Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:

> From: "wdknee88" <eturner@...>
> Subject: Different tourney format changes
>
> Time: one day tourneys 3.5 hour rounds Starting times 8:30, 2:30, 7:00
>
> This gives a large block of time in the center of the day for player
> to use.

This idea has possibilities, if you can really make 3.5 hour rounds work. I for
one don't mind starting at 8:30, especially if it buys some extra midday time.

>
> Ways to quicken them:
> Change the Terrain picking system slightly by removing two terrain
> picks but give a guaranteed Terrain pick. So, a player would come to
> the table a pre-picked guaranteed and two diced terrain picks.

I have to say this idea has a _lot_ of appeal. It not only saves time on terrain
picks, but by giving a player a better idea of what terrain he can pick, it
makes it easier for the player to visualize his battle plan _before_ getting to
the gaming table. That will save time in both set up and early bound execution,
which, in my opinion, is where most time gets wasted.

I'm wondering if this involves an actual rules _change_ to Warrior, however,
since it involves non of the terrain picking systems mentioned in the rules.
Perhaps Jon can render an opinion here.

> Increase the rear zone to 480 paces. In both scales, this give close
> order foot the ability to fight early in the game. Basically, close
> order foot will be able to march within 240 p on the first turn, in
> 15s maybe longer. This has been tested many times at regional
> tourneys and has been received as a favorable format change. It
> slightly reduces the power of Light Infant. They will still slow down
> the close order foot but they may not be able to run way out in front
> their army and pin down the enemy foot.
>

This actually has a lot of appeal to me as well. I'm of the opinion that light
infantry is too powerful as it is (that's why I always use lots of it), so
anything that mitigates that is good. I worry about deployments that help foot
armies having the consequence of penalizing cav armies, but in this case I don't
think that would happen. I think the deeper deployment area would actually help
cav armies too.


> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:44:29 -0000
> From: "Greg Regets" <greg.regets@...>
> Subject: Re: tourney formats
>
> Pregame - If you are late for a game, for any reason, you forfet ...
> PERIOD! Being late for a game is rude and bad sportsmenship.

So, this is just too extreme. Yes, being late is bad sportsmanship, but I don't
think we change that by penalizing people. I think we change that by encouraging
and rewarding good sportsmanship, something I think we do much better than other
miniatures groups.

> Players
> must have an army list, fatigue sheet and troops ready at the START
> of the time period for that game. None of this filling out fatigue
> sheets while the other guy is waiting to play.

I agree, thought at the NICT this is never really an issue. Everyone has gone to
the trouble to submit their lists to Scott ahead of time, so they generally have
them all ready to go at game time too.

>
> Terrain - Have a call person for each terrain placement. Give a 30
> second window for each placement. If you miss your 30 second window,
> you don't get to place that terrain choice. This makes terrain take
> exactly 4 minutes.
>

Again, this is too heavy-handed. This is exactly the kind of mentality I _don't_
want to encourage in Warrior. If I wanted this kind of tension I'd go back to
playing tournament chess.

> Deployment - Each command gets two minutes to deploy. At the end of
> the two-minute window, anything in that command not in position on
> the table gets put back in the box and will not be used for that
> game. Assuming three commands for each army, deployment takes 12
> minutes.

As above. Just too heavy-handed, and I don't want to see us go that route any
more than I want to see us start using chess clocks.

>
> Lists - 1500 points. That extra 100 points slows the game down more
> than any other playing factor. Removing 100 points removes the "wall
> of lead" tactic from all but the cheapest army.
>
You will get me to play 1500 points when you pry that last 100 points of figures
from my cold, dead fingers. We used to play 1500 points years ago, as Scott well
remembers, and 1600 is a HUGE improvement. It's exactly the right number to make
army lists with high minimums still flexible enough to be fun.

I don't mind playing 1200 points. To me that's a whole different game, more in
the "fast play" style. You accept that fewer armies are viable and go with it.

But to me, 1600 points is the point of "maximum viability" among army lists. At
1200 points armies with high minimums suffer, and frankly a number of them still
suffer at 1500. At 2000 points there are armies that actually run out of stuff
worth buying, and reach a real point of diminishing returns in terms of what
they can put on the table (Post Mongol Russian and 1st Crusade come to mind as
examples). So we need 1600 points, and we need it to be _exactly_ 1600 points.

> Mechanics - State your distance as you move your stuff. This
> eliminates lots of measuring, as the possible distance one can get to
> becomes obvious.
>
> Approach/Counter/Retirement/March - Players should start at one end
> of the table and within reason, approach move to the other. Eliminate
> all this moving a unit on the right, then moving something over on
> the left, then going back over to the right again ... etc.

I agree heartily with all this, and most experienced players follow this style.
Newer players should be coached to adapt this approach. One of the additional
benefits of side-to-side approaches, etc. is that when your opponent as clearly
finished foot approaches on one flank, you can start yours while he's finishing
up on the other side, etc.

> IF YOU
> TAKE YOUR HAND OFF A UNIT THAT YOU HAVE TOUCHED, YOU CAN'T MOVE IT
> AGAIN UNTIL CHARGES!
>

Again, too heavy-handed. We're all trying to be gentlemen here, so be flexible,
be patient, and relax. The whole "you touch it you moved it" attitude again
smacks too much of the high tension of tournament chess. We don't want that, and
we don't need that.

> General Stuff - You shouldn't talk to anyone other than the guy you
> are playing for any more than a quick hello. While playing a game,
> stick to topics pertaining to the game.

Couldn't disagree more. Obviously side conversation that overly intrudes on the
pace of the game is discourteous, and people should recognize that. But I have
people that have been good friends for years that I only see at Cold Wars and
Historicon. These big national tournaments are social occaisions as well as
competitive occaisions, and that's part of what makes the hobby enjoyable.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/13/2004 19:04:33 Central Standard Time,
mark@... writes:
I'm wondering if this involves an actual rules _change_ to Warrior, however,
since it involves non of the terrain picking systems mentioned in the rules.
Perhaps Jon can render an opinion here.
It does not. FHE does not mandate any particular tourney format. 14.0 is a
baseline set of suggestions and the second printing will have others in it as
well.


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