Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

JM, first let me say that as a player I am in complete agreement with your
liking the changes at HCon. Now, if I could just get Scott to listen to a
couple more of my ideas....lol

> Heck, I'd like to see 1600 pts on
> an 8x5 in 15mm or even Fast Warrior on a 6x4!
>
>

Having played 3 FW games in four hours yesterday, I think I'd try 15mm FW at
4x3 before I jumped into 6x4...some FW armies don't even cover 3x2 fully, so
in the interest of keeping it FAST Warrior......lol. But a point well taken
and something I plan to try after I get back from the con.

J


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/20/2003 09:33:14 Central Daylight Time, gar@...
writes:

> My brother-in-law and myself used to play TOG at 1,500 points in 15mm
> on a 25mm table, not allowing anyone to deploy in the flank sectors
> and starting 12" in. The games were faster, had a better feel and
> forced a more realistic tactical approach.
>
> Greg
>

And the beauty is, there is nothing in Warrior saying this is bad. (in fact,
when we ever get to a second printing, I'll add a whole set of competition
'conditions' like the ones above.)

Only NASAMW is so set on specific table size and the more the folks that
attend those cons speak for changes, the more likely it is we will see some.

J


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/20/2003 11:12:37 Central Daylight Time,
jjendon@... writes:

> Here in DFW we like to play 1600 25mm on 10X6, and 1600 15mm on 8X5. Talk
> about open flanks!
>

and in my opinion, there ought to be more of that at the national level.

That said, if 28 of 30 players in a HMGS-E tourney want something a certain
way - they 'win'......


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

[John Murphy]

Scott (et al),

There are a number of really neat changes in the way the HMGS-E con
tourneys are being run over the past year. I just wanted to take a
chance to point them out and express my overwhelming support for them.

I know I am only a spoiler and not a NICT-contender and there may some
old grognards who have learned how to play well under the old systems
and do not like the changes.

But this is just my 2 cents worth.

First, the single-list tournament. As one who, in both major rule sets,
has played his share of con games with an opposing list 100% dedicated
to defeating his particular troop type I think this is a great way to
force more balance in the opposition taken over the course of a
tournament weekend. You still might see a few games against someone who
is forced, or chooses, to run a very "_-heavy" list but it seems to even
out more now.

Second, the increased table size for the mini. My personal beef (or one
of them) with almost every tournament game is the ability to use table
edges as impassable terrain (except for flank marches which represent
something different). Given sufficiently large armies, and most of them
are, nobody has to really worry about having wide open flanks. The large
mini tables still allow for flank marches representing detached forces
but also encourage more "historical" use of forces by increasing the
size of the battlefield to present a player with more outflanking
options, and require defense against these as well. Since terrain
placement is tied to table size and not army size the rules scale very
well that way Given that there is sufficient space, which does not seem
to be a problem, I think it is great. Heck, I'd like to see 1600 pts on
an 8x5 in 15mm or even Fast Warrior on a 6x4!

jm



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

[Greg Regets]

My brother-in-law and myself used to play TOG at 1,500 points in 15mm
on a 25mm table, not allowing anyone to deploy in the flank sectors
and starting 12" in. The games were faster, had a better feel and
forced a more realistic tactical approach.

Greg

[Don Coon]

> to be a problem, I think it is great. Heck, I'd like to see 1600 pts on
> an 8x5 in 15mm or even Fast Warrior on a 6x4!

Here in DFW we like to play 1600 25mm on 10X6, and 1600 15mm on 8X5. Talk
about open flanks!

Don

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "John Murphy" <jjmurphy@s...>
wrote:
> Scott (et al),
>

I think I fall into the et al category. :)


>
> But this is just my 2 cents worth.
>
> First, the single-list tournament. As one who, in both major rule
sets,
> has played his share of con games with an opposing list 100%
dedicated
> to defeating his particular troop type I think this is a great way
to
> force more balance in the opposition taken over the course of a
> tournament weekend. You still might see a few games against someone
who
> is forced, or chooses, to run a very "_-heavy" list but it seems to
even
> out more now.
>


I am a big fan of the one-list tournament, for all the reasons stated
hear and elsewhere. I think this rewards a lot of good behaviors.

> Second, the increased table size for the mini. My personal beef (or
one
> of them) with almost every tournament game is the ability to use
table
> edges as impassable terrain (except for flank marches which
represent
> something different). Given sufficiently large armies, and most of
them
> are, nobody has to really worry about having wide open flanks. The
large
> mini tables still allow for flank marches representing detached
forces
> but also encourage more "historical" use of forces by increasing the
> size of the battlefield to present a player with more outflanking
> options, and require defense against these as well. Since terrain
> placement is tied to table size and not army size the rules scale
very
> well that way Given that there is sufficient space, which does not
seem
> to be a problem, I think it is great.

The point about scaling is a good one that is a contrast to some
other popular ancients game systems. I think finding the balance
between table width and army size is always fraught with tradeoffs.
With flanks that are too large, you start to really put a premium on
cavalry and light cavalry. This is necessarily bad, but I think the
experience of 15mm DBM shows that you can get to the point at which
infantry armies become virtually unplayable.

I hope everyone has fun at H-con. Wish I could be there to get my
butt kicked.

John

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Well Don...., ....Everything in Texas is bigger than the norm! Anyway that's
what "She" said at the strip bar! LOL!

Kelly

jjendon@... wrote:

> to be a problem, I think it is great. Heck, I'd like to see 1600 pts on
> an 8x5 in 15mm or even Fast Warrior on a 6x4!

Here in DFW we like to play 1600 25mm on 10X6, and 1600 15mm on 8X5. Talk
about open flanks!

Don


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!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

[Todd Kaeser]

With table sizes that large do you find that the
armies chosen are prdominately cav?

Any close foot armies that do well?

Todd K


--- jjendon@... wrote:
>
> > to be a problem, I think it is great. Heck, I'd
> like to see 1600 pts on
> > an 8x5 in 15mm or even Fast Warrior on a 6x4!
>
> Here in DFW we like to play 1600 25mm on 10X6, and
> 1600 15mm on 8X5. Talk
> about open flanks!
>
> Don
>
>


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

[Don Coon]

It certainly promotes the use of cav. The flanks are not so huge as to allow
free sweeping flanking movements, but do require one to mind them. I have
played with MIR (very predominately foot) vs Yuan Mongol and won (I have
also had my butt tanned by the same army). I tend to guard the flanks with
more missile fire as it can keep pesky cav at bay. Usually use my Auxilla
archers on one side, and the ARTY on the other I have 2-3 bodies of LC just
to harass, and 1-3 bodies of NC for later game exploitation. I also try to
use clogging terrain like wood (roman auxilla are fine in there) and use the
Legionaries as mobile terrain.

Don

> With table sizes that large do you find that the
> armies chosen are prdominately cav?
>
> Any close foot armies that do well?
>
> Todd K
>
>
> --- jjendon@... wrote:
> >
> > > to be a problem, I think it is great. Heck, I'd
> > like to see 1600 pts on
> > > an 8x5 in 15mm or even Fast Warrior on a 6x4!
> >
> > Here in DFW we like to play 1600 25mm on 10X6, and
> > 1600 15mm on 8X5. Talk
> > about open flanks!
> >
> > Don

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Todd,
If you play Regular foot armies it should not matter one bit! :)

Kelly

Todd Kaeser <hailkaeser@...> wrote:
With table sizes that large do you find that the
armies chosen are prdominately cav?

Any close foot armies that do well?

Todd K


--- jjendon@... wrote:
>
> > to be a problem, I think it is great. Heck, I'd
> like to see 1600 pts on
> > an 8x5 in 15mm or even Fast Warrior on a 6x4!
>
> Here in DFW we like to play 1600 25mm on 10X6, and
> 1600 15mm on 8X5. Talk
> about open flanks!
>
> Don
>
>


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

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!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

[Todd Kaeser]

Kelly,

Macedonian armies, even w/ tons of regular LMI and
Pike don't do real well in wide open terrain - not
enough points in 1200 points to cover a full table.
The Hellinistic Greek Army I ran a few years ago in
the mini I would not run this year. Even w/ 5 units
of peltasts and two 32 man pike I would have to play
terrain and defense against a lot of opponents.

Todd

--- kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@...> wrote:
> Todd,
> If you play Regular foot armies it should not
> matter one bit!
>
>
> Kelly
>
> Todd Kaeser <hailkaeser@...> wrote:
> With table sizes that large do you find that the
> armies chosen are prdominately cav?
>
> Any close foot armies that do well?
>
> Todd K
>
>
> --- jjendon@... wrote:
> >
> > > to be a problem, I think it is great. Heck, I'd
> > like to see 1600 pts on
> > > an 8x5 in 15mm or even Fast Warrior on a 6x4!
> >
> > Here in DFW we like to play 1600 25mm on 10X6, and
> > 1600 15mm on 8X5. Talk
> > about open flanks!
> >
> > Don
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> 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!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

[Greg Regets]

My experience with smaller point values (we played 1,350 TOG in Texas
for years), is that if you have some solid light cavalry/infantry on
the perimeter, the rest of the game goes roughly the same.

Cavalry armies have the same problems at the smaller point values as
at the greater, and infantry has much of the same advantages, as long
as the flanks are covered by the light troops mentioned above.

A few notes;

a) One thing that was very irritating was when two armies deployed
not opposite to each other, and the battle ended up being a bit of a
merry-go-round affair (Does Ewan have an English term for this?) This
was one of the reasons we developed the notion that one couldn't
deploy in the flank sectors.

b) The light troops on the wings are better served if they have
combat weapons in addition to bow. As a matter of fact, if given the
choice between a combat weapon or a bow, the combat weapon will serve
you better. You really can't afford to evade in close proximity to
your infantry, but must instead choose to fight on the perimeter.

c) While it may seem that terrain might play a smaller part in the
whole affair, our experience was that it in fact played a greater
part, especially the terrain choice of open space. If one army has a
quantity and/or quality advantage in skirmishers, and the table ends
up relatively open, they are at a huge advantage.

d) Both sides have to really want to fight. It might seem like with
the smaller point values, there will be less to move and less chance
for one side to fiddle-fart around. What we found is that the larger
point values make it harder to hide from the enemy and the smaller
point value makes it easier.

Take care ... G

[Ewan McNay]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Kaeser <hailkaeser@y...>
wrote:
> Kelly,
>
> Macedonian armies, even w/ tons of regular LMI and
> Pike don't do real well in wide open terrain - not
> enough points in 1200 points to cover a full table.
> The Hellinistic Greek Army I ran a few years ago in
> the mini I would not run this year. Even w/ 5 units
> of peltasts and two 32 man pike I would have to play
> terrain and defense against a lot of opponents.
>
> Todd

Todd's right, of course - but I think the issue is not ao much
coverage as mobility. Few armies are going to cover the table at such
a point:space ratio, but the plodding close foot are just going to be
even less able to (attempt to) dictate the battle than usual.

Regular LC and HC L, B, Sh are probably the optimum for this, is my
guess. And I think that's probably a good thing - such armies have a
hard time getting big wins in many other formats.

On one list: this is (or was, when they played 7th, before DBM took
over completely) the UK standard. I think that it greatly expands the
range of viable armies, cuts down on some of the more egregious abuses
(like me taking Seleucids with one list all-El, minimum HC, the second
no-El, max SHC), and excludes almost no list that a two-list comp
would include as viable (can anyone think of an example?). I'm a big
fan. I think, though (in contrast to earlier commentary) that it may
not reduce the one-dimensional armies: if playing for a tourney win,
you have to assume that you are going to get four wins, and hence four
armies that you can beat. So if you're going gung-ho on knights, for
example, there's little point in worrying about whether you can make
your list able to get a 2-3 or even 3-1 against a good El army,
because as soon as you have that opponent you cannot win the tourney
and may as well lose 0-5. So, you might as well optimise ability to
get wins when you can.

As I noted, I'm really sorry to be missing the mini, I had forgotten
somehow that it's on the Thurs. Rich Kroupa, godlike being that he
is, is providing me with lead not only for the NICT but *also* to play
Imperialists in the Theme in 25mm - so I will at least get 3 games of
25m in before Saturday .

What no follow-ups to my K of V list? :(


> --- kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> > Todd,
> > If you play Regular foot armies it should not
> > matter one bit!
> >
> >
> > Kelly
> >
> > Todd Kaeser <hailkaeser@y...> wrote:
> > With table sizes that large do you find that the
> > armies chosen are prdominately cav?
> >
> > Any close foot armies that do well?
> >
> > Todd K
> >
> >
> > --- jjendon@c... wrote:
> > >
> > > > to be a problem, I think it is great. Heck, I'd
> > > like to see 1600 pts on
> > > > an 8x5 in 15mm or even Fast Warrior on a 6x4!
> > >
> > > Here in DFW we like to play 1600 25mm on 10X6, and
> > > 1600 15mm on 8X5. Talk
> > > about open flanks!
> > >
> > > Don
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> > http://sbc.yahoo.com
> >
> > 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!?
> > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > removed]
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Todd...Todd...Todd,
32 fig pike are just too unwieldy. Besides, did you consider that your
opponents will have a tiny force as well? I'm running Arab Empire (a REAL trash
army) and because most of my troops are Regs I have no fear (because Allah will
provide the up rolls as he did against your Swiss!). The fact is that you and I
seem to meet in the field of battle more than normal and I do not look forward
to your Flaming Pigs one bit! What they do to infantry is totally WRONG IMHO.
Although I am guilty of using those little nasties more than once to mess up
MOOG types that thought they were gonna mess up my pikes! So you ask, "what's
your dang point, Kelly?" ---Ramble,Ramble...! I figure that a "Veteran" like you
will make those boys maneuver like the wind! So suck it up and kick some bootie
like your gonna do well anyway given the fact that we all will be short of
troops.
;)

Kelly

PS Just a thought for you, I would keep 2 or 3 of your peltasts in reserve to
react to threats. They march pretty well and when they pass their morale can
even make knights think twice! As Scott says, "They're Super Peltasts!" Heck
they can skirmish to boot enabling them to delay more difficult infantry types
as well! Come to think of it, "Why didn't I think of bringing that army?" LOL!
:)

Todd Kaeser <hailkaeser@...> wrote:
Kelly,

Macedonian armies, even w/ tons of regular LMI and
Pike don't do real well in wide open terrain - not
enough points in 1200 points to cover a full table.
The Hellinistic Greek Army I ran a few years ago in
the mini I would not run this year. Even w/ 5 units
of peltasts and two 32 man pike I would have to play
terrain and defense against a lot of opponents.

Todd

--- kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@...> wrote:
> Todd,
> If you play Regular foot armies it should not
> matter one bit!
>
>
> Kelly
>
> Todd Kaeser <hailkaeser@...> wrote:
> With table sizes that large do you find that the
> armies chosen are prdominately cav?
>
> Any close foot armies that do well?
>
> Todd K
>
>
> --- jjendon@... wrote:
> >
> > > to be a problem, I think it is great. Heck, I'd
> > like to see 1600 pts on
> > > an 8x5 in 15mm or even Fast Warrior on a 6x4!
> >
> > Here in DFW we like to play 1600 25mm on 10X6, and
> > 1600 15mm on 8X5. Talk
> > about open flanks!
> >
> > Don
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> 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!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

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]