Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

yes, Don, until all our lists are out, this will be more possible.

yes, Don, it is most efficient with expensive generals like Kn and El.

no, Don, there will be no Warrior list with 4 subs.

:)

Jon

[joncleaves]

A CINC can already be his own one unit command AND he is the only general
that can be in no command if you prefer that.

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated Sat, 9 Mar 2002 10:48:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Patrick
Byrnes" <cuan@...> writes:

> > The fact that shaking the one guy in a one unit
> > command is offset by the fact that
> > command automatically recovers at the end of the
> > next bound.
>
>
> Not only that, but then after he recovers, he only has himself to change
> orders from Hold back to attack again.
>
> Not to mention having these one element commands save prompt points
> through-out the game.
> A 7+5+1+1 command army is easier on the prompting than a 7 + 7 command army.
>
> Personally, I think only the CnC should be allowed to be in his own 1 unit
> command. Maybe I'll write that as an X rule.
> -PB
I think that only the CiC could change the orders of a command. The general
could change the orders within his command, after receiving the change order
from the CiC.

Chris
>
>
> 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/

[Don Coon]

>
> One unit commands will be very problematic as there are only 1-3
subgenerals in any given list. At 1600 points there are typically 13-20
units in an army depending on average expense of a unit, usually around
15-16. You could have 3 one-unit commands and the CINC could command the
rest, I suppose (an average of 12 bodies), but I sure would not recommend
it. For one thing, all I have to do is shake the one unit guy to get him to
retreat.

While this may be true as you put out new list books, most of the NASMAW
list allow a CINC and 4 subs. In my Fuedal English (works good for 100 yrs
English too) it is very cheap to but Subgens. FE Subgens onlyt cost 15
points ("free EHK figure 15 pts, no command 25 pts, cost of subgen plus
standard -55 pts for a net cost of 15). For that 15 points I get a guy who
runs as a one unit command and is VERY efficeient. He can unshake anyone.
He can go where he pleases (Irr B stay eager/willing in lots of
circumstances), he hits once like a ton of bricks, and if he does shake (he
would shake weather alone or part of a command anyway) he does not affect
anyone. He goes into retreat the next bound, but recovers from shaken at
the end of that bound anyway since he is a general. If you manage to break
him, he only causes 1 waver test at 120p instead of 2, and none beyond
that. Also since he is is own command, I can deploy him first and negate
the fact the my opponent has more scouting factors than me (but not 3X). No
downside to this 1 unit command. So this makes the rest of my army have bog
commands. No big deal. I run 2 7 unit commands, and 3 1 unit commands.
The two 7 unit comands each have a Knight unit a bunch of bowmen units, and
a spear mass unit. Not too much command and control required here. Bottom
line: Knight armies are going to have 1 unit commands in any tourny army.
In your example above I would run 2 1 unit commands, a 7 and a 5. The fact
that shaking the one guy in a one unit command is offset by the fact that
command automatically recovers at the end of the nnext bound.

> To 'gamesmanship' this - you could have a 14 unit list with two commands
of 7 with SGs and the CINC separate. It would take 8 shakes/kills to
demoralize the whole army (4 per command). If you took the same list with
the max one unit commands (3 SGs in one unit they command and the CINC
commanding the other 11), it would take 9 shakes/kills instead of eight, but
the CINC would be tied to a command and have to take care of 11 units. And
that is only possible in a list with 3 SGs, which not all have.
>
> 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of another to me.

IMHO its more like 8 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other. 1 unit Knight commands
are VERY efficient.

> I *think* there was a day when up to 6 SGs were allowed no matter the list
in a tourney using another rules set we will not name, but that is *not*
true in Warrior. Someone may be reminiscing....

Probably, but almost all NASMAW list allow at least 4 subs, and until we see
Fuedal Warrior, those are the ones that are going to get used.

Don

[Patrick Byrne]

> The fact that shaking the one guy in a one unit
> command is offset by the fact that
> command automatically recovers at the end of the
> next bound.


Not only that, but then after he recovers, he only has himself to change
orders from Hold back to attack again.

Not to mention having these one element commands save prompt points
through-out the game.
A 7+5+1+1 command army is easier on the prompting than a 7 + 7 command army.

Personally, I think only the CnC should be allowed to be in his own 1 unit
command. Maybe I'll write that as an X rule.
-PB

> Personally, I think only the CnC should be allowed to be in his own 1 unit
> command. Maybe I'll write that as an X rule.

That would seem to make sense. The CinC has the entire army to watch, and
is therefore not necessarily directly in charge of his own (though he might
be, there are historical precedents for both, I believe). Subgenerals,
OTOH, are specifically there to command parts of the army, as are Ally
Generals.

Tony



_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

[joncleaves]

Remember all that x-rules are experimental and NOT something we are TRYING to
get into the rules if we just had a hair more playtesting. An x-rule that
grows up will never be more than optional, which means BOTH opponents would
have to agree to its use. We are not planning a "second edition" where the
x-rules that pass muster are "incorporated" into the main body of the rules.
They are just a place to go for people to try out stuff while we are still
able to clearly delineate what the standard rules are to be played across
state/country lines and between gaming groups.

You can (obviously) play with whatever x and optional rules you like in your
own group but you MUST be able to have the expectation that when you travel
to event it is going to be the rulebook only unless the event organizer
clearly states what IF ANY "theme" or "x/optional" rules are in effect for
his event.

And, FWIW, I personally would not recommend any event organizer using any
x/optional rules for a while yet. Let's get the folks playing Warrior first.
Listening, Scotty?

[joncleaves]

Thanks, Scott. I know *I* feel better. :)

Now, off to those diagrams!!

[Dave Markowitz]

I agree. The biggest criticism I've heard over the years w/respect to 7th was
that people did not know what the rules were from convention to convention. I
think historicon is too soon to be trying rules not found in the text of
Warrior. Dave.

And, FWIW, I personally would not recommend any event organizer using any
x/optional rules for a while yet. Let's get the folks playing Warrior first.
Listening, Scotty?

[Don Coon]

> yes, Don, until all our lists are out, this will be more possible.
>
> yes, Don, it is most efficient with expensive generals like Kn and El.
>
> no, Don, there will be no Warrior list with 4 subs.
>
> :)

Cool.

Don

[Don Coon]

> > Personally, I think only the CnC should be allowed to be in his own 1
unit
> > command. Maybe I'll write that as an X rule.

If you are going to X-Rule this, please include ally generals in this too.
I have several armies where the Ally general has a small number of troops
(EIR Sarmations only get 14 plus the Gen himself). I do not want the X rule
to force me to buy all the sarmations just to get 2 units.

Don

[scott holder]

And, FWIW, I personally would not recommend any event organizer using any
x/optional rules for a while yet. Let's get the folks playing Warrior first.
Listening, Scotty?

>Obviously you were having so much apoplexy over my last post that you failed to
see the spot where I said "no x-rules at Cold Wars but I might run one at one
tourney at Hcon", or something to that effect:) I agree totally because I
think everybody needs to grope their way thru the new system before we decide to
add any bells and whistles. There will be no x-rules for the NICT this year.
After that, we'll evaluate. Jon and I are unanimous in how we approach x-rules
and their use, always have been despite what might be devined otherwise in one
of my posts:):)

>As a tourney organizer dude, I will *always* make sure that any x-rules I
happen to run at a tourney will be in the pre-convention write-up. Best example
of how that's done best is Medieval Warfare. I will canvass the player base
while at Cold Wars to see what people would like to see at Hcon, if anything.

>Folks, I'm really excited about this. My post of yesterday outlining "new"
things was aimed more at the "established player base" so that they know the
major differences going into Cold Wars and not be "suprised". I remember 10+
years ago when Jon was learning the game in my basement. He was easy because he
hadn't learned the game "wrong" prior to that. The harder people were those who
had and we had to "relearn em". I'm partially in that boat now since
*playtesting* is different than *playing*. I don't want disgruntled long-term
players who have stuck with us thru several years of watching the product wither
on the vine and then 2 years of playtesting. If they have a better feel for
things comng in, they'll come back.

>I love everything I see and will be the first to admit that the rules wouldn't
have looked nearly as good as they do if I'd been the Rules Ho. There ain't a
week go by when I don't marvel at the serendipity of how things worked out vis a
vis the four of us.

>Okay, time to hold hands and sing Kumbaiyaa.

Scott
Ump Ho

[Patrick Byrne]

I highly agree with this. I think that about a year would be good before
x-rules are incorporated at tourney's.
-PB


----- Original Message -----
From: <JonCleaves@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] 1 unit commands kick butt


> Remember all that x-rules are experimental and NOT something we are TRYING
to
> get into the rules if we just had a hair more playtesting. An x-rule that
> grows up will never be more than optional, which means BOTH opponents
would
> have to agree to its use. We are not planning a "second edition" where
the
> x-rules that pass muster are "incorporated" into the main body of the
rules.
> They are just a place to go for people to try out stuff while we are still
> able to clearly delineate what the standard rules are to be played across
> state/country lines and between gaming groups.
>
> You can (obviously) play with whatever x and optional rules you like in
your
> own group but you MUST be able to have the expectation that when you
travel
> to event it is going to be the rulebook only unless the event organizer
> clearly states what IF ANY "theme" or "x/optional" rules are in effect for
> his event.
>
> And, FWIW, I personally would not recommend any event organizer using any
> x/optional rules for a while yet. Let's get the folks playing Warrior
first.
> Listening, Scotty?
>
>
> 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/
>
>

Also a big misconception about 7th; it wasn't the rules that changed, it was all
the regional MISreadings and MISinterpretations criminally inflicted on the
rules that changed from con to con and tournament to tournament. One thing that
all these e-mails have confirmed to me; the vast majority of problems with these
rules, from 7th right through to Warrior, have resulted and continue to result
from players' flawed comprehension, NOT the author's writing.

-----Original Message-----
From: DMarkowitz@... <DMarkowitz@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sunday, March 10, 2002 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] 1 unit commands kick butt


>I agree. The biggest criticism I've heard over the years w/respect to 7th was
that people did not know what the rules were from convention to convention. I
think historicon is too soon to be trying rules not found in the text of
Warrior. Dave.
>
>And, FWIW, I personally would not recommend any event organizer using any
>x/optional rules for a while yet. Let's get the folks playing Warrior first.
> Listening, Scotty?
>
>
>
>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/
>
>


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

I always thought that part of the incomprehension that went with WRG
7th, was that the author was not writing to be understood. He was
writing out of a misplaced conception that he was writing literature.

As a result, you had very complex sentence structure. That usually
resutlts in a very complex and less understandable document.

The Warrior rules have had a lot of that cleaned up.

Scott Turner


At 9:39 PM -0700 4/7/02, Brian K. Fritz wrote:
>Also a big misconception about 7th; it wasn't the rules that
>changed, it was all the regional MISreadings and MISinterpretations
>criminally inflicted on the rules that changed from con to con and
>tournament to tournament. One thing that all these e-mails have
>confirmed to me; the vast majority of problems with these rules,
>from 7th right through to Warrior, have resulted and continue to
>result from players' flawed comprehension, NOT the author's writing.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: DMarkowitz@... <DMarkowitz@...>
>To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
>Date: Sunday, March 10, 2002 10:45 AM
>Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] 1 unit commands kick butt
>
>
>>I agree. The biggest criticism I've heard over the years w/respect
>>to 7th was that people did not know what the rules were from
>>convention to convention. I think historicon is too soon to be
>>trying rules not found in the text of Warrior. Dave.
>>
>>And, FWIW, I personally would not recommend any event organizer using any
>>x/optional rules for a while yet. Let's get the folks playing Warrior first.
>> Listening, Scotty?
>>
>>
>>
>>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/>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
>>
>