Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[scott holder]

People, people! the rules writers are all old 7th
gamers with figs based thusly. Naturally, they will
have rules that reflect their basing scheme.

>Actually, with the exception of WAB, every other NASAMW-sponsored rules
set used in tourneys, uses the same basing schema and, heh heh, yes,
it's that one originally developed by a certain UK firm..........

>And yes, I think most of us have had to finagle figures onto a stand,
I'm not unsympathetic to the problem. But, trying to insert a new "base
standard" into the scheme of things would be most unwise from a FHE
standpoint. But...

Just develop a manuver template that allows the
use of WH basing (I don't know what it is) to play the
rules.

>Excellent idea for at least friendly pickup games. The problem as I
see it would still be the spatial issues on the tabletop since WAB stuff
is based "larger" than Warrior stuff. Now if it were the other way
around, yes, a template would work really really well. If anybody out
there wants to draw up something (no matter how crude), I'll be more
than glad to clean it up and post it on the web site and I'm sure we
could also make it available in the egroup files section after it's
polished.

The difficulty that I can see is if one wants
to play another basing scheme in a tournament.
Otherwise it is not critical. Shako, a nappy rules
system, allows all basing stiles with no problems. I
don't see this basing problem as big enough to warrant
such strong posturing from anyone.

>My AWI rules also don't require a standardized basing system but....the
problem is when you use two radically different basing systems in the
same game.

therefore, the solution is to develop an alternate set
of manuver schematics for WH basing. Not much of a
problem for an active mind.

>Sounds like you just volunteered for the job:):)

Scott
List Ho

[scott holder]

Just develop a manuver template that allows the
use of WH basing (I don't know what it is) to play the
rules.

>Excellent idea for at least friendly pickup games. The problem as I
see it would still be the spatial issues on the tabletop since WAB stuff
is based "larger" than Warrior stuff. Now if it were the other way
around, yes, a template would work really really well. If anybody out
there wants to draw up something (no matter how crude), I'll be more
than glad to clean it up and post it on the web site and I'm sure we
could also make it available in the egroup files section after it's
polished.

>OMG, I'm replying to my own replies:) I just had a thought, not
worth much considering I know little about WAB. But it does hafta do
with a "manuver template". Let's say somebody is running some close
order spear block that's 4 Warrior elements wide and 2 deep (assuming
it's in it's most usual tactical formation). Could not a WAB player
simply have a set of templates that show the Warrior size of the unit
and then cram as many WAB-based elements onto that template, then move
the whole thing around? That way, yes, fewer elements are physically on
the board but both players could at least readily identify the unit.
Yes, it causes the WAB player to do a little more up front work but it's
a possible workaround.

>Having said all of this, I still agree with Chris, there are ways to
cram all the figures onto a Warrior base (with some exceptions, granted)
as long as you are willing to make a couple of visual/artistic
compromises.

Scott
Stand Ho

> >OMG, I'm replying to my own replies:) I just
> had a thought, not
> worth much considering I know little about WAB. But
> it does hafta do
> with a "manuver template". Let's say somebody is
> running some close
> order spear block that's 4 Warrior elements wide and
> 2 deep (assuming
> it's in it's most usual tactical formation). Could
> not a WAB player
> simply have a set of templates that show the Warrior
> size of the unit
> and then cram as many WAB-based elements onto that
> template, then move
> the whole thing around? That way, yes, fewer
> elements are physically on
> the board but both players could at least readily
> identify the unit.
> Yes, it causes the WAB player to do a little more up
> front work but it's
> a possible workaround.

Scott,

If the WH stuff is smaller based, then the issue is
solved. Napoleon's battles used "trays" that the
gamer made to put elements in for ease of manuver.
Anyone who has played NB knows how many figs get on
the table. Anyway, my using green constuction paper,
a pair of scissors, and a stapler, a person can make
these trays that would represent the area in which the
figures were "located". The trays were cut to the
area--say 2 deep/4 wide close order--with a 1/8" lip
remainder on each side. A snip diagonally in from
each corner of the rectangle to 1/8", then fold the
1/8" remainder up to form a shallow box. Fold the
corner tabs (one inside one outside) around the corner
and staple. Ta-da, one tray representing 24 close
order infantry. Rinse, lather, repeat until trays for
entire army.

boyd


=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

[scott holder]

If the WH stuff is smaller based, then the issue is
solved.

>The problem is that I don't think it is, smaller that is. If it's
larger, then, methinks we're back to creating templates along the lines
you describe, and then stick as much WAB stuff on the "tray" and move it
around.

> therefore, the solution is to develop an alternate
> set
> of manuver schematics for WH basing. Not much of a
> problem for an active mind.
>
> >Sounds like you just volunteered for the job:):)

Scott, I said active mind, not defective mind ;D

boyd


=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

--- In WarriorRules@y..., "Holder, Scott <FHWA>" <Scott.Holder@f...>
wrote:
> >Actually, with the exception of WAB, every other NASAMW-sponsored
rules
> set used in tourneys, uses the same basing schema and, heh heh, yes,
> it's that one originally developed by a certain UK firm..........

And at one time, WRG set the standard. However, the problem with the
standard is that it is not functional or practical. As a result, it
is fair to say that a substantial number, if not the majority of 25mm
figures are NOT mounted to the WRG standard.

> >Excellent idea for at least friendly pickup games. The problem as
I
> see it would still be the spatial issues on the tabletop since WAB
stuff
> is based "larger" than Warrior stuff. Now if it were the other way
> around, yes, a template would work really really well. If anybody
out
> there wants to draw up something (no matter how crude), I'll be more
> than glad to clean it up and post it on the web site and I'm sure we
> could also make it available in the egroup files section after it's
> polished.

There is actually a very simple solution to the problem. You simply
create another figure scale: 30mm. Actually 30mm figures have been
around for a long time, predating both 25mm and 15mm figures. They
vanished for a period of time, but now they are back with a vengeance.

How do you mount, move, shoot with 30mm figures. Simple. You double
the 15mm distances. One inch of ground scale becomes 20 paces
instead of 40. Instead of mounting with a 40mm frontage, you mount
with an 80mm frontage. Double movement and firing distances (and
yes, you need a larger table). And you get sort of a cosmic
convergence: compatibility with Warhammer. Three Warhammer cavalry
or 4 infantry will fit on an 80mm frontage.

Players with older 25mm figures can choose to use either the 25mm
rules or the 30mm rules, all they have to do is place a card under
their existing base reflecting the larger base size.

Doug

--- In WarriorRules@y..., Wanax Andron <vercengetorix@y...> wrote:
> If the WH stuff is smaller based, then the issue is
> solved. Napoleon's battles used "trays" that the
> gamer made to put elements in for ease of manuver.
> Anyone who has played NB knows how many figs get on
> the table. Anyway, my using green constuction paper,
> a pair of scissors, and a stapler, a person can make
> these trays that would represent the area in which the
> figures were "located". The trays were cut to the
> area--say 2 deep/4 wide close order--with a 1/8" lip
> remainder on each side. A snip diagonally in from
> each corner of the rectangle to 1/8", then fold the
> 1/8" remainder up to form a shallow box. Fold the
> corner tabs (one inside one outside) around the corner
> and staple. Ta-da, one tray representing 24 close
> order infantry. Rinse, lather, repeat until trays for
> entire army.

Actually, the Warhammer figures are mounted individually. For a 60mm
frontage, you end up mounting with one less figure than normal. Thus
you could fit 3 close order, 2 open order infantry and 2 cavalry on
one stand.

Doug

[joncleaves]

Doug

I totally agree. I am working on a 30mm scale 'conversion' for Warrior that
will be available free here when I get it done.

I also plan on a 54mm conversion for Fast Warrior....

Jon

[joncleaves]

Doug

One thing I have seen done is to have an 80mm frontage be declared an 'element'
of WAB-based figs. This, as you must know, is four infantry figs and (almost)
three cav figs. A little work must be done to identify who is loose order but
two or three figs with the right amount of space between would identify
open/loose foot, for example.

Jon

Fold the
> > corner tabs (one inside one outside) around the
> corner
> > and staple. Ta-da, one tray representing 24 close
> > order infantry. Rinse, lather, repeat until trays
> for
> > entire army.
>
> Actually, the Warhammer figures are mounted
> individually. For a 60mm
> frontage, you end up mounting with one less figure
> than normal. Thus
> you could fit 3 close order, 2 open order infantry
> and 2 cavalry on
> one stand.
>
> Doug

This is even better. Make the trays, then put as many
figs as possible in the tray. Let the Trays denote
the location and size of the unit, and let the
individual figures represent the weapons/armor/type.
It seems to me that, as you say above, it is an easy
fix to a simple problem. :)

boyd



=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

I for one am not opposed to this. Of course, I'm not
opposed to most any gaming. Never liked Space Hulk,
though :)

Anyway, the template/tray idea would work, as I've
used it in nappys many times. If list members are
truely devoid of artistic ability, I can try to create
something and post it; however, i'm a very sloppy
artist ;D
boyd

--- "Holder, Scott <FHWA>" <Scott.Holder@...>
wrote:
> If the WH stuff is smaller based, then the issue is
> solved.
>
> >The problem is that I don't think it is, smaller
> that is. If it's
> larger, then, methinks we're back to creating
> templates along the lines
> you describe, and then stick as much WAB stuff on
> the "tray" and move it
> around.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

[scott holder]

And at one time, WRG set the standard. However, the problem with the
standard is that it is not functional or practical. As a result, it
is fair to say that a substantial number, if not the majority of 25mm
figures are NOT mounted to the WRG standard.

>That would be where? I can honestly say that the bulk of 25mm gamers
in the USofA play either Warrior or either of Terry Gore's games and
they are mounted to the same "wrg standard". Moreover, the small group
of 25mm DBM gamers obviously mount to the same standard.


There is actually a very simple solution to the problem. You simply
create another figure scale: 30mm. Actually 30mm figures have been
around for a long time, predating both 25mm and 15mm figures. They
vanished for a period of time, but now they are back with a vengeance.

>The problem there is serious (here at least) lack of players in that
scale. Plus, it cuts up a tournament field into yet another bracket and
I seriously doubt we currently have the demand for that.

>That being said, nothing wrong, theoretically, with another "scale".
Heh heh, I'll be sticking with 25mm mind you:):)

Scott

[joncleaves]

<<And at one time, WRG set the standard. However, the problem with the standard
is that it is not functional or practical. As a result, it is fair to say that
a substantial number, if not the majority of 25mm figures are NOT mounted to the
WRG standard.>>

I have to ask the same question Scott did. The VAST majority or 25mm bases in
the US are the Warrior norm, not least because seven of the eight major ancients
systems use them. I can't speak for England, of course, but over here WAB is
the minority system by far.

But we will make a 30mm scale standard (it's looking a lot like twice 15mm right
now, but I have not done all the math...). And a 30mm scale is not tied to
whether tourneys use it or not - if one player wants it, that is enough for me.
Same with 54mm. I'll even do 10mm and 20mm if someone wants....

But, just so everyone is clear, a change in the Warrior rules structure to shift
from the hobby standard to the WAB method of basing isn't going to happen.

Jon

No one is asking for a change in Warrior rules structure. Heck, paces are
paces. What a pace is on a ruler is the issue here. Playing 54mm Warrior
on a Gym floor might be fun. Or 12" GI Joe scale....
On another point, counting rules systems which use WRG standard does not
establish "vast" majorities. It is the number of people playing each set
that matters towards establishing majorities. Kind of like the
Constitutional Convention of 1785. How to balance the large states with the
small states. Virginia and New York had 40% of the population combined, and
that was only 2 out of 13 states. I think comparing print runs and sales
might be instructive, but not particularly useful.
I understand Scott's point about your having an established constituency of
7th ed players, and not wanting to require wholesale rebasing of "the larger
scale". Phil should have done it 15 years ago, when Essex and Garrison
started pushing the envelope, but he didn't. Instead DBX copped out by
making the element, not the figures, preeminent. This way, I could put 2
Gripping Beast Sassanid SHC (or Kn(X)) on a base, and it has absolutely no
effect on game play. Ditto my favorite example of Redoubt Mycenaean
pikemen. 3 on a MI base LOOK right, and fit, and have no effect on play. I
pointed out how in DBR, all infantry are on LMI bases, and would like to add
that 2 cavalry are the norm, except for pistols, so Phil has addressed the
point somewhat. Skirmishers and LC may even have gone overboard a bit. DBR
required wholesale rebasing of most WRG Renaissance armies. And I am sure
some will point out how this means absolutely nothing, since FHE is not WRG.
And I am not leaving, since my main ancients buddies are Warrior players. I
only said there was trouble at the mill. I didn't expect some sort of
Spanish Inquisition.....

John Carroll (aka the OFM)



> -----Original Message-----
> From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 12:37 PM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Hey there
>
>
> <<And at one time, WRG set the standard. However, the problem
> with the standard is that it is not functional or practical. As
> a result, it is fair to say that a substantial number, if not the
> majority of 25mm figures are NOT mounted to the WRG standard.>>
>
> I have to ask the same question Scott did. The VAST majority or
> 25mm bases in the US are the Warrior norm, not least because
> seven of the eight major ancients systems use them. I can't
> speak for England, of course, but over here WAB is the minority
> system by far.
>
> But we will make a 30mm scale standard (it's looking a lot like
> twice 15mm right now, but I have not done all the math...). And
> a 30mm scale is not tied to whether tourneys use it or not - if
> one player wants it, that is enough for me. Same with 54mm.
> I'll even do 10mm and 20mm if someone wants....
>
> But, just so everyone is clear, a change in the Warrior rules
> structure to shift from the hobby standard to the WAB method of
> basing isn't going to happen.
>
> Jon
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Excellent Point by a "true gentleman!!!"

Kelly


--- Wanax Andron <vercengetorix@...> wrote:
> What in the world?
>
> I go fishing for one weekend, and everyone on this
> list becomes a lunatic while I'm gone?
>
> People, people! the rules writers are all old 7th
> gamers with figs based thusly. Naturally, they will
> have rules that reflect their basing scheme. How
> does
> this limit the WH gamers from playing Warrior? NOt
> at
> all. Just develop a manuver template that allows
> the
> use of WH basing (I don't know what it is) to play
> the
> rules. The difficulty that I can see is if one
> wants
> to play another basing scheme in a tournament.
> Otherwise it is not critical. Shako, a nappy rules
> system, allows all basing stiles with no problems.
> I
> don't see this basing problem as big enough to
> warrant
> such strong posturing from anyone.
>
> therefore, the solution is to develop an alternate
> set
> of manuver schematics for WH basing. Not much of a
> problem for an active mind.
>
> boyd
>
>
> =====
> Wake up and smell the Assyrians
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/