 |
Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules A Four Horsemen Enterprises Rules Set
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
joncleaves Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447
|
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 4:26 pm Post subject: Re: Re: New Terrain Type Proposal |
 |
|
In a message dated 11/11/2005 12:20:41 Central Standard Time,
greg.regets@... writes:
Mark ... why is this any different that MWF's which are often used to
cut the frontage and anchor a flank? This suggestion is actually not
quite as good as the MWF from a defensive standpoint, but admittedly
better from the offensive.
To Mark and Greg, et al.
1. The current terrain table (the one from 14.3) will be the baseline
printed in the rulebook.
2. Once the rulebook is done, we *will* make alternate terrain tables. I
have saved the recent suggestions along with others for this purpose. Who
uses these alternate tables and when is up to the players.
3. We have some experience with flank-long non-MWF features from Fantasy
Warrior (Mountain Wall). I expect them to be featured in some of these
alternate terrain feature/selection rules. A bunch of other types, sizes,
locations
etc also.
4. Be patient.
5. The baseline will continue to be the baseline. Now - if some point in
the future those in charge at NASAMW decide to use an alternate table from the
one in the rulebook, that is up to them and not for me to decide....
Jon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
_________________ Roll Up and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Recruit

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 156
|
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:41 pm Post subject: New Terrain Type Proposal |
 |
|
The little copses of woods in allowed in Warrior really don't really
don't cover the reality of the major forests described in many
historical battle accounts.
I'd like to propose a new terrain type to cover these:
Forest
Like the major water feature, a Forest is a large scale terrain
feature that borders a battlefield. It uses all of the rules for
Woods, with the following die roll:
1 - Discard
2-3 Left Flank Sector
4-5 Right Flank Sector
6 Player's Deployment zone
Comments?
Cole
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Todd Schneider Centurion

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 904 Location: Kansas City
|
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:44 pm Post subject: Re: New Terrain Type Proposal |
 |
|
So its the same size as a woods then? You didn;t
specify a different size.
Todd
--- Nicholas Cioran <ncioran@...> wrote:
> The little copses of woods in allowed in Warrior
> really don't really
> don't cover the reality of the major forests
> described in many
> historical battle accounts.
>
> I'd like to propose a new terrain type to cover
> these:
>
> Forest
>
> Like the major water feature, a Forest is a large
> scale terrain
> feature that borders a battlefield. It uses all of
> the rules for
> Woods, with the following die roll:
>
> 1 - Discard
> 2-3 Left Flank Sector
> 4-5 Right Flank Sector
> 6 Player's Deployment zone
>
> Comments?
> Cole
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com
_________________ Finding new and interesting ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory almost every game! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Todd Schneider Centurion

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 904 Location: Kansas City
|
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 6:08 pm Post subject: Re: New Terrain Type Proposal |
 |
|
Sorry, cut out part somehow...
Anyways, interesting idea, but 8 foot of woods on
table table edge does seem a bit excessive from a
gameplay point of view.
Would be worth some playtesting though IMO.
Todd
--- Todd Schneider <thresh1642@...> wrote:
> So its the same size as a woods then? You didn;t
> specify a different size.
>
> Todd
>
> --- Nicholas Cioran <ncioran@...> wrote:
>
> > The little copses of woods in allowed in Warrior
> > really don't really
> > don't cover the reality of the major forests
> > described in many
> > historical battle accounts.
> >
> > I'd like to propose a new terrain type to cover
> > these:
> >
> > Forest
> >
> > Like the major water feature, a Forest is a large
> > scale terrain
> > feature that borders a battlefield. It uses all
> of
> > the rules for
> > Woods, with the following die roll:
> >
> > 1 - Discard
> > 2-3 Left Flank Sector
> > 4-5 Right Flank Sector
> > 6 Player's Deployment zone
> >
> > Comments?
> > Cole
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in
> one click.
> http://farechase.yahoo.com
>
__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
_________________ Finding new and interesting ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory almost every game! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Recruit

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 156
|
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 6:51 pm Post subject: Re: New Terrain Type Proposal |
 |
|
--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Schneider <thresh1642@y...>
wrote:
>
> So its the same size as a woods then? You didn;t
> specify a different size.
>
> Todd
Sorry, it fills the entire flank sector/deployment zone
As to playability, I imaging all loose order barbarian foot armies
would like it just fine :)
Have fun!
Cole
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Greg Regets Imperator

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2988
|
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 6:56 pm Post subject: Re: New Terrain Type Proposal |
 |
|
I like the idea, but would probably remove the option to have it in
the rear zone, and go with placement and size exactly like a MWF.
I always thought another useful terrain type would be a small
pond ... basically a dead movement zone unless you had boats.
--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Nicholas Cioran" <ncioran@m...>
wrote:
>
> The little copses of woods in allowed in Warrior really don't
really
> don't cover the reality of the major forests described in many
> historical battle accounts.
>
> I'd like to propose a new terrain type to cover these:
>
> Forest
>
> Like the major water feature, a Forest is a large scale terrain
> feature that borders a battlefield. It uses all of the rules for
> Woods, with the following die roll:
>
> 1 - Discard
> 2-3 Left Flank Sector
> 4-5 Right Flank Sector
> 6 Player's Deployment zone
>
> Comments?
> Cole
>
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Mark Stone Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2102 Location: Buckley, WA
|
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 8:56 pm Post subject: Re: New Terrain Type Proposal |
 |
|
--- On November 11 Cole said: ---
> Forest
>
> Like the major water feature, a Forest is a large scale terrain
> feature that borders a battlefield.
This strikes me as not a good idea for several reasons:
First, I've no doubt that this terrain type does occur, and occured with greater
frequency during the time period Warrior covers. That, however, is not the
point. Our terrain reflects a field of battle where both generals were willing
to commit to a fight. I really doubt the effects of such a Forest would
manifest themselves on a mutually agreed field of battle in ways that are not
already sufficiently simulated by existing terrain types and choices.
Second, while Jon has said that generally accomodations for tournament play do
not factor into the way the rules are written, Jon has also explicitly said
that the terrain placement system is an exception to this. It exists _only_ to
meet the needs of tournament players, since in non-tournament games people are
free to place whatever terrain they want and, when re-creating a particular
historical battle, can go by whatever actual terrain was present.
Most battles took place in terrain that was mostly open. Most decisive battles
resolved in a relatively short period of time took place in terrain that was
mostly open. This is the common denominator that the terrain placement system
should, in my opinion, by trying to capture and I think it does an excellent
job overall.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
-Mark Stone
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Greg Regets Imperator

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2988
|
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:19 pm Post subject: Re: New Terrain Type Proposal |
 |
|
Mark ... why is this any different that MWF's which are often used to
cut the frontage and anchor a flank? This suggestion is actually not
quite as good as the MWF from a defensive standpoint, but admittedly
better from the offensive.
I don't see this as an "If it ain't broke" scenario, as a matter of
fact, I thought the beauty of the suggestion was that it's so close
but subtly different to the effects of the MWF so as to allow an
additional, somewhat tested, option, without significantly changing
anything.
Just my two cents ... g
--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
>
> --- On November 11 Cole said: ---
>
> > Forest
> >
> > Like the major water feature, a Forest is a large scale terrain
> > feature that borders a battlefield.
>
> This strikes me as not a good idea for several reasons:
>
> First, I've no doubt that this terrain type does occur, and occured
with greater
> frequency during the time period Warrior covers. That, however, is
not the
> point. Our terrain reflects a field of battle where both generals
were willing
> to commit to a fight. I really doubt the effects of such a Forest
would
> manifest themselves on a mutually agreed field of battle in ways
that are not
> already sufficiently simulated by existing terrain types and
choices.
>
> Second, while Jon has said that generally accomodations for
tournament play do
> not factor into the way the rules are written, Jon has also
explicitly said
> that the terrain placement system is an exception to this. It
exists _only_ to
> meet the needs of tournament players, since in non-tournament games
people are
> free to place whatever terrain they want and, when re-creating a
particular
> historical battle, can go by whatever actual terrain was present.
>
> Most battles took place in terrain that was mostly open. Most
decisive battles
> resolved in a relatively short period of time took place in terrain
that was
> mostly open. This is the common denominator that the terrain
placement system
> should, in my opinion, by trying to capture and I think it does an
excellent
> job overall.
>
> If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Greg Regets Imperator

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2988
|
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:40 pm Post subject: Re: New Terrain Type Proposal |
 |
|
Thanks Jon ...
This was all more conversational than anything else. :-)
--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 11/11/2005 12:20:41 Central Standard Time,
> greg.regets@g... writes:
>
> Mark ... why is this any different that MWF's which are often used
to
> cut the frontage and anchor a flank? This suggestion is actually
not
> quite as good as the MWF from a defensive standpoint, but
admittedly
> better from the offensive.
>
>
>
> To Mark and Greg, et al.
>
> 1. The current terrain table (the one from 14.3) will be the
baseline
> printed in the rulebook.
>
> 2. Once the rulebook is done, we *will* make alternate terrain
tables. I
> have saved the recent suggestions along with others for this
purpose. Who
> uses these alternate tables and when is up to the players.
>
> 3. We have some experience with flank-long non-MWF features from
Fantasy
> Warrior (Mountain Wall). I expect them to be featured in some of
these
> alternate terrain feature/selection rules. A bunch of other
types, sizes, locations
> etc also.
>
> 4. Be patient.
>
> 5. The baseline will continue to be the baseline. Now - if some
point in
> the future those in charge at NASAMW decide to use an alternate
table from the
> one in the rulebook, that is up to them and not for me to
decide....
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kelly Wilkinson Dictator

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 4172 Location: Raytown, MO
|
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 10:27 pm Post subject: Re: New Terrain Type Proposal |
 |
|
If this is allowed, I wanna play Wood Elves!
kw
--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Schneider <thresh1642@y...>
wrote:
>
> Sorry, cut out part somehow...
>
> Anyways, interesting idea, but 8 foot of woods on
> table table edge does seem a bit excessive from a
> gameplay point of view.
>
> Would be worth some playtesting though IMO.
>
> Todd
>
> --- Todd Schneider <thresh1642@y...> wrote:
>
> > So its the same size as a woods then? You didn;t
> > specify a different size.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > --- Nicholas Cioran <ncioran@m...> wrote:
> >
> > > The little copses of woods in allowed in Warrior
> > > really don't really
> > > don't cover the reality of the major forests
> > > described in many
> > > historical battle accounts.
> > >
> > > I'd like to propose a new terrain type to cover
> > > these:
> > >
> > > Forest
> > >
> > > Like the major water feature, a Forest is a large
> > > scale terrain
> > > feature that borders a battlefield. It uses all
> > of
> > > the rules for
> > > Woods, with the following die roll:
> > >
> > > 1 - Discard
> > > 2-3 Left Flank Sector
> > > 4-5 Right Flank Sector
> > > 6 Player's Deployment zone
> > >
> > > Comments?
> > > Cole
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in
> > one click.
> > http://farechase.yahoo.com
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
_________________ Roll down and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
John Garlic Legionary


Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 450 Location: Weslaco, TX
|
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:09 pm Post subject: Re: Re: New Terrain Type Proposal |
 |
|
Hey Kelly,
How about Burmese Wood Elves :-)
John Garlic
-----Original Message-----
From: jwilkinson62 <jwilkinson62@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 19:27:22 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: New Terrain Type Proposal
If this is allowed, I wanna play Wood Elves!
kw
--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Schneider <thresh1642@y...>
wrote:
>
> Sorry, cut out part somehow...
>
> Anyways, interesting idea, but 8 foot of woods on
> table table edge does seem a bit excessive from a
> gameplay point of view.
>
> Would be worth some playtesting though IMO.
>
> Todd
>
> --- Todd Schneider <thresh1642@y...> wrote:
>
> > So its the same size as a woods then? You didn;t
> > specify a different size.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > --- Nicholas Cioran <ncioran@m...> wrote:
> >
> > > The little copses of woods in allowed in Warrior
> > > really don't really
> > > don't cover the reality of the major forests
> > > described in many
> > > historical battle accounts.
> > >
> > > I'd like to propose a new terrain type to cover
> > > these:
> > >
> > > Forest
> > >
> > > Like the major water feature, a Forest is a large
> > > scale terrain
> > > feature that borders a battlefield. It uses all
> > of
> > > the rules for
> > > Woods, with the following die roll:
> > >
> > > 1 - Discard
> > > 2-3 Left Flank Sector
> > > 4-5 Right Flank Sector
> > > 6 Player's Deployment zone
> > >
> > > Comments?
> > > Cole
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in
> > one click.
> > http://farechase.yahoo.com
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Matt Kollmer Recruit

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 87
|
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 4:10 am Post subject: Re: New Terrain Type Proposal |
 |
|
--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Nicholas Cioran"
<ncioran@m...> wrote:
>
> The little copses of woods in allowed in Warrior really don't
really
> don't cover the reality of the major forests described in many
> historical battle accounts.
>
> I'd like to propose a new terrain type to cover these:
>
> Forest
>
> Like the major water feature, a Forest is a large scale terrain
> feature that borders a battlefield. It uses all of the rules for
> Woods, with the following die roll:
>
> 1 - Discard
> 2-3 Left Flank Sector
> 4-5 Right Flank Sector
> 6 Player's Deployment zone
>
> Comments?
> Cole
>
I for one like this idea. Terrain adds a real flavor to most games.
Treating it like a MWF i think would be ideal, not covering the
whole zone, that seems a bit much. Very much like most of the
Danubian frontier! a freindly warning however, what's to stop the
idea's of a major cliff, desert, mountain pass ect..
do we then allow them too? could be interesting.
Matt
_________________ did those bombards really explode again?? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
joncleaves Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447
|
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 8:42 pm Post subject: Re: New Terrain Type Proposal |
 |
|
In a message dated 11/13/2005 12:21:34 Central Standard Time,
cgc.sjw@... writes:
By the time we've played a dozen campaign turns, we ought to have
some substantive reports on what/how these terrain features play.
Excellent.
Are you using Campaign Warrior?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
_________________ Roll Up and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Recruit

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 104
|
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 9:18 pm Post subject: New Terrain Type Proposal |
 |
|
Up in Snowy Canada, we're about to start a 12 player Classical
campaign. We're going to use these very terrain ideas--so in Thrace and
Illyria, there will be available Major Forest features, in Egypt there
will be Major Dune Features, and so on. In the Bosporus, there will
even be Major Open features. They'll work just like MWFs, on the same
dice. By the time we've played a dozen campaign turns, we ought to have
some substantive reports on what/how these terrain features play.
And yes, we will have Major Hill features (mountain pass) as well as
Major Ridge Features ( a ridge in both deployment zones.)
Of course, if no one ever takes them that will tell us something, too.
Christian
>
>
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|