Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Phil Gardocki]

Jon,
      While you are correct, but no other point system is up to being possibly modified by the players either.  


"No claim is being made that this or any other point system in the entire hobby is perfect, by the way.  I strongly believe that any such arbitrary system can only achieve the standard of 'good enough'.  I think Warrior's meets that standard."


This is the most telling point of all though.  If a 5% differential is that important, than its the general, not the point system.  Good argument.  
I'll stop pushing reducing the costs of SHC by 2 points.  (Palmyran, 96 points, 6%)


4.  Most 'simple fixes' are statistically insignificant.  If you think the cost of a troop in Warrior is one point too many or few, and you have as many as 80 of these figures in your army, you are talking about an 'error' of 5% in a 1600 point army.  Not worth risking breaking a game FHE thinks works fine.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/3/2001 03:00:47 Central Daylight Time, PHGamer@...
writes:

<< Jon,
While you are correct, but no other point system is up to being
possibly modified by the players either. >>

???

I work for a couple of game companies that allow this, and know of a few
more. Do not understand.

[scott holder]

Let me add a real life experiment to this "debate" as it illustrates why FH
ain't gonna change point values unless some wonderful overall schema is handed
down as a complete package.

Wedges. Yup they're gone. But one of the perenial and "easiest" rules
changes when they were around was charging +1 point for troops that wedge.
Most often, the +1 concept was associated with cav, particularly knights.
Well, in practical terms, it didn't make up for squat. Most medieval players
would have perhaps 4 knight wedges, assuming they were using something hyper
competitive like NASAMW's Sicilian Hohenstaufen list. Gee, that was 24 points
extra and didn't really make a difference. At the same time, the poor Viking
player (under this scenario), who usually doesn't have much of a chance in any
open tournament environment, would end up paying 24 points more just for his
beserkers, not to mention his huscarls. Again, still not a whole lotta points
but hopefully you get my drift even though some of you won't agree with it.
So, it just didn't seem *right* once figures went on the table.

That's one reason I've never supported changes in the point system despite the
fact that from some angles, it does look odd.

Scott
List Ho

[Greg Regets]

Scott's comments concerning point values have a ring of truth to them that
is hard to argue against. Even on this board, someone suggested this week
that Irregular A & B foot was too expensive. Last week, a different player
was saying that Irregular foot was too good compared to its Regular
counterparts.

The point made by Don about allowing players to come up with their own lists
to find out what is valued the most is interesting, but not practical. The
three or four best players in our area all play and value completely
different types of armies and will see value in completely different things.
I would suggest that our small group is a microcosm of the entire playing
base.

Barring a better system, perhaps the "evil we know" is the way to go!

Greg