Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

I have gotten 8 responses on the product schedule poll. While there are
trends, this is not a statistically valid sample of 430 folks...

Again, if you would, place the following in the order you'd like to see them:

Fleet Warrior
Campaign Warrior
Fantasy Warrior Battles
SwordClash (skirmish game)
Warrior Card Game
Siege Warrior

Thanks
Jon


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

[John Garlic]

Sorry for not voting. Right now just trying to get playing time in for
Warrior, so I'm real easy to please beyond that. Campaign Warrior fascinates me
the most of those on the list as well as SwordClash.

John Garlic

> I have gotten 8 responses on the product schedule poll. While there are
> trends, this is not a statistically valid sample of 430 folks...
>
> Again, if you would, place the following in the order you'd like to see
> them:
>
> Fleet Warrior
> Campaign Warrior
> Fantasy Warrior Battles
> SwordClash (skirmish game)
> Warrior Card Game
> Siege Warrior



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

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 9/16/2004 3:09:46 AM GMT Daylight Time,
JonCleaves@... writes:

Fleet Warrior
Campaign Warrior
Fantasy Warrior Battles
SwordClash (skirmish game)
Warrior Card Game
Siege Warrior



Speaking for our core group of 5

The final army list book is priority

but

then

campaign/fleet/siege/fantasy in that order - no interest in the others as yet

i have my own campaign rules including details on ships (70 odd pages)
written during the early nineties which worked great for a few years until one
of
the participants decided he was losing and jacked in - bear that in mind in
your design.

also we had a monthly random event which in some cases allowed a new player
to join an ongoing campaign by invading from off map or an uprising.

troops that were traditional mercenaries had thier own territories that were
treated as neutral.

Just a few ideas.

If i could find a copy on disk i would send it to you. Until the demise of
7th i had intended publishing it eventually. As there was obviously a hole in
the market.

Mark Mallard


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

Okay - hear goes my vote:

Siege Warrior
Campaign Warrior
Fleet Warrior
Fantasy Warrior Battles
SwordClash (skirmish game)
Warrior Card Game

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> I have gotten 8 responses on the product schedule poll. While
there are
> trends, this is not a statistically valid sample of 430 folks...
>
> Again, if you would, place the following in the order you'd like to
see them:
>
> Fleet Warrior
> Campaign Warrior
> Fantasy Warrior Battles
> SwordClash (skirmish game)
> Warrior Card Game
> Siege Warrior
>
> Thanks
> Jon

-
> Siege Warrior
> Campaign Warrior
> Fleet Warrior
> Fantasy Warrior Battles
> SwordClash (skirmish game)
> Warrior Card Game
>
>

For what its worth---

Fantasy Warrior Battles
Siege Warrior
Fleet Warrior
SwordClash
Campaign Warrior (I think you need SwordClash for the "full" campgain)
Warrior Card Game

Shan

[Ewan McNay]

OK, OK: I suppose I would vote for seige, as the only one I am likely
ever to use, but frankly don't care.

JonCleaves@... wrote:

> I have gotten 8 responses on the product schedule poll. While there are
> trends, this is not a statistically valid sample of 430 folks...
>
> Again, if you would, place the following in the order you'd like to see them:
>
> Fleet Warrior
> Campaign Warrior
> Fantasy Warrior Battles
> SwordClash (skirmish game)
> Warrior Card Game
> Siege Warrior
>
> Thanks
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Jon

Campaign - a good campaign system would be valuable
Siege - again few of these around
Fleet - if the others are good this might be fun
Swordclash - possible but there's lots around
Fantasy WB - don't do much and not sure its a Warrior strength
Card - no chance of my buying this

Feel free to ignore :-)

Edward

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> I have gotten 8 responses on the product schedule poll. While
there are
> trends, this is not a statistically valid sample of 430 folks...
>
> Again, if you would, place the following in the order you'd like
to see them:
>
> Fleet Warrior
> Campaign Warrior
> Fantasy Warrior Battles
> SwordClash (skirmish game)
> Warrior Card Game
> Siege Warrior
>
> Thanks
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Jon,
If you have to have a response here goes. My preference is in order so as
to work with the Warrior core rules. Additionally I'd like to note that I feel
that Fantasy Warrior needs to be packaged and placed on the market as this is,
in my opinion, the best game for fantasy battles in the world and a fast
version, is perhaps the best recruiting tool for the core rules. It was with the
possibility of using this rule set that I snagged my latest convert, Steve
Hollowell. To leave it in the files section and not package it for sale would be
a shame and will keep it out of the hands of many would be recruits from the
fantasy side of our hobby who do not subscribe to this list. Additionally, it
probably will come as no surprise to you to know that just about every Warrior
player I'm aquainted with will buy a set as we know the care that you and the
other Four Horsemen put into your rules and other products. Heck, I even bought
a shirt from Jake to wear at Fort Worth Wars and Border
Wars to taught your company. Okay now to my preferences. . .

Seige Warrior
Fleet Warrior (fun fighting on Major Water Features. Bust out the Greek Fire,
Paul)
Campaign Warrior
Fantasy Battles
Cards
Sword clash

I hope this helps with your research.

kelly wilkinson

JonCleaves@... wrote:
I have gotten 8 responses on the product schedule poll. While there are
trends, this is not a statistically valid sample of 430 folks...

Again, if you would, place the following in the order you'd like to see them:

Fleet Warrior
Campaign Warrior
Fantasy Warrior Battles
SwordClash (skirmish game)
Warrior Card Game
Siege Warrior

Thanks
Jon


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


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!

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

[joncleaves]

<<Jon

Campaign - a good campaign system would be valuable
Siege - again few of these around
Fleet - if the others are good this might be fun
Swordclash - possible but there's lots around
Fantasy WB - don't do much and not sure its a Warrior strength
Card - no chance of my buying this

Feel free to ignore :-)

Edward>>
[
I would never ignore your input Ed, this is all very valuable.

Just to assuage the fears of some, we are not going off the deep end here into
the fantasy/card game business. FHE will always be about Warrior and Warrior
will always be first at the trough for our attentions. In fact, the basic way
we look at other products is how they permit us to 'do Warrior better'...

Here's some insights into why we are asking about all these.

1. Campaign Warrior is trending high at the moment, which is no surprise. Good
news for us, because it is 60-70% finished already. However, Campaign Warrior
is a game supplement and not a stand alone game. Game supplements always sell
less copies than the rulebook they support. This means we can't sell more
CamWars than we do Warrior rulebooks. This means we cannot use CamWar to
generate cash to increase our market share of the ancient and medieval
miniatures players or bring new players in through Warrior.

2. It is clear, for example, that the active folks on this list do not want a
Warrior card game. But what if it were easy to design and produced a large cash
to outlay ratio that we could pour into making 'mainline' Warrior products
better and faster? What if you could take a copy of the Warrior card game to a
card con and use it to generate interest in playing the card game out 'for real'
using miniatures in a game of Warrior Battles and once the guy had mastered
Warrior Battles you brought him into Warrior? Should we can the idea just
because 12 guys here put it last or next to last and tourney-only players
wouldn't touch it with neoprene gloves?

3. Same issue with Fantasy Warrior Battles. It is a small distance from a
human fantasy army to an historical medieval army. It is very easy to get a guy
to try the historical version once he already has the rules knowledge and
possibly even most of the figures from the fantasy version.

Our number one goal is to make Warrior the most played ancient and medieval
rules set that it can be. Note that I did not necessarily say most played. The
masses will always gravitate towards simpler games. That is where Warrior
Battles fits in. There will even be a way to play Warrior Battles with only 12
elements a side....... :)

In any case - if you are a Warrior-only player, you will always be the core
customer FHE serves. Other products will either be to help you recruit, expand
our market share, increase the options in your Warrior experience or to generate
cash to help us produce more things for you faster.

Jon

[Mark Stone]

Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:

> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:06:07 EDT
> From: JonCleaves@...
> Subject: Product Schedule - vote!
>
> I have gotten 8 responses on the product schedule poll. While there are
> trends, this is not a statistically valid sample of 430 folks...
>
> Again, if you would, place the following in the order you'd like to see
> them:
>
> Fleet Warrior
> Campaign Warrior
> Fantasy Warrior Battles
> SwordClash (skirmish game)
> Warrior Card Game
> Siege Warrior
>

I have no preference with respect to these choices. None of them really
represent more than moderate interest for me. While I think it's important to
have a campaign system, I also think there are many good "home grown" choices
for how to run a campaign, and Campaign Warrior won't solve the hardest
problem: getting a critical mass of players within driving distance who are
interested.

I'd put a much, much higher priority on seeing FHE rules systems for other
miniatures periods, such as Rennaissance. In fact I'd say go for Rennaissance
next, because much could be the same with existing Warrior, and then go for the
big two: Napoleonic (my first choice), and American Civil War. I'd rate my
preference at about 100:1 for any of Rennaissance, Napoleonic, ACW vs. the
choices you have listed here.


-Mark Stone

[Ewan McNay]

I care not for Napoleonic or ACW; however, second that vote for
Renaissance (not least because George gush's WRG rules were my first
intro to wargaming, allowing me to spot a truly egregious loophole
made worse by an idiotic competition modification, at age 15 or so,
and win the national title essentially using one huge unit of E class
musket-toting Polish peasants while the rest of my army, including
winged husars, stood idly by discussing vodka).

Anything with too much gunpowder (i.e. anything after renaissance) I
find really boring - hence my preference. I'd put Renaissance at
about level with Siege; the rest nowhere.

Mark Stone wrote:

> Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:
>
>
>>________________________________________________________________________
>>
>>Message: 1
>> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:06:07 EDT
>> From: JonCleaves@...
>>Subject: Product Schedule - vote!
>>
>>I have gotten 8 responses on the product schedule poll. While there are
>>trends, this is not a statistically valid sample of 430 folks...
>>
>>Again, if you would, place the following in the order you'd like to see
>>them:
>>
>>Fleet Warrior
>>Campaign Warrior
>>Fantasy Warrior Battles
>>SwordClash (skirmish game)
>>Warrior Card Game
>>Siege Warrior
>>
>
>
> I have no preference with respect to these choices. None of them really
> represent more than moderate interest for me. While I think it's important to
> have a campaign system, I also think there are many good "home grown" choices
> for how to run a campaign, and Campaign Warrior won't solve the hardest
> problem: getting a critical mass of players within driving distance who are
> interested.
>
> I'd put a much, much higher priority on seeing FHE rules systems for other
> miniatures periods, such as Rennaissance. In fact I'd say go for Rennaissance
> next, because much could be the same with existing Warrior, and then go for
the
> big two: Napoleonic (my first choice), and American Civil War. I'd rate my
> preference at about 100:1 for any of Rennaissance, Napoleonic, ACW vs. the
> choices you have listed here.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Jon

Good points - see my comments below.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> <<Jon
>
> Campaign - a good campaign system would be valuable
> Siege - again few of these around
> Fleet - if the others are good this might be fun
> Swordclash - possible but there's lots around
> Fantasy WB - don't do much and not sure its a Warrior strength
> Card - no chance of my buying this
>
> Feel free to ignore
>
> Edward>>
> [
> I would never ignore your input Ed, this is all very valuable.
>
> Just to assuage the fears of some, we are not going off the deep
end here into the fantasy/card game business. FHE will always be
about Warrior and Warrior will always be first at the trough for our
attentions. In fact, the basic way we look at other products is how
they permit us to 'do Warrior better'...
>
> Here's some insights into why we are asking about all these.
>
> 1. Campaign Warrior is trending high at the moment, which is no
surprise. Good news for us, because it is 60-70% finished already.
However, Campaign Warrior is a game supplement and not a stand alone
game. Game supplements always sell less copies than the rulebook
they support. This means we can't sell more CamWars than we do
Warrior rulebooks. This means we cannot use CamWar to generate cash
to increase our market share of the ancient and medieval miniatures
players or bring new players in through Warrior.

**I see your point that commercially CamWar will indeed not be a
major cash generator - but if it was able to be used to generate
battles that could easily be used for other rules you might get non-
Warrior users buying it for the campaign rules and being tempted to
try Warrior. But that would be a bonus not a business rationale.

>
> 2. It is clear, for example, that the active folks on this list
do not want a Warrior card game. But what if it were easy to design
and produced a large cash to outlay ratio that we could pour into
making 'mainline' Warrior products better and faster? What if you
could take a copy of the Warrior card game to a card con and use it
to generate interest in playing the card game out 'for real' using
miniatures in a game of Warrior Battles and once the guy had
mastered Warrior Battles you brought him into Warrior? Should we
can the idea just because 12 guys here put it last or next to last
and tourney-only players wouldn't touch it with neoprene gloves?

**If a card game could really generate sufficient excess income to
invest elsewhere (or even pay FHE something ) then that would be
great and an adverse opinion by us lot shouldn't put anyone off.
However, it is a different market and you would need to be pretty
sure of your projections to avoid creating a black hole. In terms
of moving card players to Warrior I'm not sure many would do a card
to mini switch unless they had some interest already.

>
> 3. Same issue with Fantasy Warrior Battles. It is a small
distance from a human fantasy army to an historical medieval army.
It is very easy to get a guy to try the historical version once he
already has the rules knowledge and possibly even most of the
figures from the fantasy version.

**Assuming they have a human fantasy army ...

>
> Our number one goal is to make Warrior the most played ancient and
medieval rules set that it can be. Note that I did not necessarily
say most played. The masses will always gravitate towards simpler
games. That is where Warrior Battles fits in. There will even be a
way to play Warrior Battles with only 12 elements a side....... :)

**A good philosophy but you would have to be sure each set was going
to pay for itself. While I'd really like to see more and varied
products I wouldn't want it at the expense of FHE.

>
> In any case - if you are a Warrior-only player, you will always be
the core customer FHE serves. Other products will either be to help
you recruit, expand our market share, increase the options in your
Warrior experience or to generate cash to help us produce more
things for you faster.
>
> Jon

Regards

Edward

[joncleaves]

<<**I see your point that commercially CamWar will indeed not be a
major cash generator - but if it was able to be used to generate
battles that could easily be used for other rules you might get non-
Warrior users buying it for the campaign rules and being tempted to
try Warrior. >>

I plan to put a conversion page into CamWar for each major rules set so that any
ancients player can use it.



<<**If a card game could really generate sufficient excess income to
invest elsewhere (or even pay FHE something ) then that would be
great and an adverse opinion by us lot shouldn't put anyone off.
However, it is a different market and you would need to be pretty
sure of your projections to avoid creating a black hole.>>

Oh, trust me - we are not about to make a major marketing decision solely based
on the opinions of 12 already loyal customers - especially on a product that
does not target them.... But your input is incredibly important to us.

<< In terms of moving card players to Warrior I'm not sure many would do a card
to mini switch unless they had some interest already.>>

You mean like from Legend of the Five Rings to a Samurai army? lol It can be
done...

<<
**Assuming they have a human fantasy army ...>>

Or they have an Orc/Dwarf/Goblin/Elf/whatever army and they learn the rules and
*then* you show them some great figures to pain that happen to be
historical...and then...etc.


**A good philosophy but you would have to be sure each set was going
to pay for itself. >>

No worries - we are in the black and staying there. We do not yet have a profit
motive and our plan is that even if we do someday have that option that our
cornerstone remians giving the ancient/medieval gamer the best we can

Jon

[Greg Preston]

Dear Jon,

Campaign Warrior
Siege Warrior
Fleet Warrior
SwordClash (skirmish game)
Fantasy Warrior Battles
Warrior Card Game


Greg Preston

On 16/09/2004, at 12:06, JonCleaves@... wrote:

> I have gotten 8 responses on the product schedule poll.  While there 
> are
> trends, this is not a statistically valid sample of 430 folks...
>
> Again, if you would, place the following in the order you'd like to
> see  them:
>
> Fleet Warrior
> Campaign Warrior
> Fantasy Warrior Battles
> SwordClash (skirmish game)
> Warrior Card Game
> Siege Warrior
>
> Thanks
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <image.tiff>
> <image.tiff>
>
> 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.
>
>


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

Campaign
Siege
Fantasy
Fleet
Warrior card game
Skirmish

mikee


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