Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Asif

Always good to see a player - especially a newer one - putting so much care and
thought into the game.

Warrior is not and never will be an intro-level game. Our goal was to save the
engine first. *Then* we'll do the intro game. It is quite true you need a vet
to teach you Warrior. Warrior Battles will be our game where you can learn from
the book alone. But Warrior will never be mass market - it is too intricate and
requires too much thought. Its market is the thoughtful player looking for an
extreme challenge and it will stay that way. We have mass-market plans - but
until we are doing this full-time, they will happen in the order we can get to
them. You think you are frustrated by this? lol Try being me... :)

The revised rulebook will be done as planned for a whole host of reasons. One
of which is that a ground-up of *Warrior* isn't needed. What's needed is the
keystone that holds the whole system in place. With the foundation of Warrior
done, it will be *much* easier to make an intro game that both plays right out
of the shrinkwrap as well as *leads* a new player to Warrior.

Please stay with us through these growing pains. Your faith will be rewarded.

Oh, and please note that now *you* are the Warrior mentor looking for more
padawans to bring into the fold. We're all counting on you. What you do with
your Warrior experience is more important than what we are doing with it....

You are already doing exactly what we need with respect to the rulebook with
your excellent comments

Fantasy Warrior is online in playtest draft at FantasyWarrior.groups.yahoo.com

Jon

ps, forgive me for CC'ing the group. Your question is an excellent one and I
want the interested to hear my response.



-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Emerson <shahadet_99@...>
To: JonCleaves@...
Sent: Tue, 17 May 2005 14:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: New Rulebook Concerns


Hi Jon. Hope life's been treating you decently at the moment.
The reason I'm writing is to voice some concerns I have about the new rulebook.
To give you an idea of my perspective, I've have to admit to you that I've spent
most of my minis gaming "career" playing less sophisticated games of the Games
Workshop ilk, card games, and board games.
So when Jevon Garrett introduced me to Warrior, and basically dragged me to
Pandemonium to play in the NICT qualifier, I was a little hesitant to say the
least - I had plenty of friends who played 40K and Warhammer Fantasy (as well as
Mordheim - we have a bit of a cult going here in Ithaca, NY). Only Jevon played
Warrior, and his previous attempts to get others of our friends to play
generally crashed and burned.
But once I struggled through the rules (and I really did STRUGGLE), I found
myself quite enamored of the simultaneous play of each bound, the various troop
states, and the general richness of game play.
However, I was VERY turned off by the rulebook. I was even more horrified when
Jevon explained to me that the original WRG 7.6 rules were even MORE esoteric
and were written in what Jevon termed "Phil Barker-ese", which apparently was so
crappy that players spent more time arguing over interpretating the rulebook to
discern what it meant, than they spent on actually playing the game.
He said your re-write was a "light years" improvement on the old WRG rulebook.
He also explained that your re-write was NOT designed, from a pedagogical view,
to bring new players into the game. It was designed in mind for people who
ALREADY played WRG and had a relatively comprehensive grasp of how historical
miniature rules worked. It is a clear cut, streamlined, rules set, presented in
a technical document format as purely informational.
------------
Fast forward several months, to when I first learned that you were doing a
rulebook re-write, and sent out a call for proofreaders.
I was very eager to sign up and take a look at the rules and see what direction
you were going to go, in growing your Warrior membership.
Once I went through the section 6 rules, I realized that your undertaking, while
a massive effort, seemed more concerned with clarifying current
problems/misunderstandings in the rules, basically bringing the rulebook in line
with all the errata and clarifications that you've had to make over the years.
The fundamental pedagogical approach of "informational technical manual", was
still the same, complete with short, almost curt sentences, and plenty of
bullets and lists.
Whereas I feel, now with Warrior on the upswing, and more younger players
getting interested, that the basic design format of the new rulebook should be
more "instructions for dummies who've never played the game before - a gateway
enabler of attracting new customers and players."
In my mind, as things stand, if a person owns the rulebook, it is pretty much
impossible for a total beginner to start up a new Warrior club in his area
UNLESS there are already players (at least 1) who know the Warrior rules well
enough to teach demos to people.
This is not the case if someone reads the instructions for something like
Settlers of Catan, or WarMachine.
I can honestly say that I would NEVER have picked Warrior, out of all the games
and rules sitting in Jevon's store, to play if he had not been so enthusiastic
to teach me and help me through the process of understanding the rules.
In comparison, some parents can get their 13yr old a WARMACHINE Prime book, and
their kid and his friends could probably puzzle out how the game works. This is
not to say that I'm in love with Warmachine's rulebook, but their rules are
certainly more APPROACHABLE than Warrior in it's current white book incarnation.
This is why, when you look over my ridiculous 14 pages of comments on section 6,
many of my corrections and notes were based on simplifying meaning, or adding
more words, so that the book is more "explanatory" rather than "informational".
My personal dream (besides becoming a 5th horseman/outrider/demo guy) is to be
able to tell my friends to buy this book, and sit down and play some quick Fast
Warrior games, and have them understand what is going on with minimal input from
me (someone who already plays the game).
I really want to see FHE grow and expand, and the most important and principal
gateway to doing this will be the new Rulebook.
I honestly and sincerely feel that you MUST NOT release the book with it's
current design.
Instead, the book should be redone, from the ground up, to be an instructional
training manual, with plenty of extended examples of game play, rather than the
currently limited examples of specific rules and maneuvers.
Unfortunately, I'm pretty well aware that you and the rest of the Horsemen are
married to the fact that the new rulebook be available at Historicon.
However, my conscience demanded that I at least send this email and make at
least SOME effort to get you to reconsider this decision. Considering FHE's
desire to have a stable rulebook, I know the chance of doing a different edition
of the book anytime in the near future is pretty much zero.
I fervently hope that it's still possible to pull back, and I am more than
willing to donate whatever time and effort you would like to help with the
pedagogical redesign of the rulebook.
---------
Anyways, if you've read this far, thanks for listening to me babble. I don't
have my hopes up that FHE will push back their release date, but hopefully as a
new customer who would like to see you guys get a lot MORE new customers, I've
given you some food for thought on the direction FHE is going, what the new
rulebook is accomplishing, and maybe some future supplements like "Warrior for
Dummies". <grin>
Very Sincerely,
Asif Chaudhry
p.s. I'd really like to see a Fantasy Warrior Rulebook released too!


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.


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

[Todd Schneider]

Asif,

Have you looked at/downloaded/printed the Sample
Battle in the Warrior files section? I think it does
help in giving newer players an idea of the game, and
playing it out on a tabletop should help then grasp
some of the concepts behind the game engine overall.

At one point in time I had planned on doing another
sample battle, something from the medieval period most
likely, but my work with redoing the rulebook and
personal issues have severly diminished the amout of
free time I have available. I suspect I'll be giving
a lot more time and energy to Warrior Battles when the
Main rule book is done, indeed I know Jon was
expecting to devote much of this year to Warrior
Battles until the 1st printing of the rulebooks sold
out...

That aside, I do agree that more needs to be done to
help the newer player get into the game. Even the
prescense of a veteran Warrior player, while helpful,
isn't always enough, so the question then becomes:

What does a player new to Warrior need to concentrate
on?
What are the interactions out there that newer players
should concentrate on learning?

And I don't mean from a list point of view either, but
from a rules point of view. And Forget about
detachments, stratgems like expendables and flaming
pigs and the vagaries of terrain placement.

What unit and rules interactions should newer players
be working on?

And if they can be diagramed fairly well in something
like powerpoint, I'd be more than happy to put them
together and put them on the group. It may not be
right away, but I can and will devote what time I have
to it as soon as the rulebook goes final. In fact, I
do believe once the rule book goes final Warrior
Battles is the next project on the table, so the
system that will bring newer players into the game is
definately on the way.

Todd
--- JonCleaves@... wrote:

> Asif
>
> Always good to see a player - especially a newer one
> - putting so much care and thought into the game.
>
> Warrior is not and never will be an intro-level
> game. Our goal was to save the engine first.
> *Then* we'll do the intro game. It is quite true
> you need a vet to teach you Warrior. Warrior
> Battles will be our game where you can learn from
> the book alone. But Warrior will never be mass
> market - it is too intricate and requires too much
> thought. Its market is the thoughtful player
> looking for an extreme challenge and it will stay
> that way. We have mass-market plans - but until we
> are doing this full-time, they will happen in the
> order we can get to them. You think you are
> frustrated by this? lol Try being me...
>
> The revised rulebook will be done as planned for a
> whole host of reasons. One of which is that a
> ground-up of *Warrior* isn't needed. What's needed
> is the keystone that holds the whole system in
> place. With the foundation of Warrior done, it will
> be *much* easier to make an intro game that both
> plays right out of the shrinkwrap as well as *leads*
> a new player to Warrior.
>
> Please stay with us through these growing pains.
> Your faith will be rewarded.
>
> Oh, and please note that now *you* are the Warrior
> mentor looking for more padawans to bring into the
> fold. We're all counting on you. What you do with
> your Warrior experience is more important than what
> we are doing with it....
>
> You are already doing exactly what we need with
> respect to the rulebook with your excellent comments
>
> Fantasy Warrior is online in playtest draft at
> FantasyWarrior.groups.yahoo.com
>
> Jon
>
> ps, forgive me for CC'ing the group. Your question
> is an excellent one and I want the interested to
> hear my response.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Emerson <shahadet_99@...>
> To: JonCleaves@...
> Sent: Tue, 17 May 2005 14:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: New Rulebook Concerns
>
>
> Hi Jon. Hope life's been treating you decently at
> the moment.
> The reason I'm writing is to voice some concerns I
> have about the new rulebook.
> To give you an idea of my perspective, I've have to
> admit to you that I've spent most of my minis gaming
> "career" playing less sophisticated games of the
> Games Workshop ilk, card games, and board games.
> So when Jevon Garrett introduced me to Warrior, and
> basically dragged me to Pandemonium to play in the
> NICT qualifier, I was a little hesitant to say the
> least - I had plenty of friends who played 40K and
> Warhammer Fantasy (as well as Mordheim - we have a
> bit of a cult going here in Ithaca, NY). Only Jevon
> played Warrior, and his previous attempts to get
> others of our friends to play generally crashed and
> burned.
> But once I struggled through the rules (and I really
> did STRUGGLE), I found myself quite enamored of the
> simultaneous play of each bound, the various troop
> states, and the general richness of game play.
> However, I was VERY turned off by the rulebook. I
> was even more horrified when Jevon explained to me
> that the original WRG 7.6 rules were even MORE
> esoteric and were written in what Jevon termed "Phil
> Barker-ese", which apparently was so crappy that
> players spent more time arguing over interpretating
> the rulebook to discern what it meant, than they
> spent on actually playing the game.
> He said your re-write was a "light years"
> improvement on the old WRG rulebook.
> He also explained that your re-write was NOT
> designed, from a pedagogical view, to bring new
> players into the game. It was designed in mind for
> people who ALREADY played WRG and had a relatively
> comprehensive grasp of how historical miniature
> rules worked. It is a clear cut, streamlined, rules
> set, presented in a technical document format as
> purely informational.
> ------------
> Fast forward several months, to when I first learned
> that you were doing a rulebook re-write, and sent
> out a call for proofreaders.
> I was very eager to sign up and take a look at the
> rules and see what direction you were going to go,
> in growing your Warrior membership.
> Once I went through the section 6 rules, I realized
> that your undertaking, while a massive effort,
> seemed more concerned with clarifying current
> problems/misunderstandings in the rules, basically
> bringing the rulebook in line with all the errata
> and clarifications that you've had to make over the
> years.
> The fundamental pedagogical approach of
> "informational technical manual", was still the
> same, complete with short, almost curt sentences,
> and plenty of bullets and lists.
> Whereas I feel, now with Warrior on the upswing, and
> more younger players getting interested, that the
> basic design format of the new rulebook should be
> more "instructions for dummies who've never played
> the game before - a gateway enabler of attracting
> new customers and players."
> In my mind, as things stand, if a person owns the
> rulebook, it is pretty much impossible for a total
> beginner to start up a new Warrior club in his area
> UNLESS there are already players (at least 1) who
> know the Warrior rules well enough to teach demos to
> people.
> This is not the case if someone reads the
> instructions for something like Settlers of Catan,
> or WarMachine.
> I can honestly say that I would NEVER have picked
> Warrior, out of all the games and rules sitting in
> Jevon's store, to play if he had not been so
> enthusiastic to teach me and help me through the
> process of understanding the rules.
> In comparison, some parents can get their 13yr old a
> WARMACHINE Prime book, and their kid and his friends
> could probably puzzle out how the game works. This
> is not to say that I'm in love with Warmachine's
> rulebook, but their rules are certainly more
> APPROACHABLE than Warrior in it's current white book
> incarnation.
> This is why, when you look over my ridiculous 14
> pages of comments on section 6, many of my
> corrections and notes were based on simplifying
> meaning, or adding more words, so that the book is
> more "explanatory" rather than "informational".
> My personal dream (besides becoming a 5th
> horseman/outrider/demo guy) is to be able to tell my
> friends to buy this book, and sit down and play some
> quick Fast Warrior games, and have them understand
> what is going on with minimal input from me (someone
> who already plays the game).
> I really want to see FHE grow and expand, and the
> most important and principal gateway to doing this
> will be the new Rulebook.
> I honestly and sincerely feel that you MUST NOT
> release the book with it's current design.
> Instead, the book should be redone, from the ground
> up, to be an instructional training manual, with
> plenty of extended examples of game play, rather
> than the currently limited examples of specific
> rules and maneuvers.
> Unfortunately, I'm pretty well aware that you and
> the rest of the Horsemen are married to the fact
> that the new rulebook be available at Historicon.
> However, my conscience demanded that I at least send
> this email and make at least SOME effort to get you
> to reconsider this decision. Considering FHE's
> desire to have a stable rulebook, I know the chance
> of doing a different edition of the book anytime in
> the near future is pretty much zero.
> I fervently hope that it's still possible to pull
> back, and I am more than willing to donate whatever
> time and effort you would like to help with the
> pedagogical redesign of the rulebook.
> ---------
> Anyways, if you've read this far, thanks for
> listening to me babble. I don't have my hopes up
> that FHE will push back their release date, but
> hopefully as a new customer who would like to see
> you guys get a lot MORE new customers, I've given
> you some food for thought on the direction FHE is
> going, what the new rulebook is accomplishing, and
> maybe some future supplements like "Warrior for
> Dummies". <grin>
> Very Sincerely,
> Asif Chaudhry
> p.s. I'd really like to see a Fantasy Warrior
> Rulebook released too!
>
>
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 18/05/2005 17:03:59 GMT Standard Time,
notalent@... writes:

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Nicholas Cioran" <ncioran@m...>
wrote:
<chop>
But given that the rulebook won't really be in play
> for the big tourneys of this season I don't see what the rush is.
> Why not take some more time and do the job right?
>
> Have fun!
> Cole

Jon,
One thing I would add to the rule book is a true index. Something
alphabetized, that if I want to find where in the book it mentions
rallying I can look up rallying and a list of what pages it would be on.
Cole raises a good point here since you wont be using the new rule
book until after Historicon why not wait and make it better with such
an index.
Terry Dix








** couldnt agree more.

mark mallard (uk)


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

Jon

Having read this, I have to say that I couldn't agree with Asif more,
and you less.

While I agree that Warrior isn't an intro level game, your assertion
that a ground-up of the game isn't needed boggles the mind. I've
said before, and I'll say again, Warrior is the worst organized
ruleset I've ever played. Full Stop. The rules themselves are not
badly written. There are some confusing bits, and parts that could
use some clarification, but by and large they are quite clear.

When you say a keystone is needed, you are also correct. But the
keystone of a good game is a well-written and well-organized
ruleset. After releasing the new rulebook you'll still be only half
way there.

And all that makes me feel that the new rulebook is an appeasement to
players who are tired of having to keep track of the errata and
clarifications. But given that the rulebook won't really be in play
for the big tourneys of this season I don't see what the rush is.
Why not take some more time and do the job right?

Have fun!
Cole

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Nicholas Cioran" <ncioran@m...>
wrote:
<chop>
But given that the rulebook won't really be in play
> for the big tourneys of this season I don't see what the rush is.
> Why not take some more time and do the job right?
>
> Have fun!
> Cole

Jon,
One thing I would add to the rule book is a true index. Something
alphabetized, that if I want to find where in the book it mentions
rallying I can look up rallying and a list of what pages it would be on.
Cole raises a good point here since you wont be using the new rule
book until after Historicon why not wait and make it better with such
an index.
Terry Dix

[Mark Stone]

--- On May 18 Cole said: ---

> While I agree that Warrior isn't an intro level game, your assertion
> that a ground-up of the game isn't needed boggles the mind. I've
> said before, and I'll say again, Warrior is the worst organized
> ruleset I've ever played. Full Stop. The rules themselves are not
> badly written. There are some confusing bits, and parts that could
> use some clarification, but by and large they are quite clear.
>
> When you say a keystone is needed, you are also correct. But the
> keystone of a good game is a well-written and well-organized
> ruleset. After releasing the new rulebook you'll still be only half
> way there.

Jon isn't the world's greatest writer. That hardly comes as a surprise to anyone
who has been on this list the last couple of years. However, he is a far, far
better writer than Phil Barker, and he has an enormous advantage over Phil or
others with more writing talent: he actually has a fundamental grasp of how the
game engine works and what he is trying to accomplish with it. And Jon's getting
a lot of help with the writing. It will get better.

I have to say I fully support the order in which Jon is doing things. You can't
have a "ground-up" rules set if you don't have a foundation. We don't yet have
a foundation. The current printing of the rules is a stop-gap put out because
something was urgently needed once FHE had been formed and acquired the WRG
rights. The forth-coming revision is, in a very real sense, "Warrior 1st
Edition". Nothing else can sensibly happen until that document exists.

Think of it this way: you don't teach college physics using Newton's
"Principia", but you certainly couldn't teach college physics until "Principia"
existed. We're in exactly that position right now. The current printing of the
rules is rather like the pre-Newtonian period of Copernicus, Galileo, and
Kepler: all the mechanics are correctly described, but still very much in the
language of the old paradigm. We need our "Principia Warrior" before we can
move forward to other more pedagogically useful documents.

> And all that makes me feel that the new rulebook is an appeasement to
> players who are tired of having to keep track of the errata and
> clarifications.

I find "appeasement" a very pejorative term. There is a core group of players
that have been with this game engine since its inception with WRG 7.0; that's
close to twenty years now. This core group has tens of thousands of dollars
invested in lead, and doubtless thousands of hours invested in painting time.
They have bought every product FHE has put out, they have evanglised the
Warrior system to all in the hobby, and they have brought many new players to
miniatures in general, and Warrior in particular. Respecting what that core
group wants is just good business sense: without them, FHE would have no reason
to exist.

I'm looking forward to Warrior Battles. But I don't think it makes any sense to
put that ahead of the new rules book in priority, and the new rules book needs
to be exactly what Jon is aiming for: the comprehensive, authoritative
foundation on which our system is built.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

Cole, you are welcome to forward me any recommendations for reorganization that
you'd like. Without specific examples of what you have such a problem with,
there is no ability on my part to see your issue. I have received nothing but
positive comments on the new rulebook's layout, so if something about it bothers
you - now is the time to say something.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Cioran <ncioran@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 18 May 2005 13:53:08 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: New Rulebook Concerns


Jon

Having read this, I have to say that I couldn't agree with Asif more,
and you less.

While I agree that Warrior isn't an intro level game, your assertion
that a ground-up of the game isn't needed boggles the mind. I've
said before, and I'll say again, Warrior is the worst organized
ruleset I've ever played. Full Stop. The rules themselves are not
badly written. There are some confusing bits, and parts that could
use some clarification, but by and large they are quite clear.

When you say a keystone is needed, you are also correct. But the
keystone of a good game is a well-written and well-organized
ruleset. After releasing the new rulebook you'll still be only half
way there.

And all that makes me feel that the new rulebook is an appeasement to
players who are tired of having to keep track of the errata and
clarifications. But given that the rulebook won't really be in play
for the big tourneys of this season I don't see what the rush is.
Why not take some more time and do the job right?

Have fun!
Cole








Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[joncleaves]

An index is planned. It does not look like we will make HCon at this time. We
will however not go past the end of summer early fall without having published
because this will be the last event season without the revised rules.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Dix <notalent@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 18 May 2005 15:58:04 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: New Rulebook Concerns


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Nicholas Cioran" <ncioran@m...>
wrote:
<chop>
But given that the rulebook won't really be in play
> for the big tourneys of this season I don't see what the rush is.
> Why not take some more time and do the job right?
>
> Have fun!
> Cole

Jon,
One thing I would add to the rule book is a true index. Something
alphabetized, that if I want to find where in the book it mentions
rallying I can look up rallying and a list of what pages it would be on.
Cole raises a good point here since you wont be using the new rule
book until after Historicon why not wait and make it better with such
an index.
Terry Dix





Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[joncleaves]

Actually, I am a great writer. I am just a lousy copy editor of my own work.
Which makes me exactly like everyone else... :)

Mark is right - we want the future of Warrior to be about its new players. But
the core fans of Warrior got us where we are - and we are not doing an intro
game before their needs are served.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stone <mark@...>
To: warrior <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, 18 May 2005 16:23:31 +0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: New Rulebook Concerns


--- On May 18 Cole said: ---

> While I agree that Warrior isn't an intro level game, your assertion
> that a ground-up of the game isn't needed boggles the mind. I've
> said before, and I'll say again, Warrior is the worst organized
> ruleset I've ever played. Full Stop. The rules themselves are not
> badly written. There are some confusing bits, and parts that could
> use some clarification, but by and large they are quite clear.
>
> When you say a keystone is needed, you are also correct. But the
> keystone of a good game is a well-written and well-organized
> ruleset. After releasing the new rulebook you'll still be only half
> way there.

Jon isn't the world's greatest writer. That hardly comes as a surprise to anyone
who has been on this list the last couple of years. However, he is a far, far
better writer than Phil Barker, and he has an enormous advantage over Phil or
others with more writing talent: he actually has a fundamental grasp of how the
game engine works and what he is trying to accomplish with it. And Jon's getting
a lot of help with the writing. It will get better.

I have to say I fully support the order in which Jon is doing things. You can't
have a "ground-up" rules set if you don't have a foundation. We don't yet have
a foundation. The current printing of the rules is a stop-gap put out because
something was urgently needed once FHE had been formed and acquired the WRG
rights. The forth-coming revision is, in a very real sense, "Warrior 1st
Edition". Nothing else can sensibly happen until that document exists.

Think of it this way: you don't teach college physics using Newton's
"Principia", but you certainly couldn't teach college physics until "Principia"
existed. We're in exactly that position right now. The current printing of the
rules is rather like the pre-Newtonian period of Copernicus, Galileo, and
Kepler: all the mechanics are correctly described, but still very much in the
language of the old paradigm. We need our "Principia Warrior" before we can
move forward to other more pedagogically useful documents.

> And all that makes me feel that the new rulebook is an appeasement to
> players who are tired of having to keep track of the errata and
> clarifications.

I find "appeasement" a very pejorative term. There is a core group of players
that have been with this game engine since its inception with WRG 7.0; that's
close to twenty years now. This core group has tens of thousands of dollars
invested in lead, and doubtless thousands of hours invested in painting time.
They have bought every product FHE has put out, they have evanglised the
Warrior system to all in the hobby, and they have brought many new players to
miniatures in general, and Warrior in particular. Respecting what that core
group wants is just good business sense: without them, FHE would have no reason
to exist.

I'm looking forward to Warrior Battles. But I don't think it makes any sense to
put that ahead of the new rules book in priority, and the new rules book needs
to be exactly what Jon is aiming for: the comprehensive, authoritative
foundation on which our system is built.


-Mark Stone








Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Todd Schneider]

Speaking frankly,

Because if Jon stopped now to redo everything, not
only would my wife hunt him down and try kill him,
she'd do the same to me as well. And I really, really
like my wife the way she is, and not the way she would
be if Jon called her up and said "You know the book
we're working on? Scrap it."

And for those of you who haven't guessed or know by
now, my wife is the very nice lady who is laying the
book out preparing it for the printer and the like.

IMO, as of now, and no matter what I (or any other
newer player out there want) the main rule book format
and contents aren't going to change. I will say
though, having seen and done some preliminary Warrior
Battles stuff, it will be the intro game every can use
to bring newer players into the warrior world.


Todd
(whose wife is reading this message over his shoulder,
and agrees with the scrapping part)



--- Nicholas Cioran <ncioran@...> wrote:
> Jon
>
> Having read this, I have to say that I couldn't
> agree with Asif more,
> and you less.
>
> While I agree that Warrior isn't an intro level
> game, your assertion
> that a ground-up of the game isn't needed boggles
> the mind. I've
> said before, and I'll say again, Warrior is the
> worst organized
> ruleset I've ever played. Full Stop. The rules
> themselves are not
> badly written. There are some confusing bits, and
> parts that could
> use some clarification, but by and large they are
> quite clear.
>
> When you say a keystone is needed, you are also
> correct. But the
> keystone of a good game is a well-written and
> well-organized
> ruleset. After releasing the new rulebook you'll
> still be only half
> way there.
>
> And all that makes me feel that the new rulebook is
> an appeasement to
> players who are tired of having to keep track of the
> errata and
> clarifications. But given that the rulebook won't
> really be in play
> for the big tourneys of this season I don't see what
> the rush is.
> Why not take some more time and do the job right?
>
> Have fun!
> Cole
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Mark Mallard]

All i was agreeing to, was that it should not be rushed out.

My group, myself included hate scribbling all over our books.

One of my group came to collect his classical warrior & oriental warrior the
other day and was amazed that i had downloaded a sheet of
amendments/corrections for each.

The longer you work on it, the less there will be.

mark mallard


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

Jon Cleaves wrote:
> Cole, you are welcome to forward me any recommendations for
reorganization that you'd like. Without specific examples of what
you have such a problem with, there is no ability on my part to see
your issue. I have received nothing but positive comments on the new
rulebook's layout, so if something about it bothers you - now is the
time to say something.

Jon,

My concern is that a well organized rulebook is organized so that it
flows like the game.

On a gross scale if the rules sections followed the sequence of play
it would be a vast improvement, as now players would be able to
follow the rules through the rulebook.

On a more granular level, there are any number of improvements to be
made.

Consider movement:

6.12 Maneuvers

Contains an incomplete listing of maneuvers. One has to go to 6.6
for mounting and dismounting, 6.5 for exchanging ranks. All the
maneuevers should be in one place.

6.16 Charges

Appears in the rules before 6.2 Marches, 6.5 Passing Gaps, 6.6, 6.7
Terrain and Movement, and so forth. All this does is clutter up the
already very large movement section. I would strongly recommend
moving the entire Charge section on its own to a section after
shooting. Why? Because no unit will ever charge until after the
shooting phase has passed in the sequence of play.

6.5 Exchanging Ranks, Interpenetration, and Passing Gaps

Why would a maneuver like exhanging ranks, and two basic movement
functions like passing gaps and interpenentration be buried in the
back of the movement section?

6.6 Moving Mounted to Fight on Foot

I don't understand why the details of this maneuver are buried,
especially as they are previously mentioned in 6.112.

6.7 Terrain and visibility effects on movement

I find it terribly odd that the effect of terrain on movement is one
of the last sections of the rulebook when its one of the first things
that comes up in movement

But for now, I have to ask the question: do you see where I'm coming
from, and if so, do you consider the contribution valuable? If yes,
then I'm glad to continue. If not I'll just keep trying to convince
you :)

As a new player, I find that I completely agree with Nicholas'
comments below. When I first made a decision to try and play Warrior,
I bought the rules knowing no other players, and tried to figure out
how to play on my own. Fortunately, I got into contact with a group of
players who have mentored me, but before this, on my own, I was
completely lost.

My biggest confusion, in retrospect, was probably exactly because the
rules weren't organized in line with the sequence of play - just like
Nicholas states below. Frankly, the rules are VERY dry reading, and
trying to ascertain the nuances of charge moves before even knowing
what a march move is, is very confusing.

Of course, now that I feel that I have my arms around a basic
understanding of the rules (but not yet the tactics), after a year of
occasional play, this isn't that big a deal. I also realize that it
would create quite a mess with the list rules, given that they
reference specific rules sections - changing the numbering would
obviously be a nightmare.

I understand that the rulebook will establish a base point and
standard for the Warrior rule system, and I'm looking forward to
seeing the finished product. They are written in a way that is
difficult and uninviting to newcomers though, and maybe Warrior
Battles will solve this. Of course, I was looking for a game of this
complexity, and if seeing Warrior Battles, I thought it too simple, I
would have discarded it. Maybe if the new layout includes sidebars
written in conversational English, discribing why things work the way
the do, this could go a long way to clearing things up for newcomers.

Hope I didn't ramble too much

Peter


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Nicholas Cioran" <ncioran@m...>
wrote:
>
> My concern is that a well organized rulebook is organized so that it
> flows like the game.
>
> On a gross scale if the rules sections followed the sequence of play
> it would be a vast improvement, as now players would be able to
> follow the rules through the rulebook.
>
> On a more granular level, there are any number of improvements to be
> made.
>
> Consider movement:
>
> 6.12 Maneuvers
>
> Contains an incomplete listing of maneuvers. One has to go to 6.6
> for mounting and dismounting, 6.5 for exchanging ranks. All the
> maneuevers should be in one place.
>
> 6.16 Charges
>
> Appears in the rules before 6.2 Marches, 6.5 Passing Gaps, 6.6, 6.7
> Terrain and Movement, and so forth. All this does is clutter up the
> already very large movement section. I would strongly recommend
> moving the entire Charge section on its own to a section after
> shooting. Why? Because no unit will ever charge until after the
> shooting phase has passed in the sequence of play.
>
> 6.5 Exchanging Ranks, Interpenetration, and Passing Gaps
>
> Why would a maneuver like exhanging ranks, and two basic movement
> functions like passing gaps and interpenentration be buried in the
> back of the movement section?
>
> 6.6 Moving Mounted to Fight on Foot
>
> I don't understand why the details of this maneuver are buried,
> especially as they are previously mentioned in 6.112.
>
> 6.7 Terrain and visibility effects on movement
>
> I find it terribly odd that the effect of terrain on movement is one
> of the last sections of the rulebook when its one of the first things
> that comes up in movement
>
> But for now, I have to ask the question: do you see where I'm coming
> from, and if so, do you consider the contribution valuable? If yes,
> then I'm glad to continue. If not I'll just keep trying to convince
> you :)

[joncleaves]

Yes, those contributions are valuable, and it would be great if you sent as
many others as you'd like as soon as you can. I will say, though, that many
have good reasons or have been addressed - but there is still much good stuff
there.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Cioran <ncioran@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 19 May 2005 12:01:45 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: New Rulebook Concerns


Jon Cleaves wrote:
> Cole, you are welcome to forward me any recommendations for
reorganization that you'd like. Without specific examples of what
you have such a problem with, there is no ability on my part to see
your issue. I have received nothing but positive comments on the new
rulebook's layout, so if something about it bothers you - now is the
time to say something.

Jon,

My concern is that a well organized rulebook is organized so that it
flows like the game.

On a gross scale if the rules sections followed the sequence of play
it would be a vast improvement, as now players would be able to
follow the rules through the rulebook.

On a more granular level, there are any number of improvements to be
made.

Consider movement:

6.12 Maneuvers

Contains an incomplete listing of maneuvers. One has to go to 6.6
for mounting and dismounting, 6.5 for exchanging ranks. All the
maneuevers should be in one place.

6.16 Charges

Appears in the rules before 6.2 Marches, 6.5 Passing Gaps, 6.6, 6.7
Terrain and Movement, and so forth. All this does is clutter up the
already very large movement section. I would strongly recommend
moving the entire Charge section on its own to a section after
shooting. Why? Because no unit will ever charge until after the
shooting phase has passed in the sequence of play.

6.5 Exchanging Ranks, Interpenetration, and Passing Gaps

Why would a maneuver like exhanging ranks, and two basic movement
functions like passing gaps and interpenentration be buried in the
back of the movement section?

6.6 Moving Mounted to Fight on Foot

I don't understand why the details of this maneuver are buried,
especially as they are previously mentioned in 6.112.

6.7 Terrain and visibility effects on movement

I find it terribly odd that the effect of terrain on movement is one
of the last sections of the rulebook when its one of the first things
that comes up in movement

But for now, I have to ask the question: do you see where I'm coming
from, and if so, do you consider the contribution valuable? If yes,
then I'm glad to continue. If not I'll just keep trying to convince
you :)





Yahoo! Groups Links






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

Before I start, I have to admit that I had some ambivalent feelings
about Jon posting my email to the list without first asking me.

After all, if I wanted to share those particular thoughts, I would
have posted it myself in the first place.

However, having seen all of the thoughtful and informative posts
that have resulted from it, I have to say that I'm glad that he did.

Reading these posts have helped me to clarify the somewhat nebulous
feelings I had regarding the rulebook.

Cole's 2nd post, and Peter's post in particular helped me realize
why I couldn't articulate better why the rulebook bothered me -
mainly that I had expended SO MUCH effort to learn and understand
the game, that the sequencing of the book, and many of the nuances,
had become 4th nature (can't say 2nd because I still don't command
the rules yet!). Thus, they didn't bother me as much as they used
to.

However, it was Mark's post that clarified for me where the
disconnect between the "young guns" and the "Elite Guard" may be, so
that is why I have selected his excellent post to reply to:

> Jon isn't the world's greatest writer. That hardly comes as a
surprise to anyone
> who has been on this list the last couple of years. However, he is
a far, far
> better writer than Phil Barker, and he has an enormous advantage
over Phil or
> others with more writing talent: he actually has a fundamental
grasp of how the
> game engine works and what he is trying to accomplish with it. And
Jon's getting
> a lot of help with the writing. It will get better.

Of this, I have no doubt. Simply updating the book and bringing
it more into line with his own thoughts, having the feedback of
other players and personal experience (such as portable Camel
obstacles), will make a significant difference to the rulebook.

> I have to say I fully support the order in which Jon is doing
things. You can't
> have a "ground-up" rules set if you don't have a foundation.

Mark, I think this is one of our first disconnects. If
by "ground-up", you mean an instructional rule set whose sole
purpose is to baby sit a player through the rules, similar to the
scenarios in GW's Battle for Macragge - then we agree.

However, if you mean by "ground-up", a rule set that
comprehensively defines and explains the rules, then I totally
DISAGREE. In my mind, such a definition is synonomous
with "foundation".

> We don't yet have
> a foundation. The current printing of the rules is a stop-gap put
out because
> something was urgently needed once FHE had been formed and
acquired the WRG
> rights. The forth-coming revision is, in a very real
sense, "Warrior 1st
> Edition". Nothing else can sensibly happen until that document
exists.

AGREED. 100%. Which is WHY I'm arguing that Warrior, 1st ed,
should NOT be of the exact same ilk as what you describe as
a "urgently needed stop-gap".

And yet, the basic layout of the new rulebook (the part that I have
personally seen) is the same.

Warrior, 1st ed, should be a rulebook that comprehensively explains
the rules in detail, in a pedagogically sound manner that promotes
understanding.

It shouldn't be a book that you can only read for a little while in
bed, before nodding off and going to sleep, which is what I did when
I tried to struggle through it on my own.

It should capture the reader's attention and get them to keep
reading (which is what the WARMACHINE rulebook did to me).

And before people argue that reading about a fantasy setting is
always more entertaining than reading history - au contraire. Human
history, especially warfare, has been rife with tremendous battles
and iconic figures who have literally changed the outlook of our
world.

Reading about those battle and those people, and learning how to
recreate their battles so that we can pretend to be them, even for a
short while, should NOT be boring and dry.


> Think of it this way: you don't teach college physics using
Newton's
> "Principia", but you certainly couldn't teach college physics
until "Principia"
> existed. We're in exactly that position right now. The current
printing of the
> rules is rather like the pre-Newtonian period of Copernicus,
Galileo, and
> Kepler: all the mechanics are correctly described, but still very
much in the
> language of the old paradigm. We need our "Principia Warrior"
before we can
> move forward to other more pedagogically useful documents.

This part of Mark's reply was like the proverbial light bulb
going off. Thank you for helping formulate my thoughts.

Again, I agree with Mark's basic thought 1000%. There MUST be
a "Principia" or complete and comprehensive ruleset that thoroughly
explains the game of Warrior.

However, his interpretation, both of the current circumstances, AND
of the structure of the new rule book, is diametrically opposite to
how I perceive the situation.

My current perception of the situation is thus (using analogy
form):

During a meeting of the Joint Chiefs, someone asks for an
explanation of the current tactical doctrine and equipment of an
enemy. The senior intelligence analyst presents a document prepared
by Colonel Jon Cleaves. This document CONCISELY points up the
situation, and highlights the important points through the use of
bulleted text and outline format.

Does such a report need to follow a standard teaching structure,
like a text book from West Point? No. Why? Because the Joint
Chiefs are all military veterans, well versed in the terminology and
ideas that are being expressed, and thus do not require pointless
explanation. It would be a WASTE OF THEIR TIME.

-----------------------------

The current (and by extension new rulebook) that Mark is espousing
as a "Principia" is in fact nothing of the sort. It is an ADVANCED
document, similar to my "intelligence report" in the above story.

It falls along the lines of a Schwalm's Outline series, or Cliff
Notes, that distills the essential knowledge into it's most concise
and data-like form.

The current rules are not inherently INTUITIVE in their
explanation of the rules - as Cole points out, a rulebook that
follows the flow of the game is MUCH more accomodating in helping
the reader understand.

> Respecting what that core
> group wants is just good business sense: without them, FHE would
have no reason
> to exist.

Granted.

What I don't understand is why you (and by extension, the rest of
the "Elite Guard") do NOT want a thorough, well flowing,
comprehensive rulebook?

And instead, you just want a rulebook which is an updated and
clarified "stop-gap"? And yes, I'm simplifying the enormous amount
of work that Jon, Todd, Todd's wife, and many others, have put in.

But I'm trying to make a point with regards to the layout and the
fact that if you're going to PUT that much effort into the book,
then the very first task should have been identification:

1.) Identify what the current rules strengths are? (concise rules,
bullet/outline form to draw the eye, summary cards in the back)

2.) And more importantly, identify the weaknesses (doesn't follow
the flow of the rules, not intuitive, laid out like a college
outline series, making for very dry reading that does not engage the
reader).

> I'm looking forward to Warrior Battles. But I don't think it makes
any sense to
> put that ahead of the new rules book in priority, and the new
rules book needs
> to be exactly what Jon is aiming for: the comprehensive,
authoritative
> foundation on which our system is built.

THANK YOU! I agree with you yet again.

What I would envision Battles being would be similar to GW's
Battle for Macragge. You have a set of linked scenarios that start
with VERY basic elements of the game, and as the missions progress,
you incorporate more and more sophisticated elements and strategems.

However, the rules that come in the box for Battles for
Macragge? They are EXACTLY the same as the big hardcover rulebook,
just physically shrunk down (from 8.5 x 11" to 5 x 8") and made into
a paperback handbook.

GW made their rulebook as a complete, authorative document on how
to play the game. Warrior, 1st ed, should do no less.

-----------------------

Now, are there going to be growing pains and issues with doing a
rulebook this way? Of course, including some I just learned from
reading peoples posts, and probably a bunch more that I have no idea
about:

- The list books. They all reference specific rules sections for
their special rules. If the layout is changed, people would have to
go through their army book(s) and black out the numbers there, and
write in the new rulebook ref #'s. I admit I totally spaced on this
problem until Peter pointed it out.

- There may be printer's agreements for publication that can't be
changed at this late date.

- Other projects (like Battles, and Fantasy) will get pushed back
even more.

- Todd's wife will probably kill (or at least seriously maim) most
people involved with changing the rulebook, probably starting with
ME. :O

However, from a business perspective, it just makes GOOD BUSINESS
SENSE, to make this re-write as GOOD as you can make it.

Unlike Games Workshop, FHE will NOT be re-writing rules every 5
years, thereby necessitating re-writing the list rules, causing
everyone to have to buy new rules, new list books, new minis, new
paints, etc.

And since FHE doesn't produce minis (although I wish they did -
then maybe THEN someone could tell me where I could find some darned
Almughaver minis!), FHE's primary mode of increasing revenues, is to
increase sales of the rules and list books.

And the #1 way to increase sales of the game is to acquire new
users for their product (otherwise known as new players).

And while it's nice to have a dedicated group of Elite Guard, who
go out and try to bring in new players, I know the un-readability of
the rules is a BIG detriment to their efforts.

While Jevon was teaching me, some of our most rabid minis gamers,
intelligent people, some working towards doctorates, others towards
bachelors, who picked up my rules & flipped through them while I was
playing, said "Dude, you're playing a game that has a freakin'
college textbook for rules - it's like you're doing homework!".

Watching me struggle, madly flipping back and forth between sections
and scratching my head alot, while Jevon calmly moved units and
rattled off combat factors from memory, didn't help.

-----------
Okay, I guess that's enough babbling again. I should probably do
some work at this point. Thanks again to all for reading through
this.

Hopefully, it has provided some food for thought.

Regards,
Asif