Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Greg Regets]

The NASAMW S.W. Region had its first tournament playing the Warrior rules
set, in Dallas this past weekend. Everything seemed to go well and no major
problems came up. Its so refreshing to be able to ask someone on another
table a question and he can say "look at 6.21" and you can find it quickly.
I think this new set will be great in tournament and friendly settings!

And to the players formally known as E.B. .... Stop being "Old Mr. Stiffie",
do the right thing and give David the 4th place wood! You know you want to
.... do the right thing!

With Tournament Tolerance .... Greg

[joncleaves]

First, that move is incorrect in Warrior. There is no move or situation in
Warrior where the elements of a unit can be anything but parallel. They can
be echeloned forward, but cannot be at right (or any) angles.

Second, I have seen it allowed in the past in WRG 7th, and was even at the
con where Phil B allowed it (Cold Wars 90, I think). The guy who tried it in
your tourney was surely basing it on stuff he had seen allowed in the past.
As far as Warrior is concerned, however, those days are gone.

Third, I will review the language of the charge rule to make even more sure
that no one would think this is ok.

Jon

[Don Coon]

I had a ball at this tourny. Met some really great guys (and great
players too!).

I learned that heavy bolt shooters hurt real bad when you miss your
counter roll.

I learned that LMI - B can not hold woods vs LHI - JLS+Sh (DUH!!).

We had only one point of centention all weekend. All rules disputes
were quick and easily resolved, with both sides in agrrement of the
judgement.

The contention:

Player A in a 2X2 block charges player B in a 1X2 block from 45 degrees
off player B's front left corner. Player A has enough move, contacts
and aligns his leftmost element with Player B front edge and aligns his
rightmost element along player B's left flank. This leaves player B
with 1 body to front and left flank.

The charging player thought this was legal (of course or he would not
have done it). I as the ref thought it was not. Both parties weighed
in with supporting arguments, and player A was very convincing citing
much past history. I ruled in his favor (and told him I disagreed even
as I did so). I could not swallow a body having 2 elements at 90
degrees to each other.

Today I went back over the situation away from the heat of battle and I
feel I ruled incorrectly.

I cite 6.41 Block "Block is the basic unit formation. It is one or more
elements deep with all elements facing exactly the same
direction...Blocks may be modified to depict unsteadiness, line a
defended feature, drop back to pass a gap, expand in a follow up, or be
joined by a staff element. A block cannot...

This would indicate that the tactic was incorrect as the block formation
was violated.

How should the ruling have gone? If you CAN, can 6.165 have text and a
diagram added to show the 90 finishing position? If it is NOT legal can
6.165 have text added saying so like "After all contact, pivoting and
echeloning is resolved the charging body must have all elements facing
the same direction".

Thanks.

Don

[Greg Regets]

Jon .... are you saying you have REMOVED the wraparound rules that are under
Diagram 13 in the current NASAMW interps for 7th Edition?

When did this happen .... and for gawds sakes, WHY? The wraparound was one
of the best additions 7th edition ever had. It made a guy pay a serious
price for leaving a gap. Are we going back to the firewords display of 6th
Edition?

And PLEASE don't make it like this was some obscure thing Barker ruled on in
1990, this has been in the NASAMW interps since 1993. What are you trying to
do, get me in trouble with the locals? (haha)

Greg


-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 6:41 PM
To: WarriorRules@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] First S.W. Region Warrior Tournament


First, that move is incorrect in Warrior. There is no move or situation in
Warrior where the elements of a unit can be anything but parallel. They can

be echeloned forward, but cannot be at right (or any) angles.

Second, I have seen it allowed in the past in WRG 7th, and was even at the
con where Phil B allowed it (Cold Wars 90, I think). The guy who tried it
in
your tourney was surely basing it on stuff he had seen allowed in the past.

As far as Warrior is concerned, however, those days are gone.

Third, I will review the language of the charge rule to make even more sure
that no one would think this is ok.

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

<< Jon .... are you saying you have REMOVED the wraparound rules that are
under
Diagram 13 in the current NASAMW interps for 7th Edition?>>

Why yes, Greg, I am.

<<When did this happen >>

The moment I became a partner in FHE and we jointly decided I would be
primary rules guy. I will note for the record that no one on the team had a
problem with dropping it, including the 93 interp book primary author.

<<.... and for gawds sakes, WHY?>>

Because it is problematic and unnecessary.

<< The wraparound was one of the best additions 7th edition ever had.>>

Sez you.

<< It made a guy pay a serious price for leaving a gap.>>

There are still flank charges and the support restrictions for close/loose
foot are much tighter. There are plenty of reasons not to leave a gap in
Warrior. In fact, you can hit the flank of a unit in Warrior under EXACTLY
the same conditions you can in 7.6, you just don't 'wraparound'.

<< Are we going back to the firewords display of 6th Edition?>>

I played 6th. I assume you think that rules set was looser in terms of
guiding a player towards a line of battle. I agree. We are not 'going back'
there. See above.

<<And PLEASE don't make it like this was some obscure thing Barker ruled on
in
1990, this has been in the NASAMW interps since 1993.>>

Yes, I know. I was on the rules committee that worked on the 93 interp book.
I didn't like the thing Phil did at CW, I protested the interp, and I have
taken the only reasonable course left to me.
I bought the rules.

<< What are you trying to do, get me in trouble with the locals? (haha) >>

Certainly not. Point them to me.

Jon

[scott holder]

Second, I have seen it allowed in the past in WRG 7th, and was even at the
con where Phil B allowed it (Cold Wars 90, I think).

>The situation as Jon described it has been standard fare at NASAMW
tournaments for the past decade. It was partially described in the 93/94
Interp Booklet. So the player setting up the charge was undoubtedly thinking
back to that.

The guy who tried it in
your tourney was surely basing it on stuff he had seen allowed in the past.
As far as Warrior is concerned, however, those days are gone.

>The original solution was one of my typical overly exotic approaches to
something only vaguely covered in the basic rules set. That's why Jon is
doing rules, I'm doing lists.

>BTW, Fast Warrior lists are coming along, I've done 156 thus far and expect
to have close to 300. Unlike Warrior lists, these 300 lists will include New
World armies. When I get around to doing those "for real" in Warrior, we'll
make the 7 or so New World lists available on the internet and as such, they
won't be part of the 7 army lists books planned.

Scott

[scott holder]

And PLEASE don't make it like this was some obscure thing Barker ruled on in
1990, this has been in the NASAMW interps since 1993. What are you trying to
do, get me in trouble with the locals? (haha)

>Until 1990, we had no wraparound rule. Phil's trip over here first
introduced that concept which eventually made it's way into the NASAMW Interp
Booklet. Here's the rub, after almost 10 years of playing it, players *still*
didn't know how to handle the wraparound or how to rally from it. By going
with no wraparound, we're actually making it harder to charge units, not
easier (I think).

>My head hurts:)

Scott

[scott holder]

When are the lists of "Real" Warrior going to be available

>You are talking about close to 300 lists, full length lists. This will take
about 2 years to do working part time in the evenings. To date, I've done the
lists from Biblical Warrior. They have been reviewed twice. I've made
modifications resulting from the first review and have yet to make the
modifications from the second review. Publication date is Cold Wars 2001. I
am also 1/3 of the way thru Dark Age Warrior lists. When they are finished,
they will also go thru a review process. I'm hoping to have them done in time
for Historicon but the key word there is "hope". The next set of lists will
be for Holy Warrior or perhaps Feudal Warrior. The last set(s) of lists to be
done will either be Classical Warrior or Asian Warrior so if you play
Seleucids or Han Chinese, don't sweat any changes for a good while.

and are you
implying that creating Warrior Lite's Army List is more of a priority than
fixing "Real" Warrior's Army list.

>Let me not imply anything here: Fast Warrior army lists are *the* priority
at the moment. Why? Because *they* will be included in the Warrior rule set
and since that's the first thing to be published, they're the first thing that
needs to be finished. I stopped work on Dark Age Warrior lists in order to
concoct Fast Warrior lists.

I would have thought the "Real" Warrior
was priority one and Warrior Lite was priority two?

>"Fixing" lists is time consuming and painful, and that's simply during the
drafting process. This isn't going to happen overnight. Everyone will second
guess Warrior lists once they're published so I want to make sure that I take
care of most of the glaring and not so glaring errors at first. Since I don't
know everything about every period, it will take time for me to insure that
what's replacing the hodge podge of lists currently used is the *best* it can
possibly be.

>Fast Warrior, in the NSHO of FHE, is an important long term component of the
overall Warrior rules set and thus needs some near term high priority work in
order to make it a reality. Warrior lists will follow suit.

Scott

[joncleaves]

<< When are the lists of "Real" Warrior going to be available and are you
implying that creating Warrior Lite's Army List is more of a priority than
fixing "Real" Warrior's Army list. I would have thought the "Real" Warrior
was priority one and Warrior Lite was priority two? >>

Scott answered this well, but let me pile on anyway.

Fast Warrior has been received overwhelmingly as a good idea by both our new
recruits and retailers/distributors. The former because they do not need to
wait for anything to get started on ANY army and they don't need 1200/1600
points worth of troops to start playing. They can build up.
The latter because we have to compete with some other rules sets that allow
you to get started right out of the book and/or do so with smaller armies.

True, we delayed Warrior from Fall In to Cold Wars to get Fast Warrior right.
But Fast Warrior and "real Warrior" are the same thing as Fast Warrior will
be entirely included in the rule book. All x-hundred lists. As it has
always been our plan to release one army book with the rules and then one
every six months thereafter, the lists will still come out just as fast in
relation to the rulebook.

I don't plan on making any huge money from this deal, but I don't plan on
losing any either. More importantly, I plan on doing everything I can to get
new guys into this, and if the potential new guys/converts tell me 12-0 that
they want Fast Warrior, then Fast Warrior they will get.

Jon

[Harlan Garrett]

When are the lists of "Real" Warrior going to be available and are you
implying that creating Warrior Lite's Army List is more of a priority than
fixing "Real" Warrior's Army list. I would have thought the "Real" Warrior
was priority one and Warrior Lite was priority two?

Harlan

-----Original Message-----
From: Holder, Scott <FHWA> [mailto:Scott.Holder@...]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 2:00 AM
To: IPM Return requested (Receipt notification requested)
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] First S.W. Region Warrior Tournament


Second, I have seen it allowed in the past in WRG 7th, and was even at the
con where Phil B allowed it (Cold Wars 90, I think).

>The situation as Jon described it has been standard fare at NASAMW
tournaments for the past decade. It was partially described in the 93/94
Interp Booklet. So the player setting up the charge was undoubtedly
thinking
back to that.

The guy who tried it in
your tourney was surely basing it on stuff he had seen allowed in the past.
As far as Warrior is concerned, however, those days are gone.

>The original solution was one of my typical overly exotic approaches to
something only vaguely covered in the basic rules set. That's why Jon is
doing rules, I'm doing lists.

>BTW, Fast Warrior lists are coming along, I've done 156 thus far and expect
to have close to 300. Unlike Warrior lists, these 300 lists will include
New
World armies. When I get around to doing those "for real" in Warrior, we'll
make the 7 or so New World lists available on the internet and as such, they
won't be part of the 7 army lists books planned.

Scott















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

Bravo! As a new guy, I think small army / short games will be a big draw and
applaud you for taking the time to do it.

And, FWIW, I hope you make lots of money on this!



-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [SMTP:JonCleaves@...]
I don't plan on making any huge money from this deal, but I don't plan on
losing any either. More importantly, I plan on doing everything I can to
get
new guys into this, and if the potential new guys/converts tell me 12-0 that

they want Fast Warrior, then Fast Warrior they will get.

Attachment: (application/ms-tnef) [not stored]