Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

One thing no one has commented on so far is the use of "order cards" at
Historicon. How did people feel about whether or not orders were being
followed, and if the cards are a help in keeping people on track?

On another matter, I have a suggestion. Quoting Jon:

> 4.21 says "Units that conduct an ambush (14.42), flank march (14.45) or a
forced
> march (14.43) are so marked as part of the deployment order."
>
> I have discovered that some players are interpreting 'so marked' very loosely.
> The new text says 'exact location, facing, formation, etc' and we'll clarify
the
> old text to get by until the new printing.

So here's an idea: when force marchers are placed, or when ambushers become
visible, let your opponent place them where your written guidelines say they
should go. That should eliminate any "looseness". I actually think this could
work really well: we'd all be motivated to write down those locations with
strict and precise clarity.


-Mark Stone

[Ewan McNay]

Mark Stone wrote:

> One thing no one has commented on so far is the use of "order cards" at
> Historicon. How did people feel about whether or not orders were being
> followed, and if the cards are a help in keeping people on track?

They seemed a non-event, for both good and bad. I confess that I
never remembered to turn mine over until game-end; I know that most of
my opponents (especially toward the end of the event) did not in fact
us them.

> On another matter, I have a suggestion.
> So here's an idea: when force marchers are placed, or when ambushers become
> visible, let your opponent place them where your written guidelines say they
> should go. That should eliminate any "looseness". I actually think this could
> work really well: we'd all be motivated to write down those locations with
> strict and precise clarity.

At the cost of some aggravation, perhaps. However, I think it
worthwhile to consider the case of outscouting: should you really be
required to position exactly your units without being able to respond
to the deployment of an opponent whose army composition and deployment
is, by definitiion, known to you? [On the more usual ambushes, I
completely agree; on force marchers, I'm not sure, as again it takes
away a possible played-for advantage in having many commands/lots of
scouting/force marchers late in order of march/etc.]

e

[John Murphy]

I also did not use order cards in any game, and similarly I also do
not know that any of my opponents did either. But I write them on
the little official FHE roster sheet which I use to track fatigue so
they seemed unimportant to me, and I think to most of the other
players.

Sorry Scott.

As one who initially griped to Scott on this list about people,
namely myself, forgetting orders in the heat of battle I suppose I
should be embarrassed. But I think in any event this is mainly a
problem with prompts for charges (at least when I am the guilty
party, and that is not limited to even the first charge under attack
orders) and having order cards for after the game when you can't
even remember who charged when - to me anyway - doesn't seem like an
impact on this?

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:
> I know that most of
> my opponents (especially toward the end of the event) did not in
fact
> us them.

[scott holder]

I'll continue to use cards as it's a wonderful device to make people focus on
following their orders. This isn't about cheating guys, it's about simply
forgetting or not keeping track. Really good players do this as well. It
happened at Hcon during one game.

I would appreciate it if players would use order cards. This is something I
can't police all that well but it did seem to cut down on any post-show
complaints about orders.

Also, everybody needs to have a camp. Period. And not simply a piece of felt
with a couple of elements of figures on it. It doesn't have to be great looking
by any stretch but it does have to be a camp. Consider this akin to trying to
play with unpainted figures. I'll be very anal about this next year.

scott

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/27/2004 1:25:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Holder, Scott"
<Scott.Holder@...> writes:

>I'll continue to use cards as it's a wonderful device to make people focus on
following their orders.  This isn't about cheating guys, it's about simply
forgetting or not keeping track.  Really good players do this as well.  It
happened at Hcon during one game.>>

I second Scott here. I use the army sheet in the files section as it is excel
and also adds my points for me automatically but it also has a nice orders
section. In only one game did I use the provided orders sheet instead and that
was because my opponent was not using an army sheet with an orders section. I
don't care what the orders are written on as long as they are written down, but
if Scott says to use the specific orders sheet provided even if you brought your
own, then that is what I'll do.

>
>Also, everybody needs to have a camp.  Period.  And not simply a piece of felt
with a couple of elements of figures on it.  It doesn't have to be great looking
by any stretch but it does have to be a camp.  Consider this akin to trying to
play with unpainted figures.  I'll be very anal about this next year.>>

This is mostly an issue with 'old 7th' players, particularly those who don't
paint their own armies and are gamers only (as opposed to also being
modelers/historians). Generally the same crowd often found using 7th game
charts. Come on, guys, the honeymoon is over....lol

The camp is as much a part of Warrior as anything else and Scott is right to
enforce it.

J

[scott holder]

I don't care what the orders are written on as long as they are written down,
but if Scott says to use the specific orders sheet provided even if you brought
your own, then that is what I'll do.

>By this I also mean the "revealing" part of orders optional rule so that if a
mistake is made, it's caught very soon. The order card is only one part of the
issue. If both players had used an order card and had been revealing their
orders the way they were supposed to have been doing in the one game where a
real orders hose-up occurred, it would have been caught much earlier. As it
was, I was able to do things to mitigate the issue but only because both players
were very gracious and accomodating about it.

The camp is as much a part of Warrior as anything else and Scott is right to
enforce it.

>Camps are cool, they add a visual dimension to the game in either scale. We
have some great painted armies out there and are now starting to see some great
camps. Plus, camps have so many creative elements to them (aside from the usual
slew of babalicious topless dancers) that appeal to the non-power gamers more
than tourney results do. And as many people are now realizing, a potentially
crucial part of your game. They take waver tests and if they rout, whammo,
suddenly every command in your army has one "black mark" against it relating to
demorilazation. Also don't forget that you get nothing for camps points wize in
a game UNLESS you loot it. If the camp routs off the table, there are no points
involved but obviously the potential effect it has on command demoralization is
the crucial element.

>Here's another thing that everybody should remember: when using the 5-x point
system, you need to kill twice as many troops *and at least 300* in order to get
that bonus point. That was left out of Warrior somehow but that's the way it's
played.

scott

[Mike Bard]

> Also, everybody needs to have a camp. Period. And not simply a piece of
felt with a couple of elements of figures on it. It doesn't have to be
great looking by any stretch but it does have to be a camp. Consider this
akin to trying to play with unpainted figures. I'll be very anal about this
next year.

I agree with this, and could be bribed (paid) to make camps for others.
Including your own private Altar of the Up Three (or Up Four for all you
Barbarians...)

Michael Bard
That Greek Hoplite Guy