Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[scott holder]

What is wrong with just leaving a back-rank element in place until you make
your final move?

>We (NASAMW) have never mandated anything along the lines of "take back"
moves. The players generally play the way Jon has just described. Once
you've moved ALL the elements in a unit to a new place, that's where they
stay. Plus we've discovered that it's simply good sportsmanship to leave a
stationary element "behind" when exploring movement options so that if you
determine you can't sleeze (and I mean that in the best possible way) the unit
into some impossible location in order to flank charge the enemy, you can put
the moving body back where it started with no debate as to it's *true*
starting point. That way the poor umpire (me) isn't forced to come over and
listen to two guys squabbling like kids in a sandbox over "he didn't put his
unit back where it started" or "oh yes I did, it was right HERE, not 5mm to
the left the way you say" or "but those 5mm are excrutiatingly important to my
whole carefully crafted battle plan" etc etc etc:) The old "move a unit,
take it back, but put it 3 feet from it's starting point" is certainly a
favorite tactic of some that ranks right up there with the "moving wedges in a
serpentine fashion". Fortunately, the latter is gone and the former just
doesn't happen here because the player base has grown old together and doesn't
tolerate that crap from each other any more:):)

Scott
List Ho
Hapless Umpire

Scott Holder's description of what can occur if a element it not
left behind to confirm a unit's original position is exactly why I
stopped playing WRG/Warrior 9 years ago. I now have renewed my
interest thanks to Jon Cleaves and an impending "new" version that
is well written. I look forward to participating in further
discussion on Warrior.

An earlier post asked about increasing tournament entries and I
would say that active recruitment/advertising and good
games/sportsmanship is one answer, and effective mentorship is
another. I played many many games in the early 90s where I was
beaten (vikings didn't help)and very few persons or players were
kind or smart enough to "teach" me the hows and whys of the game.
My brush, figures, and dice and enthusiasm went elsewhere.

Woody Walton



--- In WarriorRules@y..., "Holder, Scott <FHWA>" <Scott.Holder@f...>
wrote:
> What is wrong with just leaving a back-rank element in place until
you make
> your final move?
>
> >We (NASAMW) have never mandated anything along the lines of "take
back"
> moves. The players generally play the way Jon has just
described. Once
> you've moved ALL the elements in a unit to a new place, that's
where they
> stay. Plus we've discovered that it's simply good sportsmanship
to leave a
> stationary element "behind" when exploring movement options so
that if you
> determine you can't sleeze (and I mean that in the best possible
way) the unit
> into some impossible location in order to flank charge the enemy,
you can put
> the moving body back where it started with no debate as to it's
*true*
> starting point. That way the poor umpire (me) isn't forced to come
over and
> listen to two guys squabbling like kids in a sandbox over "he
didn't put his
> unit back where it started" or "oh yes I did, it was right HERE,
not 5mm to
> the left the way you say" or "but those 5mm are excrutiatingly
important to my
> whole carefully crafted battle plan" etc etc etc:) The
old "move a unit,
> take it back, but put it 3 feet from it's starting point" is
certainly a
> favorite tactic of some that ranks right up there with the "moving
wedges in a
> serpentine fashion". Fortunately, the latter is gone and the
former just
> doesn't happen here because the player base has grown old together
and doesn't
> tolerate that crap from each other any more:)
>
> Scott
> List Ho
> Hapless Umpire

Woody glad your still here. I also am a recent return from DBM and attended
the same school of "here's how to beat the snout out of your Camillian's
with my BURMESE". The game is much cleaner and I greatly thank all of those
who are contributing. Now if we can all just get along...?

Mark Duncan

-----Original Message-----
From: woodywalton@... [mailto:woodywalton@...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 4:14 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Leaving a stationary element behind


Scott Holder's description of what can occur if a element it not
left behind to confirm a unit's original position is exactly why I
stopped playing WRG/Warrior 9 years ago. I now have renewed my
interest thanks to Jon Cleaves and an impending "new" version that
is well written. I look forward to participating in further
discussion on Warrior.

An earlier post asked about increasing tournament entries and I
would say that active recruitment/advertising and good
games/sportsmanship is one answer, and effective mentorship is
another. I played many many games in the early 90s where I was
beaten (vikings didn't help)and very few persons or players were
kind or smart enough to "teach" me the hows and whys of the game.
My brush, figures, and dice and enthusiasm went elsewhere.

Woody Walton



--- In WarriorRules@y..., "Holder, Scott <FHWA>" <Scott.Holder@f...>
wrote:
> What is wrong with just leaving a back-rank element in place until
you make
> your final move?
>
> >We (NASAMW) have never mandated anything along the lines of "take
back"
> moves. The players generally play the way Jon has just
described. Once
> you've moved ALL the elements in a unit to a new place, that's
where they
> stay. Plus we've discovered that it's simply good sportsmanship
to leave a
> stationary element "behind" when exploring movement options so
that if you
> determine you can't sleeze (and I mean that in the best possible
way) the unit
> into some impossible location in order to flank charge the enemy,
you can put
> the moving body back where it started with no debate as to it's
*true*
> starting point. That way the poor umpire (me) isn't forced to come
over and
> listen to two guys squabbling like kids in a sandbox over "he
didn't put his
> unit back where it started" or "oh yes I did, it was right HERE,
not 5mm to
> the left the way you say" or "but those 5mm are excrutiatingly
important to my
> whole carefully crafted battle plan" etc etc etc:) The
old "move a unit,
> take it back, but put it 3 feet from it's starting point" is
certainly a
> favorite tactic of some that ranks right up there with the "moving
wedges in a
> serpentine fashion". Fortunately, the latter is gone and the
former just
> doesn't happen here because the player base has grown old together
and doesn't
> tolerate that crap from each other any more:)
>
> Scott
> List Ho
> Hapless Umpire



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/

[scott holder]

Woody glad your still here. I also am a recent return from DBM and attended
the same school of "here's how to beat the snout out of your Camillian's
with my BURMESE". The game is much cleaner and I greatly thank all of those
who are contributing. Now if we can all just get along...?

>Lemme wax philosophical for a couple of minutes here. Warrior as a rules set
and the army lists as army lists still probably won't change the fundamental
dynamic of some armies beating the snot outta other armies with little or no
"help" from the player:) This is an issue that came up during draft
review of Biblical Warrior and, given the fundamental historical nature of
what we're trying to do, there is simply no way around that. And if you
attempt that, you end up with the "new" wrg "oriental" lists that go overboard
in so many ways. Slight digression: any FHE produced "camillan" list will
have a list rule of some sort enabling HI to interpenetrate each other in one
form or another in order to simulate the manipular formations of the period.
Will this help them against the Burmese? I dunno but I can tell you that in
the case of lists like that, the morale "boost" they received from the authors
of the "new" wrg lists will undoubtedly be *heavily* scrutinized when the time
comes to write such lists. End slight digression.

>I'd also like to stress to someone like Woody that an awful lot has changed
in 9 years. Case in point, the Warrior tourneys at Historicon 2001. We had
something like three dozen guys playing and to a person, they all said how
much *fun* they had, how much they enjoyed playing each other and how they've
really come to appreciate the Warrior "playing culture" (as opposed to other
"playing cultures"--99% of "our" players don't fall into the "problem"
category). Okay, I doubt that while in a game, a player will get lotsa
"mentoring help" but you will get some and I can tell you that it's much more
prevalent in Warrior now than in some other systems and certainly light years
ahead of where it was 9 years ago. Morever, after a game, if you loiter
around and get to know people, you'll get LOTS of mentoring and people eager
to play non-tourney games with that very thought in mind.

>PleaseI don't anyone forget Fast Warrior as an alternative and entre into all
of this. In 1.5 hours, you can play a game using most of the basic Warrior
mechanics and learn quite a bit by doing so. Better yet, it *appears* that
the army dynamic will be significantly different from Warrior. Suddenly
Camillian Romans are a power to be reckoned with, even against knight armies.
We will be doing a Dark Age Fast Warrior Theme tourney at Cold Wars next year.
To get an idea of what a Fast Warrior list will look like, look at the files
section on the yahoogroups site. I believe I put two lists, "real" and "fast"
up there. And while the 276 Fast Warrior lists are preset, I see a point in
time in several years that we come up with some alternatives so as to recreate
a broader historical snapshot of some of these lists.

>Finally, Dark Age Warrior is finished! Well, the first draft is finished and
is in the hands of the reviewers (they know who they are). There are 36
lists. This weekend I'll be hammering out the last changes to Biblical
Warrior and formatting the monster for printing so that we'll have it ready to
go at Fall In. Go Sea Peoples!

Scott
List Ho
Hapless Umpire