Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Doug]

>- try
>varying the table size at tourneys. That'll add a welcome element of
>uncertainty back into the mix.

I've always felt that rules should make variable table size part of
the process of terrain generation. Since people have tables of some
maximum size, the rules ought to have a process where the players can
try to reduce the width and/or depth by a percentage.

In tournaments, maybe just have a random roll on a chart. Prior to
the die throw, each player can choose a number to be added or
subtracted.

>>>
The ones chosen for NASAMW tourneys are chosen specifically tied to
event times and the desire to have certain armies 'play' certain ways
based on what scale you run them.
>>>

Why must there be a "desirable" scale for an army? A person who
wants to paint up Army X in 25mm because he likes that army and wants
to show it off with a museum quality paint job should not be at a
disadvantage because that army "doesn't play well" in that scale.

Similarly, someone who chooses 15mm for economic reasons should not
be disadvantaged.

The least you can do is publish a discussion of the
good/bad/indifferent armies in each scale.

>>>
Have we considered going back to 1500 points?
>>>

I still don't understand why they went up from 1200 points. Never
caught up with the constant increases. Why? How does 1600 points
give a different/better game than 1200?
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at
present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come
in it's turn, but it will be at a remote period." James Madison, 15
March 1798 (_Papers of J.M._ vol 12, p.14; LC call no. JK.111.M24)

[scott holder]

I still don't understand why they went up from 1200 points. Never
caught up with the constant increases. Why? How does 1600 points
give a different/better game than 1200?

>Because that's what virtually all of the active players desired. I
need to point out that the "Mini" events *are* at 1200 points so anyone
feeling frustrated over 1600 point armies is always free to play at the
1200 point level.

>More people participate in 1600 point events at Cold Wars/Hcon than
they do at 1200 point event, fwiw.

Scott
Point Ho

> How
> does 1600 points
> give a different/better game than 1200?
>
> >Because that's what virtually all of the active
> players desired. I
> need to point out that the "Mini" events *are* at
> 1200 points so anyone
> feeling frustrated over 1600 point armies is always
> free to play at the
> 1200 point level.
>
> >More people participate in 1600 point events at
> Cold Wars/Hcon than
> they do at 1200 point event, fwiw.

Let us be brutally honest about this Scott. 1600pt is
prefered by most of the old guard 25mm gamers for two
very real reasons: 1. They already have the lead, so
why not use it. 2. at 1600pt (and this was a major
reason for going to 1600 in the first place) is that
you get alot more variation and more of the expensive
stuff that makes some armies viable. At 1200pt,
armies with multi armed elephants, large numbers of
dual armed open order foot, and big blocks of mounted
would suffer the cost/effectiveness inverse
proportional differentiation. In order words, you get
less good stuff at 1200pt because you have so many
required troops to buy that you can afford more good
stuff. Same as in DBM uping from 325 to 350 to 400ap.
I was just as happy running armies at 1200pt, but
1600 opens many new and different armies to
competitiveness.

For instance, Han are a 1600pt army, vikings are a
1600pt army and Ottoman Turks and Burmese certainly
don't suffer with 1600pt. OTOH, armies that do suffer
like Nikephorians, do so because there is nothing left
to buy. All of this is based upon the old numerically
named system upon which our game is a made for TV
adaptation. Things may have changed somewhat.

The main reason I prefer smaller armies--aside from
financial aspects--is that it forces people to choose
between this and that. Then again, I prefer a one
list ironbutt approach too. I do have one 1600pt
army, and I'll play in tournaments whatever the size,
yet I do feel that there should be a standard for
smaller tournaments of fewer points; two reasons for
this is that more gamers can get involved locally and
less time/space is needed. Besides, 1200pt on a
standard 25mm table gives manuver room that 1600pt
does not. Some armies at 1600pt are wall to wall
troops and the game devolves into something akin to
Tactica with waver tests :)

Just my opinion, yeah that it, yeah...an opinion, so I
can't be killed for that can I? I mean this isn't
Congo or Pakestan, right? Ok, ok, I'm calm now....
%^D

boyd

=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com

[joncleaves]

The more imporatnt point Scott makes is that FW (essentially 650 pt), 1200 pt
and 1600 pt are all played at the major cons.

Something for everyone.

[Don Coon]

> I still don't understand why they went up from 1200 points. Never
> caught up with the constant increases. Why? How does 1600 points
> give a different/better game than 1200?

CINC points vs total army points ratio for one. Flexibility beyond list
minimums is another.

Don

[scott holder]

1600pt is
prefered by most of the old guard 25mm gamers for two
very real reasons: 1. They already have the lead, so
why not use it. 2. at 1600pt (and this was a major
reason for going to 1600 in the first place) is that
you get alot more variation and more of the expensive
stuff that makes some armies viable.

>It's very simple, you don't like 1600 pt games, don't play in em. You
like 1200 pt games, you play in em. What NASAMW offers is a choice that
aims to attract the greatest number of gamers. If we went "all this" or
"all that", people would drop. I have one particular person in mind,
he's been playing for years, not a great player. Only plays 1600 or
2000 (Doubles) games, feels 1200 pt games cut down on army viability.
He's also a 15mm gamer, doesn't own any 25mm. Just another example of
how "one opinion" as shared here may or may not reflect "reality".

Scott

--- "Holder, Scott <FHWA>" <Scott.Holder@...>

> >It's very simple, you don't like 1600 pt games,
> don't play in em. You
> like 1200 pt games, you play in em. What NASAMW
> offers is a choice that
> aims to attract the greatest number of gamers. If
> we went "all this" or
> "all that", people would drop. I have one
> particular person in mind,
> he's been playing for years, not a great player.
> Only plays 1600 or
> 2000 (Doubles) games, feels 1200 pt games cut down
> on army viability.
> He's also a 15mm gamer, doesn't own any 25mm. Just
> another example of
> how "one opinion" as shared here may or may not
> reflect "reality".

I agree with the above, and I support it. I was
simply speaking in a frank and open manner concerning
the evolution of 1600pt. I also included my personal
opinion, which stands, that smaller number give better
games. It wasn't ment as a dig at you, NASAMW, or
anything for that matter. I appologize if it were
taken as such.

boyd


=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com

[Doug]

>For instance, Han are a 1600pt army, vikings are a
>1600pt army and Ottoman Turks and Burmese certainly
>don't suffer with 1600pt. OTOH, armies that do suffer
>like Nikephorians, do so because there is nothing left
>to buy.

Boyd is getting into data that I feel would be very useful to non-Old
Guard types. Knowing what armies are "poor choices" at either large
or small points would help people get involved.

Also, spinning the game sizes differently might make people more
willing to start buying lead. Make the "mini" the norm, and
advertise 1600 points as a "maxi."

Yesterday I set up two FW armies to do my first game solo and started
flipping thru the rules. Took me five minutes to find out how far
forward I could deploy. Then I needed to verify how close to the
side edge you can deploy. If I didn't know that I used to know 7th I
would despair of it.
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at
present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come
in it's turn, but it will be at a remote period." James Madison, 15
March 1798 (_Papers of J.M._ vol 12, p.14; LC call no. JK.111.M24)