Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Bob
I can't give you any thoughts on the point value system since I think it is
just fine the way it is. I play literally dozens of point-value based games
and any such system is by definition arbitrary. Attempts to 'fix' such a
system perceived as broken are never successful in my experience unless they
address a clear and extreme problem of balance. Even then, such fixes
usually produce an imbalance somewhere else.
The following is also always true of point systems:
1. At least one player of the game is convinced the troops he likes are not
pointed correctly. Such a player can produce reams of evidence of his troops
losing to 'unfairly cheaper' troops. Such players are almost never willing
to do the work necessary to correctly work out a replacement system. They
just want their troops to be cheaper or thier nemesis' to be more expensive.
2. The best such systems are those with years of games behind them. No
amount of simple 'fixes' can match established balance. Warrior is a
balanced game. Some armies suck because they suck, ESPECIALLY when called
upon to fight ahistorical opponents. Guys need to get over that.
3. Most such systems start with the absolute worst troop in the game being
worth one or one-half point and work up from there. At some point there is
no way of getting right that the various mid-grade troops are 'worth' exactly
what they are costed. The best you can do is that they are worth more than
the stuff immediately worse.
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.
5. Not one player who has shown me a replacement point value system has
taken into account the statistics of the difference in command factor costs
for irregs and regs. Such a lack of understanding of how that balances
things makes it easy to hit delete. And no lectures from 4th edition guys.
I know what CFs were and are supposed to be doing. Very well, thank you.

Bottom line: the case one would need to build to prove to us that the system
is flawed to the point of needing repair has not been made and I don't see
anyone doing the work in time for the basic rules. Mostly that is because I
think the case cannot be made, but I am willing to listen to any industrious
soul who does his homework.

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.

Jon

Dear Jon,

Apologies for a late reply.  I understand your points and I suspect the short answer is there isn't the time for a thorough work-out of a revised points system.  It is a bit of a shame though - I found an old 5th Edition set and can confirm the points haven't changed since then.  In that set the Irregs fought one rank for all weapon types, got a plus one for charging  
'uncontrolled' for all troop types and died at the same speed as everyone else.  The mechanisms are so different now you can't help us thinking that if the points values are 'good enough' it's more by luck than judgement!

As far as giving points a little 'tweak' is concerned I'd have to say (confessing to being a bad general) 5% margins of error can be significant.  
If you always took it and weren't entitled to it you'd be a cheat, it often means the difference between winning and losing in 'knock -out' games,  if it's always in your favour it's damn nice to have, for irreg cavalry generals in 1600 point games its the difference between upgrading fron 'C' to 'B' and double arming 2-3 cavalry units or not, the list could go on...

I guess the answer is going to be where we started this - think of more challenging competition scenarios that test all sorts of armies and maybe tone down the 'favourites' with list rules.

Bob

[joncleaves]

<< The mechanisms are so different now you can't help us thinking that if
the points values are 'good enough' it's more by luck than judgement! >>

There is no question in my mind: luck.

Besides, which is 'better': Reg A SHK L Sh or Irr D LMI JLS? Ok, the knights
are better. Are they 21 times better? Damned if I know....

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I must agree with Jon as shocking as this is to my very soul! The Warrior point system comes from a tried and true system (WRG) and is just fine as it is. No one seems to have done enough to prove otherwise. When I hear someone Whine that Pike armed infantry don't stand a chance against lance armed cavalry or knights, I can't help but dream that I get to face you in a tournament game! The whole key to winning lies in each players ability to match up their superior troops against their opponents inferior troops and hopefully cause enough waver tests to send their opponents packing. Ofcourse luck comes into play but excellent players make their own luck. Guys like Chris Damour, Jon Cleaves, Tim Brown, and Scott McDonald consistently win with ANY army (whether it is predominantly regular or irregular) because they understand this precept ("Well I've never really known Chris to run anything but barbarian trash!).       My point? Get over the point system thing if you aren't going to put out the effort to do an extensive overhall and then justify it. Just changing 4 things and ignoring the rest looks like you have a pet project like Jon alludes to in his response.

                                                Kelly Wilkinson

My only pet project was to encourage more 'average' players with a wider variety of armies.  Good for the hobby and good for business......

Anyway, surely if you're all so great you wouldn't mind fighting a few extra HI with a few less Irreg Cav.... .