Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[scott holder]

We had a good turnout, 36 players. The Mini Campaign Theme event was very
warmly received. I had at least half a dozen very positive comments and one
very negative one. I thoroughly enjoyed it. 45 minutes into my first game (1st
Crusade vs Syrians) my rust was showing and I was getting hammered on the table.
I then decided it was time to get marginally hammered from the beer cooler. By
the third round, Ed Bernhard and I were battling for the basement, he had 290
points left, I had 710. We decided to duke it out using the FW versions of our
armies and that worked quite well. What was really cool is that 4 players had
10-11 points after 3 rounds so we had a 4 player 4th round which Sean Scott won.
Obviously his 1st Crusaders did better than mine did:):)

Jon and I ended up playing in the 15mm Doubles tourney in order to have even
numbers all around. Fortunately I'd shaken the rust out of my play the day
before. We cranked through the first two rounds (vs Lusigan Cypriot and then
LIR) and then hit fellow Ho Bill and his partner, longtime player Mike
Mallamaci, in the 3rd round running Ghaznavid. A very well played game on both
sides. Jon and I had some shots, they didn't work. This was the type of game
Rob Turnball likes if he has to lose. By that he means he hates losing 5-1 and
not having any idea how he lost the game. If he loses 5-1 and had some good
shots at winning that didn't work out, he's much more sanquine about the loss.
That pretty much describes our 3rd game vs Bill and Mike. It was really fun
running Antigonus and Demetrius in a doubles environment despite it's
limitations as a pike trash army.

The Gupta-Khmer matchup in round 2 in 25mm had 27 or 28 elephants on the table,
great fun. Mike Kelly brought 25mm Midianites and they were gorgeous. What a
sight! And several of the all medieval battles were totally chaotic looking
with color and standards pointing every which direction.

And just when we thought the Muslims would prevail in the Mini Campaign Theme,
Sean Scott and the reprehensible 1st Crusaders fought back to win the whole
thing. We had 3 Christian armies in the 10 player event and you can see how
poorly the other two did:):)

Just a reminder to everyone: all tourneys at Historicon will be ONE LIST
tournaments. That includes the NICT.

Jon (with some help from Jake and others) ran a 25mm demo Friday night, Medieval
German Princes vs Hussites. I don't know if we made any converts but we did
manage to work out the remaining kinks in Hussites:) Expect some FW demo
games at Hcon.

Robert Hofrichter, a buddy of Charlie Randow's and an EX-dbm player was awarded
Sportsman.

Many many thanks to Ed Bernhard for running the Mini Campaign Theme on Friday
and for loaning me lead.

Everybody talked about armies they were now going to paint. Both Rob and Jevon
are planning on doing Berbers in 25mm. Somebody else was going to do Paleo
Byzantine in 25mm. And of course I purchased all the Spanish needed for Cortez
in Mexico. The new Aztecs will make their first appearance at TwisterCon next
month. Maybe I'll actually get a game in with them first:) Would be the
first time in about 10 years I've played em.

25mm Mini Theme Campaign Results:

1st Sean Scott, 1st Crusades 16pts *NICT qualifier
2nd Eric Turner, Ott Turks 15pts
3rd Scott McDonald, N. Byz. 14pts
4th Dick Hurch., Ott Turks 13pts
5th Jevon Garrett, Berber 10pts
6th Mark Cribbs, Syrian 8pts
7th Mike Kelly, Islm Pers. 7pts
8th Scott Holder, 1st Crus 7pts
9th Tom Keegan, Ghaznavid 5pts
10th Ed Bernhard, Georgian 4pts

15mm Mini Theme Campaign Results:

1st Charles Randow, Ghaznavid 12pts *NICT qualifier
2nd Devon Low, Nik Byzantine 8pts
3rd Bill Low, Ghaznavids 7pts
4th Dan Woyke, Nik Byzantine 6pts
5th Mark Hissam, Lus. Cypriot 5pts
6th Phil Gardocki,Seljuks 2pts

25mm Doubles Results:

1st Dave Stier & Frank Gilson, Medieval Spanish, 13 pts *NICT Qualifiers
2nd Rob Turnball & Dick Hurchanik, Komenan Byzantine, 9 pts
3rd Dave Markowitz & Chris Damour, Khmer, 9 pts
4th Jevon Garrett & Sean Scott, Romanian Frank, 9 pts
5th Mark Stone & Bill Chamis, Romanian Frank, 9 pts
6th Mike Kelly & Scott McDonald, Midianite, 7 pts
7th Tim Brown & Ambrose Coddington, Gupta, 7 pts
8th Marc Cribbs & Jim Bisigani, L Macedonian, 6 pts
9th Eric Turner & Tom Keegan, Yuan, 5 pts
10th Chris Schulitz & Other, Feudal French, 5 pts


15mm Doubles Results:

1st Bill Low & Mike Mallamaci, Ghaznavid, 14 pts *NICT Qualifiers
2nd Scott Holder & Jon Cleaves, Asiatic Early Successor, 11 pts
3rd Devin Low & Dan Woyke, Late Imperial Roman, 10 pts
4th Mark Hissam & John Murphy, Lusignan Cypriot, 9 pts
5th Ed Whittaker & Craig Scott, Sassanid, 7 pts
6th Charles Randow & Robert Hofrichter, Slav, 6 pts
7th Dave Boor & Carolyn Cotton, Swiss, 6 pts
8th Ed Bernhard & Phil Gardocki, Merovingian Frank, 5 pts

SPORTSMAN: ROBERT HOFRICHTER

For the latest NICT qualifier list, go to:
http://www.dauphinehotel.com/nict99.htm
We currently have 27 people qualified. Please run more regional events so we
can qualify more folks. Next up will be TwisterCon.

Quick question from Australia, where we are just moving into Warrior
for comps. What point size do you guys run for 15mm and 25mm
comps ? I've had a little experience in TOG playing 1,500 pt 15mm in
the annual comp at CanCon, the national convention. Others play
smaller. After reading suggested army sizes in Warrior, I suggested
we in Oz might try 1,600 pts but I seem to be alone in thinking this
would work. People here have expressed concern about games of this
size taking too long for a comp. So what works over the water ?

jerry hearn

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/12/2003 23:51:30 Central Standard Time,
jerryhearnau@... writes:

> After reading suggested army sizes in Warrior, I suggested
> we in Oz might try 1,600 pts but I seem to be alone in thinking this
> would work. People here have expressed concern about games of this
> size taking too long for a comp. So what works over the water ?
>

My recommendation: stay at 1500 or lower and less than four hours. There is
a strong contingent here that LIKES four hour games so we are stuck with it,
but I personally hate the format - way too long. It encourages a lot of
'dicking around'..lol

I'd like to think there are comps in the world not subject to this.... :)


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

[scott holder]

Quick question from Australia, where we are just moving into Warrior
for comps. What point size do you guys run for 15mm and 25mm
comps ? I've had a little experience in TOG playing 1,500 pt 15mm in
the annual comp at CanCon, the national convention. Others play
smaller. After reading suggested army sizes in Warrior, I suggested
we in Oz might try 1,600 pts but I seem to be alone in thinking this
would work. People here have expressed concern about games of this
size taking too long for a comp. So what works over the water ?

>1600 point armies are the "standard" here for an open event. 1200 point armies
are what we call "mini" tournaments. Game times are 4 hours for 1600 points, 3
hours for 1200 points. I occasionally get "suggestions" to cut back the 1600
point game times to 3.5 hours but haven't as of yet. Personally, I prefer 1200
point 3 hour games.

>Jake has run some local tourneys at 1350 points but I don't know the time
length of the game.

scott

[Tim Grimmett]

I'm surprised Eric Turner hasn't given his "solution" to this
which is as follows:

1400 pts on a 3x5 board with 12' rear zones. You can approach
on the first bound. Games can finish in 3 hours.

Three years ago, Chris Damour and Eric had a game over in 30
minutes; Vikings vs some other barbarian trash army.

Great format--try it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Holder, Scott [mailto:Scott.Holder@...]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 3:18 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] Re: Cold Wars WARRIOR Wrap Up


Quick question from Australia, where we are just moving into Warrior
for comps. What point size do you guys run for 15mm and 25mm
comps ? I've had a little experience in TOG playing 1,500 pt 15mm in
the annual comp at CanCon, the national convention. Others play
smaller. After reading suggested army sizes in Warrior, I suggested
we in Oz might try 1,600 pts but I seem to be alone in thinking this
would work. People here have expressed concern about games of this
size taking too long for a comp. So what works over the water ?

>1600 point armies are the "standard" here for an open event. 1200 point
armies are what we call "mini" tournaments. Game times are 4 hours for 1600
points, 3 hours for 1200 points. I occasionally get "suggestions" to cut
back the 1600 point game times to 3.5 hours but haven't as of yet.
Personally, I prefer 1200 point 3 hour games.

>Jake has run some local tourneys at 1350 points but I don't know the time
length of the game.

scott


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245454.2994396.4323964.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=17050590
80:HM/A=1457554/R=0/*http://ipunda.com/clk/beibunmaisuiyuiwabei>

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=245454.2994396.4323964.2848452/D=egroupmai
l/S=:HM/A=1457554/rand=342749460>

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



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 3/13/2003 1:30:32 PM Eastern Standard Time,
grimmetttb@... writes:

> 1400 pts on a 3x5 board with 12' rear zones. You can
> approach
> on the first bound. Games can finish in 3 hours.>>

I would submit that a game with that format can easily be accomplished in two
hours.

Fast Warrior has shown that there really isn't any need for 3+ hour games.
NASAMW continues the 3.5+ hour format because 'most of the players want it'. If
you don't like games being forced to go that long - pile on Scott. :)

[scott holder]

I'm surprised Eric Turner hasn't given his "solution" to this
which is as follows:

1400 pts on a 3x5 board with 12' rear zones. You can approach
on the first bound. Games can finish in 3 hours.

Three years ago, Chris Damour and Eric had a game over in 30
minutes; Vikings vs some other barbarian trash army.

Great format--try it.

>This would be in 15mm for those of you who didn't know:):)

>Eric has been running Richmond events for years with deepened deployment zones
and smaller point sizes. It is fun. Not something I'm sure I'd want to do the
rest of my life mind you.

>I might playtest an open format at Fall In this year in which we a)cut down
army size to 1500, and b) have 3.5 hour games, or c) a combination of both.

>Players elsewhere should try these formats and more importantly, share them
with us.

>I'm really glad to see our friends down under are happy and playing Warrior.
Just another reason to make a trip there someday.

scott

[scott holder]

I would submit that a game with that format can easily be accomplished in two
hours. Fast Warrior has shown that there really isn't any need for 3+ hour
games.

>I'm not so sure I'd agree with that and both me and Jon are somewhat high tempo
players so in many ways he's preaching to the choir. At Cold Wars, each of our
doubles games took about 30 minutes to setup/deploy. Now that was 2000 points
but at the same time, we didn't have any great number of units (lotsa Agema and
Companions but only 4 pike blocks). Soooooo, I'm still not convinced that games
under 3 hours (at a certain minimum army size) is a good thing. But read on.

NASAMW continues the 3.5+ hour format because 'most of the players want it'.
If you don't like games being forced to go that long - pile on Scott. :)

>"We Fear Change". See other email. For the Open event at Fall In, we'll
playtest some shortened time format and I'd encourage others to attempt the
same. I'm gradually attempting to try things on our loyal player base to see
how they play and how the players adapt. First one is the single list NICT.
You wouldn't believe how many people asked me about that at Cold Wars.

>Believe me, as a player and umpire, 4 hour games are not ideal. As Jon put it,
there's way too much dicking around in *some* quarters. I watched the Belgians
*shudder* run 1600 points of Mongols at the "world" championships in 1990 in 3.5
hour games without problems. But.....they had preset terrain. That in and of
itself isn't the issue since terrain really shouldn't take more than a couple of
minutes to deploy. It was the fact that the battefields were incredibly open.
In the 'Merkin context of play, we like to potentially hose up the battlefield
with terrain and that often slows down the game or forces players to adapt to
the conditions, which can potentially take time, hence, longer games. And I
don't want to penalize players who make intelligent terrain choices and
placement. To quote Jon in our 3rd round game, "good thing we picked those four
brush":)

>So, in some ways, it's like comparing apples and oranges. OTOH, for 10 years
now, I've wanted to cut down time length for 1600 point games. So, we'll
conduct an experiment later this year to see how it goes. I mean if we knocked
it down to 3.5 hours, that leaves 30 minutes for setup/deployment and 3 hours
for play. I know *I* can usually win or lose a game in 3 hours regardless of
how many points I'm playing.

Scott

[joncleaves]

Players don't take 30 minutes to set up when they only have two hours to get the
game in, Scott.

And you'd actually have a chance to shop in the dealer room that day.....

[scott holder]

Players don't take 30 minutes to set up when they only have two hours to get
the game in, Scott.

And you'd actually have a chance to shop in the dealer room that day.....

>That's what Sundays are for:):)

>Be patient young apprentice *sounding like pedantic Jedi knight*, we'll get
there. Anyway, Demetrius, don't you have some drinking, wenching and pirating
to do? I'm mouldering in some battlefield somewhere:):)

scott

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/13/2003 10:12:02 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Scott.Holder@... writes:

> That's what Sundays are for:)>>

Sundays are for finals...lol. Besides, I don't like waiting.
>
> >Be patient young apprentice *sounding like pedantic Jedi knight*, we'll get
there. >>

Sorry, I'm the vader now. Besides, my lightsaber is longer.

<< Anyway, Demetrius, don't you have some drinking, wenching and pirating to do?
I'm mouldering in
> some battlefield somewhere:)>>

I had to take a break to pluck those damn Ghazi arrows out of my butt...

Another Quick question from Australia, these 1200 point competitions
you play, do you find it necessary to modify the lists? The
impression i've gathered from the lists so far available is thst
there designed for somewhat larger games than the old 6th or 7th
lists. In general they seem to require considerably more points
expenditure on compulsory minimums > Thanks,
Martin

[joncleaves]

Another Quick question from Australia, these 1200 point competitions
you play, do you find it necessary to modify the lists? >>

No, Martin, we do not. Yes, this means that minimums comprise a greater
percentage of the army than with a 1600 or 2000 point force, but then again you
get more of the 'flavor' of the army this way.

Jon

Which brings me to a question I had in the past: At what point value do
we "double the list"?

In CW, a FC can command up to 5,000 ap's with no penalty if his rating
is high enough, and in some lists it would be difficult to find 5,000
points of troops and even if we did, the proportions would be skewed
from historical compositions....


-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 4:31 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Cold Wars WARRIOR Wrap Up



Another Quick question from Australia, these 1200 point
competitions
you play, do you find it necessary to modify the lists? >>

No, Martin, we do not. Yes, this means that minimums comprise a
greater percentage of the army than with a 1600 or 2000 point force, but
then again you get more of the 'flavor' of the army this way.

Jon


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=1705
059080:HM/A=1481659/R=0/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/300_yh1
/g22lp?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl>

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egrou
pmail/S=:HM/A=1481659/rand=742743289>

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



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]

Scott

CW permits (and will encourage) proportioning down to a lesser point value for
the game. The new version I am working on has 'rules' for games as low as
500-600 points a side.

It will also have rules giving the troops with the most common minimums higher
maximums.

I will show you the new section as soon as it is done.

Jon