Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Frank Gilson]

I have experience from various other tournament competitions, some played
for thousands of dollars.

The only competitions using clocks have been chess...and not all tournament
formats for chess use a clock.

A clock is fine if both players have a similar supply of a few pieces, which
move in relatively few ways, on a limited play space, and when play
decisions can be made by the majority in a relatively swift manner.

Timing clocks generally fail to apply properly for games such as Warrior,
quite often due to the differences in "pieces" (armies) that each player
has. Imagine, as an example, that I set up a fort, and my army, and don't
move much each turn. I use up very little of the clock...you are forced to
use up much more as you move your troops into best position to assault my
fort setup. That's not fair.

Some army types involve complex decisions which take time to make. Imposing
clocks would influence players not to play those sorts of armies.

Next, is the issue of stalling, or "aggressive time management". I'm hopeful
that Warrior players don't intentionally alter their pace of play to achieve
a better result in a game. However, many different competition events have
shown me that the only way to enforce proper play speed is to have several
referees available on call to monitor games and issue warnings for slow
play.

Do you want to add that to Warrior?

Frank Gilson

>Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:14:21 -0000
> From: "Greg Regets" <greg.regets@...>
>Subject: Speeding Play
>
>No offense Mark, but do you really think that asking someone to show
>up on time for a game, and place terrain and troops in a timely
>matter, and actually keeping his attention on the game, is too
>extreme?
>
>Hell, I guess the Carolina Panthers should have showed up 1:42 late
>for the Super Bowl. They would be the Champs!
>
>Placing terrain and troops just has to be something that can be done
>in a reasonable time. I think three or four tournaments ago, I played
>a guy that sat and stared at the board for a good ten minutes before
>he placed a single terrain choice or unit. Believe it or not, the
>game was half over by the time we started bound one. In a four hour
>game, we completed two, thats right TWO bounds! The very next game, I
>was playing on the next table over and this guy did the same exact
>thing to someone else and knocked a guy out of his first chance to
>ever make the playoffs.
>
>I agree 100% that we don't want make the game a pressure cooker, but
>does that mean a person has the right to waste his opponents time?
>
>As far as friends go ... I have them too and like to see them when I
>travel. That's what breakfast, lunch, dinner and after hours beer
>establishments are for.
>
>Just my hard-ass opinions ... Greg
>
>
>
>Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:44:27 EST
> From: markmallard77@...
>Subject: Re: Speeding Play
>
>In a message dated 2/14/04 5:16:04 PM GMT Standard Time,
>greg.regets@... writes:
>
>That is why clocks are the only way if you try to cut down the playing time
>from four hours.
>
>mark mallard (not the mark referred to below)
\n
_________________________________________________________________
Optimize your Internet experience to the max with the new MSN Premium
Internet Software. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200359ave/direct/01/

Some miniatures tournaments also allow the opposing players to rate their
opponent on various aspects of gamesmanship - why not introduce this into
the system to allow each player to score their opponent on the speed of
play? It seems rather universal that the clock idea is looked upon with
doubt and distaste - and has been introduced as a means to keep players
"honest". Having bad sports in a tournament setting is an unfortunate evil
that seems fairly unavoidable - but maybe could be minimized by having the
opposing players rate each other. If someone is playing the clock (or
anything else for that matter) to keep from losing rather than playing a
hard fought battle to win - then that is a pattern that will most likely
show up in the scores that they are given by their opponents.

While this is a subjective score at best, patterns will arise that can be
weighted accordingly within the framework of the scoring system. I've seen
otherwise very close tournaments be decided by this score and it is amazing
how much smoother the individual games run when you know that your opponent
has a say in your score (and it keeps those of us that get cranky after 8
hours or so of gaming more agreeable..).

My 2 cents.

Scott A McCoppin, AIA
mccoppinarchitecture, pa
704.560.4154
architecture@...

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Gilson [mailto:franktrevorgilson@...]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 3:09 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] clocks, etc., stalling...

I have experience from various other tournament competitions, some played
for thousands of dollars.

The only competitions using clocks have been chess...and not all tournament
formats for chess use a clock.

A clock is fine if both players have a similar supply of a few pieces, which
move in relatively few ways, on a limited play space, and when play
decisions can be made by the majority in a relatively swift manner.

Timing clocks generally fail to apply properly for games such as Warrior,
quite often due to the differences in "pieces" (armies) that each player
has. Imagine, as an example, that I set up a fort, and my army, and don't
move much each turn. I use up very little of the clock...you are forced to
use up much more as you move your troops into best position to assault my
fort setup. That's not fair.

Some army types involve complex decisions which take time to make. Imposing
clocks would influence players not to play those sorts of armies.

Next, is the issue of stalling, or "aggressive time management". I'm hopeful
that Warrior players don't intentionally alter their pace of play to achieve
a better result in a game. However, many different competition events have
shown me that the only way to enforce proper play speed is to have several
referees available on call to monitor games and issue warnings for slow
play.

Do you want to add that to Warrior?

Frank Gilson

>Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:14:21 -0000
> From: "Greg Regets" <greg.regets@...>
>Subject: Speeding Play
>
>No offense Mark, but do you really think that asking someone to show
>up on time for a game, and place terrain and troops in a timely
>matter, and actually keeping his attention on the game, is too
>extreme?
>
>Hell, I guess the Carolina Panthers should have showed up 1:42 late
>for the Super Bowl. They would be the Champs!
>
>Placing terrain and troops just has to be something that can be done
>in a reasonable time. I think three or four tournaments ago, I played
>a guy that sat and stared at the board for a good ten minutes before
>he placed a single terrain choice or unit. Believe it or not, the
>game was half over by the time we started bound one. In a four hour
>game, we completed two, thats right TWO bounds! The very next game, I
>was playing on the next table over and this guy did the same exact
>thing to someone else and knocked a guy out of his first chance to
>ever make the playoffs.
>
>I agree 100% that we don't want make the game a pressure cooker, but
>does that mean a person has the right to waste his opponents time?
>
>As far as friends go ... I have them too and like to see them when I
>travel. That's what breakfast, lunch, dinner and after hours beer
>establishments are for.
>
>Just my hard-ass opinions ... Greg
>
>
>
>Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:44:27 EST
> From: markmallard77@...
>Subject: Re: Speeding Play
>
>In a message dated 2/14/04 5:16:04 PM GMT Standard Time,
>greg.regets@... writes:
>
>That is why clocks are the only way if you try to cut down the playing time
>from four hours.
>
>mark mallard (not the mark referred to below)
\n
_________________________________________________________________
Optimize your Internet experience to the max with the new MSN Premium
Internet Software. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200359ave/direct/01/




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

Click HereClick Here
<http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12ce6j7pe/M=274551.4550177.5718621.1261774/D=egroup
web/S=1705059080:HM/EXP=1077048517/A=1994230/R=2/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/
jump/N3349.yahoo1/B1282054.22;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=300x250;code=18634;dcopt=
rcl;ord=107696211%20>


_____

Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/16/2004 14:37:54 Central Standard Time,
sctrac@... writes:
Some miniatures tournaments also allow the opposing players to rate their
opponent on various aspects of gamesmanship - why not introduce this into
the system to allow each player to score their opponent on the speed of
play?

I know that I, for one, would fight this with my last breath....

I can tell you it won't happen at either NASAMW or FHE run events and I would
certainly discourage its use in any way I could at other Warrior events.

Slow play is often a style and not a sportsmanship issue. Peer
'sportsmanship' scores are not a solution to bad sports. The solution to bad
sports is to
not allow them to play until they become good sports and to set the example
for good sportsmanship yourself.

J


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

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 2/16/04 8:12:42 PM GMT Standard Time,
franktrevorgilson@... writes:

>
> I have experience from various other tournament competitions, some played
> for thousands of dollars.
>
> The only competitions using clocks have been chess...and not all tournament
> formats for chess use a clock.
>
> A clock is fine if both players have a similar supply of a few pieces, which
>

> move in relatively few ways, on a limited play space, and when play
> decisions can be made by the majority in a relatively swift manner.
>
> Timing clocks generally fail to apply properly for games such as Warrior,
> quite often due to the differences in "pieces" (armies) that each player
> has. Imagine, as an example, that I set up a fort, and my army, and don't
> move much each turn. I use up very little of the clock...you are forced to
> use up much more as you move your troops into best position to assault my
> fort setup. That's not fair.


You show up in a fort i would not move either!

>
> Some army types involve complex decisions which take time to make. Imposing
> clocks would influence players not to play those sorts of armies.
>
> Next, is the issue of stalling, or "aggressive time management". I'm hopeful
>
> that Warrior players don't intentionally alter their pace of play to achieve
>
> a better result in a game. However, many different competition events have
> shown me that the only way to enforce proper play speed is to have several
> referees available on call to monitor games and issue warnings for slow
> play.
>
> Do you want to add that to Warrior?


I agree with many of your points i just do not want to see the game shortened
to under four hours, i would prefer a bit more if anything.

>
> Frank Gilson
>



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

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Gilson"
<franktrevorgilson@h...> wrote:

<snip good commentary>

In my experience the worst staller have been 25mm DBM players, mainly
because the system doesn't allow much manuver beyond setup in that
scale with 400pt on an 8x5 table. So in lue of manuver, people tend
to fiddle troops around. This is not to slam DBM players at all, as
most are like everyone else in wanting a good game. Just my
experience that's all.

In Warrior, I find that most 25mm gamers come together quickly
regardless if they corner sit or not. In Warrior the ability to hide
in the corner is much less desirable and more likely to end in
tragedy as the enemy can concentrate on a single unit that will most
likely translate in to multiple waver tests due to close proximity of
other units.

In DBM a wall of Spear can hold off most attacks for the duration,
but in Warrior the combined arms of shooting and HTH will erode any
defense. We all know this here.

Clocks. I used to play touranment chess for years, and clocks are
essential there. The main reason is because without a clock most
chess players will actually age before commiting to a move. In
Warrior the main reason clocks wouldn't work is that both players
interact, and this interaction is both necessary and desirable. In
chess the manuvers are restricted and understood, but in Warrior it
is most benificial to explain your intent and manuvers for
understanding since there is much more variation possible. For
example, telling your opponant "I am 121 paces away" keeps him from
declaring a charge which was the entent of being 121p away; yet if
left without comment and he measured 120p, then he will charge
regardless of your intent. Conversation with clocks become time
wasters for your opponant, so he is less likely to converse.

Perhaps a compromise solution is to inform the umpire and let him set
a bound limit on the slow player...say 5 or 10 minutes. Just an idea.

I disagree - if someone is a slow player rather than stalling, then nobody
would recognize that more than his opponent. I don't mind a slow player; I
have played all kinds and types throughout my gaming life (as have most of
us on this list), and slow play doesn't bother me. Stalling comes in many
forms, and true "slow play" is rarely one of them. It comes in the form of
questioning all minutiae of a move or rule or whatever that slows play down,
the other is general wasting of time (walking around "looking" for answers,
or talking to all passersby's, etc.), being slow just isn't one of them.
The other thing about true slow play is that the time limit in tournaments
generally does not prevent a decisive outcome - the game may go to the wire
vs. being done an hour early but there generally is a clear winner and
loser. The score that I am talking about is a general gamesmanship /
sportsmanship rating and the average of all scores for that player are
assigned a PROPERLY weighted point value (minimal impact on overall
scoring), which could be added (or subtracted) from their final tournament
score. Maybe the scoring has absolutely no impact on the tournament score,
but there are prizes, good and bad awarded for the good/bad sports - after
all, bad sports hate to be identified as such (and are many times very
surprised by it).

Tournaments serve two equal purposes (among others):

1. To determine a winner
2. To act as an ambassador to others interested in this hobby and this rule
system.

We all know that 90% of all players out there are not only good sports, but
are enjoyable opponents whether they win or lose. The other 10% bicker,
whine, bitch and moan and do everything they can to intimidate their
opponent to get their way and eventually win. Unfortunately some of these
players are also good at what they do (partly because they do take
themselves and their hobby too seriously). To stand up in front of everyone
and announce to the new players of a particular tournament that all bad
apples must now leave and let the rest of us play in peace won't work - it
isn't until the bad apples show themselves that we even know who they are.
Furthermore creating a blacklist of "bad sport" players who aren't welcome
would have far reaching implications not even thought of here. After all,
many times the bad apples are bad because their mouths are big, and folks
with big mouths can generally find a willing audience somewhere. We wouldn'
t want to become known as elitists (see point #2 above). The other thing is
that out of the bad apples, many aren't so bad as to warrant removing them
or disqualifying them - they just are generally unpleasant to play with /
against. By allowing each opponent to rate each other on several aspects on
their gaming (speed of play only being one, of say, five scores), this helps
keep the not quite so bad apples honest - it works, I've seen it. Clocks
won't work for this type of competition. Unfortunately, the setting a good
example tactic doesn't work either - bad sports don't care how you are
acting, and many times see that as an opportunity to "get their way".
Umpires, can only do so much policing of this, so..

While I appreciate your passion on the subject - ("I know that I, for one,
would fight this with my last breath...."? - Wow!), the solution that I am
putting forth does work and can be morphed into many forms that can be
agreeable to most (groups never are in 100% agreement ), and could help
to create a welcoming atmosphere to introduce new players to the hobby and
the rule system.


Scott A McCoppin, AIA
mccoppinarchitecture, pa
704.560.4154
architecture@...

-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 8:42 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] clocks, etc., stalling...

In a message dated 2/16/2004 14:37:54 Central Standard Time,
sctrac@... writes:
Some miniatures tournaments also allow the opposing players to rate their
opponent on various aspects of gamesmanship - why not introduce this into
the system to allow each player to score their opponent on the speed of
play?

I know that I, for one, would fight this with my last breath....

I can tell you it won't happen at either NASAMW or FHE run events and I
would
certainly discourage its use in any way I could at other Warrior events.

Slow play is often a style and not a sportsmanship issue. Peer
'sportsmanship' scores are not a solution to bad sports. The solution to
bad sports is to
not allow them to play until they become good sports and to set the example
for good sportsmanship yourself.

J


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



_____

Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


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

[joncleaves]

> but there are prizes, good and bad awarded for the good/bad
sports - after
> all, bad sports hate to be identified as such (and are many times
very
> surprised by it).>>

We already give a prize for good sportsmanship.

I am intrigued by the idea of a 'bad sport' prize. Have you
actually done this? Has it has any bad effect on others seeing a
guy singled out like that?

>
> While I appreciate your passion on the subject >>

Don't confuse passion with definitiveness, Scott...lol There will
not be anything mixed in with first place in our tourneys. The
winner will be the winner of the games.

Now, it's ok with me if the merits of such a system or lack thereof
are debated here - nothing wrong with that - but I don't want anyone
spending their time on it thinking it might happen in an NASAMW or
FHE (to include Fifth Horseman) Warrior event. One is free to run a
non-NASAMW/FHE Warrior event using any scoring system (and table
size, deployment, point value, terrain...) they like. But it won't
happen in an official tourney.

I also wrote that mail that way to head off the inevitable ton of
offline mail begging me to not institute such an idea - with which I
had only marginal success...lol

Jon

[Todd Schneider]

Scott,

It can also be abused beyond belief, with little or no
recourse to the player who was scored low.
IMO, Anytime you introduce a subjective scoring
system, where "my" opinion of what you play and how
you play it affects your overall score, your bringing
more harm than good.

Besides, what happens if your suggestion takes place,
but then you don't agree with the "properly weighted
Point Value Total". What's your recourse, other than
not participating?

It's a can of worms best left unopened IMO.

Todd S.

That is why you average all of the scores - that way no score has unusual
weight. Also the judge has the authority to remove one of the scores from
the group before averaging them. Depending upon the # of rounds, you could
eliminate the bottom and the top from each group before averaging, etc.
There is more than one way to skin this cat. This is no different than any
of the grading systems that you were subjected to while in school - the
teacher, I mean Judge has the final word.

My experience is that while this is a subjective rating of your peers; most,
if not all, will take this task seriously and there are very few abuses of
the privilege. Also, the weighting on this is very low in the grand scheme
of things. If two people are neck and neck, then the "good guy" *might*
pull ahead of the bad guy, just enough to win.

What you are saying about not agreeing with the system is true - but it is
also true of everything that makes a tournament a tournament: # of rounds,
how long each round is, when you start that weekend (Friday vs. Saturday),
etc., etc., etc...there are hundreds of variations that will entice as well
as repulse potential players, this being only one of them.

Now then, with all of that being said - this was only a suggestion to get
away from the clock idea for the very reasons that Jon and others have said.
I am not proposing it become official at anybody's tournaments. The only
thing I said was that it is something that I have witnessed / been part of
and it seemed to work...

Scott A McCoppin, AIA
mccoppinarchitecture, pa
704.560.4154
architecture@...

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Schneider [mailto:thresh1642@...]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 12:05 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] clocks, etc., stalling...

Scott,

It can also be abused beyond belief, with little or no
recourse to the player who was scored low.
IMO, Anytime you introduce a subjective scoring
system, where "my" opinion of what you play and how
you play it affects your overall score, your bringing
more harm than good.

Besides, what happens if your suggestion takes place,
but then you don't agree with the "properly weighted
Point Value Total". What's your recourse, other than
not participating?

It's a can of worms best left unopened IMO.

Todd S.






_____

Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


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

Not me personally, but I have seen it done - it was the Booby Prize
(complete with an anatomically correct trophy)….obviously it was given
mostly tongue in cheek with a lot of ribbing and joking. The point was made
without upsetting anybody.

By not mixing anything in with the game scoring, you are taking a position
on what is important to you and your tournament. I don’t say this as a
judgement but rather as recognizing a particular philosophy about what
winning a tournament means. When taking that tact, you are basing your
judgement 100% on the end and not the means. By doing so, you run the risk
of tactics like stalling not to lose, etc. as being a viable strategy to
reach the winners table. That places the burden completely on the shoulders
of the judges / umpires of keeping these so called strategems to a minimum –
which I can attest to is difficult at best.

So, as I said in another response:
this was only a suggestion to get
away from the clock idea for the very reasons that Jon and others have said.
I am not proposing it become official at anybody's tournaments. The only
thing I said was that it is something that I have witnessed / been part of
and it seemed to work...

Personally, I will not be attending any tournaments anytime soon (with
trying to get my own business off the ground, a two year old running around
and a wife who works weekends), so I don’t really care how anybody is judged
the winner or the loser - these were just thoughts to ponder (and to keep
the offline mail flowing to you and the others…lol).

Good luck.

Scott A McCoppin, AIA
mccoppinarchitecture, pa
704.560.4154
architecture@...

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 12:05 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: clocks, etc., stalling...


> but there are prizes, good and bad awarded for the good/bad
sports - after
> all, bad sports hate to be identified as such (and are many times
very
> surprised by it).>>

We already give a prize for good sportsmanship.

I am intrigued by the idea of a 'bad sport' prize. Have you
actually done this? Has it has any bad effect on others seeing a
guy singled out like that?

>
> While I appreciate your passion on the subject >>

Don't confuse passion with definitiveness, Scott...lol There will
not be anything mixed in with first place in our tourneys. The
winner will be the winner of the games.

Now, it's ok with me if the merits of such a system or lack thereof
are debated here - nothing wrong with that - but I don't want anyone
spending their time on it thinking it might happen in an NASAMW or
FHE (to include Fifth Horseman) Warrior event. One is free to run a
non-NASAMW/FHE Warrior event using any scoring system (and table
size, deployment, point value, terrain...) they like. But it won't
happen in an official tourney.

I also wrote that mail that way to head off the inevitable ton of
offline mail begging me to not institute such an idea - with which I
had only marginal success...lol

Jon



_____

Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/17/2004 2:07:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,
sctrac@... writes:

> By not mixing anything in with the game scoring, you are
> taking a position
> on what is important to you and your tournament.>>

Not exactly.

Sportsmanship is very important to me. Scott and I recognize exceptional
sportsmanship and intervene with bad sports, which are blissfully few, if any.

By not mixing anything in with game scoring, we don't water down a hard earned
victory with subjective stuff.

Jon

[scott holder]

Sportsmanship is very important to me. Scott and I recognize exceptional
sportsmanship and intervene with bad sports, which are blissfully few, if any.

>NASAMW has truely been leading the way in terms of recognizing Sportsmanship in
gaming.

>I'm constantly stuck these days how "better behaved" our tournament games are
when compared to the rest of the stuff that goes on in a convention. It's
really eye opening.

scott