Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Harlan Garrett]

To All,
A question has arisen that we are hoping you can help us with. On page 65 of
the rule book it states 'rear rank shooting is not possible in woods,
orchards, and olive groves (unless the body is in skirmish formation), or to
"E" class.' The question is: Does this mean that rear rank shooting is not
possible at all for "E" class troops? Or does it mean that rear rank
shooting is not possible for "E" class troops in woods, orchards, and olive
groves (regardless of their formation)?

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Robyn Beeson (David's wife and interpreter)


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

Hi,
As Adrian earlier outlined, we have a tournament this weekend in Australia
and it is at this time, that wargaming fever hits most players. Whilst
looking through the lists the other night, I noticed that most lists have
artillery as an option, not surprising considering it was used by most
armies historically especially in later periods. What is surprising though,
is how rarely it is seen on the wargames table.
Whilst I know that we generally play open games and not siege warfare, I
wonder why exactly most players generally do not pick artillery or other
more exotic choices like disguised camels, fire lances, flaming camel carts
and crazy cattle.
Is it just points cost or difficulty incorporating their use in game
strategy?

Any thoughts are welcome.

Paul Collins,
Barbarians Wargame club
Syndey.

Paul,

Perhaps you missed my exhibition of why NOT to choose artillery at
MOAB? I ran a dismounted Knights of St. John and I lost 5 games 10
zip due to the bloody bombards blowing up! The one time they didn't
I got a 5 all draw because my opponent stayed clear of the
dismounted knights (SHI), cross bows and EHI. All in all, about
100points I shooda left in the box!

Cheers

Steve the terrain feature.

-- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, pcollins@f... wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
> As Adrian earlier outlined, we have a tournament this weekend in
Australia
> and it is at this time, that wargaming fever hits most players.
Whilst
> looking through the lists the other night, I noticed that most
lists have
> artillery as an option, not surprising considering it was used by
most
> armies historically especially in later periods. What is
surprising though,
> is how rarely it is seen on the wargames table.
> Whilst I know that we generally play open games and not siege
warfare, I
> wonder why exactly most players generally do not pick artillery or
other
> more exotic choices like disguised camels, fire lances, flaming
camel carts
> and crazy cattle.
> Is it just points cost or difficulty incorporating their use in
game
> strategy?
>
> Any thoughts are welcome.
>
> Paul Collins,
> Barbarians Wargame club
> Syndey.

Varangian Ally Generals units

His Unit + a Detachment of Beserkir (Separated)
2 spear units
LI Unit
So 5 Units in total
I lose 2 spear units leaving 3 in command thus not demoralised if I
then join the Gen and the detachment together suddenly they are
retreat
Surely this is not the case !

Mike

Jon wrote:
There is no rally back or forward in Warrior.

The unit in question must rally.

It *may* make a recall move as it ceased pursuit.



Thanks Jon,
Old habits and terminology die hard.

[Greg Regets]

Felt doesn't have to look aweful, as a matter of fact can look very
nice on the table. The key is to buy the modeled felt you can get at
a cloth outlet, rather than what you can get at a large hobby chain.

Woods (Dark Green Modeled Felt) - The key is to mount your trees on
some sort of small heavy base, and rather than flocking that base,
cover it with you felt. Leave it a bit long around the edges so it
covers the edge of the base. This allows you to use LOTS of trees,
which makes the whole effect work, and you just push them out of the
way when the troops move.

Brush (Barf Brown Modeled Felt) - same theory here, but mounts your
tufts of grass material on a penny, then cover the perimiter of the
base with the felt. Use a ton of them on the felt for a nice effect.
Again, push them out of the way for troop movement.

Hills - These just have to be 3D to have a nice effect. The best
method I have found is to cut press board into hill shapes, bevel the
edge with a Dremel, glue shaped floral foam to the hill and use float
& tape putty to cover the whole mess. If you put the rough side of
the pressboard down, the hill will stay put on the table. They are
also heavy, and don't ask me why, but the troops seem to stay on the
hills better when the hills are heavy (I know this sounds stupid, but
try it for yourself).

Plowed Fields - These don't count as terrain but add quite a bit to
the table. Go to the scrap bin and buy dark brown cordaroy (or
however you spell it). Put these next to buildings and they look very
realistic.

Gullies, Streams Water Features - quite frankly, the commercial
offerings look better than what most people can make.

Non-Terrain, Terrain - This really helps the table. This is just
stuff that has no tactical impact, but is just for show. Makes a huge
difference on the look of the game.

[John Murphy]

I thought I would share some idle thoughts I have this evening with
the group. Much of this is what one might call "obvious" but it leads
to a methodology explaining why it is important for a learning player
to look at isolated cases like we have even though one understands
the totality of the game is much much more complicated than that.

In serious chess, a much simpler game than Warrior, when you decide
it is time to stop futzing around and really learn how to win you
begin at the end of the game and work backwards.

That is to say - what is your objective? Check-mate the King. How do
you achieve that objective with this and that and the other set of
pieces, reduced to its simplest form. Then you learn, before you
progress to the middle-game where the most exciting stuff happens,
first how to reduce the endgame to a point where you know how to win,
say by Queening a Pawn. After firmly grasping that you are ready to
try to understand the real middle-game, not the unsound trickery and
gimmicks but how to work the pieces in combination in positions on
the board to get you, against solid quality competition, to an end-
game you can win. If that means happens to be a dazzling combination
then that is great but uncorking the combo is secondary to winning
the game and often what works against your girlfriend at home after
she has had several beers is going to get your clock cleaned in a
tournament. Finally the opening is last after you have a good grasp
of how to develop a plan out of the opening into the middle game.

How to apply this methodology to Warrior?

What is the objective - pick up as many victory points as possible,
which is 5 points. Enemy points do not matter unless you are playing
in the final round for the championship. How do you score 5 victory
points? You must score 401 game points and 150 more and twice as many
as the enemy. In other words at 1600 points rout a quarter of his
army in points or shake/retreat double that (half his army), or some
combination thereof, while not permitting him to do half as much in
combination to you. Somewhere in there sacking a camp counts too.

Useful information to remember when devising a plan for vicory, but
still much too complex as a starting place for learning Warrior.

But other than the camp it _is_ all about shaking and breaking enemy
units, with just enough concern for your own to wind up double and
150 over.

So the place to begin learning Warrior is by learning how to break,
or at least shake, different likely enemy units with different forces
at hand in your army of choice, in isolation. That is not "linear
thinking". That is focusing first, for training purposes, on
understanding how to achieve the objective in isolated detail to
permit, afterwards, a plan to be made taking into account the entire
board.

If you do not understand the one-on-ones and how to manipulate them
to serve your own objective, and not your enemy's, then you can not
possibly possess a vision of the board into the future sufficiently
based in reality to make a reliable and sound plan to achieve it.

[Mark Stone]

--- On June 1 Jon Cleaves: ---

> This offer is and always has been there. Anyone at all can suggest an x-rule.
> Anyone at all can test an x-rule and provide the results to us. This offer is
> not tied to reprinting the rules - it is there all the time and always has
been
> and always will be. The first issue is, that it does not seem like folks
*want*
> to do this. It seems folks want to provide x-rules and then have 'someone
else' > test them.

Jon, come on. Recognize what the real problem is here. You have said stringently
and repeatedly that the rules aren't going to change. The official rules. The
Cold Wars and NICT-sanctioned rules.

As a player, then, you have taken away all motivation for me to work on and
provide feedback on x-rules in any kind of public or official capacity.

Put the incentive back in -- that some x-rules might some day become officially
accepted, together with a clear process for how this might happen -- and I
suspect you'll get a dramatically different reaction to x-rules.

Now, I'm not saying you _should_ do this. It may be that the "rules will never
change" stance is the correct one. What I _am_ saying is don't take that stance
and then be surprised if people are underwhelmed by the prospect of x-rules.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

Warrior Tournament
Sponsored by the Dead General?s Society

Tabletop Game and Hobby, Lenexa KS.

Begins 1000 Saturday Oct 15 2004

1600 points, 15mm
6'x4' tables, 4 terrain features.
Three 3.5 hour rounds beginning Saturday 15 October at 1000. Please be there by
0930 to register.
There will be a $5 entrance fee that will be converted entirely to prize
certificates.


Tourney Rules:
360 pace deployment area
Revised terrain selection rules:
1. If both armies in home climate, no one gets +1.
2. No + 1 for dunes in warm, cold, tropical and no =1 for woods, marsh, bog in
dry.

Game Master: Jon Cleaves



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