Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/30/2003 17:28:57 Central Daylight Time,
franktrevorgilson@... writes:

> I'm hopeful we can get a decent debate going.
>

Frank, I had become a one-list devotee til I read your post. Coming from
you, those are all important points. I would ask Scott to consider them
carefully.

J


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

[Frank Gilson]

Thanks Scott, for all your extensive efforts at Historicon...and thank you
to everyone who participated.

I very much enjoyed the mini-open and the theme events, but didn't
personally enjoy the NICT. It is largely my fault, of course, and I will put
much of it down to improper list choice before the event. I was bored by my
army, and its options...and did not enjoy playing.

This led me to think over the issue of army list choice, and talk with a few
other people. Some consensus was reached amongst us that two army list
versions would be better to return to. Let me mention several points that
came up.

A) Two versions of one list provides for more interesting pre-tournament
strategic choices, allowing better generals to make additional use of their
skill and experience. One person stated that a significant amount of his
enjoyment prior to events involves this sort of choice and effort.

B) During the event, which of your versions to employ against the current
opponent is another interesting choice. Again, skill and experience come to
bear here and this process helps hone them.

C) Two versions of a list can help many armies avoid the "terrible matchup"
syndrome, for which generalship cannot entirely compensate.

D) I do not feel that restricting us to one list version increases the
number of playable armies. I don't think allowing us two versions
necessarily increases it either. It does provide us all with more options
and choices.

E) The default statement "Most only bring one version anyway" is not a valid
reason to restrict us. If you only wish to paint up and run your army one
way, so be it. I think you are missing out on a lot of enjoyable
options....and as I feel one list version is wrong, what 'most' people seem
to be doing should not limit the enjoyment of the remainder.

F) I just felt bored during the NICT, and that I was missing out on
something. I narrowed it down to regretting not having two versions to
choose from as part of game setup.

I'm hopeful we can get a decent debate going.

Frank Gilson

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

[Kelly Wilkinson]

:)

JonCleaves@... wrote:In a message dated 7/30/2003 17:28:57 Central Daylight
Time,
franktrevorgilson@... writes:

> I'm hopeful we can get a decent debate going.
>

Frank, I had become a one-list devotee til I read your post. Coming from
you, those are all important points. I would ask Scott to consider them
carefully.

J


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


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

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

[Jake Kovel]

I have always been a one list player, and I will continue to be one
regardless of the tournament set-up. There are several reasons that I prefer
this
format. first, it is more of a challange to find the right troop mix.
Generalship makes more of a difference if there is only one choice. Second, it
does
reduce the number of playable armies, in my opinion. My army at H-Con,
Anglo-Irish, had no real options at 1600 points. If everyone else had two
lists, I
honestly believe my one list would have been less competitive. In the end, I
was
beaten by a player who played a better game than I did, not an army match-up.
Third, more options means more figures. Everybody is complaining about
prices now, if you have to have more lead the complaints will go up.
Jacob Kovel

I totally agree with Jake on every point. As for cost, this is a main reason
for asking that 1200pt become the standard not 1600. I just spent $170 on
Samurai for 1200pt, so 1600 means even less chance I'll get additional armies in
the future. Wanax

Eaglewars@... wrote:I have always been a one list player, and I will
continue to be one
regardless of the tournament set-up. There are several reasons that I prefer
this
format. first, it is more of a challange to find the right troop mix.
Generalship makes more of a difference if there is only one choice. Second, it
does
reduce the number of playable armies, in my opinion. My army at H-Con,
Anglo-Irish, had no real options at 1600 points. If everyone else had two
lists, I
honestly believe my one list would have been less competitive. In the end, I
was
beaten by a player who played a better game than I did, not an army match-up.
Third, more options means more figures. Everybody is complaining about
prices now, if you have to have more lead the complaints will go up.
Jacob Kovel

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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.



Lord of the Meadehall of men! Aknowledged professional sack lounger. Creator
of semi-lifeforms in their millions. The good looking twin, though sinister in
thought and deed. He who would produce but for 7 years of inactivity punctuated
by frenzied finger touching. Smooth.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

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

[Greg Regets]

Definitely two ...

We want players to go after each other, and not stab and stall to
wait for a late game attack. Why not give them two lists so they can
pick the one that allows them to go after the other player with
optimum advantage.

Greg

Terrain permitting of course. :-)


In a message dated 8/4/2003 9:34:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, gar@...
writes:

> Why not give them two lists so they can
> pick the one that allows them to go after the other player
> with
> optimum advantage.

[Greg Regets]

Touche! :-)


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Thresh1642@a... wrote:
> Terrain permitting of course.
>
>
> In a message dated 8/4/2003 9:34:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
gar@t... writes:
>
> > Why not give them two lists so they can
> > pick the one that allows them to go after the other player
> > with
> > optimum advantage.