Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ewan McNay]

> From: JonCleaves@...
> 1. Shorter game lengths. I know I harp at this, but 4 hour games at 1600
points are unnecessarily long. They encourage slow play and prevent newer
players from enjoying the full range of activities at the con. There is no
'need' to have a four hour game to get a result - you can be decisive in Warrior
in far less time. What we have is players filling the space provided instead of
getting down to it.

Disagree: at least one, and maybe 2, of my NICT games suffered already
from being unable to force/get to significant contact even in the 4 hours,
without any egregious slow play.

I actually think that the solution here is to introduce chess timers, with
an expected minimum of (say) ten bounds; if that's not reached, some
mechanism for adjusting in favour of the non-time-offender.

For close foot to walk across the table, even *if* they start 120 back
from the center line (which is a heck of a burden to place), they had to
cover ten bounds worth of approach moves. That strikes me as hence being
a reasonable demand. If the bound minimum requires faster play, fine, but
losing an hour will not necessarily help!

[Scott, Derby played 3.5 hours, of which .5 hour was for setup. We
typically got around 12 bounds in.]

> 2. Prohibited terrain. I would like to see the following prohibited from
Warrior tourneys at HMGS cons: gullies, more than 6 elements of TFs and
'horizontal' minor water features. Holing up in this type of terrain makes one
a 'spoiler'. It takes both the placer and the other player out of contention.
Sure, maybe he'll get frustrated and attack and give you the '5' for trying but
that is nothing more than a cheap trick and is not what I would like to see
encouraged in the hobby. We want and need new blood and the new players'
reaction to this sort of thing (and not a few long-time players..) is quite
negative. The idea that it is the opponent's responsibility to attack in such
conditions is complete rubbish.

Despite the debacle with my river , I disagree here. As has been noted,
placement of a mWF is hardly controllable; I was unhappy to see the
placement that I got but that's life. Yes, players are often unhappy to
fight a defensively-minded opponent, but I do not think that one can or
should legislate against that; it's just the rub of the green, and winning
aggainst such is an important skill. Certainly, both gullies and mWF are
(to me) legit. TFs I have no opinion on, never having had them in a game.

On fortifications, though, allowing incendiary arrows if your opponent
*could* have e.g. wagon laager is a big negative to some armies having
such optional fortifications. Might be worth attention, or perhaps
mandated as a buy *in the list* before tourney - I guess that would cover
rocks and such also.

On one list, I'm a fan; I *do* think that it brings many more armies into
viability, provides some of thr 'best' armies with potential weaknesses,
and requires just as much skill and interest in designing lists.
Certainly I found it so before this NICT. Far more skill required in
getting a win against allcomers, I think. I would be very interested,
though, in actual examples of armies that are hurt overly by one-list. I
would guess that my Seleucids would be at the top of the list - and that
just gives them a vulnerability. The fact that I faced that vulnerability
twice this year should not mean that it cannot happen :-/

On format, I would be in favour - as I've mentioned to Scott several times
- of making the NICT 6-7 rounds, over the two days plus possible playoff
round. That'd largely eliminate problems of 'poor' matchups, and get a
much better sense for all the top players facing one another. I believe
that DBM now do this, and I think it's a huge positive.

On scale, one vote in favour of alternating scales (actually, I don't care
about scale, but altering table size, effectively). Or point level. Or
even requiring one day of 25mm, 1800 points, 7'x5', the second day of
15mm, 1200, also 7'x5', same army must be taken .

> > 6.161: As written, this gives a mixed body of LI/LC the ability to
> > charge anything, I think. [Exact text: "LI are permitted to charge
> > targets that LC could, or if in a mixed body with mounted troops."]
> > Mixed bodies are nowhere else covered, so this is their only
> > restriction - i.e., no restriction.>>
>
> Huh? What target that LC cannot charge can 'now' be charged by a mixed body
of LC/LI (which isn't what I would call common...lol)?

Agreed, not common. Many things are not.

LI can charge either (i) if LC could, or (ii) if in a mixed body. Do you
not see the point? I can try harder.

> From: kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@...>

Kelly - and Boyd, but Kelly's worst: TRIM YOUR POSTS, DAMNIT!

Those of us reading the digest do *not* need the several hundred lines
repeated just to see the one-line comment.

Thanks :)

> Just a modest suggestion a la Swift. In truth, any of this kind of
> tinkering will produce tournaments where everyone runs either: a
> bunch of irreg A troops; machine gun camels; machine gun elephants;
> EHK and SHK; or almughavars. Come to think of it, with a few notable
> exceptions among those of us who do not see this as strictly a
> competitive endeavor, isn't that pretty much what we've already got?

Close. Although a little over the top - many of the elephants are
combat-heavy, not missile-heavy. And as noted, kudos to both Ted F and
Rob T for running oddball and not hyper-powered armies. I would estimate
that maybe half of folk fall into this 'powergaming' stuff, half choosing
other routes to power gaming (a la Derek) or ignoring it (yourself).

Jon's point on variety is a fair one. Even in the upper reaches of the
NICT, there are a lot of routes. Hoplites just aren't one of them .

It is interesting to hear what your comps are like.

I would like to make several observations about the Australian
experience of comps:

1. We play a single fixed list for the whole tournament.

2. Our tournaments are usually either 1500 or 1300 points.

3. We play two rounds a day, usually of about 3.5-4 hours.

4. We usually require that at least 5 bounds be played (though since
our recent move from 7th to Warrior we get through more. The main
thing that speeds it up tends to be that you don't need to mark your
approaches in advance.)

5. Terrain is usually preset by the conference organisers and you
have no say in what sort of table you play on most of the time.

I am amazed to hear how many bounds you guys seem to get through. I
also find it remarkable that you would consider playing more than two
games in a day.

Our tournaments are mostly six rounds played over three days (long
weekends)

Adrian Williams
Barbarians Wargaming Club
Blue Mountains Wargaming Club
Sydney, Australia

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, ewan.mcnay@y... wrote:
> > From: JonCleaves@a...
> > 1. Shorter game lengths. I know I harp at this, but 4 hour
games at 1600 points are unnecessarily long. They encourage slow
play and prevent newer players from enjoying the full range of
activities at the con. There is no 'need' to have a four hour game
to get a result - you can be decisive in Warrior in far less time.
What we have is players filling the space provided instead of getting
down to it.
>
> Disagree: at least one, and maybe 2, of my NICT games suffered
already
> from being unable to force/get to significant contact even in the 4
hours,
> without any egregious slow play.
>
> I actually think that the solution here is to introduce chess
timers, with
> an expected minimum of (say) ten bounds; if that's not reached, some
> mechanism for adjusting in favour of the non-time-offender.
>
> For close foot to walk across the table, even *if* they start 120
back
> from the center line (which is a heck of a burden to place), they
had to
> cover ten bounds worth of approach moves. That strikes me as hence
being
> a reasonable demand. If the bound minimum requires faster play,
fine, but
> losing an hour will not necessarily help!
>
> [Scott, Derby played 3.5 hours, of which .5 hour was for setup. We
> typically got around 12 bounds in.]
>
> > 2. Prohibited terrain. I would like to see the following
prohibited from Warrior tourneys at HMGS cons: gullies, more than 6
elements of TFs and 'horizontal' minor water features. Holing up in
this type of terrain makes one a 'spoiler'. It takes both the
placer and the other player out of contention. Sure, maybe he'll get
frustrated and attack and give you the '5' for trying but that is
nothing more than a cheap trick and is not what I would like to see
encouraged in the hobby. We want and need new blood and the new
players' reaction to this sort of thing (and not a few long-time
players..) is quite negative. The idea that it is the opponent's
responsibility to attack in such conditions is complete rubbish.
>
> Despite the debacle with my river , I disagree here. As has been
noted,
> placement of a mWF is hardly controllable; I was unhappy to see the
> placement that I got but that's life. Yes, players are often
unhappy to
> fight a defensively-minded opponent, but I do not think that one
can or
> should legislate against that; it's just the rub of the green, and
winning
> aggainst such is an important skill. Certainly, both gullies and
mWF are
> (to me) legit. TFs I have no opinion on, never having had them in
a game.
>
> On fortifications, though, allowing incendiary arrows if your
opponent
> *could* have e.g. wagon laager is a big negative to some armies
having
> such optional fortifications. Might be worth attention, or perhaps
> mandated as a buy *in the list* before tourney - I guess that would
cover
> rocks and such also.
>
> On one list, I'm a fan; I *do* think that it brings many more
armies into
> viability, provides some of thr 'best' armies with potential
weaknesses,
> and requires just as much skill and interest in designing lists.
> Certainly I found it so before this NICT. Far more skill required
in
> getting a win against allcomers, I think. I would be very
interested,
> though, in actual examples of armies that are hurt overly by one-
list. I
> would guess that my Seleucids would be at the top of the list - and
that
> just gives them a vulnerability. The fact that I faced that
vulnerability
> twice this year should not mean that it cannot happen :-/
>
> On format, I would be in favour - as I've mentioned to Scott
several times
> - of making the NICT 6-7 rounds, over the two days plus possible
playoff
> round. That'd largely eliminate problems of 'poor' matchups, and
get a
> much better sense for all the top players facing one another. I
believe
> that DBM now do this, and I think it's a huge positive.
>
> On scale, one vote in favour of alternating scales (actually, I
don't care
> about scale, but altering table size, effectively). Or point
level. Or
> even requiring one day of 25mm, 1800 points, 7'x5', the second day
of
> 15mm, 1200, also 7'x5', same army must be taken .
>
> > > 6.161: As written, this gives a mixed body of LI/LC the ability
to
> > > charge anything, I think. [Exact text: "LI are permitted to
charge
> > > targets that LC could, or if in a mixed body with mounted
troops."]
> > > Mixed bodies are nowhere else covered, so this is their only
> > > restriction - i.e., no restriction.>>
> >
> > Huh? What target that LC cannot charge can 'now' be charged by a
mixed body of LC/LI (which isn't what I would call common...lol)?
>
> Agreed, not common. Many things are not.
>
> LI can charge either (i) if LC could, or (ii) if in a mixed body.
Do you
> not see the point? I can try harder.
>
> > From: kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@y...>
>
> Kelly - and Boyd, but Kelly's worst: TRIM YOUR POSTS, DAMNIT!
>
> Those of us reading the digest do *not* need the several hundred
lines
> repeated just to see the one-line comment.
>
> Thanks
>
> > Just a modest suggestion a la Swift. In truth, any of this
kind of
> > tinkering will produce tournaments where everyone runs either: a
> > bunch of irreg A troops; machine gun camels; machine gun
elephants;
> > EHK and SHK; or almughavars. Come to think of it, with a few
notable
> > exceptions among those of us who do not see this as strictly a
> > competitive endeavor, isn't that pretty much what we've already
got?
>
> Close. Although a little over the top - many of the elephants
are
> combat-heavy, not missile-heavy. And as noted, kudos to both Ted F
and
> Rob T for running oddball and not hyper-powered armies. I would
estimate
> that maybe half of folk fall into this 'powergaming' stuff, half
choosing
> other routes to power gaming (a la Derek) or ignoring it (yourself).
>
> Jon's point on variety is a fair one. Even in the upper reaches of
the
> NICT, there are a lot of routes. Hoplites just aren't one of
them .

Group,

A few points:

1) 15 mm encourages more arguements about fit, distance,
behind flank, etc. due to the smaller size, lighter figures
(ie. more easily knocked out of position), and the size of
table deformaties with respect to size of figures. I find
this scale more exhausting as a mm means much more here than
in 25 for these reasons. Further, 25 mm armies tend to be on
machine made bases (acurate sizes) than 15 mm (an imperical
observation, not an absolute) allowing for more accurate
fits, and those that are off, typically ~1mm or so, means
1/40 versus ~1/20 due to size differences. In general I like
25 mm for no other reason then there is less arguements about
position of figures. Obviously I think the NICT should stay
25 mm since the level of competitiveness (not competition) is
a notch or two higher and more positioning arguements due to
imperfections in bases and tables would just add to
disagreements and exhaustion of players and refs a like.

2) Decreasing to 1200 points for NICT would limit many knight
armies, especially if you take Jon's comment that foot win
tournies and the NICT. I will not disagree after having my
100 figures (over have knights, the rest LC) being overrun by
the mass of humanity known as the 300+ figures of Silla
Korean. As a side note, what made the Silla really difficult
was not the amount of bow, countered with dismounted SHK
unless a +2 or more was rolled, but the presence of EHK in
addition to ride over SHI, a combination western armies don't
get (large amounts of really cheap bow with heavily armored
knights) as western missle armies typically are reg C, more
HI, and therefore less figures.

3) Decreasing time would be great, as I find a mini tourney,
3 3 hour rounds, about perfect for a day. 3 4 hour rounds is
far too long to stay engaged for the whole day. I understand
the concerns of close order infantry though and agree there
might be issues there.

4) 2 army lists (again) would be great, espcially sine FHE
seems to taken into account the weaknesses of some of the
later armies (more of a scale thing) than did the 6th
addition books. Now it is a matter of choice, do I play a
generically boring army capable of no more than sitting
behind a stream more than half the time, a wieghted army
(knights/lephants)that just dies/runs with a bad matchup, or
an army which has dirt cheap infantry and still allows a good
attack wing (of which there are only 2-3 per book).

Sean

Sean,

Replies below...

> 1) 15 mm encourages more arguements about fit, distance,
> behind flank, etc. due to the smaller size, lighter figures
> (ie. more easily knocked out of position), and the size of
> table deformaties with respect to size of figures. I find
> this scale more exhausting as a mm means much more here than
> in 25 for these reasons. Further, 25 mm armies tend to be on
> machine made bases (acurate sizes) than 15 mm (an imperical
> observation, not an absolute) allowing for more accurate
> fits, and those that are off, typically ~1mm or so, means
> 1/40 versus ~1/20 due to size differences. In general I like
> 25 mm for no other reason then there is less arguements about
> position of figures. Obviously I think the NICT should stay
> 25 mm since the level of competitiveness (not competition) is
> a notch or two higher and more positioning arguements due to
> imperfections in bases and tables would just add to
> disagreements and exhaustion of players and refs a like.

+ We had this issue for years until we had the "gentleman's" rule put
into effect. This basically states that the player calls out his
intention on a move. "I am just outside 80 paces"; "I am just outside
of your charge reach". The only issues arise in later movement when
tacking on extra charge reach or when wheeling. The "gentleman's"
rule seems to take care of about 90% of these situations.


> 2) Decreasing to 1200 points for NICT would limit many knight
> armies, especially if you take Jon's comment that foot win
> tournies and the NICT. I will not disagree after having my
> 100 figures (over have knights, the rest LC) being overrun by
> the mass of humanity known as the 300+ figures of Silla
> Korean. As a side note, what made the Silla really difficult
> was not the amount of bow, countered with dismounted SHK
> unless a +2 or more was rolled, but the presence of EHK in
> addition to ride over SHI, a combination western armies don't
> get (large amounts of really cheap bow with heavily armored
> knights) as western missle armies typically are reg C, more
> HI, and therefore less figures.

+ Agreed unless minima and maxima are allowed to deviate. Maybe I
didn't state my point well enough before on this subject but many
medieval armies have a high minimum due to paying for expensive
knights. Reducing list minima might help here. But I have seen 21
units with some armies and armies with 14/15 units at 1600 points.

As far as the Reg D vs. Reg C goes, I will take HYW English with 1/2
Sh/ 1/2 2HCW over the Reg D Silla Did Silla and HYW play each
other? What was the result?


> 3) Decreasing time would be great, as I find a mini tourney,
> 3 3 hour rounds, about perfect for a day. 3 4 hour rounds is
> far too long to stay engaged for the whole day.

+ Agreed except for one day tournaments where I would prefer 4 - 3
hour rounds. I know, I know; call me nuts but I want to feel like I
traveled and got my fix of gaming in for the month ;-)


> 4) 2 army lists (again) would be great,


+ Agreed here as well. We allow 3 lists at times even but I can live
with two. With three or more lists, the advantage goes to the
Mid./Late Roman and other variable type lists. From my view, most
armies don't get much with a 3rd list unless you are taking a gimic
list such as: extra artillery, spoiler list, etc. Having said this, a
Roman player needs everthing he can get to match up well against most
knight armies ;-)

Chris Tebo

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Ewan,

As Boyd has mentioned, our web browsers do not allow us to trim our posts
anymore for some reason. I'm either allowed to trim all or none when I'm making
my posts. That pretty much sucks really. :)

Kelly


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

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

[Greg Regets]

Trim first, them make your post.

G



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
>
>
> Ewan,
>
> As Boyd has mentioned, our web browsers do not allow us to
trim our posts anymore for some reason. I'm either allowed to trim
all or none when I'm making my posts. That pretty much sucks
really.
>
> Kelly
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

It's all or nothing Greg. I would have done that if it were possible.
K

Greg Regets <gar@...> wrote:
Trim first, them make your post.

G



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
>
>
> Ewan,
>
> As Boyd has mentioned, our web browsers do not allow us to
trim our posts anymore for some reason. I'm either allowed to trim
all or none when I'm making my posts. That pretty much sucks
really.
>
> Kelly
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

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