Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Greg Regets · Imperator Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2988

Please don't take this the wrong way. I'm just a blunt person. ;-)

With all respect due Jon ... you ignore a very important point, that being
recruiting - and yet I happen to know you feel very, very strongly about it.

Four hour tournament games are not for yourself or me, they are for new
players. I think Don Coon, Chris Tebo or myself in our area, could probably get
two 1500 point games in within the a four hour limit. We are all very fast
players.

BUT, you have already recruited us.

New players need that time to get organized, think about the game, and look
things up on the fly. If you are an experienced player and the extra time seems
like a drag (which it does to me), then try to nut it up and use the extra time
to teach the new guy a thing or two. (not saying that you don't, just how I
feel about it) :-)

I actually like three hour games with 1600 points. I agree with you that for
the most part, extra time makes people play slower. But again, we already
purchased our set and will play no matter what, so the tournament criteria that
helps brand your product to new players, is clearly the four hour game, where a
new player will have an opportunity to a. learn ... b. complete the combat.

Thanks ...
G

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

Mark, Mark, Mark

I AM the 'other side' on this issue...lol. 'You guys' have always gotten your
way on this.

I can hardly be accused, as the author of Warrior, of wanting to 'get rid of
pawns'...

I submit it takes far more brains and skill to get a 5-0 in a two-three hour
game than it does in four. I've seen a few games of Warrior in my time and I
can easily say that the vast majority of the 'extra time' in all those four hour
rounds is utterly wasted - in my opinion, which is all this is -

The players who want it, generally don't need it to beat most opponents. When
they run up against someone good, why not let the player who thinks better under
pressure have an advantage instead of giving him time to consider every single
nuance - a situation totally at odds with the realities of combat command.

You're right - four hours makes Warrior chess-like. And I, for one, don't like
chess-like Warrior. Three hour rounds would NOT make for a 'dumber game' -
quite the contrary.

Note - disagreement is neither disrespect nor an indication of deafness...lol

Jon

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 0

Speaking for myself, what is Fast Warrior for then?

I know Cadet Warrior will be addressing a lot of the "new recruit" concerns and
such, but truth be told, If I had to learn Warrior with a 1600 point Army, I
don't think I'd be playing.

Fast Warrior is IMO the best way to recruit new players. There aren't a lot of
Figs involved, but the list variety is great. There isn't a lot of maneuvering
done, and the games are over pretty quick (even quicker when a new recruit like
me leaves the Reg D exposed on the Flank with no support). And it's a good tool
to get those of us unfamiliar with the game mechanics involved, and allows us to
get comfortable with them first, and then grdually move up to the larger point
battles.

Don't get me wrong, watching a 1600 point battle between two very good players
is a great expierence to watch, but if you throw a new player into one (or even
worse, are trying to convert a player to Warrior) 1600 point battles are not the
way to go IMO. You'll get a lot of foot traffic, but not to many butts in
seats.

Now, on the other hands, if you get someone watching a 1600 point battle, then
say "Hey, I have a Fast version that'll get you involved in no time already set
up to go on the table right over there..." you might get more people.

But that's just me.

Todd

Tim Brown · Legionary Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 326

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> >
> I submit it takes far more brains and skill to get a 5-0 in a two-
three hour game than it does in four. I've seen a few games of
deafness...lol
>
> Jon

Of course, the real trick is getting a 5-0 against Eric Turner even
in a 12 hour game! Has anyone actually seen him cross the center line
in anger just once? *laughing* I have to admit the defensive/delaying
game had me frothing at the bit. Only thing was - Damour was the
victim when I let loose with a 2 foot wide mounted charge of every
unit I could bring to bear the next game. Win or lose, I didn't care.
Something was going to die. Now, if I could just get that op with
Eric, my personality would be less I/A ! *grin* Damn you, Turner!
I'll get you & your little bow/LTS troops, too.

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

No hard feelings at all, Greg.

Funny, all the recruits here hate how long those games are. You start a tourney
at 0900 and are done at midnight. You lose that entire day of the con. It
really puts some people off, and that has always included new guys in my
experience.

It's not like we aren't doing it. Just think we ought to try the other way
every once in a while.

Chris Bump · Legate Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1625

In a message dated 3/14/2003 7:16:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, gar@...
writes:

> I think Don Coon, Chris Tebo or myself in our area, could probably get
> two 1500 point games in within the a four hour limit. We
> are all very fast
> players.

I cry FOUL! I'll not point out which or how many of your list are notorious
stallers, but won't let you make such claims unchallenged! LOL but not entirely
in jest.
Chris

Greg Regets · Imperator Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2988

LOL ... I was only speaking from my own experience with these guys.

Don and I always seem to get 15+ bounds in when we play. Correct me if I'm
wrong Don, but I believe we got 16 bounds in our game in DFW.

Chris Tebo is the fastest player I know, other than my brother in law, Jeff
Chladek. Chris and I were so hung over in the finals in DFW, we actually only
played for about two hours, and we still finished under the time limit. I
believe we played 9 bounds.

As for my speed of play, I cry foul also ... lol. The last two times we played,
you rolled a minor water feature across my forward zones, that I had to cross
to get at you. The time before that, you rolled woods in your deployment area
and made me cross the whole table to fight.

LOLOL

In all seriousness Chris, I think between the DFW guys and the San Antonio
guys, we have a difference in style that makes our games against each other go
slowly, at times. You guys favor mostly large units and static lines, while in
San Antonio, we use smaller units that tend to gang up to fight, and try to
turn games into mad scrambles. When we play each other here in SA, the games go
very quickly, but when we play up there, it takes a bit more time to coordinate
our moves to get our little tag-teams organized to our advantage. I'm not
speaking for the 'rightness' of either system, but it does make the games tend
to be more patient. I know I heard some comments in the last tournament similar
to "Why do you guys do all that elaborate marching?" ... and such. The reality
of the matter is, we play to beat you guys, and vice versa, and we adopted
tactics that we think will be successful. I'm sure you do the same thing in DFW.

Again, I'm not speaking for the 'rightness or wrongness' of either system. It
seems from what I read here on the Warrior site, and the NASAWM tournaments,
that your large unit system is far favored by the vast majority. I know the few
lists of mine I have posted on this site, have been met with responses
like, "You have to be kidding, we would crush all those small units." I know
when I posted my KofSt.J organization on this site, many people thought I must
be insane for playing an army with that organization. Nobody got the two stand
LTS units I tend to use, insisting they would get trampled by elephants, or
barbarian foot, etc ... When looking at them in a vacumn, that's true, but to
my way of thinking, they have a purpose and if used effectively, they have
something to offer.

If you ask me, it is not large unit armies or small unit armies, or any armies
in between that really matters ... it is the right combination to fit your
style of play, and how you use the resources you have, to your advantage.

This email turned into a complete rant ... but I think it is a great topic at
any rate! I would love to see a HUGE discussion on army organization, unit size
and tactics. That would be great fun!

Greg

> In a message dated 3/14/2003 7:16:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, gar@...
writes: 
> 
> > I think Don Coon, Chris Tebo or myself in our area, could probably get 
> > two 1500 point games in within the a four hour limit. We 
> > are all very fast 
> > players. 
> 
> I cry FOUL! I'll not point out which or how many of your list are notorious
stallers, but won't let you make such claims unchallenged! LOL but not
entirely in
jest. 
> Chris 
> </tt>
>
> 
>
> 
>
> <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
> <td align=center>Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor</td>
> </tr>
> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
> <td align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0> <tr>
<td
align=center>ADVERTISEMENT <a
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=1705059
080:HM/A=1464858/R=0/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/300_Cquo_1/g22lp?
Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl"><img
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ex/expert_city/300x250_cquo_1.gif"
alt=""
width="300" height="250" border="0"></a></td></tr></table></td>
> </tr>
> <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1464858/rand=420074777"></
td></tr>

> </table>
>
> 
>
>
> 
> <tt>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com 
> 
> </tt>
> 
>
> 
> <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.</tt>
> 
>
> </body></html>
>

scott holder

Again, I'm not speaking for the 'rightness or wrongness' of either system. It
seems from what I read here on the Warrior site, and the NASAWM tournaments,
that your large unit system is far favored by the vast majority.

>Fascinating. I'm not so sure I'd go along with this tho. Mark Stone could
comment better as for army list details in the Doubles events at Cold Wars but I
still think most players still have loads of "smallish" units. Actually, if I
see any trend, it's more along the lines of several rather "largish" units
supported by hordes of teeeeeeny units. Obviously the specific army will
dictate how one organizes things. For example, in mine and Jon's AES list, we
had four 8E pike blocks as the "largish" units. Two "full service" peltasts
units (6E) would have been the other units of any size (not counting the LC/LI).
These were supported by hordes of 2E HC L and the two 2E units of EL.

>The Spanish army I copied from McNay/Damour last year, same thing. 12E units
of Irr C Spanish (with one Irr A element tossed in) supported by hordes of 2E
Celtiberian units (Irr A or B).

>Plus, there are certain arrangement options that just always seem to make
sense. Take a primarily cav army that's regular (Yuan come to mind). You want
a 6E LC B unit, perhaps two 2E LC B units and 1-2 2E HC units operating more or
less as a tactical team. I can never run them well so can't comment in any
great depth as to the efficacy of how they work but the general idea is to shoot
the crap out of the opponent, pin his unit(s) with the exceptional mobile 2E
regular LC units, then go in with the HC at the appropriate time.

>I run essentially a "small unit" option with Tibetans (15mm). 7 units of 2E
SHC/EHC cav, 2 units of 4E HC (mobile missile platforms), all the Tibetan LC I
can get organized into 6E units and then I toss in the Khamba Allies since they
provide a really good Irr A punch. This is probably the only cav army I can
play semi-decently but then it factors into my slogging play style.

>As I organize Later Hungarians (both scales) for play this summer at the Hcon
Theme event, it'll probably be the same thing, lotsa 2E SHK units working in
conjunction with lotsa 6E LC units. Won't take any foot and if an opponent
holes up in some woods, we'll call it a draw and go shopping:) Smile

:)

scott

Don Coon · Imperator Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2742

> LOL ... I was only speaking from my own experience with these guys.
>
> Don and I always seem to get 15+ bounds in when we play. Correct me if I'm
> wrong Don, but I believe we got 16 bounds in our game in DFW.

Yea we did.

>
> Chris Tebo is the fastest player I know, other than my brother in law,
Jeff
> Chladek. Chris and I were so hung over in the finals in DFW, we actually
only
> played for about two hours, and we still finished under the time limit. I
> believe we played 9 bounds.

Its funny because when we play 1 on 1 here in DFW it goes fast. However we
tend to play a lot of multiplayer on a side games where we do not allow the
CINC and the Subs to talk to each other (except with messages that cost
prompt points). These games take a lot longer but are loads of fun.

Don