Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[scott holder]

A three round Duplicate Fast Warrior tournament was held at Call to Arms on 5
May. Six players moved from table to table, army to army. One round probably
wasn't as "fast" as it should have been. We were better in rounds 2-3 in
holding to our 1.5 hours per round time limit.

Army pairs were:

Han vs Hsiung Nu
Scots Common vs WOR English
Polybian Roman vs Seleucid

I screwed up in that I had two players play the same pairing, just each side.
If I'd thought about it a tad bit longer, I would have seen the way to ensure
all 6 players played different players AND played in all three different
pairings. It's Jon's fault since he *had* to be out of there by 3pm. If I
weren't so rushed, things woulda been different:):)

In this tourney, I awarded 3 points to the best person (out of three) using one
particular army. For example, first we scored the actual game using version 2
of the Fast Warrior scoring system. The results were:

Jake: 1.5
Woody: 0
Tom: 6

Tom was the "best" player of the three so he got 3 points, Jake got 2 points,
Woody got 1 point. In the case of ties, as in the following example for those
players who ran the Polybian Romans:

Jon: 6
Tom: 6
Scott: 2

Jon and Tom split the first and second place points so received 2.5 points each.
I received 1 point for third place.

After tallying everybody up, here's what we got:

Jon: 7 points
Kelly: 7 points
Jake: 6.5 points
Tom: 6.5 points
Scott: 6 points
Woody: 3 points.

Our tiebreaker were the total number of points scored under version 2. In that
case it looked like:

Jon: 14 points
Kelly: 14 points
Jake: 13 points
Tom: 12 points
Scott: 5.5 points
Woody: 4 points.

So we had a tie. None of us can think of an additional tie breaker. Don't
bring up "head to head" competition because in a duplicate tourney, it doesn't
make any difference how you do against the other guy per se. It's how you do
compared to how the other guys playing the same army did.

All in all, things worked well. These games are easily finished in 1.5 hours IF
you don't get an opponent who fears making mistakes and as such moves with
painstaking precision as to slow the game down to a crawl. Of course those
players are the same way at 1600 points. But for the most part we had fun and
duplicate events are sufficiently different as to keep things fresh as players
jump from army to army and period to period.

It's pretty obvious that some armies are much better in a FW format than they
are at 1200 or 1600 points. The hapless Polybians are one. The reverse is true
as well, armies that are pretty good at 1200/1600 downright stink here, the Han
probably being our first obvious example of that. War of Roses English wasn't
any better although that list has subsequently been tweaked.

Scott

Scott, was this 15mm or 25mm?

Scott,
I would be interested in a win loss record by army as well.

Tom

[scott holder]

I would be interested in a win loss record by army as well.

Here it be:

Polybian Roman: 2-1
Seleucid: 1-2

WOR English: 0-3
Scots Common: 3-0

Han: 1-2
Hsiung Nu: 2-1

[scott holder]

25mm of course:). Just so everybody knows, table size in 25mm FW is 4x3.
In 15mm it's 3x2. In 6mm (this I'd like to see one day), it's 1.5x1.

>>> DAVBEE217@... 5/10/01 2:27:00 PM >>>

Scott, was this 15mm or 25mm?

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Scott,
      Was I the only person to win with Han?

                                                      Kelly