Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

I, being still a newbie to the game, was wondering what players meant when
they say that Warrior is more of a tournament set of rules. Do you mean:

1. The rules are not realistic, instead bending troop type strengths and
weakness to allow for a more balanced game, or...

2. The LISTS are designed inn a way that allows for more balanced tournament
play...some armies out a wack and need fixing, or

3. The game is tournament style simply because it allows for such (i.e.,
point system, terrain set-up, etc).

If 1., I would disagree from what I know about the rules. Can you give some
examples WHY you feel this is the case? Why the rules don't work well for
scenario play or historical recreation of a battle?

If 2, isn't that what the lists are designed for...I mean, tournament play.
Surely they are only examples for scenario designers.

If 3, well I find that rules that allow for all forms of play, along with a
points system are much superior to those without. So whats wrong?

Did I miss anything?

--Kurt (who is concerned about this)



***
Kurtus A. Brown
sheol@...
jab@...
Known as I_SHEOL on Delphi and Yahoo.
Feel free to add me to your ICQ: 6953323
Founder of the Table-Top Warlords Wargaming Club.
Check out our Games webpage at http://members.toast.net/jab/
Also the Founder of ParaSearch, Paranormal Research and Investigation
Society (webpage coming soon).
***

[joncleaves]

The answer Kurt is both.

There is no historical battle that I am aware of that the rules can't replicate.
Now, you have to make some historical assumptions. Did Alex REALLY charge cav
across a disordering stream into spearmen? Or was there something else going
on. Warrior allows for any interpretation of such things so that the player can
decide.

Lists are there to allow players playing competitive games to build an army AND
to inform historical army builders as to some general historical aspects of the
armies and the proportion of troops within them.

I am writing the first Warrior clinic article now, where a player writes a New
Kingdom Egyptian army for Kadesh and then uses the lists to write a list for
competition to show how to use both.

Jon

[Greg Regets]

I do not feel that WARRIOR is better as a tournament set, but I do feel that is
the best tournament set, by far.

I think sometimes we reed things into statements that are not really there.

Greg

----- Original Message -----
From: JonCleaves@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Historical or Tournament rules


The answer Kurt is both.

There is no historical battle that I am aware of that the rules can't
replicate. Now, you have to make some historical assumptions. Did Alex REALLY
charge cav across a disordering stream into spearmen? Or was there something
else going on. Warrior allows for any interpretation of such things so that the
player can decide.

Lists are there to allow players playing competitive games to build an army
AND to inform historical army builders as to some general historical aspects of
the armies and the proportion of troops within them.

I am writing the first Warrior clinic article now, where a player writes a New
Kingdom Egyptian army for Kadesh and then uses the lists to write a list for
competition to show how to use both.

Jon

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT



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.



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

Greg.

I asked this question because I have heard many people say Warrior was a
"tourament" set of rules. I just wanted to be clear what people meant. Were
they excluding the historical side of the game, saying warrior doesn't work,
or what? nothomg big...just wondering where people are comming from. Not
reading anything into any statements.

--Kurt



----- Original Message -----
From: "Greggory A. Regets" <gar@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Historical or Tournament rules


> I do not feel that WARRIOR is better as a tournament set, but I do feel
that is the best tournament set, by far.
>
> I think sometimes we reed things into statements that are not really
there.
>
> Greg

[Greg Regets]

Thanks Kurtus ...

I have heard this before and after a bit of discussion what I have really found
is a statement of support for the way the game plays in tournaments.

To me, if you play a historical matchup, complete with the strategic and
tactical blunders of the commanders, you will get the same result most of the
time. There are some exceptions of course, but then again, I bet if it were
possible to actually fight historical battles over again, we would see different
results on occasion.

I have always liked to think of a historical battle as similar to a great
sporting event, and like any other sporting event, sometimes your team is just
on, and sometimes they aren't. There is no rhyme or reason to this in sports.
Sometimes you have a nice meal and get restful sleep, and once on the field, you
stink the place up. What I also know about sports is that being on, or being off
spreads faster than small pox. Who knows why. If someone could answer this
question with accuracy, they would be the greatest coach in history.

I feel armies had this same problem. Perhaps there were days when a high
percentage of senior Centurions were off their game, and this spread like
wildfire throughout the cohorts. This is only theory of course, but one thing is
certain, other than dice rolling, there is really no way to simulate this in a
game.

Anyway ... happy gaming ... Greg

P.S. That was a bit of a rambling post. I must be off today!



----- Original Message -----
From: Kurtus A. Brown
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Historical or Tournament rules


Greg.

I asked this question because I have heard many people say Warrior was a
"tourament" set of rules. I just wanted to be clear what people meant. Were
they excluding the historical side of the game, saying warrior doesn't work,
or what? nothomg big...just wondering where people are comming from. Not
reading anything into any statements.

--Kurt



----- Original Message -----
From: "Greggory A. Regets" <gar@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Historical or Tournament rules


> I do not feel that WARRIOR is better as a tournament set, but I do feel
that is the best tournament set, by far.
>
> I think sometimes we reed things into statements that are not really
there.
>
> Greg



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT



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.



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