Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

I followed the exchange about the testudo with interest, for three reasons:
i) I suggested, some time back, that the points values needed revision;
ii) it reprised the old complaints about paying points for the
ability to wedge, a view that was very popular in days gone by
iii) hanging out with some DBM players at the weekend, I learned that
in some quarters the view is that the changes introduced in the 3d
edition of those rules really require some revision to the points
costs. Plus ça changeŠ

Listening to my friends chatter away about the relative costs of
Kn(O) and LH(F), it occurred to me that in debating points values we
are liable to lose sight of an important aspect.

In a game, a points cost system should allow two players using armies
that are coevals to approximate relative fighting value so that
factors such as generalship, terrain management and luck will
determine the outcome.

Which led me to the conclusion that what a points value system cannot
do is to approximate relative fighting value between armies drawn
from widely separated periods. As soon as feudal Spanish take the
table against Indian, the notion of points cost becomes moot. There
is no way of calculating the relative fighting values between them.
So to compare Roman legionaries with Flemish civic militia is not
exactly fair to the writers of the rules, who have no basis on which
to make the comparison. The direct comparison must be between armies
that could have fought one another. If 1250 points of Early Imperial
Romans have a fair chance against the same value of Germans or
Parthians, then all is well. If not, then there is a problem that
needs to be addressed. I don't think the ability to form testudo
enters into those examples.
However, I do think that when a successive edition introduces
changes that affect the capabilities of a troop type on the table,
then the points value must be revised. This was the basis of my
earlier remarks, because we are still using 6th Edition points values
and I am of the opinion that the relationship between certain troop
types, on the table, was altered by 7th Edition. On that basis, we
should be paying more for elephants because they became more
effective. But the Four Horsemen don't see it that way, so we will
not.
And since they have expressly stated they will not be issuing
future editions, the points values as published must be assumed to be
in balance and we don't need to worry about this any more.
Finally, I have to agree that the ratio of table size to
figures/army size is a far more important element in determining how
valuable one troop type is when compared with another than ever
really features in any discussion I have seen. I don't think one can
overestimate the impact.

Paul Szuscikiewicz