Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

--- kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@...> wrote:
> Excellent Point by a "true gentleman!!!"
>
> Kelly
>

I take that as a complement, Kelly, but I should point
out two errors in the above statement:

1. I'm not a gentleman, as I've been an enlisted man
for my entire military carrier. I therefore ascribe
to the British officer's definition of an enlisted
man. "Beware the enlisted man, for he is cunning and
not to be trusted" :)

2. While I do have an excellent point, I always wear
a hat so that it doesn't show ;D

boyd


=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

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

[Doug]

>I didn't expect some sort of
>Spanish Inquisition.....
>
>John Carroll (aka the OFM)

Which reminds me... who makes a 25mm Comfy Chair for the Papal States army?
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at
present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come
in it's turn, but it will be at a remote period." James Madison, 15
March 1798 (_Papers of J.M._ vol 12, p.14; LC call no. JK.111.M24)

-----Original Message-----
From: cncbump@... <cncbump@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sunday, April 14, 2002 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Hey there


>In a message dated 04/14/2002 9:06:26 PM Central Daylight Time,
>bfritz@... writes:
>
><< Mr. Cleaves, et al:
>
> Disagreement is seldom pleasant, it's the nature of it to be unpleasant, and
>the post-60's liberal dogma that disagreement can only be permitted if it's
>pleasant is just crypto PC-fascist intolerance and censorship, as is the
>similarly misguided and mistaken politically-correct notion that all
>criticism is bad, or that all criticism constitutes a personal attack. These
>are the weapons used by the PC intolerant of whatever society or (Yahoo?)
>group to stealthily censor, intimidate and eventually silence those who
>disagree or criticize. Not all criticism is bad, not every criticism is a
>personal attack, and a critic is not always launching a personal attack by
>criticizing. Disagreement and criticism can and should be respectful, and
>while my comments in this group have been critical and at times pointed,
>spirited, lampooning, cynical, even sarcastic, you go back and look at my
>posts, they have ALWAYS been RESPECTFULLY confined to commenting about
>messages, NOT messengers! At worst I may have used sarcasm, parody and some
>pointed humorous references to illustrate my arguments, but only in criticism
>of a statement, assertion or behavior, NOT the originating individual. I
>have never personally attacked any individual in this group, a courtesy which
>has not been returned to me by certain members of this group. But it's
>neither my fault nor my responsibility if someone else permits his egotism
>and emotions to override his intellect to the point that any criticism or
>disagreement that he dislikes is self-servingly misrepresented as a "personal
>attack," or that he similarly wrongly misrepresents the critic as making a
>"personal attack."
>
> Likewise it's lamentable that many of the members of this group, like
>society at large, appear so insipidly pre-occupied with HOW something is
>presented, rather that WHAT is being presented (that is, obsessed with form
>and appearance over substance and content), coupled with some fantastic
>misapprehension that they have a constitutional protection against being
>upset or offended by anyone else's speech, that they become incapable of
>critically evaluating the actual merits of the content, PARTICULARLY if they
>dislike how the content was presented. THOSE are the FIRST people to resort
>to personal attacks of the messenger because they're unhappy with HOW the
>messenger sounded (or read), or less frequently, they understand the message
>and are incapable of refuting the details, yet violently oppose it anyway.
>Boy, either way, THAT'S when they start the little personal digs, the insults
>and the name-calling intended to trivialize and dismiss the message NOT by
>discussing intellectually its content but by demeaning and ridiculing the
>messenger, including the classic cop-out where a person weasels out of having
>to actually analyze something by trivializing it with the patronizing
>dismissal, "Oh, ignore what he has to say, he's just having a 'bad day'."
>Examples:
>
> "...and I strongly urge everyone to ignore Brian's other comments - he
>obviously has had a bad day and needed to vent somewhere..." (Jon Cleaves,
>19Dec01)
>
> "Geez Brian, you sound like John has attacked you personally. ...I don't
>think it's necessary to 'blitzkrieg' his previous statements...." (David
>Smith, 13Apr02)
>
> "...I have no way of judging if your obnoxious posturing is just schtick, or
>the real you." (John Carroll, 13Apr02)
>
> "What an asshole. Whaddya' bet he's never missed a 7th edition tournament,
>and his figures are still on the old 6th edition bases
> with 7th sized cardboard pasted underneath?" ("Doug," 13Apr02)
>
> "I was taken aback by the apparent venom dripping from Brian's response.
>He may have been having a bad day and it just showed up in his prose."
>("Chris," 14Apr02)
>
> "The more I read and think about Brian's response, the more upset I get. I
>am trying to temper it with the fact that we cannot discern tone or facial
>expression from an E-mail, but if the words were written in the spirit that
>they seem to be coming across, ... serious consideration needs to be given to
>the continued participation on this forum by Brian." ("Chris," 14Apr02)
>
> With the exception of your quoting a section of your rules to me (which, if
>quoted correctly, is STILL contradicted by your corresponding
>"clarification"), NOT ONE of these patronizing, condescending, personally
>demeaning, and in one case obscene, dismissals quoted above included ANY
>reference, reply, refutation or response based on the SUBSTANCE of whichever
>of my remarks provoked these "comments." I could easily have looked past and
>dismissed with amusement the preceding retaliatory digs in order to fairly
>evaluate any accompanying commentary about WHAT I said (rather than HOW I
>said it) but again, THEY DIDN'T OFFER ANY.
>
> In ALL my comments in this group any disagreements, complaints or criticisms
>I've aired have addressed ISSUES, not individuals. I didn't see in the group
>rules that one could only dissent as long as nobody's precious little
>feathers got ruffled, boats got rocked or cages got rattled. I must have
>missed the section that said that it's a crime punishable by banishment to
>point out lack of perspective, or shortsightedness, or pomposity, or to dare
>to point out that the emperor really isn't wearing any clothes, or even be a
>bit of a smart-aleck, but if that's the understanding then let's shine a
>little light of truth on how the Warrior group and its faithful employ their
>own form of political correctness to first pillory and then quash articulate,
>spirited and stalwart dissent.
>
> It used to be that most adults had enough mental toughness to endure hearing
>or reading something a bit disagreeable, and enough ability to control their
>emotions long enough to look at something for its content, but it seems we've
>degenerated into a society of soft, linguini-spined, intolerant, emotional,
>feelings-based, appearance-driven babies in adult bodies who demand that
>everything they experience be pleasantly sugar-coated, are incapable of
>dealing with feeling they've been offended and must retaliate whenever it
>happens. I weep for the future.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JonCleaves@... <JonCleaves@...>
> To: bfritz@... <bfritz@...>
> Date: Sunday, April 14, 2002 9:46 AM
> Subject: Hey there
>
>
> Just a quick note from your friendly list moderator. The tone of some
>of your emails is a little on the 'edgy' side. Please let's not attack the
>sender of a mail and stick to pleasant disagreement. Thanks.
>
> Jon >>
>
>Brian,
>I understand now. No one left to bully. No one left to applaud a self
>anointed mastery of the queen's English and its use in a sharp demeaning
>posture. Perchance, no one left who can counted as a friend? Narcissism
>tends to chase people away. The game is played for enjoyment. Few care if
>it is WRG 7x or Warrior. The improvements are in fact improvements; like it
>or not. Those of us who are truly the "soft, linguini-spined, intolerant,
>emotional, feelings-based, appearance-driven babies" are the ones who have
>figured that out. We choose to first offer a sympathetic, yet patronizing,
>escape and when one is too foolish to take it we choose to walk away. The
>battle being created is just not worth fighting. Weep for the future.
>Weeping can be therapeutic, and I suspect, if what I read is any kind of
>indication of anyone's outlook on life, weeping would not be foreign to them.
> Although it is true that we must love ourselves before we can love another,
>loving oneself to the exclusion of others is a very lonely existence. I
>disagree with my friends often. I count some in this forum as my friends,
>but even when dealing with those who I am only aquainted to by this forum, I
>do not feel the need to alienate them in my disagreements. I am still happy
>at the end of a spirited game of warrior. I do not believe that
>disagreements must, by definition, be unpleasant. That line of thought could
>be argued to be medieval. Your comments scream of someone searching for a
>duel, sharp weapons or sharp words being only a detail. Take up pugelism or
>join a debating club, although even there, the experienced will tell you that
>your methods will more likely disuade than convice most judges. Again just
>my point of veiw.
>Chris
>

OUCH! Chris, that really, really HURTS me! You made me feel AWFUL! You...
you... *sniff*... made me... *sniff*... cryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy...

But I must thank you, thank you, thank you for giving me in just one e-mail my
full daily requirements for both being patronized and New Age coffee table
psycho-babble.

>
>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/
>
>


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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Boyd, I think I should add that you are quite the
artist as well since I purchased one of your lovely
painted Indian Armies back in the middle ninety's from
Scotty Dickson "The Lead Merchant of NASAMW!" LOL!

Kelly

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

In a message dated 4/15/02 3:10:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
rockd@... writes:

<< Subj: [WarriorRules] Re: Hey there
Date: 4/15/02 3:10:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: rockd@... (Doug)
Reply-to: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com

>I didn't expect some sort of
>Spanish Inquisition.....
>
>John Carroll (aka the OFM)

Which reminds me... who makes a 25mm Comfy Chair for the Papal States army?
--
>>

Mirleton.

John

--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> 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

I have been futzing around with basing for years. First I mount to
one standard, then decide that I want to do something else, and
remount. So there is no consistency between my figures.

However, I have reached some conclusions for the future. First, one
of the real strengths of 25mm is that they are ideal for both
skirmish and siege games. 15mm is workable for the sieges, but just
plain sucky for skirmish games. (And Pig Wars is a hoot!)

So I have started mounting figures individually (Warhammer style).
But I mount them on metalic bases and have magnetic elements.

I went to an 80mm frontage for elements years ago. It solves a lot
of problems, and is my unofficial 30mm scale. I really like the look
and feel of these stands (big and bulky). Just about anything fits
on them (although the OG Byzantine Scatatoi were something of a
challenge even with these stands.

This is not an issue for me because I have matching armies and will
usually supply the figures for both sides of a battle. All of the
DBx players use 15mm and none of the 25mm gamers can stand DBx (it
really is a 15mm game.)

No one in my part of the world is playing Warrior, yet. One of my
fellow gamers suggested that I look at the rules. I am concerned
about the basing issues. I refuse to rebase (again).

Doug

--- In WarriorRules@y..., "Holder, Scott <FHWA>" <Scott.Holder@f...>
wrote:
> >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.

Don't forget the Warhammer crowd (you will find a few of them here,
John Carroll, Dave Smith, myself). I really think that Warhammer is
a significant part of 25mm gaming. (It is a game for 25mm figures
written by someone who likes 25mm - I would not recommend it for 15mm)

Terry Gore has actually declared neutrality on the basing issue. He
has three basing sizes. And his large bases (of up to 80mm) really
does accomodate the larger figures. He has made it clear that basing
will not get in the way of his game; which is the right attitude.

I suspect most of the older gamers and armies that date from the WRG
period conform to WRG basing standards (and I even have a few armies
based this way - which have not seen the light of day for years)

But I suspect it is a different story for the newer figures. Old
Glory has been around for around 5-7 years now. A few companies like
Whitecross and Gripping Beast offer good products for a reasonable
price. The old basing conventions will not work for them.

> >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.

Quite frankly, I don't give a d*mn about this. I can't play in 25mm
tournaments anyway (unless my opponents don't mind when I pull out a
few broken, twisted and chipped Minifigs). But why would I want to
use those figures when I have figures produced by Barry Lee (for
example)?

In any case, let the market decide. If there is no-one to play in
the 30mm bracket, they can pack up their figures and play Warhammer
or Medieval (Ancient) Warfare. If there aren't enough people to play
25mm, they can put their armies back in their boxes (or stick a
slightly larger tray under their figures to play 30mm.

Doug

[joncleaves]

doug

did you see my 30mm scale post?

Jon


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

[scott holder]

Quite frankly, I don't give a d*mn about this. I can't play in 25mm
tournaments anyway (unless my opponents don't mind when I pull out a
few broken, twisted and chipped Minifigs). But why would I want to
use those figures when I have figures produced by Barry Lee (for
example)?

>I have to factor this into things. However, I believe with the posted
30mm scale, players who ain't into the whole tournament thang now have
an option for playing with figures they feel too big to fit on the
"standard" size bases or want to continue to have the flexibility to
play another system that doesn't support the "standard" size. When I
get back from Cold Wars, I'll also have something on the web site about
30mm.

>Hope this helps,

Scott
Basing Ho

[Kelly Wilkinson]

And who do you think manufactures the "Comfy
Pillows!?"
LMAO!

Kelly

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Actually Doug, Dave Smith who you mention does have
many of those lines that you speak of and he seems to
somehow get along just fine with basing his OG,
Foundry, and gripping beast figs. In fact, I just
traded for his LOVELY Gripping Beast 25/28mm
Berbers/Andulusians and I am having little difficulty
basing these to the Warrior standard. I think if one
is having problems basing a particular figure, they
should be proactive and find out what others are doing
to solve the problem before talking about packing up
their figures and refusing to play that system .
After all, this list is a kind of support group for
people dedicated to gaming, just like you! I for one
have found that most every member here is
exceptionally helpful and creative when it comes to
helping out with these types of issues. If I'm not
mistaken, Chris Bump, my friend from my early days of
gaming at Fort Sill (at Don Carter's house!) seems to
have the answer! Why don't you correspond with him as
to how he would solve issues involving this? He is
quite knowledgable and a great guy to boot! I wish you
nothing but up dice (Lobsters!)!!! It's a Maine
thingy!:)

Kelly Wilkinson



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

Actually, I have one of Dave's late Roman armies and a number of his
barbarians. All of them are mounted for Warhammer, and will stay
that way. (I dare say, just about anyone would be challenged to fit
the Gripping Beast Commitatus on WRG bases.) I don't know how he
mounted your figures, but I know he uses the Warhammer rules (and
sponsors Warhammer tournaments twice a year in Kansas City).

After mucking around with various mounting systems for a period of
years, and remounting figures God knows how many times, I have simply
reached the decision to mount figures individually Warhammer style.
There are several reasons for this decision (1) Warhammer is the main
set of rules I use for this period - although I am willing and eager
to try other rules, (2) I want to use them with skirmish games, (3)
most siege rules call for individually mounted figures, (4) almost
all of my friends who have 25mm figures are mounted to the Warhammer
standard. Remounting to the old standard would actually put me out-
of-sinc with just about everyone I know who uses 25mm.

In short, I am one of those cross-over gamers. Like Dave implied, I
started with fantasy (and still have an infestation of Skaven on my
work table). There are a LOT of gamers who start with fantasy and
can be lured to historical gaming (and some of my friends actively
conspire to do the luring). By the same token, I have a considerable
investment in historical figures. I also firmly believe that the
rules need to fit the figures, and not the other way around. (Games
Workshop seems to be the only company in a position to dictate things
like base size at the present time.)

So the bottom line is, I have no interest in remounting figures once
again. Quite frankly, I think the primary reason for retaining the
old WRG mounting standards is because the older gamers do not want to
remount their figures. I personally find the smaller bases to be
unattractive, defeating the whole purpose of miniature gaming (namely
the aesthetics). I have also seen a lot of weird basing schemes just
to get the figures on the base. It's sort of like looking at a
grossly obese woman trying to squeeze into shorts which are too small.

The 30mm scale actually resolves the difficulties for those of us who
play another game system, but want to experiment. To the extent it
is unofficial, it means that I will not bring figures or play in
tournaments at Historicon. (But then, I really don't have any plans
to travel to Historicon, though I have been talking about doing it
for the past 10 years.) It also means that I will not be sponsoring
Warrior games or tournaments in the Denver area conventions. But it
does not preclude me from running an occasional friendly game at the
local club.

Doug

--- In WarriorRules@y..., kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
>
> Actually Doug, Dave Smith who you mention does have
> many of those lines that you speak of and he seems to
> somehow get along just fine with basing his OG,
> Foundry, and gripping beast figs. In fact, I just
> traded for his LOVELY Gripping Beast 25/28mm
> Berbers/Andulusians and I am having little difficulty
> basing these to the Warrior standard. I think if one
> is having problems basing a particular figure, they
> should be proactive and find out what others are doing
> to solve the problem before talking about packing up
> their figures and refusing to play that system .
> After all, this list is a kind of support group for
> people dedicated to gaming, just like you! I for one
> have found that most every member here is
> exceptionally helpful and creative when it comes to
> helping out with these types of issues. If I'm not
> mistaken, Chris Bump, my friend from my early days of
> gaming at Fort Sill (at Don Carter's house!) seems to
> have the answer! Why don't you correspond with him as
> to how he would solve issues involving this? He is
> quite knowledgable and a great guy to boot! I wish you
> nothing but up dice (Lobsters!)!!! It's a Maine
> thingy!
>
> Kelly Wilkinson
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/

[joncleaves]

the 30mm scale will be official in a few days.

I'd be happy to run an event at a Denver convention if you won't, but we'd need
more than one player. I sold a BUNCH of Warrior at Genghis Con, so we will have
to see....

[joncleaves]

> <<I think this will pay off when you release Fantasy Warrior.>>


Well, we will put the 30mm scale directly into the rules certainly, but from
initila playtesting it will be the rules themselves and the ability to use
any figure made instead of proprietary ones that will get players playing Fan
War.

<< GW > pretty well has the fantasy and sci-fi markets locked up. Anyone who
>
> does fantasy does Warhammer, whether they really like the game or
> not. It simply is unavoidable.>>


It very avoidable. The GW base has been in steady erosion, actually.
Demonworld did some damage. That awful Fellowship game is helping. So is
that great little game, Chainmail. So is making tourneys not about winning.
I am selling all my WHFB stuff and I am not the only one. Tourneys have
dried up around here.
GW games won't die easy, but there are certainly alternatives in fantasy
gaming.

> <<The 30mm scale will help lure players over to Fantasy Warrior. You
> can rightfully state that existing fantasy armies can be converted
> with a little work.>>


I could rightfully state that about 25mm too, but I won't convince you,
that's for sure. I think the rules will do it. Long time WHFB and DW
players all are loving Fan War. It is some of the best gaming we have done
around here in a while.





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

--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> the 30mm scale will be official in a few days.
>
> I'd be happy to run an event at a Denver convention if you won't,
but we'd need more than one player. I sold a BUNCH of Warrior at
Genghis Con, so we will have to see....

I may speak to Larry Irons about this. He has a large Republican
Roman army, and I have a lot of Greeks (which, by the way, are
mounted to the old WRG standard - the basing looks nice and I have no
intention of changing it.) We both have been experimenting with the
computer moderated rules by Chris Reilly, which appear to be based on
WRG. But I know he is interested in Warrior.

My feeling is to run demo/participation games to build up some
interest. Only when there are enough players would I try to do a
tournament. (There is nothing worse than a tournament where no one
shows up.)

Doug