Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Dear List,
Another vote for Cole. I tried to vote online and failed to get
it to work--some anti-Canadian server bias : )
It's intuitively obvious that if we use points to define the
strength of armies, in a tournament, each side should have the same
number of points. All of the excellent arguments about better players
being able to win 100 points short and etc. are, as far as I can see,
rhetorical. That is to say, any player is welcome to play 100 points
short if he so desires; more power to him if he wins. Otherwise, the
playing field should be as level as can be managed. This is an
intensely competative hobby in its upper reaches; it seems to me that
the most competative players would like to have every possible
advantage, which is to be expected. Despite which, in the interest of
making a game between a novice and an expert as fair as possible, they
should start with the same number of points!
Sad as it makes me to take issue with both Scott and Mark Stone, I
can remember lists that would have had to be very different indeed if
the 1600 point max were hard. A few points can make a real difference in
list construction; as few as four can actually decide between one unit
or another, or between armouring a full unit or only its front rank, or
having shields throughout a 2E LC unit or just in the front rank. In
the right situations, these issues can be the margin between victory and
defeat.
I've played this game and it's parent and grandparent systems since
1982. Let's dump a poor tradition and improve.

Chris Cameron

>
>

[Phil Gardocki]

I like the system where the overages are pentalized with 3-1 difference in
the final score.
If someone brings 3200 points, he will win the battle, but lose the game
4800 -1600, a 5-0

Phil

[Ed Kollmer]

Yo
I support Phil in that point proposal.
Maybe I will actually come close to winning a tournament.
EdK