Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/18/2003 16:17:50 Central Standard Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:
4 hours is a minimal time; not because I don't play fast - *that*
criticism I feel quite safe from, given that I usually get the majority
of my games done in <90 mins! -
Ewan, you are a legend in your own mind....lol

Four hours is still wayyy too long. If we made it three hours (or even less),
slow players would be encouraged to play faster. It is not, as you point out
using your immense skill as an example, an issue that a game *can* be brought
to conclusion in a much shorter time.

Jon


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

[Ewan McNay]

I play so little these days that I was going to refrain from opining.
but then greg had a short, quotable post which encapsulated everything I
disagree with... ;)

From: "Greg Regets" <gar@...>
"I have played only about five games in 25mm over the years, but
honestly feel the NICT should be in the 25mm scale. The grandness of
that scale is fitting for a national championship tournament."

I've played both, and prefer the 15mm game but also think that the games
are *different*, and that skill in either should be recognised. If we
can't alternate, then hold both as used to be done. A playoff between
winners would be cool, and could be held either in a random scale or
(better) in random scale with scenario, players taking both sides.
Extra time, though.

Now, I realise I'm a reactionary here, and it's not a feeling that I
like . But holding minority opinions has never been a problem..

[Greg]"It is my opinion that one list is a poor option. Most armies that
offer enough flexibility to make two varied lists, gain even more
benefit when the list count is reduces to one."

I think that this is just plain wrong, but it's not something that can
be disproven. I do see many more armies being viable in one-list;
worse, I see a *few* as being *much* better in two-list, and that's the
bigger problem (to me).

"1600 points, 4 hours? Too many points ... games that are too long.
Then again, anything that eliminated the "wall anchored on the edge
of the world" effect, it a bonus in my book. I have never gotten the
point of this sort of combat. It is unrealistic, not historical, and
quite frankly, reminds me of lining up plastic soldiers and rolling
marbles at them."

I've only ever seen such a wall once, I think, and that was Chris
Damour's Vikings. And that's in a lot of games. What are you facing
that produces this, and why are you not hitting it at local advantage
and killing it?

4 hours is a minimal time; not because I don't play fast - *that*
criticism I feel quite safe from, given that I usually get the majority
of my games done in <90 mins! - but because some opponents either play
slowly, are good enough to need time to defeat (critical to win
tourneys), or have an army matchup that produces relatively drawn-out
games. I would be very happy with the use of timers for each player,
per bound, as has been done successfully at the World Boardgaming Champs
for a couple of games that used to have this problem.

And 1600 is about the smallest that I think allows for a range of
armies. Scott's masochistic liking for Burgundians at 1200
notwithstanding, wide viability increases from 1200 to 1600, for
example, I think.

e

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 12/18/2003 9:05:40 PM Central Standard Time, gar@...
writes:
Every time I play John Green, he has 7.2 million pikes that
stretch from one end to the other.
Has Johnny G started playing again? Last time I spoke with him he was doing
the multi-dice ancients game.
Chris


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

[Greg Regets]

Ewan ... you know I'm always happy to give you something to not agree
with, free of charge! (or counter-charge)

As far as a wall of guys anchored on the edge, I wonder how you never
see this, because I see it about every tournament I play in. Just
last weekend, I played a very good opponent with a solid wall of
large spear units anchored on both table edges ... and NO light
troops. Every time I play John Green, he has 7.2 million pikes that
stretch from one end to the other.

Obviously the local superiority card is the one to play in this case,
and in truth I never actually said I had difficulty in dealing with
the solid wall. I was simply pointing out that when you see it often,
one is left feeling the banality of it all.

Take care ... and if you buy my Seleucids, I will agree with you on
the message board for 30 days, as an added bonus.

g :-)



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan <ewan.mcnay@y...> wrote:
> I play so little these days that I was going to refrain from
opining.
> but then greg had a short, quotable post which encapsulated
everything I
> disagree with...
>
> From: "Greg Regets" <gar@t...>
> "I have played only about five games in 25mm over the years, but
> honestly feel the NICT should be in the 25mm scale. The grandness
of
> that scale is fitting for a national championship tournament."
>
> I've played both, and prefer the 15mm game but also think that the
games
> are *different*, and that skill in either should be recognised. If
we
> can't alternate, then hold both as used to be done. A playoff
between
> winners would be cool, and could be held either in a random scale or
> (better) in random scale with scenario, players taking both sides.
> Extra time, though.
>
> Now, I realise I'm a reactionary here, and it's not a feeling that I
> like . But holding minority opinions has never been a problem..
>
> [Greg]"It is my opinion that one list is a poor option. Most armies
that
> offer enough flexibility to make two varied lists, gain even more
> benefit when the list count is reduces to one."
>
> I think that this is just plain wrong, but it's not something that
can
> be disproven. I do see many more armies being viable in one-list;
> worse, I see a *few* as being *much* better in two-list, and that's
the
> bigger problem (to me).
>
> "1600 points, 4 hours? Too many points ... games that are too long.
> Then again, anything that eliminated the "wall anchored on the edge
> of the world" effect, it a bonus in my book. I have never gotten
the
> point of this sort of combat. It is unrealistic, not historical,
and
> quite frankly, reminds me of lining up plastic soldiers and rolling
> marbles at them."
>
> I've only ever seen such a wall once, I think, and that was Chris
> Damour's Vikings. And that's in a lot of games. What are you
facing
> that produces this, and why are you not hitting it at local
advantage
> and killing it?
>
> 4 hours is a minimal time; not because I don't play fast - *that*
> criticism I feel quite safe from, given that I usually get the
majority
> of my games done in <90 mins! - but because some opponents either
play
> slowly, are good enough to need time to defeat (critical to win
> tourneys), or have an army matchup that produces relatively drawn-
out
> games. I would be very happy with the use of timers for each
player,
> per bound, as has been done successfully at the World Boardgaming
Champs
> for a couple of games that used to have this problem.
>
> And 1600 is about the smallest that I think allows for a range of
> armies. Scott's masochistic liking for Burgundians at 1200
> notwithstanding, wide viability increases from 1200 to 1600, for
> example, I think.
>
> e

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Ewan <ewan.mcnay@...> wrote:

And 1600 is about the smallest that I think allows for a range of
armies. Scott's masochistic liking for Burgundians at 1200
notwithstanding, wide viability increases from 1200 to 1600, for
example, I think.

Ewan,
I beg to differ. Look at the minimums for the late Burgundian ordinance as
compared to other lists. It has almost no requirements making it one of the most
viable lists at low points!

kelly


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I have to weigh in on this as well! I like the four hour time limit because when
I get done early, I can grab something to eat or go to the dealer area to by
toys! Usually one of the knocks I have for Historicon tournaments is the lack of
time to visit the dealer area as well as the flea market! When I have an
opponent who likes to play fast and we conclude early, the extra time between
rounds is very welcome. nuff said.

kelly

JonCleaves@... wrote:
In a message dated 12/18/2003 16:17:50 Central Standard Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:
4 hours is a minimal time; not because I don't play fast - *that*
criticism I feel quite safe from, given that I usually get the majority
of my games done in <90 mins! -
Ewan, you are a legend in your own mind....lol

Four hours is still wayyy too long. If we made it three hours (or even less),
slow players would be encouraged to play faster. It is not, as you point out
using your immense skill as an example, an issue that a game *can* be brought
to conclusion in a much shorter time.

Jon


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



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





---------------------------------
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!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

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

[Greg Regets]

I have not played with John Green in ages, but we do talk
occasionally. He says he is going to start coming again next year.

I just drop his name because he is a past national champion, and it's
the only way to get respect from these Yankees (anyone that does not
live in Texas). ;-)

g




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, cncbump@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 12/18/2003 9:05:40 PM Central Standard Time,
gar@t...
> writes:
> Every time I play John Green, he has 7.2 million pikes that
> stretch from one end to the other.
> Has Johnny G started playing again? Last time I spoke with him he
was doing
> the multi-dice ancients game.
> Chris
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]