Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Afternoon Dave,

You hit upon an issue I have with Warrior. The morale and fatigue
system does nothing to add to the enjoyment of the game infact for
me, its a turn-off. I prefer the 6th Ed. way of handling morale and
the issue of fatigue was not part of the rules system.

If you want to show fatigue then reflect it as a minus 1 in combat
for each time u are pushed back. If you rally and push back the unit
you had been forced back by, then you start over again with no minus
for combat and your opponent now counts the minus 1 for each combat
lost. Simple and affective.

The other problem I have is with 15th century armies taking on 4th
century armies as an example. I believe we need to play more theme
tourneys. It pisses me off when I have this great Alexandrian Army
and my opponent would rather throw trash troops against the center
and charge his knights on the flank. Come on guys, lets play like
men and push the real troops into each others center.

Flank attacks are part of the tactics and its not really an issue as
I will use them too. But the push of Pikes or the wild charge of the
goths against the Roman line is what it is about. Period armies
allow for the quality of the General to come out.

Some of my views.

Jack Young
--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "David Smith" <davidsmith@k...>
wrote:
>
> Gents;
>
> I've been remiss, since Border Wars, here in KC, in posting these
> comments and hopefully illiciting some feedback. Bear in mind,
that
> I've yet to play a full Warrior game (soon to change), but did have
> a lot of experience with 6th/7th. These observations are based from
> the perspective of an objective observer that has familiarity with
> many tabletop ancient (and non-ancient) games.
>
> Observation #1: I do not ever recall, when I played TOG and 6th,
> having the battlefield clutter that I observed at Border Wars. By
> that, I mean, it looked like someone had come along and dropped a
> scrabble game on many of tables. In some cases, the letters (which
> stood for Tired, Disordered, etc) dwarfed the figures on the table,
> and were even piled on top of the figures, making it look like a
> unit of T's was fighting a unit of D's. Very distracting for a
> casual observer, I thought.
>
> We used to take great pride in the PUB of our ancient games played
> at our local club, HASA (Heart of America Society of Ancients).
PUB
> stood for "prettying up the battlefield", and we used figures for
> casualties and disorder, used our unit rosters to track fatigue,
and
> generally kept a pretty clean tabletop. We also used some pretty
> nifty terrain pieces, and our goal was to make the game as
enjoyable
> to watch as it was to play.
>
> I know I probably care too much about the aesthetics of the hobby,
> but I think IMHO there should be a nice balance, otherwise we
should
> all play boardgames. This segways into my other observation, which
> is along the same vein as the first one:
>
> Observation #2: In some of the games I saw, the figure morphing
that
> was done was so extensive and exaggerated that you would not have
> been able to guess the army. I understand that it is sometimes
> necessary to use figures that are not what they appear to be, but
> geez, louise, I couldn't have guessed one particular army in a
> million years.
>
> Again, I note, that I probably tend to want to see more eye candy,
> and the proper figs used with my games, (I want my Alexandrian
> phalanx to look like that-not landsknechts). I did overhear some
> casual observers in the dealer hall chuckling about some of the
> games. I think this can do more to dissuade someone from getting
> into the hobby/system, etc. than anything else.
>
> Compare that to the Flames of War tourney that was run previous to
> the Warrior tourney-superbly painted and correctly presented
> figures. Great looking terrain and buildings. And, most, if not
> all the participants were the same in both tourneys. Go figure.
>
> As one that is entering the Warrior world soon, I hope to play in
> some exciting, and challenging games, but ones that are also nice
to
> look at and enjoy.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave Smith

[Todd Schneider]

Jack,

Have you playtested this to see how it affects the
combat system?

Todd


--- "Aubrey J. Young" <captainjack75040@...>
wrote:


---------------------------------

Afternoon Dave,

You hit upon an issue I have with Warrior. The morale
and fatigue
system does nothing to add to the enjoyment of the
game infact for
me, its a turn-off. I prefer the 6th Ed. way of
handling morale and
the issue of fatigue was not part of the rules system.

If you want to show fatigue then reflect it as a minus
1 in combat
for each time u are pushed back. If you rally and
push back the unit
you had been forced back by, then you start over again
with no minus
for combat and your opponent now counts the minus 1
for each combat
lost. Simple and affective.

The other problem I have is with 15th century armies
taking on 4th
century armies as an example. I believe we need to
play more theme
tourneys. It pisses me off when I have this great
Alexandrian Army
and my opponent would rather throw trash troops
against the center
and charge his knights on the flank. Come on guys,
lets play like
men and push the real troops into each others center.

Flank attacks are part of the tactics and its not
really an issue as
I will use them too. But the push of Pikes or the
wild charge of the
goths against the Roman line is what it is about.
Period armies
allow for the quality of the General to come out.

Some of my views.

Jack Young
--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "David Smith"
<davidsmith@k...>
wrote:
>
> Gents;
>
> I've been remiss, since Border Wars, here in KC, in
posting these
> comments and hopefully illiciting some feedback.
Bear in mind,
that
> I've yet to play a full Warrior game (soon to
change), but did have
> a lot of experience with 6th/7th. These observations
are based from
> the perspective of an objective observer that has
familiarity with
> many tabletop ancient (and non-ancient) games.
>
> Observation #1: I do not ever recall, when I played
TOG and 6th,
> having the battlefield clutter that I observed at
Border Wars. By
> that, I mean, it looked like someone had come along
and dropped a
> scrabble game on many of tables. In some cases, the
letters (which
> stood for Tired, Disordered, etc) dwarfed the
figures on the table,
> and were even piled on top of the figures, making it
look like a
> unit of T's was fighting a unit of D's. Very
distracting for a
> casual observer, I thought.
>
> We used to take great pride in the PUB of our
ancient games played
> at our local club, HASA (Heart of America Society of
Ancients).
PUB
> stood for "prettying up the battlefield", and we
used figures for
> casualties and disorder, used our unit rosters to
track fatigue,
and
> generally kept a pretty clean tabletop. We also
used some pretty
> nifty terrain pieces, and our goal was to make the
game as
enjoyable
> to watch as it was to play.
>
> I know I probably care too much about the aesthetics
of the hobby,
> but I think IMHO there should be a nice balance,
otherwise we
should
> all play boardgames. This segways into my other
observation, which
> is along the same vein as the first one:
>
> Observation #2: In some of the games I saw, the
figure morphing
that
> was done was so extensive and exaggerated that you
would not have
> been able to guess the army. I understand that it
is sometimes
> necessary to use figures that are not what they
appear to be, but
> geez, louise, I couldn't have guessed one particular
army in a
> million years.
>
> Again, I note, that I probably tend to want to see
more eye candy,
> and the proper figs used with my games, (I want my
Alexandrian
> phalanx to look like that-not landsknechts). I did
overhear some
> casual observers in the dealer hall chuckling about
some of the
> games. I think this can do more to dissuade someone
from getting
> into the hobby/system, etc. than anything else.
>
> Compare that to the Flames of War tourney that was
run previous to
> the Warrior tourney-superbly painted and correctly
presented
> figures. Great looking terrain and buildings. And,
most, if not
> all the participants were the same in both tourneys.
Go figure.
>
> As one that is entering the Warrior world soon, I
hope to play in
> some exciting, and challenging games, but ones that
are also nice
to
> look at and enjoy.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave Smith




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 10/13/2004 08:19:23 Central Daylight Time,
captainjack75040@... writes:

Barker created Warrior for various reasons but the
one I understand is he was trying to bring a new concept in his
rules. Warrior is a very good attempt to recreate the 7th Ed. but it
has also brought some inherent problems with it, but will not talk
about them at this time. My main concern is with the Fatigue Element
of Warrior, it waste time, and is a pain to manage.


Phil Barker did not 'create Warrior'...lol But he did create 7th which is
the game engine Warrior uses. And the fatigue 'system' in Warrior was taken
from that engine. In fact, that is one of several areas in which they are the
same. Which means design complaints about fatigue points should be sent
to...oh never mind. Send them here...lol

It is also not changing, for many reasons, one of which is how well it
works... This is not to say a 'new' system cannot be discussed here - in fact
it
might make a great x-rule.

Keep those cards and letters coming! :)

Jon


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

Todd,

Actually I have in other gaming systems. It does work! Now, I have
been playing WRG rules since 1974 and know something about the rules
and how they play. WRG 6th Ed. was the best end result of a
consistance set of rules that brought a lot of us enjoyment in acient
miniature gaming. Barker created Warrior for various reasons but the
one I understand is he was trying to bring a new concept in his
rules. Warrior is a very good attempt to recreate the 7th Ed. but it
has also brought some inherent problems with it, but will not talk
about them at this time. My main concern is with the Fatigue Element
of Warrior, it waste time, and is a pain to manage. Does it
represent factors that actual troops might have on the battle field,
yes, it does a good job of that. 6th ed. used a set of conditions
and dice roll to reflect the same. It too seem to be a waste of
time. But in time one could tell by a moral roll, if the troop
morale type would pass it or not. Only going to the conditions
found on the cheat sheet to confirm the roll if it was close. Barker
could have cut those down to a smaller set of on field battle
conditions and would have had the same results.

Ok then, need to end this email at this time.

Todd, be well.

Jack Young.
--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Schneider <thresh1642@s...>
wrote:
> Jack,
>
> Have you playtested this to see how it affects the
> combat system?
>
> Todd
>
>
> --- "Aubrey J. Young" <captainjack75040@y...>
> wrote:
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
> Afternoon Dave,
>
> You hit upon an issue I have with Warrior. The morale
> and fatigue
> system does nothing to add to the enjoyment of the
> game infact for
> me, its a turn-off. I prefer the 6th Ed. way of
> handling morale and
> the issue of fatigue was not part of the rules system.
>
> If you want to show fatigue then reflect it as a minus
> 1 in combat
> for each time u are pushed back. If you rally and
> push back the unit
> you had been forced back by, then you start over again
> with no minus
> for combat and your opponent now counts the minus 1
> for each combat
> lost. Simple and affective.
>
> The other problem I have is with 15th century armies
> taking on 4th
> century armies as an example. I believe we need to
> play more theme
> tourneys. It pisses me off when I have this great
> Alexandrian Army
> and my opponent would rather throw trash troops
> against the center
> and charge his knights on the flank. Come on guys,
> lets play like
> men and push the real troops into each others center.
>
> Flank attacks are part of the tactics and its not
> really an issue as
> I will use them too. But the push of Pikes or the
> wild charge of the
> goths against the Roman line is what it is about.
> Period armies
> allow for the quality of the General to come out.
>
> Some of my views.
>
> Jack Young
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "David Smith"
> <davidsmith@k...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Gents;
> >
> > I've been remiss, since Border Wars, here in KC, in
> posting these
> > comments and hopefully illiciting some feedback.
> Bear in mind,
> that
> > I've yet to play a full Warrior game (soon to
> change), but did have
> > a lot of experience with 6th/7th. These observations
> are based from
> > the perspective of an objective observer that has
> familiarity with
> > many tabletop ancient (and non-ancient) games.
> >
> > Observation #1: I do not ever recall, when I played
> TOG and 6th,
> > having the battlefield clutter that I observed at
> Border Wars. By
> > that, I mean, it looked like someone had come along
> and dropped a
> > scrabble game on many of tables. In some cases, the
> letters (which
> > stood for Tired, Disordered, etc) dwarfed the
> figures on the table,
> > and were even piled on top of the figures, making it
> look like a
> > unit of T's was fighting a unit of D's. Very
> distracting for a
> > casual observer, I thought.
> >
> > We used to take great pride in the PUB of our
> ancient games played
> > at our local club, HASA (Heart of America Society of
> Ancients).
> PUB
> > stood for "prettying up the battlefield", and we
> used figures for
> > casualties and disorder, used our unit rosters to
> track fatigue,
> and
> > generally kept a pretty clean tabletop. We also
> used some pretty
> > nifty terrain pieces, and our goal was to make the
> game as
> enjoyable
> > to watch as it was to play.
> >
> > I know I probably care too much about the aesthetics
> of the hobby,
> > but I think IMHO there should be a nice balance,
> otherwise we
> should
> > all play boardgames. This segways into my other
> observation, which
> > is along the same vein as the first one:
> >
> > Observation #2: In some of the games I saw, the
> figure morphing
> that
> > was done was so extensive and exaggerated that you
> would not have
> > been able to guess the army. I understand that it
> is sometimes
> > necessary to use figures that are not what they
> appear to be, but
> > geez, louise, I couldn't have guessed one particular
> army in a
> > million years.
> >
> > Again, I note, that I probably tend to want to see
> more eye candy,
> > and the proper figs used with my games, (I want my
> Alexandrian
> > phalanx to look like that-not landsknechts). I did
> overhear some
> > casual observers in the dealer hall chuckling about
> some of the
> > games. I think this can do more to dissuade someone
> from getting
> > into the hobby/system, etc. than anything else.
> >
> > Compare that to the Flames of War tourney that was
> run previous to
> > the Warrior tourney-superbly painted and correctly
> presented
> > figures. Great looking terrain and buildings. And,
> most, if not
> > all the participants were the same in both tourneys.
> Go figure.
> >
> > As one that is entering the Warrior world soon, I
> hope to play in
> > some exciting, and challenging games, but ones that
> are also nice
> to
> > look at and enjoy.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Dave Smith
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.

Morning Jon,

I did not say that Barker created Warrior but that Warrior was
created from 7th Ed. So, sorry if I was not clear enough on that.

I agree that the fatigue system works and does well with what it
represents on the battlefield. I just believe that a better system
can be used to so the samething that does not waste time and is a
pain to use. What that system may be is of course open to various
interpretations. I suggested one that is simple and easy to use as
an example. I like the way morale was used in 6th Ed. as I have
said, but at the time sametime I recognized it had problems as well.
Its main problem was a long list of what ifs to get to the end result
combine with a dice roll. You could have cut it down to the most
important concerns one would have seen on a battlefield. I will if
asked, go into what I believe would be the concerns that should be
reflected on a battlefield for morale checks.

Just passing some thoughts along. Not attacking anyone, but pointing
out we have some problems with the current rules set that could be
addressed.

Jon, the efforts that was put in to Warrior and the Army List for it
shows quality work and no one can knock that. What is being said is
that today, we can make changes to the rules that makes them less of
a pain to play and more fun and not loose the quality that was put
into them.

My thoughts,

Jack Young.


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 10/13/2004 08:19:23 Central Daylight Time,
> captainjack75040@y... writes:
>
> Barker created Warrior for various reasons but the
> one I understand is he was trying to bring a new concept in his
> rules. Warrior is a very good attempt to recreate the 7th Ed. but
it
> has also brought some inherent problems with it, but will not talk
> about them at this time. My main concern is with the Fatigue
Element
> of Warrior, it waste time, and is a pain to manage.
>
>
> Phil Barker did not 'create Warrior'...lol But he did create 7th
which is
> the game engine Warrior uses. And the fatigue 'system' in Warrior
was taken
> from that engine. In fact, that is one of several areas in which
they are the
> same. Which means design complaints about fatigue points should
be sent
> to...oh never mind. Send them here...lol
>
> It is also not changing, for many reasons, one of which is how well
it
> works... This is not to say a 'new' system cannot be discussed
here - in fact it
> might make a great x-rule.
>
> Keep those cards and letters coming!
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

No worries, Jack.

<<I just believe that a better system
can be used to so the samething that does not waste time and is a
pain to use. >>

Well, I don't at all agree that the fatigue system is a waste of time or a pain
to use. But that's all personal preference.

What I think would be very useful is your recommended alternative to the Warrior
fatigue system so that we can look at it.

Jon