Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/16/2004 07:55:34 Central Daylight Time,
damourc@... writes:

Second, I will
respectfully disagree with Jon. Even at 85 points the Sacred Standard is
overcosted. >>

You just feel that way because for you 85 points buys like 10 units not just
one...lol

J




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

[Chris Damour]

John,
Jon & Scott have already weighed in, I figured that I would add my
two cents. First, I believe that the wonderfull Arc of the Covenant was
painted by Ben Pecson. (spelling?) It was magnificent. Second, I will
respectfully disagree with Jon. Even at 85 points the Sacred Standard is
overcosted. The is ESPECIALLY true in the Early Hebrew army! Model the
Arc for your camp and have it represented on the table as a four stand
Simeonite (Irr A LMI, JLS, Sh) unit. Same cost, MUCH more effective
(trust me, I won the very first Biblical theme tourney with Joshua's
guys.)
I realise that I am a wild man and I have faith in my low morale
troops but my experience tells me that the extra 85/120 points for the S
standard just is not worth it. It is possible that the investment might
be worth making if you are running a Feudal/Medieval French or First
Crusade army with lots of D morale troops, I have not used those armies
enough to hold a definitive opinion. However, even then I would tend to
rather have the fighting guys.


On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 jmgarlic@... wrote:
> Thanks for the responses. Was just checking out early armies. I was looking
at the Early Hebrews actually. Thought Ark of the Covenant being carried by
Indiana Jones would be cool. I vaguely remember hearing about someone doing a
camp like that.
>
> John

--
Christopher Damour

[Ewan McNay]

Good Lord, he's alive! Good to 'see' you, Chris .

damourc wrote:
> Jon & Scott have already weighed in, I figured that I would add my
> two cents. First, I believe that the wonderfull Arc of the Covenant was
> painted by Ben Pecson. (spelling?) It was magnificent. Second, I will
> respectfully disagree with Jon. Even at 85 points the Sacred Standard is
> overcosted. The is ESPECIALLY true in the Early Hebrew army! Model the
> Arc for your camp and have it represented on the table as a four stand
> Simeonite (Irr A LMI, JLS, Sh) unit. Same cost, MUCH more effective
> (trust me, I won the very first Biblical theme tourney with Joshua's
> guys.)

And I would just note that I have never yet seen a sacred standard in
any competition game, theme or open. Seems to suggest that they are
seen as overpowered (or that people are avoiding the armies in which
they occur, also possible but not as true in my experience).

An Irr S standard is certainly better value - the reg version is just
beyond the pale! - but I don't see it, even when I ran e.g. 1st Crusade.

[John Garlic]

Thanks for all the advice. I was just looking at Biblical Armies and pondering
how to make them work. I like the large quantities dudes that can be fielded.
I like some of the armies for playing in period, but not sure about out of
period. Of course that could be refuted since Amalekites(sp) with their double
mounted camels really fired me up at Bayou Wars. Still pulling arrows out of my
Han Chinese rear ends :-)

John Garlic

> Jon & Scott have already weighed in, I figured that I would add my
> two cents. First, I believe that the wonderfull Arc of the Covenant was
> painted by Ben Pecson. (spelling?) It was magnificent. Second, I will
> respectfully disagree with Jon. Even at 85 points the Sacred Standard is
> overcosted. The is ESPECIALLY true in the Early Hebrew army! Model the
> Arc for your camp and have it represented on the table as a four stand
> Simeonite (Irr A LMI, JLS, Sh) unit. Same cost, MUCH more effective
> (trust me, I won the very first Biblical theme tourney with Joshua's
> guys.)
> I realise that I am a wild man and I have faith in my low morale
> troops but my experience tells me that the extra 85/120 points for the S
> standard just is not worth it. It is possible that the investment might
> be worth making if you are running a Feudal/Medieval French or First
> Crusade army with lots of D morale troops, I have not used those armies
> enough to hold a definitive opinion. However, even then I would tend to
> rather have the fighting guys.
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 jmgarlic@... wrote:
> > Thanks for the responses. Was just checking out early armies. I was
looking at the Early Hebrews actually. Thought Ark of the Covenant being
carried by Indiana Jones would be cool. I vaguely remember hearing about
someone doing a camp
> like that.
> >
> > John
>
> --
> Christopher Damour

[Ewan McNay]

jmgarlic@... wrote:

> Thanks for all the advice. I was just looking at Biblical Armies
> and pondering how to make them work. I like the large quantities
> dudes that can be fielded. I like some of the armies for playing
> in period, but not sure about out of period. Of course that could
> be refuted since Amalekites(sp) with their double mounted camels
> really fired me up at Bayou Wars. Still pulling arrows out of my
> Han Chinese rear ends :-)

The usual problem of Biblical stuff is that they are underarmed and
underarmoured, so that they have to try to win by force of numbers
rather than local superiority, and hence often lose to someone else's
local superiority before they can win. To generalise wildly.

However, there are several interesting troop types of the era, even
leaving out the machine-gun camels (which *are* extremely potent), and
my favourite is the 4hLCh, so you might look at building an army
around some of those.

[scott holder]

Thanks for all the advice. I was just looking at Biblical Armies and pondering
how to make them work. I like the large quantities dudes that can be fielded.
I like some of the armies for playing in period, but not sure about out of
period. Of course that could be refuted since Amalekites(sp) with their double
mounted camels really fired me up at Bayou Wars. Still pulling arrows out of my
Han Chinese rear ends :-)

>They did well in the NICT last year. Mike Kelly (who ran em) also felt that a
1-list tourney actually allowed an army like his (fairly one dimensional) to
compete since the other "tailor to your enemy" lists weren't so able to be
tailored. Just his opinion but an interesting one. There are a handful of
lists in BW that at first glance do have potential outside of period in a
cutthroat open environment. The Babylonians and L Hebrews come to mind. Of
course E Hebrews if you're inclined to play Gauls:) And as Mark Stone
recently pointed out, I think only now are some players looking at some of the
implications of chariots and how they can be used in new and unusual ways.

>Yeah, sure, BW armies as a rule are always going to be limited as to their
competitiveness out of period but if you play a tourney in period with these
guys, and assuming it's not the Double Ridden Camel tourney, it's a load of fun.

scott

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, damourc <damourc@k...> wrote:
It is possible that the investment might
> be worth making if you are running a Feudal/Medieval French or First
> Crusade army with lots of D morale troops, I have not used those
armies
> enough to hold a definitive opinion. However, even then I would
tend to
> rather have the fighting guys.

Chris as the avid 1st Crusader here, I completely agree with your
assesment of the S Standard. It is of no use with my army. If I'm
needed to motivate the D class troops to charge or get eagar, then
the battle is already probably lost and all the IrregA guys are dead
or routing. It is an optional purchase that costs almost 2 6E LI
units.

Wanax

[Frank Gilson]

Here is how I look at a Sacred standard...

It has to be worth its points. So, the benefit it provides
(eagerness to Irr C/D troops) has a point value. What kind? Well, it
only provides eagerness...it doesn't elevate Irr C/D to Irr B, thus
I count it as worth 1/2 point per figure.

So, if I have an 85 point Sacred Standard, I need to have it give
eagerness to 170 Irr C/D troops! Hmmm...I don't see that happening,
thus for me, a Sacred Standard is overcosted.

Frank

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Wanax Andron"
<spocksleftball@y...> wrote:
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, damourc <damourc@k...> wrote:
> It is possible that the investment might
> > be worth making if you are running a Feudal/Medieval French or
First
> > Crusade army with lots of D morale troops, I have not used those
> armies
> > enough to hold a definitive opinion. However, even then I would
> tend to
> > rather have the fighting guys.
>
> Chris as the avid 1st Crusader here, I completely agree with your
> assesment of the S Standard. It is of no use with my army. If
I'm
> needed to motivate the D class troops to charge or get eagar, then
> the battle is already probably lost and all the IrregA guys are
dead
> or routing. It is an optional purchase that costs almost 2 6E LI
> units.
>
> Wanax

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/16/2004 4:12:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
franktrevorgilson@... writes:

> It has to be worth its points. So, the benefit it provides
> (eagerness to Irr C/D troops) has a point value. What kind? Well, it
> only provides eagerness...it doesn't elevate Irr C/D to Irr B, thus
> I count it as worth 1/2 point per figure.>>

Interesting. Of course S standards provide eagerness to all troops, including
Reg B, C, D and even irregular E. Given that the raise of a point from Reg D to
Reg C or C to B does not include eagerness, the 1/2 point per figure isn't
really a comparative measure.

And again - the point system in Warrior is not purely a relative combat power
measure. It includes the concepts of 'rarity' and 'training difficulty' - as do
many other games.

>
> So, if I have an 85 point Sacred Standard, I need to have it give
> eagerness to 170 Irr C/D troops! Hmmm...I don't see that
> happening,
> thus for me, a Sacred Standard is overcosted.>>

Given that a 480p radius would permit giving eagerness to a great many more than
170 points of troops, I am not sure why that seems to be an issue. But I do
know that those players who compete heavily and seek to get every drop of combat
power from every point (despite the fact that that is not the only basis of
point cost in Warrior) find several Warrior choices as suboptimal. Frank and
Ewan are chief among these - and i am not speaking pejoratively, this is a
perfectly acceptable way to lok at the game, especially if you play a lot of
other competition games who *do* try to base their points on relative combat
power assessments, which Frank and Ewan do.

Jon

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/17/2004 06:41:23 Central Daylight Time,
spocksleftball@... writes:

Of course if the general routs or dies, the sacred standard
now has a much more extreme and dangerous effect to your army.
Namely everyone within 480 will test for the general AND the standard
falling.>>

Again, this is not quite true.
If the general routs (becomes broken) then there is no separate test for the
standard as it is not lost, it is still with the army.
If the general is destroyed or killed, then yes the above is true for the
standard but only troops within 240p will test for the general.

Jon






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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/17/2004 09:45:31 Central Daylight Time,
spocksleftball@... writes:

I thought that when the general went down the S extended his waver
radius to 480p.
Wanax>>

Nope - Two separate waver test causes, with different characteristics.

Jon







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

the S standard is a two edged sword. First, it can provide trash
armies with that extra umpf to move into combat against beasties and
SuperX troops. Yet if you are like me, your general *will* get into
combat. Of course if the general routs or dies, the sacred standard
now has a much more extreme and dangerous effect to your army.
Namely everyone within 480 will test for the general AND the standard
falling. In an army of IrgD close order infantry, this is too great
a danger when the general carrying the standard is IrrgA like
crusaders. there used to be a guy from NY who used to run Jews in
15mm at every tournament with the Arc of C. Because you never get
enough of the right terrain, this thing used to stand out like a
giant bullseye asking my Norman kniggits to make right for it. Any
Norman unit looses were worth the price to ride down the standard and
thus rout his army.

I can see biblical armies getting more benefit from a general in a
slow chariot with RgD troops like NeoBabylonian. This army is a
manuver and shoot army of LMI B, so the benefit of having the option
to charge with such regular scum has some merit.

It is a wildcard purchase bottom line. But then so is upgrading to
irregular A, or downgrading back rank knights to C. There are
benefits and dangers.

Wanax

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/16/2004 4:12:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
franktrevorgilson@h... writes:
>
> > It has to be worth its points. So, the benefit it provides
> > (eagerness to Irr C/D troops) has a point value. What kind? Well,
it
> > only provides eagerness...it doesn't elevate Irr C/D to Irr B,
thus
> > I count it as worth 1/2 point per figure.>>
>
> Interesting. Of course S standards provide eagerness to all
troops, including Reg B, C, D and even irregular E. Given that the
raise of a point from Reg D to Reg C or C to B does not include
eagerness, the 1/2 point per figure isn't really a comparative
measure.
>
> And again - the point system in Warrior is not purely a relative
combat power measure. It includes the concepts of 'rarity'
and 'training difficulty' - as do many other games.
>
> >
> > So, if I have an 85 point Sacred Standard, I need to have it give
> > eagerness to 170 Irr C/D troops! Hmmm...I don't see that
> > happening,
> > thus for me, a Sacred Standard is overcosted.>>
>
> Given that a 480p radius would permit giving eagerness to a great
many more than 170 points of troops, I am not sure why that seems to
be an issue. But I do know that those players who compete heavily
and seek to get every drop of combat power from every point (despite
the fact that that is not the only basis of point cost in Warrior)
find several Warrior choices as suboptimal. Frank and Ewan are chief
among these - and i am not speaking pejoratively, this is a perfectly
acceptable way to lok at the game, especially if you play a lot of
other competition games who *do* try to base their points on relative
combat power assessments, which Frank and Ewan do.
>
> Jon

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
> I do know that those players who compete
> heavily and seek to get every drop of combat power from every point
> (despite the fact that that is not the only basis of point cost in
> Warrior) find several Warrior choices as suboptimal. Frank and
> Ewan are chief among these - and i am not speaking pejoratively,
> this is a perfectly acceptable way to lok at the game

Indeed, I would go so far as to say that other approaches are likely
to have as their aim simulation, rather than gaming. Again, not
perjorative, but as a set of rules for a competition, seems to me that
the gaming objective is to win the competition . And Jon is
correct: Warrior troop costs do *not* achieve equipotency per point
across troops. Sacred standards are a more expensive, if less
egregious, example of this than personal standards, whose main role
seems to be to make sure that if your general routs or dies, everyone
can see him! [Not sure what I would nominate as the best
value-per-point, as I think then you are more into whole-army level
discussion than individual items whichcan sometimes be identified as
useless or worse. Stakes for regular archers come to mind as a cheap
and worthwhile. OTOH, we ran a 7th comp where there were no army
lists, merely point costs, and got a *ton* of different approaches,
from massed scythed chariots* to IrrE LC B]

*Impressive; as I recall, 62 scythed chariots and an elephant-mounted
general at the back. In 15mm, that's more than an 8-foot frontage of
scythes... ...just hope for good terrain!

I so used to having IrgA HC general that routing is just not
something that happens. He always is destroyed 160 paces behind
enemy lines ;)

I thought that when the general went down the S extended his waver
radius to 480p.
Wanax

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> Again, this is not quite true.
> If the general routs (becomes broken) then there is no separate
test for the
> standard as it is not lost, it is still with the army.
> If the general is destroyed or killed, then yes the above is true
for the
> standard but only troops within 240p will test for the general.
>
> Jon
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/17/2004 13:50:18 Central Daylight Time, clr198@...
writes:

Are you allowed to just trade in the personal standard, without trading
in the entire element?>>
Unfortunately, yes.

However, 14.0 and the parts of 3.0, 12.0 and 17.0 that have to do with comp
games are all going to get a very thorough revision and what can be 'dumped'
for TF and special stuff will be laid out very carefully, among other areas.
Dumping just a P standard for a ditch will not survive this process, I can
assure you. What NASAMW does with that (or any of the new parameters in 14.0)
is not my purview to say.

Jon


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