Warrior Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules
A Four Horsemen Enterprises Rules Set
 
  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups AlbumAlbum   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

thinking about points (long)
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Egroup Archives
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2102
Location: Buckley, WA

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 5:17 am    Post subject: Re: thinking about points (long)


Well, let me try to pull together a few themes I see in this discussion, and add
a couple of thoughts of my own.

It's interesting to see how strongly people feel about list rules giving an
advantage for free. Whether or not one thinks it's a good idea, I'd suggest
people not single out list rules as a special instance of this problem. Here's
my example: A stand of Irr C MI 2HCW costs exactly the same as a stand of Irr C
MI IPW. The former can do _everything_ the latter can do, and in addition do
some further capabilities: (1) count shielded at first frontal contact in hand
to hand, and (2) fight at a higher hand to hand factor. So that is also an
example of getting something for nothing.

So I'd recommend people stop thinking about list rules as a special case,
recognize that this was never intended to be a balanced point system,
realistically _cannot_ be a perfectly balanced point system, and think beyond.

I get Ewan's point, even if I don't agree: it should be as balanced as possible,
and if it could be more balanced than it is that would be better, but it
probably isn't worth tinkering with to the point of invalidating current army
balance that people have already invested lead in.

Frank, Greg, and others have suggested some tweaks that might make it more
balanced. We may be able to come up with a small set of tweaks that everyone
likes, and if so Jon might even give it consideration.

But I wish people would think harder about the inherent skewing as a way of
tilting the game in directions we'd like. I've already suggested one such way:
historically successful and easily recognized armies tend to do better in
Warrior than they did in TOG. I've suggested that could be deliberate on the
part of FHE, and if so makes good marketing sense in terms of broadening the
appeal of Warrior. I've no idea if that is an actual intent of FHE.

But there are other things you can do with the point system skew to affect
trends. I'll suggest one that occurred to me, just to put an example out there.
I've noticed that army list minima don't always have the desired effect. People
often tend to take the minimum of the minima, and max out on other things. Just
as an example, I don't think I've seen an Alexandrian army in the last year that
actually had a proportion of pikemen representative of what Alexandrian armies
likely had. And minima can be burdensome. One reason people don't play Marian
Romans more often is because you have a very high minimum for a troop type that
is also very expensive. It just doesn't leave you much flexibility in how to
build out the list. Some alternatives that occurred to me:
- lower and/or eliminate the minima for required troops, but also
- lower the command factor cost for units made up of required troops, and/or
- make required troops cost 1 point per figure less (or some other appropriate N
per figure)

The result would be a method of rewarding people for using historical
configurations for an army, as opposed to the current approach of forcing
people -- but not too much -- to use historical configurations.

So that would be one aim you could use a point system to accomplish, just as an
example.

I'd like to see something done about barbarian foot. Scots Isles & Highlanders
and Vikings are among the most colorful, recognizable, and appealing (in the
popularity sense) of the armies in our period, and we used to see them played
with some frequency. Now _anyone_ with an interest in those armies is someone
we automatically lose to Warhammer Ancient Batttles. I don't like that.

The problem is that the many tinkerings to get better and more historical
performance out of Romans, Phalangites, and the like have made irregular foot
highly uncompetitive. I'm not sure that's something that could be addressed
through a point system, but perhaps it could.

We seem to be of two not very surprising camps: those who want, but will never
get, a balanced point system, and those who want a point system that reflects
what was historically available to armies in period. I suspect those looking
for balance will ultimately be disappointed (a point on which Ewan and I
apparently agree): nothing said so far inclines me to think that real balance
in a point system is either attainable or desirable.


-Mark Stone

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
Todd Schneider
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 904
Location: Kansas City

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 6:15 am    Post subject: Re: Re: thinking about points (long)


In the same vein of getting something for nothing I
would also point out that an eement of Irr D LI gets
to evade, interpenetrate, and best of all, doesn't
cause any waver tests when it breaks. So, thats three
rules that they do not pay "extra" for. If players
are upset at Roman or Mongol Special Rules are
"something for nothing", why not pay more for these as
well?

I do think what might bring more "traditional" armies
back to play is having more themed tournaments, but at
the same time I do see the attraction of "Open"
tournaments.

Thanks,
Todd

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


_________________
Finding new and interesting ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory almost every game!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   AIM Address
Chris Bump
Legate
Legate


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1625

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:20 pm    Post subject: Re: thinking about points (long)


The problem is that the many tinkerings to get better and more
historical
performance out of Romans, Phalangites, and the like have made
irregular foot
highly uncompetitive. I'm not sure that's something that could be
addressed
through a point system, but perhaps it could.

We in North Texas are unanimous in our OPINION that an opporutnity
might have been missed when the basis of units went strictly to
elements rather than figures but the pointing stayed with figures.

The game lost all possibility for use of prime numbers when this
happened. why can't a unit that has an ability to do something
special pay a price as opposed to a price per figure? Why not an
element of Phalngites/ legionairres with special abiliities costing
17 or 18 points per element rather than 16 or 4 per figure or paying
a flat price per unit regardless of size?

Long and short of it is there is far more room for flexibility in
costing of units if they are costed out at price per element and then
additional costs added to a unit for special abilities rather than to
a figure and that number multiplied by number of figures. This then
could allow for a unit of MI jls, sh paying 16 pts per element while
a unit of MI 2hct, sh pays maybe 18 pts. More but not double the
weapon points of the previous.

I know that someone is going to say that elements are priced per
element, but in fact they are not, they are costed per figure in
whole numbers and then multiplied by number of figures to get a cost
per element, a complete hang over from the other game.

In our opinion.
Chris

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
John Murphy
Legate
Legate


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1625

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:45 pm    Post subject: Re: thinking about points (long)


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Schneider <thresh1642@...>
wrote:
> I do think what might bring more "traditional" armies
> back to play is having more themed tournaments

While I do not agree with the rest of this post, the above does
touch a chord.

It is more of a NASAMW issue what Warrior tournies are run at
the 'big cons', and if I recall correctly there has actually been in
recent times a theme tournament at both CW and HCON (mini theme for
CW and 'normal' theme for HCON).

However, the problem most folks have with themes is simply that they
do not have an army for that particular theme (or perhaps the army
they have is deemed less than wonderful for the points total for the
tourney). Another issue, though, is things like the recent 'Roman'
theme that somehow wound up more like a 'Sassanid' theme - likely
more a reflection that it is taking time for the revival of the
Roman armies to make its way onto the shelves of players.

All said, though, I am huge fan of theme tournaments and I'd like to
see more theme tournies in Warrior even at the big cons and even if
it meant that they ran in parallel with other Warrior events
provided that there is sufficient tournout for both - something that
could be juggled around at tournament time if need be.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Ewan McNay
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2769
Location: Albany, NY, US

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:32 pm    Post subject: Re: Re: thinking about points (long)


[Warning: abuse ahead.]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Todd Schneider wrote:

> In the same vein of getting something for nothing I
> would also point out that an eement of Irr D LI gets
> to evade, interpenetrate, and best of all, doesn't
> cause any waver tests when it breaks. So, thats three
> rules that they do not pay "extra" for. If players
> are upset at Roman or Mongol Special Rules are
> "something for nothing", why not pay more for these as
> well?

OK, this is just stupid. LI are costed a certain way; it's the same way
for all LI in all armies. There are rules that govern how LI act, just as
there are for every other troop type, and it's been noted that the current
point system does not reflect every difference in value between troop
types - Irr D MI, IPW vs IrrD MI with B, or with 2HCW, for instance. But
none of that has *any* relevance to bonii through list rules, which are -
by definition - something that treats a troop type differently to the way
it is normally treated.

We pay a cost for Irr D LI, just as for Reg A SHK or whomever else. That
cost can, if you so desire, be considered 'extra' above a base of 0. But
to conflate the core rules with costing, or not, of List rules - well,
it's mindbogglingly irrelevant.

OK, I feel better now.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Greg Regets
Imperator
Imperator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2988

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 6:10 pm    Post subject: Re: thinking about points (long)


Response to Mark ...

As always, I greatly respect your point of view, but in the case of
list rules, epic generals (for lack of a better term), and
comparisons to weapons, I'm going to have no respectfully disagree.

The issue as I see it, is that these rules tend to see things in the
eyes of the beholder. On the face, that's fine, but if a point system
is applied to it, the whole thing becomes transparent and less a
matter of how one "sees" it. Please allow me to use a few examples.

It would seem (correct me if I'm wrong please) that the Mongol list
rules were meant to give that army better performance in matching
with it's historical reputation against historical opponents. Now,
some may think that needed to happen, and some might not. Put the old
TOG or NASAMW Mongol list on generally open terrain, where they
mostly fought, and put them against a historical opponent in an
untimed game, and the Mongols win the majority of the time. Where the
Mongol needs help is on a tournament table, in a timed game, where
opponents are able to close up part of the table with terrain. Now,
this is exactly the instance that is not supposed to be a criteria
for determining list rules.

Another example might be Hannibal. Some see him as Hannibal the
Great, and some see him as a good solid general that took advantage
of poor Roman generals, and got his butt kicked the first time he was
matched by a man that knew what he was doing.

Now PLEASE don't focus on these examples ... they are just that ...
EXAMPLES. I'm not complaining about Mongols or Hannibal in this
thread ... I can play either of these armies just like anyone else
can. The point is ... that if you apply a point cost to these things,
you still allow the player that agrees with the list rules to have
the flavor they give, without making everyone that might not agree
with them, pay the cost of facing something uncosted, that they might
not at all agree with.

Contrast that to your 2HCW and IPW example ... those are not things
that are opinions or open to how one sees them. They are based on
historical evidence of how a warrior was armed, and the historical
performance of the weapon.

Again, with all due respect, I see these things as completely and
mutually exclusive.

In closing, I just want to add that however this all turns out, we
should always remember that FHE has never once told any of us what
armied to play. If we think some army is getting "too much", then
perhaps we should buy the figures and play that army. I would suggest
though, that if you took a poll, most players choose armies for other
reasons. Just in my area, we play lots of knights, because we like
knights. Even when knights only fought one rank in TOG, we still
played lots of knights around here. I tend to pick armied based on
the figures available to paint. The Greek from Corpus Christi, plays
Greek armies. I think everyone likes tournaments and everyone enjoys
winning them (I know i do), but I don't think everyone selects an
army, just to put a title next to their name ... a title that 99% of
the people involved, no longer remember the week after the event.




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:

> It's interesting to see how strongly people feel about list rules
giving an
> advantage for free. Whether or not one thinks it's a good idea, I'd
suggest
> people not single out list rules as a special instance of this
problem. Here's
> my example: A stand of Irr C MI 2HCW costs exactly the same as a
stand of Irr C
> MI IPW. The former can do _everything_ the latter can do, and in
addition do
> some further capabilities: (1) count shielded at first frontal
contact in hand
> to hand, and (2) fight at a higher hand to hand factor. So that is
also an
> example of getting something for nothing.
>
> So I'd recommend people stop thinking about list rules as a special
case,
> recognize that this was never intended to be a balanced point
system,
> realistically _cannot_ be a perfectly balanced point system, and
think beyond.
>
> I get Ewan's point, even if I don't agree: it should be as balanced
as possible,
> and if it could be more balanced than it is that would be better,
but it
> probably isn't worth tinkering with to the point of invalidating
current army
> balance that people have already invested lead in.
>
> Frank, Greg, and others have suggested some tweaks that might make
it more
> balanced. We may be able to come up with a small set of tweaks that
everyone
> likes, and if so Jon might even give it consideration.
>
> But I wish people would think harder about the inherent skewing as
a way of
> tilting the game in directions we'd like. I've already suggested
one such way:
> historically successful and easily recognized armies tend to do
better in
> Warrior than they did in TOG. I've suggested that could be
deliberate on the
> part of FHE, and if so makes good marketing sense in terms of
broadening the
> appeal of Warrior. I've no idea if that is an actual intent of FHE.
>
> But there are other things you can do with the point system skew to
affect
> trends. I'll suggest one that occurred to me, just to put an
example out there.
> I've noticed that army list minima don't always have the desired
effect. People
> often tend to take the minimum of the minima, and max out on other
things. Just
> as an example, I don't think I've seen an Alexandrian army in the
last year that
> actually had a proportion of pikemen representative of what
Alexandrian armies
> likely had. And minima can be burdensome. One reason people don't
play Marian
> Romans more often is because you have a very high minimum for a
troop type that
> is also very expensive. It just doesn't leave you much flexibility
in how to
> build out the list. Some alternatives that occurred to me:
> - lower and/or eliminate the minima for required troops, but also
> - lower the command factor cost for units made up of required
troops, and/or
> - make required troops cost 1 point per figure less (or some other
appropriate N
> per figure)
>
> The result would be a method of rewarding people for using
historical
> configurations for an army, as opposed to the current approach of
forcing
> people -- but not too much -- to use historical configurations.
>
> So that would be one aim you could use a point system to
accomplish, just as an
> example.
>
> I'd like to see something done about barbarian foot. Scots Isles &
Highlanders
> and Vikings are among the most colorful, recognizable, and
appealing (in the
> popularity sense) of the armies in our period, and we used to see
them played
> with some frequency. Now _anyone_ with an interest in those armies
is someone
> we automatically lose to Warhammer Ancient Batttles. I don't like
that.
>
> The problem is that the many tinkerings to get better and more
historical
> performance out of Romans, Phalangites, and the like have made
irregular foot
> highly uncompetitive. I'm not sure that's something that could be
addressed
> through a point system, but perhaps it could.
>
> We seem to be of two not very surprising camps: those who want, but
will never
> get, a balanced point system, and those who want a point system
that reflects
> what was historically available to armies in period. I suspect
those looking
> for balance will ultimately be disappointed (a point on which Ewan
and I
> apparently agree): nothing said so far inclines me to think that
real balance
> in a point system is either attainable or desirable.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Mark Mallard
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 868
Location: Whitehaven, England

PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:15 am    Post subject: Re: Re: thinking about points (long)


In a message dated 02/04/2006 12:56:57 GMT Standard Time,
ccoutoftown@... writes:

I may be a little late to hop in on this but my two cents about what I want
but here it is:

> 2. For everything that FHE added to enhance the game, (list rules, epic
> generals, etc ...) assign and multiplier per element for each of these
> things.

Exactly right. Many people have opinions about other fixes. Most are
logical. I think this
one is necessary.

Jonathan




I agree too. Its nothing major. A complete points rehash is not required.

There has been some debate about IPW maybe they could be made cheaper also.

mark mallard (uk)


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


_________________
Chess, WoW.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message [ Hidden ]

Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 112

PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:56 pm    Post subject: Re: thinking about points (long)


I may be a little late to hop in on this but my two cents about what I want but
here it is:

> 2. For everything that FHE added to enhance the game, (list rules, epic
> generals, etc ...) assign and multiplier per element for each of these
> things.

Exactly right. Many people have opinions about other fixes. Most are logical.
I think this
one is necessary.

Jonathan



>
> *****
>
> Two additional points:
>
> I think it's completely fair to have FHE say, "We don't think there is
> a problem, so we are not changing a thing." It's their game. We are
> just players.
>
> BUT ... if they do think it needs changed, they shouldn't make a
> mountain out of a mole-hill. Just pick some of the major points, and
> work through a quick, easy solution. Trying to do a complete redo, will
> NEVER get done, and is a bit like trying to make a Ferrari out of a
> Ford that has already been made. If you got the materials before the
> car was created, you could probably make a Ferrari, but since it's
> already a Ford, just make it the best Ford it can possibly be.
>
> Just my opinion ... g
>

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Egroup Archives All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group