Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 02/02/2005 17:27:20 GMT Standard Time,
mark@... writes:

This doesn't necessarily solve the whole problem, but here's a suggestion
for
those troop types that have some sort of nonstandard interpenetration
capability as a result of list rules. Off the top of my head, here are the
troop types to which this applies:
- Pre-Severan Roman legionaries (interpenetration with other legionary units)
- Swiss (2HCT element can move to the front in second bound)
- Mongols (LC can interpenetrate other Mongol cav)

One way to think about it is that your getting the cohesion benefits of a
detachment + parent body, and the freedom of movement of two independent
bodies. Why not, then, charge for command factors accordingly? In other
words,
such a unit pays a 15 point command factor - 10 points for the unit command
factor, and 5 points equivalent to a detachment command factor.

Just my $.02 worth.


-Mark Stone



**Yes i have thought along similar lines, a cost per unit rather than per
element which comes down to the same thing.

These costs could easily be added to existing lists. In some cases it could
be as low as a couple of points per unit, in others maybe up to twenty for a
specific ability.

They could also be made optional in some lists.

I feel this would rebalance the lists and would be pretty easy to introduce.
**

mark mallard




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

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 02/02/2005 19:26:13 GMT Standard Time, JonCleaves@...
writes:

I feel this would rebalance the lists >>

Mark, which two historical opponents in lists we have published do you feel
are unbalanced and why?

Jon



I am not arguing the point above particularly, i do not have OW yet as it
is, although i did raise the issue as the other books were published. I hope the
following is not a rant, but the beginnings of a debate on the long term
effect of not costing these free advantages.

I have no problem with list rules as such, i welcome them if they make an
army more historically accurate on the table.

It is the principle of giving an extra free ability to any troop type
without an associated cost that i am opposed too, however little. It cannot be
equitable. It just is not so.

Before the arrival of list rules every element of troops on the table had a
cost, which had been calculated/adjusted over many years to give an
approximation of their usefulness resulting in fair and open battles for both
historical and non historical opponents. This is so in every game (i play a lot
of
different games and have done for many years) that i know of, games that are
not equal are just not as much fun for the poor mug that gets beaten
consistently. They ultimately give up playing.

As a chess player also, i feel that it is almost like giving an extra pawn
to one side in a game of chess and then claiming that player deserves it
because he won his last game.

You are certainly giving the armies with list rules an advantage at no cost.

I don't see how anyone can argue that this is not the case.

I always preferred that an equal "value" of troops could take on another
equal "value" with reasonable chances, even if one consisted of poorer troops,
because they would be compensated with more troops.

These equal chances are no more and the odds have now swung in favour of the
armies with the most potent list rules, because they are effectively being
improved at no cost.

I ran my own campaign with my own campaign rules for a good many years, i
had list rules, but they were not uncosted. No one complained as no one got
anything for nothing. People did complain though if they thought someone was
getting an unfair advantage, it is human nature.

After many years of gaming with many many different players i fear that the
result of all these list rules, without a cost, could include any or all of
the following.

The lists with list rules will perform more accurately. probably

The lists with the most/best list rules will be more popular. certainly

The lists with poor/no list rules will be used less often. certainly

Players with only armies with poor/no list rules will leave the game or be
forced to buy other armies with free advantages. certainly

Experienced players will most likely choose an army with free advantages.
certainly

New players may not grasp that these advantages exist in some armies until
after purchasing an army, losing with it, realising the other guys troops can
do free things, get fed up, give up Warrior. possibly

I know you guys are bright people, i just dont quite understand how this has
not occured to you.

I am happy to play at a handicap to less experienced players, but it is more
likely the opposite will occur. This will not help Warrior grow in my
opinion.

mark mallard






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

[Mark Stone]

This doesn't necessarily solve the whole problem, but here's a suggestion for
those troop types that have some sort of nonstandard interpenetration
capability as a result of list rules. Off the top of my head, here are the
troop types to which this applies:
- Pre-Severan Roman legionaries (interpenetration with other legionary units)
- Swiss (2HCT element can move to the front in second bound)
- Mongols (LC can interpenetrate other Mongol cav)

One way to think about it is that your getting the cohesion benefits of a
detachment + parent body, and the freedom of movement of two independent
bodies. Why not, then, charge for command factors accordingly? In other words,
such a unit pays a 15 point command factor - 10 points for the unit command
factor, and 5 points equivalent to a detachment command factor.

Just my $.02 worth.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

This doesn't necessarily solve the whole problem,...>>

As you must know by now, Mark, we do not agree that there is a problem. I don't
want you to feel that you are being ignored, but we have no intent of creating a
points cost for list rules and have stated here why on numerous occasions.

It might be that your superb Warrior mind would be better employed in other
suggestion areas, because this horse is dead.

Jon

[Mark Stone]

--- On February 2 Jon Cleaves said: ---

>
> As you must know by now, Mark, we do not agree that there is a problem. I
don't
> want you to feel that you are being ignored, but we have no intent of creating
a
> points cost for list rules and have stated here why on numerous occasions.
>
> It might be that your superb Warrior mind would be better employed in other
> suggestion areas, because this horse is dead.
>

Come on, Jon, don't give me that George Bush-style "we've made no mistakes"
line. You, of all people, should know better.

The point system in Warrior does not consistently apply its own stated
principles about why things cost what they do, and the list rules exacerbate
this problem. Set aside list rules for the moment, and look at one example:

Compare two units, each consisting of two models of elephants. One unit contains
a subgeneral, and the other does not. The unit with the subgeneral is _cheaper_.
To say "there is no problem" is laughable, and damages your credibility
unecessarily.

If you want to say that you are constrained by other factors not to address
these issues now or in the forseeable future, that's an answer I can accept,
and accept graciously. But don't tell me there's no problem. We're both smarter
than that.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

I feel this would rebalance the lists >>

Mark, which two historical opponents in lists we have published do you feel are
unbalanced and why?

Jon

[joncleaves]

To say "there is no problem" is laughable, and damages your credibility
unecessarily.>>

My instincts to just not say anything were correct. But, in the interests of
showing I can continue to ignore your personal attacks and try to come to a
common understanding, i will make one last attempt.

I will also not speak for the other guys at FHE. I don't think you'd want to
hear what they have to say about your attack posts anyway...lol But the
following is just my opinion, caveat, caveat... It is also yet another repeat
of an oft stated opinion here, but what the heck...seems like that all got
forgotten today anyway....

I think the point system is a work of art. All point systems in games are
arbitrary by definition. Warrior is no exception. I do such point systems for
other games, I have played in literally a hundred such systems and do the 'point
system' for the US Army. Not a one is without subjectivity. That said, the
best you can achieve is good enough. And Warrior is quite good enough.

Some comp players don't like paying for P standards. Some don't like paying 2
pts for HI or 2HCT. If we were to change that, something else would not seem
perfectly efficient to their chosen style of play. There are always losers in
point systems. Always. If you change what loses in point efficiency, you
create a new class of loser. Its just a fact of making point systems.

Given that, the Warrior point system is actually quite elegant. Some of the
so-called losers are perfect representations of the economic/societal/tech
effort of the item in question. This permits us a campaign conversion that I
find quite unequalled in the 1000+ games I have owned or played over the last 30
years. If we changed that aspect, all we would do is create new losers while
simultaneously depriving ourselves of the cleanness of the campaign conversion.
Bad idea.

Its also funny what constantly gets represented as a problem area. Usually P
standards and Ally generals top the list. Yet if I thought anything needed
fixing it might be the cost of HK or the fact that for one more point A's make
you never uneasy. Again, the 'cost effiency' is substantially in the eyes of
the beholder. What's a 'bargain' for one might not be ever taken by another.
To screw with individual aspects based solely on the pet issues of a particular
viewpoint is chaos.

Which leads to my next point. When we were doing Warrior originally some of the
same issues were raised with the point systems (and pretty much by the same
folks). Although I liked the system as much then as I do now (it is in fact in
fact one of the reasons I joined this project) I offered to seriously consider
any complete point value 'solution' offered. Didn't get one. Not one.

Now that brings us to the other dead horse of costs for list rules. Most of the
same comments from above apply there as well. In addition, I am well aware that
Roman HI HTW Sh on the lists with the list rules are better for the points than
HI HTW Sh on lists without. Part of the reason I am well aware of that is
because that is EXACTLY what we want to be true. The last thing on earth I
would do is to make those rules cost the Roman unit something - it would
immediately defeat the whole purpose of the list rules.

Ok, I am done. Consider this last horse beating your public service for
today....lol

Jon

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 02/02/2005 22:56:12 GMT Standard Time, JonCleaves@...
writes:

<<The lists with the most/best list rules will be more popular.
certainly>>

That is not currently true. It may change over time, but there was no rush
on Romans and Swiss in open events....




***
Statisticaly there is no way of knowing yet, it takes some of us a long time
to ponder, purchase, and then finally paint an army.

I did not mean any of the things i stated that might happen, would happen
overnight - i meant over a long period (several years most likely) - a gradual
almost imperceptable change - but a change nonetheless.

I will stick my neck out and predict that armies with list rules will begin
to be played in tournaments more frequently in the next year or two than they
were and that they will finish higher than they did.

And i did not mean me either, regarding changing to lists with free
advantages - i will stick to my armies as i have for 25+ years.

Frankly it takes me years to paint an army and i have no interest in buying
more lead, as i have plenty unpainted as it is.

I am more concerned by the effects the uncosted list rules will have on the
fringe Warrior players, or potential new Warrior players who may perceive
things as unfair or biased towards certain lists. These very people i am trying
to introduce to Warrior, they are used to games where everything is costed
fairly.

Games where everyone has an equal footing except for skill/ability or luck
usualy do best in the popularity stakes.

Two units with identical morale and equipment and points costs should have
identical abilities. If this is not the case there is bias, to correct it
surely the points must be adjusted. I cannot argue the case against this
although
jon and others are doing so strongly.

My credentials, just in case i am seen as some new kid. These are the
thoughts of a player that started on 5th edition of the other game, and
introduced
at least 30 people to it during the 1980's. Then after its demise
reintroduced 6 explayers of TOG to Warrior. I have been in the Worlds (of TOG)
on four
occasions and have seen many many people reject TOG or Warrior for different
reasons. I don't want this to be a new reason.

One of the best parts of the old engine was the points costing. Ok, there
are one or two anomolies but on the whole you got what you paid for. Now, some
get more than others and i am concerned, its a forum, so i opened a debate.

I thought there would be more support for my argument on these boards from
mathemeticians or chess players - but maybe i have it wrong, i hope so.

mark mallard
**



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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/2/2005 20:14:27 Central Standard Time,
markmallard7@... writes:

I am more concerned by the effects the uncosted list rules will have on the
fringe Warrior players, or potential new Warrior players who may perceive
things as unfair or biased towards certain lists. These very people i am
trying
to introduce to Warrior, they are used to games where everything is costed
fairly.>>


This is history.

Besides, any player of GW games is well versed in games where the lists are
not costed fairly.. (couldn't resist, Charles...)


<<Games where everyone has an equal footing except for skill/ability or luck

usualy do best in the popularity stakes.>>

This isn't a popularity contest and certainly not all lists in Warrior are
equal, no matter the point system. If all you were was Irr LMI JLS, there's
nothing we can do for you.....lol

J








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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/2/2005 21:10:37 Central Standard Time,
mwbard@... writes:

<<LTS Body: LTSvsMI->3, +1 Charging -> 4. 24 figures fighting -> 72. Note
that there is no shieldless bonus as this is first contact with 2HCW

<<2HCW Body: 2HCWvsMI->5, +1 Charging -> 6, +3 Shieldess -> 9 . 12 figures
fighting -> 114>>

-2 for facing LTS and LTS is also not shieldless at first contact. I
actually agree with part of the point you are making, but the math is very much
in
need of a relook....

Jon







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

[joncleaves]

The lists with list rules will perform more accurately. probably>>

Thanks...lol

<<The lists with the most/best list rules will be more popular. certainly>>

That is not currently true. It may change over time, but there was no rush on
Romans and Swiss in open events....

<<The lists with poor/no list rules will be used less often. certainly>>

No evidence of that either. None of the top performers or most taken lists
these past three years had list rules.

If and when it becomes a problem we'll take a look at it, but at this point
there are no facts to support these claims - just speculation. Nothing wrong
with speculation, mind you, but it is not representative of a 'problem' that we
don't 'see'.

J

[Todd Schneider]

markmallard7@... wrote:

>
> In a message dated 02/02/2005 19:26:13 GMT Standard Time,
> JonCleaves@...
> writes:
>
> I feel this would rebalance the lists >>
>
> Mark, which two historical opponents in lists we have published do
> you feel
> are unbalanced and why?
>
> Jon
>
>
>
> I am not arguing the point above particularly, i do not have OW yet as
> it
> is, although i did raise the issue as the other books were published.
> I hope the
> following is not a rant, but the beginnings of a debate on the long term
> effect of not costing these free advantages.


So, somehow becuase a Roman is a Roman (but only to a certain year, and
a Mongol is a Mongol, they should automatically be paying more? I don't
undertsnad this logic, and what frame your placing it in.
That is to say, if I was an EIR player, and I have these advantages free
of charge against Historical opponents, should I not pay these points
when playing an A-historical opponent? If I play and Army that is
widely considered to be weak, should I get an automatic discount for
playing sch a weak Army?


>
> I have no problem with list rules as such, i welcome them if they make
> an
> army more historically accurate on the table.


Are any of the list rules out there currently not doing that against
thier Historical opponents?

>
> It is the principle of giving an extra free ability to any troop type
> without an associated cost that i am opposed too, however little. It
> cannot be
> equitable. It just is not so.

Hmm, what else can this handicap apply to? I am not as good a player as
Jon, so when I play him should he have fewer points on the table because
as the stronger player, he shouldn't need them to win? A Facetious
questions to be sure, but really, how badly does this can of worms need
to be opened?
Player skill and luck doesn't enter into this at all, does it?


>
> Before the arrival of list rules every element of troops on the table
> had a
> cost, which had been calculated/adjusted over many years to give an
> approximation of their usefulness resulting in fair and open battles
> for both
> historical and non historical opponents. This is so in every game (i
> play a lot of
> different games and have done for many years) that i know of, games
> that are
> not equal are just not as much fun for the poor mug that gets beaten
> consistently. They ultimately give up playing.


I know that pain well. Play Late Imperial Romans against Mostly Knight
Armies against good players for a year, and you'll be looking for
something else. But at the same time, I played Marian Romans against
Jon's Medieval Spanish many times last year. If I follow the thread
correctly, I should have had an advanatge throughout that would have
helped me win my fair share of battles. But I didn't. Now, what/who is
to blame there? My ability as a player? It has to be that, becuase
those special rules didn't help my Marians any more they did my Late
Imperial ROamns when I played his Spanish with them as well.

>
> As a chess player also, i feel that it is almost like giving an extra
> pawn
> to one side in a game of chess and then claiming that player deserves it
> because he won his last game.
>
> You are certainly giving the armies with list rules an advantage at
> no cost.

Isn't this just perception?
Do people somehow beleive that because certain lists have certain rules
that make them more effective against historical opponenets, they are
somehow "getting" Overon the rest of us who only play "Normal" Lists?

>
> I don't see how anyone can argue that this is not the case.

I think it can be argued and debated quite well. Apparently it already
has been argued once before on the list.


>
> I always preferred that an equal "value" of troops could take on another
> equal "value" with reasonable chances, even if one consisted of poorer
> troops,
> because they would be compensated with more troops.

Great idea.
But who gets to determine the value?
The individual players?
Or the guys who own the rules set?
Both of them?

>
> These equal chances are no more and the odds have now swung in favour
> of the
> armies with the most potent list rules, because they are effectively
> being
> improved at no cost.

Really? I am looking back at the NICT lists the past two years, and the
number of Swiss, Aztec and Early Roman lists is breathtaking. They are
everywhere. Powergamers and regular gamers pounced on these
like....sorry, I just can't do sarcasm well today.

The fact of the matter is, past history says potent list rules don't do
anything to add to an armies appeal. Otherwise we would be seeing them
played all the time, everywhere.
Will Oriental Warrior change this?
Maybe. But then many players I've talked to the past few years have
felt that Oriental Armies, in particular the Mongols, were emasculated
by other rules sets, and as such they never played them that much (How
many DBA/DBM Mongol Armies do you see out there?). Now Warrior provides
them the opportunity to play them in a historical manner, and given the
right player, they could be very competitive.
I have no intention of ever playing Mongols, they aren't my style. And
honestly, none of the Powergamers in my area are chomping at the bit (no
pun intended) to go out and buy as many Mounted figs as they can. The
same was true for the Swiss and the Romans when they were published.
People played them, liked the rules well enough, but didn't flock to
them becuase of the list rules.

And, honestly, yes, I think the Mongols are a neat list, with some very
cool rules that may at first glance be to powerful.

Then again, how many people think here that if two players of eqaul
skill were matched across the tabletop, and one player had Mongols, and
the other had a Koryo Korean List the resembles the one used to win the
NICT two years ago, the Mongols would win Simply because of their List
rules?

>
> I ran my own campaign with my own campaign rules for a good many
> years, i
> had list rules, but they were not uncosted. No one complained as no
> one got
> anything for nothing. People did complain though if they thought
> someone was
> getting an unfair advantage, it is human nature.


As we have seen.

>
> After many years of gaming with many many different players i fear
> that the
> result of all these list rules, without a cost, could include any or
> all of
> the following.
>
> The lists with list rules will perform more accurately. probably
>
> The lists with the most/best list rules will be more popular. certainly

Not demonstrably true. At leastnot in the Warrior community here in
America. Just looking at the NICT qualification Lists the past two
years bears this out.

>
> The lists with poor/no list rules will be used less often. certainly


Looking at just the NICT lists again, this is also not demonstrably
true. Of the Lists that have been played in the last two NICTS, how
many had special Rules? Less than half? Less than 10%?
On the flip side, if FHE gave Sea Peoples a set of Kick ass List rules
(Free Interpentration, Free Counters, replace in Battle) Sort of stuff,
would Sea Peoples Armies suddenly become the rage?

>
> Players with only armies with poor/no list rules will leave the game
> or be
> forced to buy other armies with free advantages. certainly

Truth be told, I think if any player wants to leave Warrior becuase the
Army of their choice, be it Assyrians, Berber, whatever, if they want to
leave Warrior because they have no "Special Rule" like some of the other
lists...good riddance.
And from talking to various players over the years, we all know there
are individuals out there who are wedded to an army for an eternity. If
they couldnt be persuaded to stop playing that Army before (that is to
say nothing else caught their eye), I fail to see how not having some
"Shiny List Chrome" to make their list "better" is going to drive them away.

>
> Experienced players will most likely choose an army with free
> advantages.
> certainly

You mean like Gob's of Elephants?
SHK More numerous than Raindrops at Agincourt?
Longbowmen from One table edge to the other?

Those advantages?


>
> New players may not grasp that these advantages exist in some armies
> until
> after purchasing an army, losing with it, realising the other guys
> troops can
> do free things, get fed up, give up Warrior. possibly

Doubtful IMO.
There are advantages and disadvantages inherent in each list. We all
know that, and we all accept that. We do so by choosing to play the
list that best suits our style of play, not because it has some special
"Chrome" added to i, or we choose to play it becuase we fell it has
someting "Cool" About it, Lotsof Elephants, a Troop type combination we
like, and so on.

Why do you play the lists you play?

> I know you guys are bright people, i just dont quite understand how
> this has
> not occured to you.

I could answer this, but I think Jon has already done so.

>
> I am happy to play at a handicap to less experienced players, but it
> is more
> likely the opposite will occur. This will not help Warrior grow in my
> opinion.
>
> mark mallard
>
>
Todd

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/2/2005 21:58:18 Central Standard Time,
mwbard@... writes:

LTS Body routs with a total of 11 fatigue. 2HCW has 7.

Same result, it just takes one extra bound. >>


True. The great rock-paper-scissors effect of points based games. LTS is
better when it has a shield in this case than without. 2HCW, at least
HTH-wise, is the same either way. Should LTS be costed differently than 2HCW
for
this reason? madness follows....lol

Mike, I have a CW doubles partner. But if his job takes him away from CW at
the last minute and you still have none, I would be honored to play as your
teammate.

Jon








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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/2/2005 23:02:11 Central Standard Time,
tors1@... writes:

Examples.
As a Tournament winner (Master) perhaps the loss of 100 pts worth of
troops against a novice who has never played in a tournament would be
fair. Players with other results could loose other amounts according
to their rankings.

Kingo >>


I know the capital region boys here in the US do exactly that. We in KC are
planning to have our next Warrior league handicap those who are qualified
for the NICT. Good idea, in my mind.

We'll just agree to disagree on the B-armed elephant thing. Of course, if
you'd like an explanation, you can send me an offline message. Please include
an explanation of 'furphy' that shows it is not perjorative...lol

Jon









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

[Mike Bard]

> Games where everyone has an equal footing except for skill/ability or luck
> usualy do best in the popularity stakes.

Far more important in success than absolute point equality is placing
terrain. This is solely skill and luck, point value doesn't affect it.
Should we have a surcharge for people who statistically get the "+1" for
native climate? Should we give their opponent in a tournament a victory
point bonus to offset this.

I don't believe so, but I think that this has a far greater affect than a
few points, or even 100pts, difference.

> Two units with identical morale and equipment and points costs should
have
> identical abilities. If this is not the case there is bias, to correct it
> surely the points must be adjusted. I cannot argue the case against this
although
> jon and others are doing so strongly.

A Reg C MI figure with NO shield and LTS costs 4 points. A Reg C MI figure
with NO shield and 2HCW costs 4 points.

If the point system is exactly fair, the combat should result in mutual
anihilation. However...

Assume 2 24 figure/6 element bodies. The 2HCW fight 1 rank deep and thus
are deployed in a line 6 elements long. The LTS fight 2 deep and thus are
deployed in a line 3 elements long and 2 elements deep.

Bound 1: (both bodies charge).

LTS Body: LTSvsMI->3, +1 Charging -> 4. 24 figures fighting -> 72. Note
that there is no shieldless bonus as this is first contact with 2HCW
2HCW Body: 2HCWvsMI->5, +1 Charging -> 6, +3 Shieldess -> 9 . 12 figures
fighting -> 114

LTS Body takes 4CPF. 2HCW Body takes 3CPF. Both bodies are disordered, LTS
body recoils.

Bound 2: (2HCW follows up)

LTS Body: LTSvsMI->3, +3 Shieldlesss -> 6, -2 Disordered -> 4. 18 figures
fighting -> 54.
2HCW Body: 2HCWvsMI->5, +3 Shieldless ->8, +1 Following Up -> 9, -2
Disordered -> 7. 18 figures fighting (flankers now count) -> 108.

LTS Body takes 4 more CPF, total 8. 2HCW Body takes 2 more CPF, total 6.
LTS routs and takes 2 more for 10 total.

Look! 2HCW is unbalanced! We need to change the Point Value!

Note that I do NOT agree with this. Also note that there are more examples
of identical point value units not fighting each other to a stand still.

Special Rules for specific bodies does not unbalance the points any more
than certain weapon types being better than other weapon types.

Michael Bard
That Greek Hoplite Guy who is still looking for a Cold Wars Doubles partner