Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

I am torn between the desire to remind everyone that we have thought through
what is really going on inside a figure full (i.e. 35-80 real guys) of
javelinmen and the need to get the rules finished.

Let me instead assure everyone listening that if someone proposes that "x part
of Warrior is broken" that we read such a statement, take it seriously and take
action if we feel we've been shown to be wrong. For example, we have read
Boyd's (and others) arguments about javelinmen. We don't agree. But we don't
have the time at the moment to get into a back and forth of FHE's 'case' versus
his 'case'.

The more important thing to me is to make sure everyone knows that we aren't
blowing such arguments off - instead letting the debate run and see if any new
material shows up.

Back to your regularly scheduled program of killer javelinmen.....

Jon

Well....I do understand the need for historical
accuracy as a driving force, but I also know that the
primary function of this system would be in tournament
settings. It is tournament style gaming that drives
this particular hobby, unlike nappies, ACW, etc. The
matched pairs approach to the game coupled with the
codification of armies for 3000+ years creates an
environment by which even non-competitive games are
tournament style.

So to simply dismiss anything that happens
a-historically as a factor of non-historical opponants
is itself a form of self-delusion.

My personal belief is 7th places too much power in
troops able to skirmish, and too much power in troops
armed with JLS. My opinion is that troops that toss
javelins should not then count them in HTH, and that
troops skirmishing should not be allowed a free
formation change to charge. These two quirks set the
system at odds with historical models. Simply put,
these two items make gamers seek them out in army
choice EXACTLY for the extra capability it provides in
tournament (non-historical) settings.

But that is my personal belief, and not the message
I'm trying to convey in my thread for streamlining the
layers of manual calculation/record keeping. By
reducing the logistic portion of the game, the
game/war fight portion of the game would be enhanced.
I just can't see how anyone would argue otherwise. I
like to look at my troops in terms of capasity, and
manuver to create beneficial match ups against enemy
troops, thereby exploiting his weakness with my
strengths; in no way should I see my ability, or lack
thereof, to function as a statistician contributing to
that end.

Jon has said that he is working on a simplified matrix
and that satisfies me, but it should not stop
discussion.

the "otta whack" sort of thing you are not seeing are
things such as counting chariot horses to determine
fighting capasity. What historical precedent allows
1.5 ranks of one weapon and not another? Don't point
to a phalanx and tell me that half the guys in rows 5
and 6 thrust their spears effectively. Nor do I want
to hear that the effective range of a jls is 40 meters
but the rear rank which is at a greater distance also
are tossing jls; but then when skirmishing to "run
forward and toss" they are less effective. There are
built into 7th many many such contrived fixes to the
orginial math in an effort to make it work. Yes, it
works, but it is clunky and relies too heavily upon
poor mathmaticians such as myself. these things would
be easily resolved by an overhaul of the current
matrix that would provide the same math, the same
weapons, and the same feel of the battle without
forcing fractioinal equations upon men hell bent on
pushing lead lumps around a table. this is just an
example of otta-whackiness that could be cleaned up;
it is not a threatening attack, and it should be
viewed in the contructive sentiment in which it is
being put forward :)

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

> Under no circumstances in my opinion should
> a-historical performance be the
> driving force.
>

> Anything doofy that happens outside of that is taken
> into account but only to
> a very very very small degree and then only if we
> see a potential consequence
> that really is outta whack. And offhand, I can't
> think of any:)
>
> Scott
> List Ho
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com

[joncleaves]

And Buyd, future considerations are very important to me. We will grow and
support this game system. Your ideas and others are already in my 'quicker
combat resolution' file...

--- JonCleaves@... wrote:
> I am torn between the desire to remind everyone that
> we have thought through what is really going on
> inside a figure full (i.e. 35-80 real guys) of
> javelinmen and the need to get the rules finished.

I am eagar for the product as is, reguardless of my
current arguements.

I was just digressing for future considerations and do
on want to be the arbiter of chaos on this list.
sorry if I've given any other impression.


> The more important thing to me is to make sure
> everyone knows that we aren't blowing such arguments
> off - instead letting the debate run and see if any
> new material shows up.

Thanks.


=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com

The Assyrians are easy to smell...if you are down wind

Any news on the conventions in the midwest ???

-----Original Message-----
From: Wanax Andron [mailto:vercengetorix@...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 1:56 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] whackie math


--- JonCleaves@... wrote:
> I am torn between the desire to remind everyone that
> we have thought through what is really going on
> inside a figure full (i.e. 35-80 real guys) of
> javelinmen and the need to get the rules finished.

I am eagar for the product as is, reguardless of my
current arguements.

I was just digressing for future considerations and do
on want to be the arbiter of chaos on this list.
sorry if I've given any other impression.


> The more important thing to me is to make sure
> everyone knows that we aren't blowing such arguments
> off - instead letting the debate run and see if any
> new material shows up.

Thanks.


=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Hi Mark,
I tried calling Bob Rossi's house 3 times last
night and got no answer.

Kelly

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com