Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Charles Yaw]

Jon,

If space is an issue in the rulebook, and from hearing and reading
you comments, it probably is, why not just list the link to the fast
warrior lists in the rulebook and then put them on line. That way
examples of list expansion could easily be included as space would
not be a factor. When you consider public libraries, everyone has
access to being on-line.

Charles


>
> As someone who has fiddled around with FW and got confused by the
> lists therein I would definitely favour removing it from the
> rulebook. If, in line with Greg P's suggestion, you keep
examples
> then you could present some example armies of 600-800 points and
> reinforcements to take them to 1200 or 1600 to show how lists
were
> built?
>
>
>
> Good idea. Something we will do for free if we can't fit it into
the rule
> book.
>
> Of course, our players could always post some examples of that.
And Warrior
> Clinic #1 in the files section is about how to buy a list....
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

Brinton it is our intent that Warrior Battles will serve as both fast play and
as an introduction. games will be intended to last one hour. But also the
basing, movement distances, weapon factors and other items will be the same as
in Warrior allowing for the plauyer to make a transition to the more detailed
version after getting comfortable with WB.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Brinton <brwilliams@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:34:29 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Out of the box idea - opinions wanted


As an introductory game do you believe warrior battles is an
introduction...or fast play. As in...will I learn warrior battles and
feel it is a cut down version of the game and want to play warrior,
or would I be able to play warrior battles, feel it is a complete
(but simplified) game and only if I want bigger, longer, much more
detailed experience will I decide to move on to warrior? Do you
envision the same people playing warrior battles and warrior
depending on the situation...or is battles an introduction to get
more people into warrior at which time they ditch warrior battles
(except as a training tool for new players).

In any case...I would like to say that Fast Warrior can defintley go
out of the main rulebook if warrior battles is being offered. Having
played fast warrior, it didn't honestly seem much simpler than the
one other game of warrior I played. I would defintley offer some
clear starting armies though in the main rulebook as currently I am
struggling as a new player to understand how building a list works.

-Brinton

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> The revised rulebook will be a professionally laid out and printed
verison of the current rulebook with clarifications added. Still
Warrior just as it is now.
>
> Warrior Battles is our next project. It is an introductory
ancients game that uses the same basing and troops types and many of
the same concepts as Warrior, but it far simpler and plays in an hour.
>
> J
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brinton <brwilliams@a...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 18:59:13 -0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Out of the box idea - opinions wanted
>
>
> I am still very new to warrior so forgive my ignorance but what
> exactly will be the scope of the new rulebook and warrior battles
so
> that I am better able to answer your question.
>
> -Brinton
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> > My thoughts, too, Mark
> >
> > Although I will be taking a serious look at Greg's idea of a much
> reduced set of feature lists version using some famous matched
> historical pairs, which is what is planned for Warrior Battles.
> >
> > J
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Stone <mark@d...>
> > To: warrior <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:45:38 +0000
> > Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Out of the box idea - opinions wanted
> >
> >
> > Jon,
> >
> > I have always thought that Fast Warrior was a necessary but stop-
> gap measure
> > until Warrior Battles could be tackled. Fast Warrior was
something
> you guys
> > could get out quickly that offered a variant of Warrior that
could
> easily be
> > played in under two hours.
> >
> > The problem with Fast Warrior is that it isn't really any less
> complex to learn
> > that the full Warrior game, meaning it is only a slight
improvement
> over
> > Warrior itself as a teaching tool. Under the circumstances you
> faced in the
> > beginning, I think you _had_ to do Fast Warrior, but in my
opinion
> it is a
> > product that will soon become obsolete, or at least rather
> different.
> >
> > As a Warrior alternative to DBA I suppose it could have some
> ongoing future
> > life, but I haven't seen an impressive turnout for Fast Warrior
> events in
> > Lancaster. That may, of course, have something to do with the
> timing of those
> > events.
> >
> > In any case, I would say that you have little to lose and a lot
to
> gain by
> > moving Fast Warrior to a Web-only home.
> >
> >
> > -Mark Stone
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






Yahoo! Groups Links






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

When is Warrior Battles supposed to happen? I am currently learning
Warrior (as anyone reading my posts can tell) and am defintley
struggling with large portions of it. I am intrigued by the game but
have thought multiple times about not pursuing it any further due to
the difficulty (but i'm determined to stick with it now). I still
have no real idea what makes a good army or how I should be building
one, and still am clueless on a lot of the unit interactions and
battlefield roles...Fast warrior removes the army building aspect and
lowers the size but that seems like all it simplifies to my untrained
eyes when I played it. Something like Warrior battles seems like a
great idea. What size armies would they be?

-Brinton

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Brinton it is our intent that Warrior Battles will serve as both
fast play and as an introduction. games will be intended to last one
hour. But also the basing, movement distances, weapon factors and
other items will be the same as in Warrior allowing for the plauyer
to make a transition to the more detailed version after getting
comfortable with WB.
>
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brinton <brwilliams@a...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:34:29 -0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Out of the box idea - opinions wanted
>
>
> As an introductory game do you believe warrior battles is an
> introduction...or fast play. As in...will I learn warrior battles
and
> feel it is a cut down version of the game and want to play warrior,
> or would I be able to play warrior battles, feel it is a complete
> (but simplified) game and only if I want bigger, longer, much more
> detailed experience will I decide to move on to warrior? Do you
> envision the same people playing warrior battles and warrior
> depending on the situation...or is battles an introduction to get
> more people into warrior at which time they ditch warrior battles
> (except as a training tool for new players).
>
> In any case...I would like to say that Fast Warrior can defintley
go
> out of the main rulebook if warrior battles is being offered.
Having
> played fast warrior, it didn't honestly seem much simpler than the
> one other game of warrior I played. I would defintley offer some
> clear starting armies though in the main rulebook as currently I am
> struggling as a new player to understand how building a list works.
>
> -Brinton
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> > The revised rulebook will be a professionally laid out and
printed
> verison of the current rulebook with clarifications added. Still
> Warrior just as it is now.
> >
> > Warrior Battles is our next project. It is an introductory
> ancients game that uses the same basing and troops types and many
of
> the same concepts as Warrior, but it far simpler and plays in an
hour.
> >
> > J
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brinton <brwilliams@a...>
> > To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 18:59:13 -0000
> > Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Out of the box idea - opinions wanted
> >
> >
> > I am still very new to warrior so forgive my ignorance but what
> > exactly will be the scope of the new rulebook and warrior battles
> so
> > that I am better able to answer your question.
> >
> > -Brinton
> >
> > --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> > > My thoughts, too, Mark
> > >
> > > Although I will be taking a serious look at Greg's idea of a
much
> > reduced set of feature lists version using some famous matched
> > historical pairs, which is what is planned for Warrior Battles.
> > >
> > > J
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Mark Stone <mark@d...>
> > > To: warrior <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:45:38 +0000
> > > Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Out of the box idea - opinions
wanted
> > >
> > >
> > > Jon,
> > >
> > > I have always thought that Fast Warrior was a necessary but
stop-
> > gap measure
> > > until Warrior Battles could be tackled. Fast Warrior was
> something
> > you guys
> > > could get out quickly that offered a variant of Warrior that
> could
> > easily be
> > > played in under two hours.
> > >
> > > The problem with Fast Warrior is that it isn't really any less
> > complex to learn
> > > that the full Warrior game, meaning it is only a slight
> improvement
> > over
> > > Warrior itself as a teaching tool. Under the circumstances you
> > faced in the
> > > beginning, I think you _had_ to do Fast Warrior, but in my
> opinion
> > it is a
> > > product that will soon become obsolete, or at least rather
> > different.
> > >
> > > As a Warrior alternative to DBA I suppose it could have some
> > ongoing future
> > > life, but I haven't seen an impressive turnout for Fast Warrior
> > events in
> > > Lancaster. That may, of course, have something to do with the
> > timing of those
> > > events.
> > >
> > > In any case, I would say that you have little to lose and a lot
> to
> > gain by
> > > moving Fast Warrior to a Web-only home.
> > >
> > >
> > > -Mark Stone
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

Warrior Battles is a product we will publish next year. The armies will be
identical to those in Fast Warrior.

-----Original Message-----
From: Brinton <brwilliams@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 19:14:14 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Out of the box idea - opinions wanted


When is Warrior Battles supposed to happen? I am currently learning
Warrior (as anyone reading my posts can tell) and am defintley
struggling with large portions of it. I am intrigued by the game but
have thought multiple times about not pursuing it any further due to
the difficulty (but i'm determined to stick with it now). I still
have no real idea what makes a good army or how I should be building
one, and still am clueless on a lot of the unit interactions and
battlefield roles...Fast warrior removes the army building aspect and
lowers the size but that seems like all it simplifies to my untrained
eyes when I played it. Something like Warrior battles seems like a
great idea. What size armies would they be?

-Brinton

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Brinton it is our intent that Warrior Battles will serve as both
fast play and as an introduction. games will be intended to last one
hour. But also the basing, movement distances, weapon factors and
other items will be the same as in Warrior allowing for the plauyer
to make a transition to the more detailed version after getting
comfortable with WB.
>
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brinton <brwilliams@a...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:34:29 -0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Out of the box idea - opinions wanted
>
>
> As an introductory game do you believe warrior battles is an
> introduction...or fast play. As in...will I learn warrior battles
and
> feel it is a cut down version of the game and want to play warrior,
> or would I be able to play warrior battles, feel it is a complete
> (but simplified) game and only if I want bigger, longer, much more
> detailed experience will I decide to move on to warrior? Do you
> envision the same people playing warrior battles and warrior
> depending on the situation...or is battles an introduction to get
> more people into warrior at which time they ditch warrior battles
> (except as a training tool for new players).
>
> In any case...I would like to say that Fast Warrior can defintley
go
> out of the main rulebook if warrior battles is being offered.
Having
> played fast warrior, it didn't honestly seem much simpler than the
> one other game of warrior I played. I would defintley offer some
> clear starting armies though in the main rulebook as currently I am
> struggling as a new player to understand how building a list works.
>
> -Brinton
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> > The revised rulebook will be a professionally laid out and
printed
> verison of the current rulebook with clarifications added. Still
> Warrior just as it is now.
> >
> > Warrior Battles is our next project. It is an introductory
> ancients game that uses the same basing and troops types and many
of
> the same concepts as Warrior, but it far simpler and plays in an
hour.
> >
> > J
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brinton <brwilliams@a...>
> > To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 18:59:13 -0000
> > Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Out of the box idea - opinions wanted
> >
> >
> > I am still very new to warrior so forgive my ignorance but what
> > exactly will be the scope of the new rulebook and warrior battles
> so
> > that I am better able to answer your question.
> >
> > -Brinton
> >
> > --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> > > My thoughts, too, Mark
> > >
> > > Although I will be taking a serious look at Greg's idea of a
much
> > reduced set of feature lists version using some famous matched
> > historical pairs, which is what is planned for Warrior Battles.
> > >
> > > J
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Mark Stone <mark@d...>
> > > To: warrior <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:45:38 +0000
> > > Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Out of the box idea - opinions
wanted
> > >
> > >
> > > Jon,
> > >
> > > I have always thought that Fast Warrior was a necessary but
stop-
> > gap measure
> > > until Warrior Battles could be tackled. Fast Warrior was
> something
> > you guys
> > > could get out quickly that offered a variant of Warrior that
> could
> > easily be
> > > played in under two hours.
> > >
> > > The problem with Fast Warrior is that it isn't really any less
> > complex to learn
> > > that the full Warrior game, meaning it is only a slight
> improvement
> > over
> > > Warrior itself as a teaching tool. Under the circumstances you
> > faced in the
> > > beginning, I think you _had_ to do Fast Warrior, but in my
> opinion
> > it is a
> > > product that will soon become obsolete, or at least rather
> > different.
> > >
> > > As a Warrior alternative to DBA I suppose it could have some
> > ongoing future
> > > life, but I haven't seen an impressive turnout for Fast Warrior
> > events in
> > > Lancaster. That may, of course, have something to do with the
> > timing of those
> > > events.
> > >
> > > In any case, I would say that you have little to lose and a lot
> to
> > gain by
> > > moving Fast Warrior to a Web-only home.
> > >
> > >
> > > -Mark Stone
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 1/8/2006 22:21:18 Central Standard Time,
malekithau@... writes:

Excellent idea from Greg. Perhaps make the armies for each of the FW
armies available as downloads in the same format as Warrior Battles?
Then those who play Warrior Battles will eb able to run some other
armies including non-historical matchups without requiring figures.

John>>
Good stuff.

J




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

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Greg Preston <edgdp@a...> wrote:
>
> Love the idea of having the FW armies on the web. However would be
sad to
> see them go completely from the Rule book.
>
> What about having a few -matched pairs- of FW armies in the rule
book
> (based around key ancient and Med battles)- perhaps one pair for
each
> Warrior army list book. So you could have "Marathon" with Greek and
> Persians - both armies and a short battle overview on a single
page- one
> pair per List book.
>
> This might give newcomers a "taste" and encourage all to seek out
the other
> FW armies on the web.
>
> Greg P.
>

Excellent idea from Greg. Perhaps make the armies for each of the FW
armies available as downloads in the same format as Warrior Battles?
Then those who play Warrior Battles will eb able to run some other
armies including non-historical matchups without requiring figures.

John

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 1/8/2006 22:21:18 Central Standard Time,
> malekithau@y... writes:
>
> Excellent idea from Greg. Perhaps make the armies for each of the
FW
> armies available as downloads in the same format as Warrior
Battles?
> Then those who play Warrior Battles will eb able to run some
other
> armies including non-historical matchups without requiring
figures.
>
> John>>
> Good stuff.
>
> J
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Why not follow a programmed learning approach, whereby you move from
battles between some one-dimensional armies with a few, simple troop
types and then get more complicated. You could start with a battle
between two infantry armies, then add cavalry, then nastier
knights/double-armed cavalry, then elephants, camels etc. The rules
could be written the same way (even if only as a supplemental
tutorial guide), with optional rules at the end.

Chris