Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Tim Grimmett]

Let me see if I get this.

Both sides slime the battlefied and end up with matchups that both think to
their disadvantage and both "sit".

General discussion on how to fix this ensues.

My solution: know what army you are facing before you make terrain choices and
THINK about one's terrain picks.

Note: I started a "when to sit" string about a year ago. I think there are
matchups that justify this strategy, but complicating this game further?

Example --I'm Gauls facing a knight army who for some reason after I slime the
battlefield decides things are too tough. Some die roll is going to decide I
have to attack him?

Be careful of what you wish for.

Tim


jmgarlic@... wrote:
Here's an idea which just struck me while reading this post. Why not use the
current terrain placement rules. In event there was a problem where one or
both players thought terrain really shut down possibility of a 'fair and open'
battle, the tournament director could be called over and one player would
randomly select an envelope which the director had prepared in advance. The
envelope would contain a list of 3-6 pieces of terrain which players would then
alternately place and use that battlefield instead. The envelope lists could be
prepared in advance and would be the random 'default' terrain. If the
tournament director had time and inclination, envelopes could even be labeled
'tropical,' 'cold,' etc.

John Garlic

In a message dated 2/24/2006 4:41:09 AM Central Standard Time,
ccoutoftown@... writes:
I think that making terrain list rules for every army would be unworkable:

1) whoa! what a lot of work!
2) it takes the system further away from the "ancient combat methods are
universal"
concept which I think is one of its major strengths

In response to Dan's comments about ways around the 'forced to fight' x-rule;
First,
obviously, he's right; it could be abused. I think that is less of a problem
than something
to keep in mind when designing its details. Second, the idea that some
armies and
battlefields would be designed to use it, I also don't think would be a
terrible thing. It
would widen and legitimate an entrenching style of play, a legitimate
tactical choice.
Third, again it's true that some people would take a small "logistics" loss
in a tourney over
certain suicide, but at least it would be a loss and not a tie. Further, in
games at home,
the adjudication of who *must* attack wouldn't, I think, result in one player
saying, "fuck
it, lets not play." I think on the contrary it would allow them to set up
and play realistically
- one of them would be faced with a difficult tactical problem to over come
instead of one
of them having to say, "shit, I'll attack so we can have a game."

Jonathan



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "jakeb.rm" <dfbass@...> wrote:
>
> Jon,
>
> I know you have a lot to do, and don't expect FHE to make changes over
> night, so I will happily wait for the x-rules to be reviewed and
> changes to be implemented. But, in the meantime, I'd like to be able
> to discuss how others (not just FHE) is experiencing th rules, and see
> what suggestions they have, suggestions we can play test while we wait
> for FHE.
>
> Now, my apologies if my words were not exact, but the fact is that you
> did make a change at a list rules level in order to make an army
> behave more correctly historically by "modifying" the terrain
> placement rules. Regardless of whther you want to call this "fixing a
> problem" or "making the list more historical", the end result is the
> same: the terrain placement, as it is, does not adequately cover all
> situations. If it did, you wouldn't have had to make an exception for
> the Mongols. That was my point, and I think it is still a valid point.
>
> Thus, I'd like to hear what other people think about the need for
> changes, whether a general rule (such as John posted with is original
> post) or some other variation.
>
> Now, my hope is that we can come up with a solution to the root
> proble, not a mere band-aide solution. My problem with the "forcing
> an army to fight rule" is two-fold:
>
> 1. Tournament: how will this affect scoring? If it is a huge impact,
> it could bring about abuse where some people design armies to take
> advantage of this rule, i.e.: I make an army that is "unbeatable" in a
> niche defensive posture, than make sure that I always have less
> "fighting" points, making the other player the attacker. If they
> choose not to attack, I win on points. If they attack, I win due to
> my superior position. Alternatively, the points for this could be
> minor, in which case, players will ignore it, take the mninimal lose
> as opposed to the larger loss caused by attacking a bad position.
> This would, of course, defeat the point of this rule.
>
> 2. Casual play: again, I think if I was the player "forced" to attack,
> I might just say "you win" and not bother to actually play it out...so
> it again does not solve the root problem.
>
> Again, I think if we come up with a systematic, list based rule to
> avoid the situation all together, we'd be better off. To use John's
> example of Alex vs Qin, if the Qin had the option to remove the river,
> there wouldn't be an issue. Or if Qin army's could only have rivers
> place on the flanks, again, it would eliminate the problem altogether.
>
> While it might take a lot of work, I bet if all the seasoned players
> on the list threw out the "bad match ups" they have had, we'd be able
> to start ona rpetty comprehensive list of what could be done to
> resolve the problem.
>
> Fianlly, I think the idea of determining the attacker based on
> logistics is still a good idea, as it could keep people from sitting
> in a corner, but it does not fully address the problem of terrain
> placement advantages making it ridiculous to even bother playing the
> game...think of it this way, if you ahd an opponent with a ton of
> artillery sitting on top of a hill, with foot troops set behind
> ditched palisades...if you were the general, would you bother to attack???
>
> Cheers,
> Dan
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@ wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 2/22/2006 23:09:55 Central Standard Time,
> > dfbass@ writes:
> >
> > Of course, the fact that FHE saw fit to include
> > the Mongolian rule does indicate there is some problem that the
> > generic terrain placement rules don¡¯t solve, so this may be worth
> > looking at more closely >>
> >
> > While I do plan to take an exhaustive look at x- and optional rules
> when I
> > am done with the rulebook, please note that the Mongol list rule is not
> > designed to fix any 'problem' with the standard terrain placement
> system.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>







Yahoo! Groups Links





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



SPONSORED LINKS
Miniature wargaming Wargaming Warrior

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

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.


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





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

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

I agree with Tim 100%. If you don't want a battlefield flooded with
terrain, don't pick terrain. Except in unusual circumstances, players
throwing a combination of roads/open spaces generally get at least large
segments of the battlefield to work with.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Grimmett" <grimmetttim@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 7:57 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] forcing army to fight x-rule proposal


Let me see if I get this.

Both sides slime the battlefied and end up with matchups that both think
to their disadvantage and both "sit".

General discussion on how to fix this ensues.

My solution: know what army you are facing before you make terrain choices
and THINK about one's terrain picks.

Note: I started a "when to sit" string about a year ago. I think there
are matchups that justify this strategy, but complicating this game further?

Example --I'm Gauls facing a knight army who for some reason after I slime
the battlefield decides things are too tough. Some die roll is going to
decide I have to attack him?

Be careful of what you wish for.

Tim


jmgarlic@... wrote:
Here's an idea which just struck me while reading this post. Why not use
the
current terrain placement rules. In event there was a problem where one or
both players thought terrain really shut down possibility of a 'fair and
open'
battle, the tournament director could be called over and one player would
randomly select an envelope which the director had prepared in advance. The
envelope would contain a list of 3-6 pieces of terrain which players would
then
alternately place and use that battlefield instead. The envelope lists
could be
prepared in advance and would be the random 'default' terrain. If the
tournament director had time and inclination, envelopes could even be
labeled
'tropical,' 'cold,' etc.

John Garlic

In a message dated 2/24/2006 4:41:09 AM Central Standard Time,
ccoutoftown@... writes:
I think that making terrain list rules for every army would be unworkable:

1) whoa! what a lot of work!
2) it takes the system further away from the "ancient combat methods are
universal"
concept which I think is one of its major strengths

In response to Dan's comments about ways around the 'forced to fight'
x-rule;
First,
obviously, he's right; it could be abused. I think that is less of a
problem
than something
to keep in mind when designing its details. Second, the idea that some
armies and
battlefields would be designed to use it, I also don't think would be a
terrible thing. It
would widen and legitimate an entrenching style of play, a legitimate
tactical choice.
Third, again it's true that some people would take a small "logistics" loss
in a tourney over
certain suicide, but at least it would be a loss and not a tie. Further, in
games at home,
the adjudication of who *must* attack wouldn't, I think, result in one
player
saying, "fuck
it, lets not play." I think on the contrary it would allow them to set up
and play realistically
- one of them would be faced with a difficult tactical problem to over come
instead of one
of them having to say, "shit, I'll attack so we can have a game."

Jonathan



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "jakeb.rm" <dfbass@...> wrote:
>
> Jon,
>
> I know you have a lot to do, and don't expect FHE to make changes over
> night, so I will happily wait for the x-rules to be reviewed and
> changes to be implemented. But, in the meantime, I'd like to be able
> to discuss how others (not just FHE) is experiencing th rules, and see
> what suggestions they have, suggestions we can play test while we wait
> for FHE.
>
> Now, my apologies if my words were not exact, but the fact is that you
> did make a change at a list rules level in order to make an army
> behave more correctly historically by "modifying" the terrain
> placement rules. Regardless of whther you want to call this "fixing a
> problem" or "making the list more historical", the end result is the
> same: the terrain placement, as it is, does not adequately cover all
> situations. If it did, you wouldn't have had to make an exception for
> the Mongols. That was my point, and I think it is still a valid point.
>
> Thus, I'd like to hear what other people think about the need for
> changes, whether a general rule (such as John posted with is original
> post) or some other variation.
>
> Now, my hope is that we can come up with a solution to the root
> proble, not a mere band-aide solution. My problem with the "forcing
> an army to fight rule" is two-fold:
>
> 1. Tournament: how will this affect scoring? If it is a huge impact,
> it could bring about abuse where some people design armies to take
> advantage of this rule, i.e.: I make an army that is "unbeatable" in a
> niche defensive posture, than make sure that I always have less
> "fighting" points, making the other player the attacker. If they
> choose not to attack, I win on points. If they attack, I win due to
> my superior position. Alternatively, the points for this could be
> minor, in which case, players will ignore it, take the mninimal lose
> as opposed to the larger loss caused by attacking a bad position.
> This would, of course, defeat the point of this rule.
>
> 2. Casual play: again, I think if I was the player "forced" to attack,
> I might just say "you win" and not bother to actually play it out...so
> it again does not solve the root problem.
>
> Again, I think if we come up with a systematic, list based rule to
> avoid the situation all together, we'd be better off. To use John's
> example of Alex vs Qin, if the Qin had the option to remove the river,
> there wouldn't be an issue. Or if Qin army's could only have rivers
> place on the flanks, again, it would eliminate the problem altogether.
>
> While it might take a lot of work, I bet if all the seasoned players
> on the list threw out the "bad match ups" they have had, we'd be able
> to start ona rpetty comprehensive list of what could be done to
> resolve the problem.
>
> Fianlly, I think the idea of determining the attacker based on
> logistics is still a good idea, as it could keep people from sitting
> in a corner, but it does not fully address the problem of terrain
> placement advantages making it ridiculous to even bother playing the
> game...think of it this way, if you ahd an opponent with a ton of
> artillery sitting on top of a hill, with foot troops set behind
> ditched palisades...if you were the general, would you bother to attack???
>
> Cheers,
> Dan
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@ wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 2/22/2006 23:09:55 Central Standard Time,
> > dfbass@ writes:
> >
> > Of course, the fact that FHE saw fit to include
> > the Mongolian rule does indicate there is some problem that the
> > generic terrain placement rules don¡¯t solve, so this may be worth
> > looking at more closely >>
> >
> > While I do plan to take an exhaustive look at x- and optional rules
> when I
> > am done with the rulebook, please note that the Mongol list rule is not
> > designed to fix any 'problem' with the standard terrain placement
> system.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>







Yahoo! Groups Links





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



SPONSORED LINKS
Miniature wargaming Wargaming Warrior

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

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.


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





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

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




Yahoo! Groups Links

> Some die roll is going to decide I have to attack him?

No, that's the whole point. It wouldn't be a die roll, it would be
based on your logistics. Your logistics would be based on where
rivers roads and major water features were.

Jonathan


>
> jmgarlic@... wrote:
> Here's an idea which just struck me while reading this post. Why
not use the
> current terrain placement rules. In event there was a problem
where one or
> both players thought terrain really shut down possibility of
a 'fair and open'
> battle, the tournament director could be called over and one player
would
> randomly select an envelope which the director had prepared in
advance. The
> envelope would contain a list of 3-6 pieces of terrain which
players would then
> alternately place and use that battlefield instead. The envelope
lists could be
> prepared in advance and would be the random 'default' terrain. If
the
> tournament director had time and inclination, envelopes could even
be labeled
> 'tropical,' 'cold,' etc.
>
> John Garlic
>
> In a message dated 2/24/2006 4:41:09 AM Central Standard Time,
> ccoutoftown@... writes:
> I think that making terrain list rules for every army would be
unworkable:
>
> 1) whoa! what a lot of work!
> 2) it takes the system further away from the "ancient combat
methods are
> universal"
> concept which I think is one of its major strengths
>
> In response to Dan's comments about ways around the 'forced to
fight' x-rule;
> First,
> obviously, he's right; it could be abused. I think that is less of
a problem
> than something
> to keep in mind when designing its details. Second, the idea that
some
> armies and
> battlefields would be designed to use it, I also don't think would
be a
> terrible thing. It
> would widen and legitimate an entrenching style of play, a
legitimate
> tactical choice.
> Third, again it's true that some people would take a
small "logistics" loss
> in a tourney over
> certain suicide, but at least it would be a loss and not a tie.
Further, in
> games at home,
> the adjudication of who *must* attack wouldn't, I think, result in
one player
> saying, "fuck
> it, lets not play." I think on the contrary it would allow them to
set up
> and play realistically
> - one of them would be faced with a difficult tactical problem to
over come
> instead of one
> of them having to say, "shit, I'll attack so we can have a game."
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "jakeb.rm" <dfbass@> wrote:
> >
> > Jon,
> >
> > I know you have a lot to do, and don't expect FHE to make changes
over
> > night, so I will happily wait for the x-rules to be reviewed and
> > changes to be implemented. But, in the meantime, I'd like to be
able
> > to discuss how others (not just FHE) is experiencing th rules,
and see
> > what suggestions they have, suggestions we can play test while we
wait
> > for FHE.
> >
> > Now, my apologies if my words were not exact, but the fact is
that you
> > did make a change at a list rules level in order to make an army
> > behave more correctly historically by "modifying" the terrain
> > placement rules. Regardless of whther you want to call
this "fixing a
> > problem" or "making the list more historical", the end result is
the
> > same: the terrain placement, as it is, does not adequately cover
all
> > situations. If it did, you wouldn't have had to make an
exception for
> > the Mongols. That was my point, and I think it is still a valid
point.
> >
> > Thus, I'd like to hear what other people think about the need for
> > changes, whether a general rule (such as John posted with is
original
> > post) or some other variation.
> >
> > Now, my hope is that we can come up with a solution to the root
> > proble, not a mere band-aide solution. My problem with
the "forcing
> > an army to fight rule" is two-fold:
> >
> > 1. Tournament: how will this affect scoring? If it is a huge
impact,
> > it could bring about abuse where some people design armies to take
> > advantage of this rule, i.e.: I make an army that is "unbeatable"
in a
> > niche defensive posture, than make sure that I always have less
> > "fighting" points, making the other player the attacker. If they
> > choose not to attack, I win on points. If they attack, I win due
to
> > my superior position. Alternatively, the points for this could be
> > minor, in which case, players will ignore it, take the mninimal
lose
> > as opposed to the larger loss caused by attacking a bad position.
> > This would, of course, defeat the point of this rule.
> >
> > 2. Casual play: again, I think if I was the player "forced" to
attack,
> > I might just say "you win" and not bother to actually play it
out...so
> > it again does not solve the root problem.
> >
> > Again, I think if we come up with a systematic, list based rule to
> > avoid the situation all together, we'd be better off. To use
John's
> > example of Alex vs Qin, if the Qin had the option to remove the
river,
> > there wouldn't be an issue. Or if Qin army's could only have
rivers
> > place on the flanks, again, it would eliminate the problem
altogether.
> >
> > While it might take a lot of work, I bet if all the seasoned
players
> > on the list threw out the "bad match ups" they have had, we'd be
able
> > to start ona rpetty comprehensive list of what could be done to
> > resolve the problem.
> >
> > Fianlly, I think the idea of determining the attacker based on
> > logistics is still a good idea, as it could keep people from
sitting
> > in a corner, but it does not fully address the problem of terrain
> > placement advantages making it ridiculous to even bother playing
the
> > game...think of it this way, if you ahd an opponent with a ton of
> > artillery sitting on top of a hill, with foot troops set behind
> > ditched palisades...if you were the general, would you bother to
attack???
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Dan
> > --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@ wrote:
> > >
> > > In a message dated 2/22/2006 23:09:55 Central Standard Time,
> > > dfbass@ writes:
> > >
> > > Of course, the fact that FHE saw fit to include
> > > the Mongolian rule does indicate there is some problem that the
> > > generic terrain placement rules don¡¯t solve, so this may be
worth
> > > looking at more closely >>
> > >
> > > While I do plan to take an exhaustive look at x- and optional
rules
> > when I
> > > am done with the rulebook, please note that the Mongol list
rule is not
> > > designed to fix any 'problem' with the standard terrain
placement
> > system.
> > >
> > > Jon
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Miniature wargaming Wargaming Warrior
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.
>
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Mail
> Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>