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

1200 Points... Better or the BEST!
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Army Lists
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Dan Woyke
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 1:18 pm    Post subject: 1200 Points... Better or the BEST!

DAN: Scott brings up a good point here, I agree with him that some lists just play so much better at 1200 points. (You can even make the argument that warrior might work/play better at 1200 points). I think it opens up to more armies! (See why below)..waiting for a FRANK-Diatribe on 1600 points. (NICT 1200 points????? Smile )

The reasons why 1200 points might work better
1: Some list...make you buy crap after 1200
2: Some list...have too many choices!
3: The Game seems a little more streamlined.
4: LI battle is less

Started making a list of Armies that work well in 1200 points

Early Indian:
Moldavian:
Thracians:
Carthaginian
Alex Imperial
1st Crusade
Post Mongol Russian
Feudal French


Last edited by Dan Woyke on Tue Apr 03, 2018 1:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
Dan Woyke
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 1:21 pm    Post subject: SCOTT POSTED must have had his glasses on!

SCOTT WROTE: If I were king, we'd be using 1200pt tourneys as the standard singles format and going from there.

Last edited by Dan Woyke on Tue Apr 03, 2018 1:30 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
Dan Woyke
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 1:22 pm    Post subject: Stone Cold RUNNER!

MARK STONE WROTE: There are armies with high minimums that feel penalized at 1200 points. To use the 1200 point format more widely I'd really want to be convinced that we gain more variety in armies than we lose. I am far from convinced.


**** I am not in favor of changing the Format away from 1600 points****...but I am just saying that there are parts of 1200s points that make the game way smoother.

Mark, you could argue that there are plenty of armies that the Minimums are too high even for 1600. I am just making the argument that 1200 points is viable because it brings forward more diversity of armies then 1600 points, from what we do today.

In Game Play: (Scott could write a post about Judging the 1200 points in play and flow)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 5838
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 1:48 pm    Post subject:

Armies that have too many minimums or tactical components that "cost too much" (I'm thinking of SHK-heavy lists in regards to the latter) are short-changed at 1200pts.

That. Is. A. Good. Thing.

It takes an entire category of armies out of the mix. The result is that other armies that, in a power-game, uber-open environment, have a chance to see some action. Thracians are my poster child for this.

Big blocks of loose-order barbarian trash don't have much of a place in a system that allows late-medieval armies into the mix. 25 years ago I thought Phil made a big mistake by broadening the armies covered by his "ancients" rule set. I felt at the time and still do although to a lesser degree, that the medieval period deserved it's own rules or at least keep it somewhat segregated. The "Mini" concept does that to an extent.

Don't read doom and gloom into the above since the proverbial medieval warhorse left the barn decades ago.

That's just talking about army mix. Warrior as a system had to deal with the perception that it's "too complex". Much of that is driven by the combat system. I've always felt that was unfair since the combat system ain't that hard to figure out.

What's hard to figure out is 1600pts of tactical components and how they interact. At 1200pts it's not nearly as complex. The result is that games also aren't as long. The days aren't as long, etc.

You also have fewer figure requirements. Again, I've always looked at this as a "broadening the appeal" of the basic game but again, it's more or less too late for that. The decades-long perception against the system by the existing player base means that nothing I do in terms of format will ever change that.

I'm going waaaay off on a tangent here. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy larger point games for what they are. I mean the Theme last year was a complete blast. But a day of Open gaming at 1200 pts is a far, far more enjoyable experience for me.

scott

_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
Todd Kaeser
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1038
Location: Foxborough, Massachusetts

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 4:03 pm    Post subject:

I think we are doing it pretty well.

We have the bulk of our tournaments at 1600 points BUT....

We have a CW teams tournament at 2000 - seeing armies we also don't see at 1600 points

We also have a CW mini tournament where we see 1200 point armies. I think there is also a 1200 point tournament at Fall In, but I haven't been there is years.

There is the theme we also run at Historicon - allowing for historical match ups.

Nice variety I would say overall.

Todd

_________________
Nolite te Bastardes Carborundorum
"Don't let the Bastards Grind You Down"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message [ Hidden ]
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 5838
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 4:41 pm    Post subject:

Okay, I'm guilty of this but the thread should really be about possible army lists and for those motivated to share, post a 1200pt list you think would work.

Here, lemme help. I go to Todd's Early Bulgar 1200 pt thread all the time because that's where the 1600pt Post-Mongol Russian list sits.

Todd's Early Bulgar
1207 points 76 scouting

CinC 2E Ir B HC L,B,Sh + PA (160)
Sub 4E Ir B HC L,B,Sh + P (154)
4E Nobles Ir B HC L,B,Sh (145)
4E Nobles Ir B HC L,B,Sh (145)

6E Horse Archers Ir C LC Jls,B,Sh/B (85)
6E Horse Archers Ir C LC Jls,B,Sh/B (85)
6E Horse Archers Ir C LC Jls,B,Sh/B (85)

12E Slav Ir C LMI 1/3 2HCW,Sh 2/3 Jls,Sh (133)
12E Slav Ir C LMI 1/3 2HCW,Sh 2/3 Jls,Sh (133)

8E Slav Archers Ir D LI B (41)
8E Slav Archers Ir D LI B (41)

Frank's Early Ottoman Turk
CinC PA Reg A/B EHC/HC L,B,Sh 201 (ouch)
Sub P Reg B EHC/HC L,B,Sh 129
6E Irr C(1 A) LC JLS,Sh 101
6E Irr C(1 A) LC JLS,Sh 101
6E Irr D LI B 37
6E Irr D LI B 37
6E Irr D(1 C) HC/MC/MC L,B,Sh/L,B/B 118
6E Irr D(1 C) HC/MC/MC L,B,Sh/L,B/B 118
6E Irr D(1 C) HC/MC/MC L,B,Sh/L,B/B 118
6E Irr D(1 C) HC/MC/MC L,B,Sh/L,B/B 118
6E Irr D(1 C) HC/MC/MC L,B,Sh/L,B/B 118
1196, 11 units, 2 cmds, 76 scouting

Frank's Mongol
CinC PA Reg A EHC/HC L,B,Sh 204 (ouch again)
Sub P Reg A/B EHC/MC L,B,Sh/L,B 119
2E Reg B LC JLS,B 46
2E Reg B LC JLS,B 46
2E Reg B LC JLS,B 46
6E Reg C LC B 82
4E Reg C LC JLS,B/B 66
4E Reg C LC JLS,B/B 66
4E Reg C HC/MC L,B,Sh/L,B 130
4E Reg C HC/MC L,B,Sh/L,B 130
4E Reg C HC/MC L,B,Sh/L,B 130
4E Reg C HC/MC L,B,Sh/L,B 130
1195, 12 units, 2 cmds, 100 scouting

Mark's Post Mongol Russian
CinC, PA w/Irr B HC L,B elements: 1
Dvor Irr B HC L,B elements: 1

Sub, P w/Irr B HC L,B elements: 1
Dvor Irr B HC L,B elements: 1


Lesser Boyars Irr C HC L,B elements: 2
Lesser Boyars Irr C MC L,B elements: 2
Lesser Boyars Irr C MC B elements: 2

Lesser Boyars Irr C HC L,B elements: 2
Lesser Boyars Irr C MC L,B elements: 2
Lesser Boyars Irr C MC B elements: 2

Retainers Irr C LC B elements: 6

Retainers Irr C LC B elements: 6

Militia Bowmen Irr C MI B,Sh elements: 9

Peasants Irr D LI B,Sh elements: 8

Cossack Infantry Irr C LI B,Sh elements: 8

Cossack Cavalry Irr B LC JLS,B,Sh elements: 8

Tatars Reg C LC JLS,B elements: 4

Tatars Reg C LC JLS,B elements: 4

TOTAL 1202
SCOUTING 108

If I make time, I'll dig out the last Thracian list I ran.

scott

_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
Todd Kaeser
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1038
Location: Foxborough, Massachusetts

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:28 pm    Post subject:

Robert T has an excellent list for Carthos in 1200 points.

I like Tepanec (as I always do) in 1200 but it is much weaker morale wise.

Scots Common:

CinC 2E 1/2 Ir B SHK L,Sh 1/2 Ir C HK L,Sh + PA 181 (James II)

2E Knights/Sergeants 1/2 Ir B SHK L,Sh 1/2 Ir C HK L,Sh 109
2E Knights/Sergeants 1/2 Ir C SHK L,Sh 1/2 Ir C HK L,Sh 106

4x 6E Yeoman Ir C MI LTS,Sh 97

Highland Ally 2E LHI/LMI Ir B/C 2HCW,B,Sh / Jls,Sh 103 (MacDonald)

6E Highlanders Ir A/C LMI 2HCW,B,Sh/Jls,B,Sh 106 (Johnson)
4E Highlanders IrA/C LMI 2HCW,Sh/Jls,Sh 73 (Frazier)
2x 6E Scouts Ir C LI Jls,Sh 61

_________________
Nolite te Bastardes Carborundorum
"Don't let the Bastards Grind You Down"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message [ Hidden ]
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2022
Location: Buckley, WA

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:38 pm    Post subject:

SHK lists are not all that penalized on 1200 points. A 1600 point list might have 6 or 7 units of front rank SHK; a 1200 point list might have 4 or 5. That's a difference of roughly 250 points, so only 60% of the cost reduction from 1600 to 1200. And most SHK lists that we see in play come with relatively flexible minima in the support troops (100 YWE, Early Burgundian, Wallachian, Medieval Spanish, Italian Condotta). There are a few knight armies with high minimums, like Burgundian Ordannance. But it isn't any more competitive on 1600 points than it is on 1200.

No, the lists that suffer on 1200 points are ones with a high minimum of manditory mult-armed troops (Maurikian Byzantine is an example here), or ones where a high number of required HI / LHI since the armor upgrade is the least efficient use of points in Warrior (Romans and Burgundian Ordannance both suffer here).

Late Imperial Roman and Patrician Roman are both reasonably playable in Warrior because you can emphasize the cheap, useful ally troops, but the rest of the Roman lists are just unplayable in Warrior. So I suppose 1600 vs. 1200 doesn't make any difference in this case.

I am very sympathetic to Scott's suggestion that 1200 points is part of the puzzle in making Warrior a less complex, more approachable game. Given how much of our hobby is currently supported by the "lending library" of figures available at the major tournaments, I wonder if we couldn't come up with a range of standard 1200 point lists (8 or so?) that are (a) reasonably competitive, (b) don't involve many complex parts or combinations, and (c) can be constructed from our collective library of figures?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2022
Location: Buckley, WA

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:41 pm    Post subject:

Oh, and you could win me over to 1200 points as the standard format with two simple changes in touranment rules:
(1) 1200 point games are played on the same size table as 1600 games;
(2) In a 1200 point game, you may not deploy in the flank sectors (flank marches are still allowed as normal).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 5838
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:46 pm    Post subject:

Mark Stone wrote:
Oh, and you could win me over to 1200 points as the standard format with two simple changes in touranment rules:
(1) 1200 point games are played on the same size table as 1600 games;
(2) In a 1200 point game, you may not deploy in the flank sectors (flank marches are still allowed as normal).


Hmmmm, very interesting. Not that I'm ready to dictate some big move to 1200pts as the norm but these two ideas are worth testing.

Actually, for about 5 years, I had the Mini games on 8x5 tables. This would have been pre-preset terrain days. I eventually went back to 6x5 because the table was just so large relative to the stuff on it. Heh heh, I note all the massive LC armies already listed who would benefit from a big table, meaning all the grunt armies are starting on an uneven playing field.

What's the rationale for not deploying in the flank sectors?

This is great brainstorming on format!

scott

_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
Todd Kaeser
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1038
Location: Foxborough, Massachusetts

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:48 pm    Post subject:

Parthian was also a blast at 1200 points
_________________
Nolite te Bastardes Carborundorum
"Don't let the Bastards Grind You Down"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message [ Hidden ]
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1197
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 7:24 pm    Post subject:

Mark, if you play 1200 points on the larger, standard table, you end up with a couple of situations...LC/LI armies with a strike force reserve that marches to where it's most efficiently deployed (pin and punch) OR rear dwellers who sit and wait because they only fill half the table with their infantry line and can't compete with airy flanks...ameliorated by temporary fortifications and/or terrain.

Or, if, as your no deploy in flanks rule is meant to do, we tweak things to 'outlaw' rear dwellers (such as no TFs rule) then we never see 'those' armies and see primarily lines of LC/LI interacting for a couple of hours.

right? Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 5838
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 7:29 pm    Post subject:

Frank sums up my thinking on this over the last hour or so. I now recall the reason I went back to 6x5 had to do with what types of armies were always showing up.

One thing I could do is alternate table size. There's nothing wrong with a Cold Wars Mini, for example, where the table is big and I don't clutter it to death. Then let everybody bring those kinds of armies.

The next time, I go back to 6x5. Or do another 8x5 only with horendous clutter. I actually don't like that idea because the game times will remain at 2.5 hours. More (cluttered) space means more time to accomplish anything.

scott

_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
Ed Kollmer
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1005

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 2:30 am    Post subject:

Someone who knows please correct me.
I remember way back when. Wasn't the first standard army size was 1250pts. The 50pts was to pay for a general, again if I remember right. Then it jumped to 1600pts for some reasons. The one I remember is that, as someone mentioned, that once you took the minimums, there was not much left. I, being a byzantinophil, noticed that with the Byz.
However, with the new lists, it has changed somewhat.
As ToddK has said, I think we have done it pretty well,
Some armies ARE better at 1200pts, but NOT every army.
I like 1200pts but also like 1600pts and even 2000pts.
I remember one meeting of EDCON, we ran Medieval Germans v Medieval French. I organized 3x1200pt Feudal, Medieval German Princes, Medieval German Towns armies verse 3x1200pt Medieval French armies. Three german players v 3 french players. It went very well from my point of view.
Not sure what that proves. Sorry for the long story. Embarassed Embarassed Embarassed
EK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1197
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 6:59 am    Post subject:

Varied point totals and varied table sizes and setups with different theming rules are good for our hobby...so I think we're musing about things we don't really need to change.

Also, folks typically acquire armies with 1600 in mind, sometimes 2000, but rarely 1200 (which is usually just a subset of what you already have)...so moving to 1200 more often would hurt.

Keeping 1200 as a couple times a year thing is quite nice, though. No reason a now-and-then Historicon Theme couldn't be 1200. Keep the 6x5 tables for 1200, though...and not too cluttered Wink...which does make less happen in games.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Army Lists All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 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