese who
took the 'HYW' approach, and set up in a corner on wait orders, with a
frontage of 9 (or whatever) elephants the only thing available to be
fought. Now, that's OK if you happen to have an army of LMI archers, but
otherwise...

[well, ok, the solution of course is to hit one end of an elephant unit
with a huge unit in column, pinning it and preventing the rest of the
uinit from shooting, then hit the rest of the unit. But it's still scary]

Ewan

--
Dr. Ewan McNay - Behavioral Neuroscience, Yale University.
(203) 432-7005

[Phil Gardocki]

Also, in early 7th, elephants caused waver checks on Cav.
and all crew shot 2-1, not just one figure.

Philip Gardocki

(610) 495-7923 (answering machine)
(610) 495 8937
When the avalanche falls, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ewan Mcnay <ewan@...>
To: WarriorRules@egroups.com <WarriorRules@egroups.com>
Date: Monday, June 26, 2000 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Elephants and Army Popularity


>Hi Paul (and all)
>
> There was a brief (couple of years, maybe only one) period in
>which Indian armies were popular under 7th. However, the reason for their
>popularity wasn't really the elephants, but the chariots: at that time the
>rules stated that all crew fought on contact. With a fully loaded Indian
>chariot, that was something like ten figures per element frontage on
>contact...
>
>...when this was changed, the Indians went away .
>
>Ewan
>
>On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, fra paolo wrote:
>
>> I had hoped to provide a contribution to the list that would offer more
>> evidence on why elephants are cheap at 30 points and should cost more.
>> However, in the course of researching it, I discovered that the
>> figures I had planned to use indicating army performance under 7th
>> Edition just did not exist. I refer to Gavin Pearsons analysis
>> published in the March 1998 Slingshot, the Official Journal of the
>> Society of Ancients. This is entirely based on US tournaments, but
>> Indian armies of the kind with a herd of elephants werent used.
>> I was surprised at this, because in British tournaments during the
>> early 1990s, Indian armies seemed common.
>> I begin to wonder if my belief that elephants are cheap, and the
>> reluctance of FHE to raise the points value reflect the biases of our
>> different wargaming milieus.
>> This does raise some potential matters of cultural differences that
>> FHE might not have sufficient information about which could affect the
>> potential for the success of Warrior outside North America.
>> But then again, maybe not.
>> We just dont have a sufficient database to establish an informed
>> opinion, and thats my real concern.
>>
>> Paul Szuscikiewicz
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
>> 1. Fill in the brief application
>> 2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
>> 3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR
>> http://click.egroups.com/1/5197/2/_/_/_/961975714/
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>Dr. Ewan McNay - Behavioral Neuroscience, Yale University.
>(203) 432-7005
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Was the salesman clueless? Productopia has the answers.
>http://click.egroups.com/1/4633/2/_/_/_/962029392/
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>

Attachment: vcard [not shown]