Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Ok, Greg. At least you're trying. I'll save this and see what else you
come up with.

We're going to have to disagree on how close this is to a complete system.
(You feel its all done but the details and I feel the details are the only
real important part and none of them are here). But let's set that aside so
you can run with it for now.

J


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

[Greg Regets]

How about something simple, like:

1. Keep the point values for troops exactly as they are, but this now
buys you one D moral figure with a sidearm and no shield.

(This gives a starting point that is tested over years of gaming)

2. Weapons cost 1-3 points, depending on the quality of the weapon.
If you have more than one weapon, the least expensive weapon is
doubled.

(The vast majority of weapons would be two points, and a heavy price
would be paid for troops with hot weapons combinations.)

3. A shield costs 3 points.

4. Command points cost the same.

5. Moral would be treated as a percentage variance applied to the
total of all point costed items.

E moral -10%
C moral +10%
B moral +15%
A moral +20%
Mixed moral units, half the variance

(This eliminates the rather silly situation where upgrading 32 REG D
MI CB, to Reg C, costs 32 points, while a General with 5 SHK figure
can be upgraded from D to A at less than half that cost.)

6. Benefits based on list rules would also be treated as a percentage
variance applied to the total of all point costed items.

Small Benefit +5% (things like EHK that dismount with 2HCW)
Good Benefit +10% (things like anomalous ranks fighting perhaps)
Great Benefit +15% (things like dismounting 1-1 cavalry)

7. Change the range of unit sizes: Regulars 2-8 stands, Irregulars 6-
12 stands.

(This gets rid of armies with eight units of 2 stand Irregular guided
missiles, which while fun are mostly non-historical. Armies that did
things like this historically, could have list rules.)


Please note that this is a VERY preliminary attempt, based on about
ten minutes work. Obviously testing would have to be done,
percentages modified, and a bit of debugging done ... the point being
that if a basic theory of how a point system should work (not by
default this one) and that system is based in what we know has worked
reasonably well for quite some time, the rest of the work is just
hashing it out to a final conclusion.

g

[Greg Regets]

Actually no, I don't feel it's all done but the details which is why
I put "(not by default this one)" when making the final point. :-)

This was ten minutes work, done in the hopes that others will come to
the table with other ideas.

Thanks ... g

P.S. Jon ... please don't think that just because some of us
passionately post about these issues, that we are not appreciative of
the work you and the reast of FHE do on Warrior. You have a great
game, and your CSR efforts on this board are admirable.




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Ok, Greg. At least you're trying. I'll save this and see what
else you
> come up with.
>
> We're going to have to disagree on how close this is to a complete
system.
> (You feel its all done but the details and I feel the details are
the only
> real important part and none of them are here). But let's set
that aside so
> you can run with it for now.
>
> J
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/11/2005 00:00:47 Central Standard Time,
greg.regets@... writes:

Actually no, I don't feel it's all done but the details which is why
I put "(not by default this one)" when making the final point. :-)

This was ten minutes work, done in the hopes that others will come to
the table with other ideas.>>
[
And I, too, am very interested in where this goes. Illustrative if nothing
else.

<<P.S. Jon ... please don't think that just because some of us
passionately post about these issues, that we are not appreciative of
the work you and the reast of FHE do on Warrior. You have a great
game, and your CSR efforts on this board are admirable.>>
[
No worries at all, Greg. I know we suffer here as much as any cyberboard
from 'internet voice' - nothing acrimonious was in any of my posts and I
assumed none in others. I *do* indeed use strong, direct language to make
clear
our positions on things. Passion about this game is something I both have and
admire....


J








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

Please, please, please don't allow any messing with the points system.
It is probably the greatest strength of this rules system.
In Australia under the WRG seveth edition there was a period where
points were changed. One of my favorites was that it was deemed SHC
were too expensive. On the whole I agreed with this. However, when the
points were dropped by two per SHC figure I didn't enjoy my Saxons
being run over by these more cost effective boys!!!
Keep up the good work John and resist all point changing debates.


Cheers..........Geoff


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2/11/2005 00:00:47 Central Standard Time,
> greg.regets@g... writes:
>
> Actually no, I don't feel it's all done but the details which is why
> I put "(not by default this one)" when making the final point.
>
> This was ten minutes work, done in the hopes that others will come to
> the table with other ideas.>>
> [
> And I, too, am very interested in where this goes. Illustrative if
nothing
> else.
>
> <<P.S. Jon ... please don't think that just because some of us
> passionately post about these issues, that we are not appreciative of
> the work you and the reast of FHE do on Warrior. You have a great
> game, and your CSR efforts on this board are admirable.>>
> [
> No worries at all, Greg. I know we suffer here as much as any
cyberboard
> from 'internet voice' - nothing acrimonious was in any of my posts
and I
> assumed none in others. I *do* indeed use strong, direct language
to make clear
> our positions on things. Passion about this game is something I
both have and
> admire....
>
>
> J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Geoff,
I don't think that people are advocating the kind of changes you write
about here. You really should take the time to read the posts that have been
written in this website regarding this topic. I believe that one side is
advocating pointing out special abilities such as free weapons and abilities for
special cases that are not accorded to the same pointed troops in other armies.
Another camp sees irregularities in the old Barker system. One thing you can be
certain of is that the FHE people will move at a very deliberate pace if they do
anything. That is, "IF" they choose to do anything about this. Besides, even if
I were wrong and and hell froze over and they chose to adopt a new points
system, do you realize how long it would take to playtest, rewrite rules,
rewrite lists, and argue what is proper for change??? Oh yeah, and ofcourse this
does not include all of the projects they presently have on the table, these
would most likely have to be scrapped for such a sweeping
change. I'm thinking it would be years. But the reality it that from the sound
of their spokesman, FHE is not unhappy with the way things are. So just take a
chill pill and read the posts prior. I'm sure you won't have to worry and if
anything were to happen, changes wouldn't even start for years down the road
imho.

Kelly Wilkinson

siwardrocks <geoffcrick@...> wrote:

Please, please, please don't allow any messing with the points system.
It is probably the greatest strength of this rules system.
In Australia under the WRG seveth edition there was a period where
points were changed. One of my favorites was that it was deemed SHC
were too expensive. On the whole I agreed with this. However, when the
points were dropped by two per SHC figure I didn't enjoy my Saxons
being run over by these more cost effective boys!!!
Keep up the good work John and resist all point changing debates.


Cheers..........Geoff


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2/11/2005 00:00:47 Central Standard Time,
> greg.regets@g... writes:
>
> Actually no, I don't feel it's all done but the details which is why
> I put "(not by default this one)" when making the final point.
>
> This was ten minutes work, done in the hopes that others will come to
> the table with other ideas.>>
> [
> And I, too, am very interested in where this goes. Illustrative if
nothing
> else.
>
> <<P.S. Jon ... please don't think that just because some of us
> passionately post about these issues, that we are not appreciative of
> the work you and the reast of FHE do on Warrior. You have a great
> game, and your CSR efforts on this board are admirable.>>
> [
> No worries at all, Greg. I know we suffer here as much as any
cyberboard
> from 'internet voice' - nothing acrimonious was in any of my posts
and I
> assumed none in others. I *do* indeed use strong, direct language
to make clear
> our positions on things. Passion about this game is something I
both have and
> admire....
>
>
> J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
document.write('');

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.

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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/13/2005 15:30:08 Central Standard Time,
geoffcrick@... writes:

Please, please, please don't allow any messing with the points system.>>


No worries, Geoff. Even if someone handed me, today, a better points system
all playtested and ready to go, i would not sign up for completely rewriting
every list book...either from a marketing or a common sense standpoint.
heck, we aren't even done writing them all..lol...
These conversations are purely theoretical.

Someday we may consider some such. But not before we are done with the
basics and not before the playership - as a whole - tells us they want it.

Jon








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

Kelly,

I have taken the time to read the posts about this issue...they have
been endless.
I chose the example of adjusting points costs just to illustrate that
changes that look harmless to start with can still have an affect.
As for some armies getting special abilities for free, this is really
no different to armies that ( for example ) can have shieldless HI/MI
behind shielded men. The troops in an army like this fight the same in
the majority of cases. It is also cheaper per unit thus allowing more
covereage. Another uncosted advantage is the troop types that can mix
together in some lists. These can be more/less cost effective.
My Saxons are an example of this. Much as I love them I no longer use
the Anglo-Danish list. Instead I use the Scots Isles. The Scots Isles
allow you to have more men on the table for the same cost ( no rear
rank shields ) and you can mix Irreg B HI/2HCW, Sh with irreg C MI
Jls. A better army of the same type for the same points.How could this
difference be reflected in costs? Should the Scots Isles pay a % more?
Conversely, should they get a discount when fighting any Lance armed
cavalry army - a nightmare believe me.
No matter what you do people will always look at a list and compare it
to another and see an advantage one way or the other. I'm sure we
would all like to have a troop type equivalent to Almughavars ( they
get the shieldless rear rank advantage also - I do realise this is not
good if you want to skirmish but who skirmishes with Moogs ).
Anyway, I know the debate will rage on - quite possibly forever - enjoy.



Cheers......Geoff



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> Geoff,
> I don't think that people are advocating the kind of changes
you write about here. You really should take the time to read the
posts that have been written in this website regarding this topic. I
believe that one side is advocating pointing out special abilities
such as free weapons and abilities for special cases that are not
accorded to the same pointed troops in other armies. Another camp sees
irregularities in the old Barker system. One thing you can be certain
of is that the FHE people will move at a very deliberate pace if they
do anything. That is, "IF" they choose to do anything about this.
Besides, even if I were wrong and and hell froze over and they chose
to adopt a new points system, do you realize how long it would take to
playtest, rewrite rules, rewrite lists, and argue what is proper for
change??? Oh yeah, and ofcourse this does not include all of the
projects they presently have on the table, these would most likely
have to be scrapped for such a sweeping
> change. I'm thinking it would be years. But the reality it that
from the sound of their spokesman, FHE is not unhappy with the way
things are. So just take a chill pill and read the posts prior. I'm
sure you won't have to worry and if anything were to happen, changes
wouldn't even start for years down the road imho.
>
> Kelly
Wilkinson
>
> siwardrocks <geoffcrick@o...> wrote:
>
> Please, please, please don't allow any messing with the points system.
> It is probably the greatest strength of this rules system.
> In Australia under the WRG seveth edition there was a period where
> points were changed. One of my favorites was that it was deemed SHC
> were too expensive. On the whole I agreed with this. However, when the
> points were dropped by two per SHC figure I didn't enjoy my Saxons
> being run over by these more cost effective boys!!!
> Keep up the good work John and resist all point changing debates.
>
>
> Cheers..........Geoff
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 2/11/2005 00:00:47 Central Standard Time,
> > greg.regets@g... writes:
> >
> > Actually no, I don't feel it's all done but the details which is why
> > I put "(not by default this one)" when making the final point.
> >
> > This was ten minutes work, done in the hopes that others will come
to
> > the table with other ideas.>>
> > [
> > And I, too, am very interested in where this goes. Illustrative if
> nothing
> > else.
> >
> > <<P.S. Jon ... please don't think that just because some of us
> > passionately post about these issues, that we are not
appreciative of
> > the work you and the reast of FHE do on Warrior. You have a great
> > game, and your CSR efforts on this board are admirable.>>
> > [
> > No worries at all, Greg. I know we suffer here as much as any
> cyberboard
> > from 'internet voice' - nothing acrimonious was in any of my posts
> and I
> > assumed none in others. I *do* indeed use strong, direct language
> to make clear
> > our positions on things. Passion about this game is something I
> both have and
> > admire....
> >
> >
> > J
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> document.write('');
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

siwardrocks <geoffcrick@...> wrote:

Kelly,

I have taken the time to read the posts about this issue...they have
been endless.
I chose the example of adjusting points costs just to illustrate that
changes that look harmless to start with can still have an affect.
As for some armies getting special abilities for free, this is really
no different to armies that ( for example ) can have shieldless HI/MI
behind shielded men. The troops in an army like this fight the same in
the majority of cases. It is also cheaper per unit thus allowing more
covereage.

**Kelly** Not when these guys get nailed in the left (formerly shielded) flank!
Being shieldless in Warrior is a Beyotch!



Another uncosted advantage is the troop types that can mix
together in some lists. These can be more/less cost effective.
My Saxons are an example of this. Much as I love them I no longer use
the Anglo-Danish list. Instead I use the Scots Isles. The Scots Isles
allow you to have more men on the table for the same cost ( no rear
rank shields ) and you can mix Irreg B HI/2HCW, Sh with irreg C MI
Jls. A better army of the same type for the same points.How could this
difference be reflected in costs? Should the Scots Isles pay a % more?

**kelly** This is a continuity issue by those that are editing lists. I've noted
that several lists troops are taken differently as allies as opposed to their
regular lists.


Conversely, should they get a discount when fighting any Lance armed
cavalry army - a nightmare believe me.
No matter what you do people will always look at a list and compare it
to another and see an advantage one way or the other. I'm sure we
would all like to have a troop type equivalent to Almughavars ( they
get the shieldless rear rank advantage also - I do realise this is not
good if you want to skirmish but who skirmishes with Moogs ).

**kelly** One really doesn't have to skirmish with irreg B's.


Anyway, I know the debate will rage on - quite possibly forever - enjoy.

**I doubt that it will ever be much of an issue. That will ofcourse be up to the
Four Horsemen to decide.



Cheers......Geoff

**kelly**

Geoff,

I doubt that you have much to worry about as Jon has said time after time
that FHE will not make any core changes to the rules. Of that, you can be
assured.



kw




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

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