Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Chris

As you know I totally concur.

I expect us all to act like grown ups and only use the ability to base deeper IF
and ONLY IF you are using that one figure that just CAN'T be based otherwise.

I would not play with someone who based an entire hoplite army 30mm deep in 25mm
just to be lazy or to deceive the eye to what is a peltast and what is HI. And
I would have a problem with such an army as an umpire.

We are really only talking about that one or two units of huge 28+mm cataphracts
that we really want the player to be able to use but just doesn't quite get
there at 40mm deep.

I totally agree that 99% of figures can fit just fine in 25mm. And half of the
remaining 1% can be made to fit with just a little work.

Jon

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cncbump@... [mailto:cncbump@...]
> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 10:28 AM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Basing
>
>
> This whole basing thing is perplexing to me. I don't get it.
> I am in
> the process of basing some cataphracts and have based hundreds of
> close order
> romans. My figures are all Old Glory or Foundry and I use the beveled
> Renaissance Ink bases, which means a little less basing space on
> top. Some,
> SOME work has been required, but minimal. File down a rider's
> foot that is
> sticking out too much in the interior of some cathaphracts.
> Adjust the angle
> the figures are facing on the base, minimally. Use wire cutters
> to clip the
> base of the figure to size. If the figure has a particularly
> wide stance,
> clip out the middle of the base and draw the two ends together or
> at least
> towards each other. Paint the figures before they are mounted and
> then adjust
> them until they fit the base. I am still quite new at the 25mm
> thing with
> only 500 or so figures thus far, so obviously cannot speak from vast
> experiences. I am, however, concerned about the "liberalization" of our
> rules as we try to accomodate.
>

OK, here is the problem. Take a Redoubt Mycenaean pikeman. This is a very
large figure, closer to 30mm than even 28mm. They have very large tower and
figure-8 shields. Some of these shields don't have any adaptive tabs or
knobs for attachment. I can just manage to fit 3 on a 60mm frontage base,
without any of the figure hanging over the edge. I will try 4 on a LMI base
this weekend. I can make them fit on a 20mm deep base by crowding them
together but they look very un-natural. Also, figure bases can be made to
fit, but there is much overhang. This wears and abrades the paint job, and
often 3 bases in line do not have 180mm fromtage, but closer to 190 or more
because of overhang, etc. It is bad for looks, bad for the paint job.
I will take your word about cataphracts, but even using your tricks, I could
not base 4 Essex or Garrison SHC on a 60mm frontage back in 1986, with NO
OVERHANG. The overhang is the hangup here; 4 elements of SHC in line are
not 240mm, but much wider.
Heck, I can remember 3rd edition. There was optional basing for MI/HI of
10mm! PB dropped that in a hurry! Too bad he didn't bite the bullet when
7th first came out and opt for 80mm element frontage. The writing was on
the wall about larger figures back then. DBM would have followed suit, and
WAB would have not been a problem. Some of us play wth more than one rules
set, after all.
I also don't think that calling WAB a game and Warrior a game and a
simulation really addresses this problem, either. I agree, but what does
that have to do with anything?

John

>

[joncleaves]

<<I also don't think that calling WAB a game and Warrior a game and a simulation
really addresses this problem, either. I agree, but what does that have to do
with anything?>>

Because changing the basing is not an option - it is tied to ground scale - how
many men per pace/yard/meter of frontage. WAB does not care and can have
whatever basing it likes, which is to say the same as Warhammer Fantasy Battles,
which is what that game is, essentially. The bases in WAB have nothing to do
with absolute ground scale - just relative. It is a luxury they enjoy that we
do not.

So, the width of Warrior bases isn't changing. That means other solutions must
be found. If, however, none of the solutions suit you, and it is more important
to purchase 30mm pikemen than 25mm (which is, let's be honest, what happens when
we agree to purchase figures that are labeled one scale and are clearly not in
that scale at all) or to have your pikemen 'straight across' (rather than
staggered) than to play Warrior, WAB may be the solution for you.

I have given some thought to providing on the web the numbers to base and play
Warrior in 30mm, and we will probably do that. The problem is, even that would
be difficult to match up with WAB as there is not a consistent 4/3/2 figure
frontage to replicate Warrior's differentiation of troop order.

and 54mm Fast Warrior, too!

John

[Ed Forbes]

>
> Because changing the basing is not an option - it is tied to ground
> scale - how many men per pace/yard/meter of frontage. WAB does not
> care and can have whatever basing it likes, which is to say the same
> as Warhammer Fantasy Battles, which is what that game is,
> essentially. The bases in WAB have nothing to do with absolute
> ground scale - just relative. It is a luxury they enjoy that we do
> not.
> ........
> John
>

I would not be so dogmatic on the superiority of Warrior over other
systems relating to ground scale John. All games, including Warrior, use
relative ground scales. Warrior makes some strange / unrealistic ( IMHO)
approaches to ground scale also, but all games have to make compromises
based on the prejudices of the designer(s).

One case in point is the Warrior restriction for regulars to exactly even
ranks of figures where irregulars are not. This when the figure is
supposed to represent several real ranks that should have the option of
expanding or contracting its lines somewhat. So you have your unit of 6
reg LI skirmishers limited to1x3 or 3x1 base ground formations and the
same size irr LI unit having the choice of 1x3, 3x1, or 2x1 base ground
formations. Quite an advantage for the irr forces in the choice of
formations to cover an "absolute" frontage over that allowed for reg
forces who are supposed to be able to maneuver better than irr forces.

The point is that Warrior does not use an "absolute" ground scale. As
the lead figures represent an unstable number of "real" troops on a fixed
sized base, absolute ground scales are not possible and must be
approached as relative. Warrior seems to be a reasonable game, is well
laid out, and easy to read, but lets not read more into it than it is.

Ed Forbes

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

No, the problem is today's figures are too damned big for standard bases. Take
the fat, oversized, overpriced 30mm figures being misleadingly and
euphemistically advertised as "28mm" that are the current rage, try to squeeze
them onto bases created for true 25mm figures, and what do you expect? All you
people who encouraged the figure manufacturers to churn out huge oversize
figures by BUYING them have no right to complain; blame nobody but yourselves
that your new little giants don't fit on the "old" standard size bases anymore!
And of course, now that your stuck with them, you want to drag those of us who
knew better right down into your own little self-made private hell of re-basing!
Well, after all, what's more American than having a myopic majority force the
consequences of their unwise choices on a minority who knew better?

Here's a wild concept: BUY TRUE 25MM FIGURES INSTEAD OF 28/30MM FIGURES! Not
only are they less expensive, but THEY FIT NICELY ON THE STANDARD BASES!

-----Original Message-----
From: emperorbaz1 <emperorbaz1@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, April 12, 2002 12:29 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Basing


>I have just fallen upon this group and realised I must have been in
>a cave for the last year or so. I had convinced myself that WRG 7th
>edition was dead, and had started immersing myself in WAB, when all
>of a sudden I discover not only it is not dead but it is updated
>improved and most of all alive and kicking in the US!
>
>I am a UK based wargamer (and figure manufacturer) who's main
>interest is 25mm Ancients (yes - I still play 7th Ed in 25mm, and if
>there is anyone in Somerset on the list...)
>
>My problem is this, and I think John the OFM brought it up a few days
>ago. Basing.
>
>Problem 1. I like for example the 25x50 cavalry bases in WAB, a
>complete mounted unit has the right look about it, it is quite a
>squash with 40x20 given the size of 25mm figures is no longer 25mm,
>if you follow my drift. 3 infantry fits nice on a 60mm frontage, but
>now you have two different element sizes - 3 infantry on 60mm and two
>cavalry on 50mm
>
>Problem 2. 3 MI on a 60mm frontage looks like Irregular LMI. I cant
>use a unit of 18 MI and say they are really 24, that doesnt sit well
>with me.
>
>The problem with 7th ed is the base sizes are too small for todays
>figures
>
>The problem with WAB is they have "copped out" of making a decision
>to standardise base sizes.
>
>Does anyone play both and have a good way of resolving the issue?
>
>Barry Lee
>www.whitexgames.co.uk
>
>PS I am now off to Caliver Books to order my copy.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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]

[Patrick Byrne]

Dude, I must say that I appreciate your pa-zaz and agree with point.

I remember when I first bought my Mongols from Ral-Partha, then they went
and discontinued the lines. I was pissed. If they had let me know in
advance that they were canceling the, they would have got a big order from
me. BTW does anyone know who might have bought the molds?

Perhaps someone can or has a list of the current manufacturers with exactly
which size figures they manufacture. I have seen miniature lists
previously, but most of them either are not updated with new addresses
(physical or email), updated showing which ones are not in business anymore,
or they don't say what is 25, 28, 30mm.

-PB

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian K. Fritz" <bfritz@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 9:40 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Basing


> No, the problem is today's figures are too damned big for standard bases.
Take the fat, oversized, overpriced 30mm figures being misleadingly and
euphemistically advertised as "28mm" that are the current rage, try to
squeeze them onto bases created for true 25mm figures, and what do you
expect? All you people who encouraged the figure manufacturers to churn out
huge oversize figures by BUYING them have no right to complain; blame nobody
but yourselves that your new little giants don't fit on the "old" standard
size bases anymore! And of course, now that your stuck with them, you want
to drag those of us who knew better right down into your own little
self-made private hell of re-basing! Well, after all, what's more American
than having a myopic majority force the consequences of their unwise choices
on a minority who knew better?
>
> Here's a wild concept: BUY TRUE 25MM FIGURES INSTEAD OF 28/30MM FIGURES!
Not only are they less expensive, but THEY FIT NICELY ON THE STANDARD BASES!

Patrick, don't ditch your Ral Partha Mongols yet, I think an outfit called Iron
Wind Metals, LLC is preparing to revive some classic Ral Partha lines, which may
include the 25mm historical ranges (I hope).

The Society of Ancients (the REAL one in the UK, NOT NASAMW) has an excellent
website that includes a listing of manufacturers that they keep reasonably
current.

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Byrnes <cuan@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, April 12, 2002 9:30 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Basing


>Dude, I must say that I appreciate your pa-zaz and agree with point.
>
>I remember when I first bought my Mongols from Ral-Partha, then they went
>and discontinued the lines. I was pissed. If they had let me know in
>advance that they were canceling the, they would have got a big order from
>me. BTW does anyone know who might have bought the molds?
>
>Perhaps someone can or has a list of the current manufacturers with exactly
>which size figures they manufacture. I have seen miniature lists
>previously, but most of them either are not updated with new addresses
>(physical or email), updated showing which ones are not in business anymore,
>or they don't say what is 25, 28, 30mm.
>
>-PB
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Brian K. Fritz" <bfritz@...>
>To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 9:40 PM
>Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Basing
>
>
>> No, the problem is today's figures are too damned big for standard bases.
>Take the fat, oversized, overpriced 30mm figures being misleadingly and
>euphemistically advertised as "28mm" that are the current rage, try to
>squeeze them onto bases created for true 25mm figures, and what do you
>expect? All you people who encouraged the figure manufacturers to churn out
>huge oversize figures by BUYING them have no right to complain; blame nobody
>but yourselves that your new little giants don't fit on the "old" standard
>size bases anymore! And of course, now that your stuck with them, you want
>to drag those of us who knew better right down into your own little
>self-made private hell of re-basing! Well, after all, what's more American
>than having a myopic majority force the consequences of their unwise choices
>on a minority who knew better?
>>
>> Here's a wild concept: BUY TRUE 25MM FIGURES INSTEAD OF 28/30MM FIGURES!
>Not only are they less expensive, but THEY FIT NICELY ON THE STANDARD BASES!
>
>
>
>
>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]

[scott holder]

I have to agree. I was taken aback by the apparent venom dripping from

Brian's response. He may have been having a bad day and it just showed
up in
his prose. I hope that that is all that was taking place as this forum
and
hobby must be a big tent if it is to survive. We want above most else
to
avoid alienating anyone!

>No coincidence if you peruse other postings by the same party in this
forum. It's too bad that an original comment regarding figure size
(one, at it's basics, is shared by many people, myself included) has to
come across with a typical "flaming" tone all too "normal" in online
communites and.....more reflective of ancients gamers 20 years ago, not
those of today.

Scott
List Ho

--- In WarriorRules@y..., cncbump@a... wrote:
> This is in Jon's nands. I guess that the end game is that we do
want to
> expand the hobby and since it is just plain impossible to
attractively mount
> even 3 gripping beast cav figures on a base, we will just have to
let those
> folks who are completely incapable of other than linear thought or
conception
> use what ever size bases they think reasonable. So go ahead Doug,
use 120mm
> wide bases. The rest of us will bend to you. The game will still
be played
> and we will still have fun. Oh unless an 8x5 table is no longer
able to fit
> an army of figures mounted on 120mm bases. 3 Dimensional tables?
That could
> be problematic.

I guess this is why my Warrior rules are just about to end up on the
shelf with "all the other rules I don't play."

When I read a set of rules and within the first pages the author
tells me I have to remount figures to play his game, I am not
particularly inclined to read much further.

If your goal is to alienate players and offend people who might
actually promote the game, you are doing a good job. Like John
Caroll, I am at the point of saying good-bye to Warrior and the
Warrior list.

Most of my friends play with 25mm and they, too, have mounted their
armies to the Warhammer standard. If for no other reason than they
want to play skirmish and siege games. I will just tell them to save
their time and money and not get the Warrior rules.

Doug

[Dave Smith]

I guess this is why my Warrior rules are just about to end up on the
shelf with "all the other rules I don't play."When I read a set of
rules and within the first pages the author tells me I have to
remount figures to play his game, I am not particularly inclined to
read much further.If your goal is to alienate players and offend
people who might actually promote the game, you are doing a good
job. Like John Caroll, I am at the point of saying good-bye to
Warrior and the Warrior list.Most of my friends play with 25mm and
they, too, have mounted their armies to the Warhammer standard. If
for no other reason than they want to play skirmish and siege games.
I will just tell them to save their time and money and not get the
Warrior rules.
Doug


***Doug;

I think most everyone who plays a 'WRG' based system (DBM, ARmaati,
Ancient and Medieval Warfare, Warrior, etc.) have struggled with
trying to incorporate the WAB players as well. It's ironic that
Jervis even suggests close order troops should be based _15-20mm_ in
width. Most WAB players defaulted to the 20mm because their gaming
roots were WFB, not historical ancients. Those of us who grew up on
WRG basing conventions, feel the 20mm frontage an abberation. That
notwithstanding, don't give up on an excellent set of rules, because
of an email or two. When you get to KC in May, I'll play a Fast
Warrior game with you (or two), and I'm sure you'll enjoy it. There
are ways around this, and am encouraged to see Jon's response from
your 30mm idea.

Dave

Try
http://www.wargames-figures.com/
for Ral Partha figure availability. I have jsut ordered from them, and the
charge showed up on my statement, so beyond that I cannot say. People have
told me that they are a bit slow, but I have found all the RP Ancients I am
interested in on their site.

John C



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Holder, Scott <FHWA> [mailto:Scott.Holder@...]
> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 7:44 AM
> To: IPM Return requested (Receipt notification requested)
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Basing
>
>
> I remember when I first bought my Mongols from Ral-Partha, then they
> went
> and discontinued the lines. I was pissed. If they had let me know in
> advance that they were canceling the, they would have got a big order
> from
> me. BTW does anyone know who might have bought the molds?
>
> >There are still plenty of Partha figures out there but you end up
> needing to hit things like the big flea market at Cold Wars or Hcon to
> see em. Actually, some dealers still have em in stock although I doubt
> they actually advertise that fact in catalogs or online.
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>

[scott holder]

I guess this is why my Warrior rules are just about to end up on the
shelf with "all the other rules I don't play."When I read a set of
rules and within the first pages the author tells me I have to
remount figures to play his game, I am not particularly inclined to
read much further.

>You are preaching to the choir. But...please remember that when this
system was under development, our target audience was the vast bulk of
long-time established gamers who all mount to WRG standard. Please, I'm
certainly not trying to dis WAB here, it's just that as a relative
newcomer onto the scene and one that didn't apparently didn't take into
account the existing standard, but instead piggy-backed on top of a game
where it (basing standard) wasn't that important. Please please, don't
take this the wrong way, I'm simply stating the situation as we, FHE,
saw (and see it) in terms of basing and how we felt best to proceed. I
don't think you'll find any other set of rules out there right now that
(while sticking to it's basing standard), will attempt to work with
people to try and find a reasonable, integratable, system to prevent
massive rebasing.

>Here's another thought, I'm sure some armies play better in one rules
set than in the other. One possibility is to have an army mounted for
Warrior, another for WAB, etc. In some ways, WAB players might have to
do that since the actual army composition (army lists) will differ
greatly and there are *no* plans to attempt any integration along those
lines:):)

>As for a 30mm bracket in a tournament, FHE has no say in that type of
thing. Due to my position as Warrior Umpire for NASAMW, those lines
*can* get a little blurry. I've said this before over the years but if
there is enough player demand for such a bracket (at least 8
pre-registered players), then obviously I, as Warrior Umpire, would
endeavor to hold such an event at a place like Cold Wars or Historicon.
Moreover, once Jon gets a 30mm standard out, nothing is to stop WAB
players (or anybody else who feels the wrg standard opresses them, hee
hee) from using it in friendly games, etc.

If your goal is to alienate players and offend
people who might actually promote the game, you are doing a good
job.

>Again, no one is telling you to rebase and we (FHE) will try to work on
this issue (see Jon's other emails to this effect) because we really
don't want to alienate potential gamers who are seriously interested in
the system. But again, remember that the bulk of established players in
this system have mounted to a particular standard and that standard was
not WAB. If we can find a way in which WAB players can simply "tray" a
certain number of figures into the wrg standard, then that sounds like
one way to go to enable you to participate in all events.

I think most everyone who plays a 'WRG' based system (DBM, ARmaati,
Ancient and Medieval Warfare, Warrior, etc.) have struggled with
trying to incorporate the WAB players as well. It's ironic that
Jervis even suggests close order troops should be based _15-20mm_ in
width. Most WAB players defaulted to the 20mm because their gaming
roots were WFB, not historical ancients.

>Dave, thank you for this. It encapsulates the FHE background on the
issue. It would have been absolutely stupid for us, business wise, to
immediately set a new "25mm standard" that ignored our patient player
base who have been waiting two years for these rules to be published.

Those of us who grew up on
WRG basing conventions, feel the 20mm frontage an abberation.

>Exactly, again, it depends on one's background (ancients or WFB) and
the whole concept of "who blinks first" when it comes to rebasing.
Obviously I had no interest in WAB because it would have required me to
rebase my 10,000 25mm figures. Please note how the two NASAMW WAB
Umpires have worked on incorporating the "wrg standard" into tournaments
so this can work both ways. WRG basing conventions have been a boon to
the hobby and were well established. Certainly the Warhammer folks had
every right to either follow that or create their own just as FHE
determined our best long term bet was to follow the standard we knew.

That
notwithstanding, don't give up on an excellent set of rules, because
of an email or two. When you get to KC in May, I'll play a Fast
Warrior game with you (or two), and I'm sure you'll enjoy it. There
are ways around this, and am encouraged to see Jon's response from
your 30mm idea.

>Again, I think as long as there is no tourney demand for a 30mm scale,
you won't see it. However, if there is some great outpouring of WAB
players into Warrior, neato! Jon can develop the structure for the
rules for 30mm and I can deal with the tourney implementation and would
be glad to do so. And if such an outpouring doesn't occur, I'd still
hope that any WAB players like Doug here will seriously consider the
"tray" as a good compromise.

>Doug, these rules will never leave you bored so please stick with us.

Scott
List Ho

And if such an outpouring doesn't
> occur, I'd still
> hope that any WAB players like Doug here will
> seriously consider the
> "tray" as a good compromise.

Yeah, I had a good thought! Think I'll write a
Spearpoint article on it. :)

boyd

=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

[Jake Kovel]

You forgot Irregular Miniatures. They are still alive and kicking, have many
new lines and are still really 25mm or at worst 26mm.
Jacob kovel

[Patrick Byrne]

You missed the fact that the only thing that is old about this 'new' set of
rules is the excellent thought that began it and the fact that people just
keep talking about it. Its a new IBM computer that has been re-thought, its
user interface upgraded, and made a good idea more consumer friendly.
-PB



> + Hey, Captain Nostalgia, that "new" set of ancients rules you just
bought, tell me again where and WHEN they came from originally??? If I
offered to sell you a 1986 IBM personal computer with a new coat of paint,
would you buy that too and scrap the computer you have now? How about the
rest of you guys... any takers?