Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Cute story. I am quite sure someone laughed....

Since someone feels 'sandbagged', maybe a little exposition is in order.

During the 1999-2001 playtest of Warrior it was discovered that the WRG 7th
engine, upon which Warrior is based, did not adequately reflect the
characteristics and fighting power of deep formations armed with what we
categorize as
2HCT in all situations. Pressed for time, we made the decision to hold off
on any final determination of how best to handle this weapon until we had
playtested it more - since Biblical Warrior contained no such formations, we
could either: discover on a case by case basis what was right for 2HCT and use
list rules to represent it, or in the case where we found one rule that would
work for all such formations, use the list rules as a temporary measure until
we were sure and then make the rule 'universal'.

Every troop that could usefully employ 2HCT in two ranks, with the exception
of a couple of typos we had to go back and fix, has had this rule apply to
it as each list book was completed. As it was determined that this was
appropriate for all of OW's 2HCT-armed troops as well, there was no reason not
to
simplify things and make the rule 'universal' so that we could incorporate it
into the revised rulebook sand thus remove it from the lists in the
(eventual) master list book and save space and unnecessary duplication.

The making of this rule 'universal' is a space-saving clarification, as
every unit of intended two rank 2HCT troops already has this rule in its list
book.

No troops in OW were 'changed', of course, since OW has always had this rule
apply to it and no FHE list book has contained those lists before the
publication of OW.

Now, if you believe FHE's oriental lists are somehow required to mirror the
way those lists were played under WRG 7th (or any other rules) and so somehow
1.5 rank 2HCT is a 'change' we 'snuck in' under OW - you have things quite
wrong. We were fortunate to have lists for all armies to cover us during the
period 2002-2005 while we wrote our eight list books. But those lists were
developed for another game (mostly) by other people. Not only do we not feel
required to copy them, we in fact took on this project largely to replace
them with lists we feel are quite a lot more historically accurate.

The clarification on 2HCT is not a change as every troop type it could apply
to already had this rule applying to it.

Cute story though.

Jon




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

[joncleaves]

Oh, and another thing.

This group is the means by which this company communicates with its players.
The day I posted the most recent clarifications I sent out a special notice
to all its members that the clarifications had been posted and that they
should be read carefully. I did this again several days later, just to be
sure.
In the clarifications themselves the changes since the last set are
underlined so you only have to check what's underlined to see what is new from
the
last set. This information is kept in the files section in two formats at
player's request for their ease of use. It is also made available on our
website
as a second source.

Players may also ask rules questions of the author directly here and
typically get their answer on the same day, if not within minutes of asking in
most
cases during daylight hours in the central time zone.

Name another company that goes to those lengths to keep its players current.
In the unlikely case you find one, name one that does so with employees
that make as much from this as we do....lol

Jon


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

As a baseball fan, I've been watching the recent steroids abuse scandal with
some degree of interest. Will all of the home run records of recent years be
invalidated? Can the sport recover? I never quite got too interested, though,
thinking that this was mostly a story for Bay area Bonds fans. That was . .
.until recently. . .when the scandal seems to have permeated our cherished
hobby: In short, my troops have the juice.

I first noticed the phenomenon when my 15mm Han Chinese no longer could fit into
the box that they had neatly fit in for years. At first, I couldn't explain why
they no longer squeezed into their box, but then I noticed an odd fact -- my
winged forest orphans appeared bigger, stronger, more capable. Then, an even
stranger thing happened, they leaped right out of their box and into a
neighboring box that has been home to 15mm phalanx of Macedonian pikemen. Odder
still, my winged forest orphans proceeded to beat the crap out of the pikemen.
Seeking some help, my pikeman ran like little girly men into a box of 25mm
pikemen. I broke up the melee and sorted everyone back to their own boxes, only
to see that my medieval halberdiers start picking fights with my Scots spearmen.

I broke up that fight too, and started looking for some answers. Unfortunately,
my troops are unionized and resistant to random drug testing, so I had to look
for answers elsewhere. Regardless of what the facts showed, I decided to
conduct an independent examination into what gave my formerly hum drum troops
super human strength. Without access to medical tests, I comprehensively
searched the world wide web for answers. And then, there was a big break in the
case when I found . . . http://www.fourhorsemenenterprises.com/.

As in many things in life, the investigation showed that there are rarely easy
answers. And, as in most government agencies, there are certainly never
"changes" (along with the implicit possible admission that something needed
changing). Occasionally, however, one can derive wisdom of sorts from
"clarifications." If one selects the link for "Rules" on
http://www.fourhorsemenenterprises.com. and then another for "Clarifications",
one quickly finds the "Balco" that has been supplying my Han. . . a
"clarification":

(2HCT) Steady, non-impetuous foot armed with 2HCT and no other H-T-H weapon
fight 1.5 ranks.



When I asked this "clarification" if it were the source of my troops super-human
strength, the clarification refused to answer questions in reliance on its Fifth
Amendment Rights. However, some of my troops have come clean, and have admitted
not only to being on the juice, but to having been hooked for years. One
cooperator, a unit of Mongol Heavy Cavalry, claims that they used to only fight
one rank deep, but, thanks to the "juice" have been fighting a rank and a half
for years. This good Samaritan adds that their supplier has some new "stuff"
for them, which permits them to interpenetrate friends without recourse, and to
dismount in new, stronger, better ways.



I am a tournament gamer, so, as long as I know what the rule (and/or
"clarifications" are), I don't really care about these issues as long as there
is notice about this prior to any given tournament. The problem is that now all
of my troops are asking for some "juice". My Khmer line foot are insistent that
if they only had the "juice", they would be able to fight in three ranks. My
humiliated 15mm pikemen are scrambling for the juice, claiming a need for at
least an extra rank or two to fend off the now powerful 2HCT troops (let alone
some Moogs who have, at a minimum, been running around a tournament near you
with some serious chemical assistance). My pikemen have told me to "lie low"
until some book comes out later this year that will serve as their supplier, or
performance equalizer, but I decided to come forward anyway. I guess we'll have
to wait and see in my pikemen get their "juice."



One serious concern: what I noticed most off-puts most gamers (other than
sportsmanship issues, which have pretty much left our corner of gaming), is when
they show up to a con (often expending considerable money to do so), only to
learn at the worst possible moment that a fundamental game mechanic has changed
-- Like all 2HCT fight 1 1/2 ranks. Given that those on this list -- probably
amongst the most tied into the day to day "clarifications" --has not picked up
on this clarification yet in its discussion, I'm guessing there are many a gamer
that won't pick this up amongst the various clarifications on the web. Perhaps
at the big cons, someone could point out the more impact "clarifications" such
as this one beforehand so that gamers don't feel sandbagged by a rules
clarification.



Dave.








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

and yes, I know that the Pike should still beat steady, non impetuous 2HCT
troups on a straight up basis.

I just gave mine a little extra juice for the story.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Markowitz" <markowitzd@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 10:57 PM
Subject: [WarriorRules] My Troops Have the Juice


>
>
> As a baseball fan, I've been watching the recent steroids abuse scandal
> with some degree of interest. Will all of the home run records of recent
> years be invalidated? Can the sport recover? I never quite got too
> interested, though, thinking that this was mostly a story for Bay area
> Bonds fans. That was . . .until recently. . .when the scandal seems to
> have permeated our cherished hobby: In short, my troops have the juice.
>
> I first noticed the phenomenon when my 15mm Han Chinese no longer could
> fit into the box that they had neatly fit in for years. At first, I
> couldn't explain why they no longer squeezed into their box, but then I
> noticed an odd fact -- my winged forest orphans appeared bigger, stronger,
> more capable. Then, an even stranger thing happened, they leaped right
> out of their box and into a neighboring box that has been home to 15mm
> phalanx of Macedonian pikemen. Odder still, my winged forest orphans
> proceeded to beat the crap out of the pikemen. Seeking some help, my
> pikeman ran like little girly men into a box of 25mm pikemen. I broke up
> the melee and sorted everyone back to their own boxes, only to see that my
> medieval halberdiers start picking fights with my Scots spearmen.
>
> I broke up that fight too, and started looking for some answers.
> Unfortunately, my troops are unionized and resistant to random drug
> testing, so I had to look for answers elsewhere. Regardless of what the
> facts showed, I decided to conduct an independent examination into what
> gave my formerly hum drum troops super human strength. Without access to
> medical tests, I comprehensively searched the world wide web for answers.
> And then, there was a big break in the case when I found . . .
> http://www.fourhorsemenenterprises.com/.
>
> As in many things in life, the investigation showed that there are rarely
> easy answers. And, as in most government agencies, there are certainly
> never "changes" (along with the implicit possible admission that
> something needed changing). Occasionally, however, one can derive wisdom
> of sorts from "clarifications." If one selects the link for "Rules" on
> http://www.fourhorsemenenterprises.com. and then another for
> "Clarifications", one quickly finds the "Balco" that has been supplying my
> Han. . . a "clarification":
>
> (2HCT) Steady, non-impetuous foot armed with 2HCT and no other H-T-H
> weapon fight 1.5 ranks.
>
>
>
> When I asked this "clarification" if it were the source of my troops
> super-human strength, the clarification refused to answer questions in
> reliance on its Fifth Amendment Rights. However, some of my troops have
> come clean, and have admitted not only to being on the juice, but to
> having been hooked for years. One cooperator, a unit of Mongol Heavy
> Cavalry, claims that they used to only fight one rank deep, but, thanks to
> the "juice" have been fighting a rank and a half for years. This good
> Samaritan adds that their supplier has some new "stuff" for them, which
> permits them to interpenetrate friends without recourse, and to dismount
> in new, stronger, better ways.
>
>
>
> I am a tournament gamer, so, as long as I know what the rule (and/or
> "clarifications" are), I don't really care about these issues as long as
> there is notice about this prior to any given tournament. The problem is
> that now all of my troops are asking for some "juice". My Khmer line foot
> are insistent that if they only had the "juice", they would be able to
> fight in three ranks. My humiliated 15mm pikemen are scrambling for the
> juice, claiming a need for at least an extra rank or two to fend off the
> now powerful 2HCT troops (let alone some Moogs who have, at a minimum,
> been running around a tournament near you with some serious chemical
> assistance). My pikemen have told me to "lie low" until some book comes
> out later this year that will serve as their supplier, or performance
> equalizer, but I decided to come forward anyway. I guess we'll have to
> wait and see in my pikemen get their "juice."
>
>
>
> One serious concern: what I noticed most off-puts most gamers (other than
> sportsmanship issues, which have pretty much left our corner of gaming),
> is when they show up to a con (often expending considerable money to do
> so), only to learn at the worst possible moment that a fundamental game
> mechanic has changed -- Like all 2HCT fight 1 1/2 ranks. Given that those
> on this list -- probably amongst the most tied into the day to day
> "clarifications" --has not picked up on this clarification yet in its
> discussion, I'm guessing there are many a gamer that won't pick this up
> amongst the various clarifications on the web. Perhaps at the big cons,
> someone could point out the more impact "clarifications" such as this one
> beforehand so that gamers don't feel sandbagged by a rules clarification.
>
>
>
> Dave.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Jon,

I can only think of one and that would be Terry Gore. But your still tops.
Now if I could get an answer from the list ho on my Khmer escort question. . .

kw

JonCleaves@... wrote:
Oh, and another thing.

This group is the means by which this company communicates with its players.
The day I posted the most recent clarifications I sent out a special notice
to all its members that the clarifications had been posted and that they
should be read carefully. I did this again several days later, just to be
sure.
In the clarifications themselves the changes since the last set are
underlined so you only have to check what's underlined to see what is new from
the
last set. This information is kept in the files section in two formats at
player's request for their ease of use. It is also made available on our
website
as a second source.

Players may also ask rules questions of the author directly here and
typically get their answer on the same day, if not within minutes of asking in
most
cases during daylight hours in the central time zone.

Name another company that goes to those lengths to keep its players current.
In the unlikely case you find one, name one that does so with employees
that make as much from this as we do....lol

Jon


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


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
document.write('');

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/17/2005 07:15:47 Central Standard Time,
mark@... writes:

So I don't have my army list books in front of me (on the road for a business
trip), but it seems to me that the statement above is patently false.>>


Oh, Mark - never get caught without your lists books and make such a
statement - believe me, I have been burned by that myself....lol


<<Let's look at the Brigans, so pervasive in Feudal and Holy Warrior. They
can be
armed with 2HCT, they currently benefit from no list rule enabling them to
fight
in a rank and a half,>>

Of course they do. Check Feudal List 32 (Medieval French - *home* of the
brigans) as an example... Also 35 and 30, etc...

Now, Brigans are often taken with JLS in the second rank or they are used to
make impetuous charges - both cases where the list rule would not apply.
But it certainly has been available to them....

Now we have made typos where we forgot a troop in a list that should have
had the rule and a couple cases where we cut in the rule with the 'close' or
'loose' constraint where it should not have been so constrained. But I think
we have caught all of those.

Dave's 'metaphor' may in fact be 'on the money' if your view is that Warrior
lists are a 'change' from 7th lists (actually 6th in most cases). But in
our view FHE's lists had to take those into consideration, but 'owed' nothing
to them and were not written with the constraints of making any army or troop
'act' like it 'had in the past'.

Mark, you said:

<<One of the things that I do very much like about the new lists and the list
rules is that it gives us a chance to showcase the best known armies from our
period and still field tournament competitive armies. At Cold Wars and
Historicon in the last couple of years I have seen Henry V's English,
Caesar's
Romans, Richard the Lionheart's crusaders, etc. I know we'll now see Genghis'
Mongols, and I'm hopeful that a similar turnaround will come with Classical
Warrior.>>

To which, I must wholeheartedly agree.

Jon









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

[Mark Stone]

--- On February 17 Jon Cleaves said: ---

>
> The clarification on 2HCT is not a change as every troop type it could apply
> to already had this rule applying to it.
>

So I don't have my army list books in front of me (on the road for a business
trip), but it seems to me that the statement above is patently false.

Let's look at the Brigans, so pervasive in Feudal and Holy Warrior. They can be
armed with 2HCT, they currently benefit from no list rule enabling them to fight
in a rank and a half, and eagerly await the universilization of this rule so
that they, too, can be "juiced". There are other examples, too, I'm sure. I
know Scott has been asked repeatedly on this group about the extension of this
rule to 2HCT troops currently not covered by a list rule.

Personally it doesn't matter much to me. I play a lot of medieval lists, and
this is only going to help them. It also seems a change that makes 2HCT more
commensurate with costing 2 pts per figure. But like Dave, I find FHE's
unwillingness to call a rules change what it is a bit disingenous; I don't
really understand the obsessive need to hide under the rubrick of
"clarifications".

And I thought Dave's larger point was an excellent one: we are seeing an
escalation of troop type capabilities, albeit gradual and subtle, that will
reduce some of the "Babe Ruths" of 7th to mere mediocrity among today's juiced
up contenders.

I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I always found it frustrating in
the early days of 7th that we had all these knight armies that held huge
historical interest and could have been a big draw for our hobby, yet no one
played them because the knights didn't wedge. Romans and pike armies had
similar problems. No one ever played Julius Caesar's Romans, or Alexander's
Macedonians, because they just weren't quite tournament competitive compared to
lesser known contemporaries.

One of the things that I do very much like about the new lists and the list
rules is that it gives us a chance to showcase the best known armies from our
period and still field tournament competitive armies. At Cold Wars and
Historicon in the last couple of years I have seen Henry V's English, Caesar's
Romans, Richard the Lionheart's crusaders, etc. I know we'll now see Genghis'
Mongols, and I'm hopeful that a similar turnaround will come with Classical
Warrior.

Is all of this accomplished with a bit of "juicing up" and rules changes? Of
course it is. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I do think Dave's
metaphor is right on the money.


-Mark Stone

[Greg Regets]

I can't honestly say I have a problem with the 2HCT getting 1.5
ranks ... at least they have to pay for that second rank at 4 points
a wack.

David's point is clear enough though. It seems pretty obvious that
many people think the army lists keep getting better, and better and
better. It would be really be hard to argue against that point,
although I'm sure some will try. I believe Tim Brown called it the
Games Workshop effect.

Please note that I for one DO NOT THINK THIS WAS INTENTIONAL! ... and
I'm going to repeat that, just to make sure it takes hold ... I DO
NOT THING THIS WAS INTENTIONAL! When your writing the second book of
lists, it is very hard to anticipate what will be in the sixth book,
etc ... The 1HCW illustrates this clealry enough. When it first came
out, it was sold as something for EXPERT swordsmen. It now appears
that the bulk of the Orient meets this qualification. Probably not
something that was anticipated when the weapons class was
concieved ... but rather something that just happened.

The second thing you fight is the "Rose Collored Glasses" effect that
we as players ALL get. You read about a particular army, and become
captivated by all the wonderful things said about it. This is just
human nature. You do it, I do it, we all do it.

It should be noted that even thought a person may have the world's
most expert opinion on a given army, that does not make them immune
to the "Rose Colored Glasses" effect ... as a matter of fact, the
exact opposite may be the case.

Now, the one area that really does bothers me about the new lists, is
the number of list rules. Yes, they are free gifts, but thats not why
I have an objection to them. I dislike them because there are just
too many, and it represents a whole group of things outside the core
rules that new players will have to know. It reminds me of the old
NASAMW interps to 7th, where new guys would show up at a tournament
and have this 30+ page document they had to digest, before their game
in 20 minutes. I believe taking list rules to this extreme, will end
up being a very negative factor in the growth of this game.

On the positive side, FHE has already said they will take another
look at the earlier lists, and I very much hope they are not just
blowing smoke with that. Some later lists are so strong they destroy
the balance of historical matchups with earlier published lists.
Again, I think FHE is more than aware of this and will take steps to
solve these problems.

Thanks for reading, and sorry for writing a book.

Greg