Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/17/2004 20:52:41 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:
When replacing in HtH, either...
(1) When elements of another friendly non-replaced body, or some
elements of the replaced body, maintain contact
or
(2) When contact is "momentarily broken" (?) by all elements during
replacement (i.e. all friendly elements in HtH are replaced)
... how do you determine:

(a) Which enemy bodies that are the target of a replacement charge
get charge responses?>>

There aren't two cases there. There isn't any such thing as 'contact
momentarily broken'. If you are in contact, there is only one way you get
charge
responses - you are a pursuer only in contact with broken troops. In ALL other
cases, anyone getting replaced against NEVER gets charge responses whether all
of the original opponent's elements get replaced or not.


This was beginning to look very straight-forward until we started
distinguishing between replacement against an enemy otherwise engaged
versus replacement of all the elements facing the enemy.>>

That really didn't happen. I think you think that overlap, which is only
against guys already in hth, somehow changed the nature of the replacement when
every element from thwe original body got replaced. It does not - it just
prevent overlap against the new guy.


The only thread I have to go on is that in the lengthy example you
did not mention anything about the Dacians being able to respond even
though all their enemy elements from the previous bound were being
replaced.>>

They do not get to respond. They are not pursuers only in contact with
broken troops.
So it sounds like for charge response purposes the enemy
body during replacement is _always_ treated as "in HtH". >>

Indeed.

(b) Which enemy elements of a body which is the target of a
replacement charge get to support shoot, and with which weapons?>>

With B from a rank not eligible to fight.


(c) Which enemy elements fight, and with which weapons, and with
which modifiers?>>

First contact is charging or being charged, replacement or otherwise. It is
on an element by element basis, replacing or no.
Then there is the whole matter of the follow-up bonus, >>

If you get following up against anyone, you get it against everyone.
Replacement does not change this.

It is fortunate you play Tlax and Roman Fast Warrior armies so you
see and practice a lot of it, not so a lot of the rest of us!>>

I would submit to you it happens a lot more than that. I played four games
of Warrior today and I did it in every game - and I played four different
armies: Free Company, Med. Spanish, Late Roman and Mithridatic.

And John, have no fear - I am un-wear-out-able. :)

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/17/2004 22:49:57 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:
<<> There aren't two cases there. There isn't any such thing
as 'contact
> momentarily broken'.

I quote you from earlier today...
"In this particular example the replacing unit leaves the Dacians in
contact with no one from the initial hand to hand - this makes this
for the purposes of the overlap rule, NOT the subequent bound of a
hand to hand combat. If the original unit had had even one element
left in the fight, then you'd be right."

So it seems there are very much two cases here. ? ! ?>>

I will repeat myself here: 'for the purposes of the overlap rule, NOT the
subequent bound of a hand to hand combat.' Just for the purposes of that rule,
for the replacing guy only. I said nothing about contact being momentarily
broken or this not being a subsequent bound of contact for any other rule.





<<I am getting lost in all this but are you saying that a body can
count overlappers against one opponent and not another in the same
bound?>>

Yes, I am.
<<And it depends on the "subsequent bound" status of the
possibly overlapped and not the overlappers?>>

Yes, it does.


<<My source of confusion here is your earlier assertion
that "subsequent bound" is determined by the body and "first contact"
by the element.>>

I stand by that assertion...lol

<<
> (b) Which enemy elements of a body which is the target of a
> replacement charge get to support shoot, and with which weapons?>>
>
> With B from a rank not eligible to fight.

Yeah. I know what the book says. But does this mean that for support
shooting the entire body is considered "in HtH", hence the above,
wether or not all the elements from last bound were replaced?>>

If I understand what you are asking - yes.

Could you be a bit more verbose about this, all this actually, and
save me trying to find just the right question to ask?>>

I don't understand. You want me to use more words to answer? ??? Seriously
John, what are you asking me to do here? Do you have an example?

J


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/17/2004 23:32:22 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:
I want to learn, for every possible case where it might come up in
advance before getting my ass kicked by someone who has already
learned, just exactly how HtH replacement (and other rules related in
some way to that event wether they are changed by it or not) works.>>

Gosh, me too. lol

Obviously I can't do every case, but let me try an example.

The most common form of replacement is through LI. For example, you face an
enemy mounted unit with LI with some missile weapon - say Irr C LI B, Sh. The
LI get charged and pass their waver test. With shields and shooting, they
are likely to simply recoil disordered. Then, charging through them, you get
your lancers charging impetuously his now following up other cav.

The Roman case allows, for example steady roman foot to charge through other
HI and get first contact HTW against an LMI 2HCW opponent that should be
disordered and therefore shieldless - recoiling it and giving the replaced roman
a
bound to recover.

Can I go over every possible instance and combination of when replacement is
possible, bad, and/or good? Of course not. Mark or Frank or I could take an
example you set up and tell you exactly if it was good or bad. Note though,
that I treat rules questions as mandatory, but for me tactics questions are
optional. :)

I guess what I am asking you to do is teach me all that stuff. So
there. Hah!

You have a few minutes, should be no sweat right! Just impart to me
the wisdom of all those years of playing experince in one fell swoop!>>

You want some wisdom -

1. Don't try replacement until you have the Warrior basics down.
2. Don't try replacing with Romans until you have replacement in general
down.
3. Put a bunch of likely situations out on the table and find out for
yourself what is good and bad before you try it in a game.

Replacement is a dangerous business. You have to stack two units up and that
means you are missing a unit in your line somewhere. Many times I find
players trying so hard to make a replacement work, they don't have a plan for
the
weakened line it leaves and get beat elsewhere long before the replacement
matters. Also, there is a lot of exacting distance and interpenetration
involved.
Someone trying replacement without having it all down in their mind how it
will work can just as easily create a traffic jam as some advantageous move.

J


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

[John Murphy]

Okay one last time, but this wearing me out a bit and then, sorry, no
disrespect to you but I just throw up my hands and wait for my
opponent to tell me how my own army works. If I am getting tired of
asking I am sure you are getting infinitely more tired of answering!

Unfortunately the whole issue is much more complicated to me than you
think. Take your time on this one. I'll quit worrying about it until
I hear back from you on or off line.

When replacing in HtH, either...
(1) When elements of another friendly non-replaced body, or some
elements of the replaced body, maintain contact
or
(2) When contact is "momentarily broken" (?) by all elements during
replacement (i.e. all friendly elements in HtH are replaced)
... how do you determine:

(a) Which enemy bodies that are the target of a replacement charge
get charge responses?
This was beginning to look very straight-forward until we started
distinguishing between replacement against an enemy otherwise engaged
versus replacement of all the elements facing the enemy.
I know the statement from the book you have quoted for me. But now it
is no longer clear to me, for the various conditions under which
replacement in HtH can occur, exactly when the "bodies in HtH only
get charge responses when..." applies or when the enemy body against
whom you are replacing is not considered "in HtH".

The only thread I have to go on is that in the lengthy example you
did not mention anything about the Dacians being able to respond even
though all their enemy elements from the previous bound were being
replaced. So it sounds like for charge response purposes the enemy
body during replacement is _always_ treated as "in HtH". But that is
just my extrapolation based on what you did _not_ say, an inherently
bad idea, so I can not say I am sure about this without confirmation
from you.

(b) Which enemy elements of a body which is the target of a
replacement charge get to support shoot, and with which weapons?
At one time was starting to look clear but now the exact same issues
as above and for the same reasons. I understand the support shooting
restrictions under most non-replacing cases, I think, but not when to
apply the "in HtH" or not for different elements or the body as a
whole depending on different circumstances of replacement.

From the example at first and earlier bits it had similarly sounded
to me like for support shooting purposes the enemy body during
replacement is _always_ treated as "in HtH" (i.e. he is only shooting
with bow from a rank unable to fight). But now there is just enough
uncertainty lingering to me wether this is not the case and that it
is instead either an element-by element determination or else depends
on wether all elmenets in HtH from the prevous bound were replaced.

(c) Which enemy elements fight, and with which weapons, and with
which modifiers?
Given that I understand how this works for most non-replacing cases.
Once again I thought I had this but turned out to be dead wrong
actually. It had initially seemed that the enemy body-at-large during
replacement is _always_ treated as "in a subsequent bound of HtH" so
gets overlappers. But you have clearly now said this is not the case.
And apparently this actually depends on wether or not _all_ friendly
elements in HtH from the previous bound with the enemy body are being
replaced, though it still an enemy body-at-large decision one way or
the other. At least that is how I read what you have said so far. But
I am less than certain I understand you.
Then it seems that once you figure for the enemy body-at-large wether
overlapping elements are allowed to fight then you determine first
contact on an element-by-element basis across the front and this
applies to first contact with whatever replacer-friendly element they
are now fighting.
Then there is the whole matter of the follow-up bonus, which I know
you passed down an unexpected interp on but it appears, to me, to be
in such stark contrast with the printed word in the rules - which is
very carefully spelled out in this case - that I wonder if I have so
burned you out on this question that you do not realize it.

So please just take what time you need and get back whenever. But I
would appreciate a pretty full explaination of the methodology used
to determine all of these items in different cases of HtH
replacement, explained in depth and breadth enough to permit it to be
applied to different situations. Maybe a couple different types of
examples would be helpful. But that is asking a lot of one person.

It is fortunate you play Tlax and Roman Fast Warrior armies so you
see and practice a lot of it, not so a lot of the rest of us!

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:

>> <<does the _enemy_ unit subjected to the circulating combatants
>> treatment in the second bound count as charging (?) and / or 1st
>> contact (?), which if any?>>

> the above that is causing confusion
> NO and yes

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> (1) When elements of another friendly non-replaced body, or some
> elements of the replaced body, maintain contact
> (2) When contact is "momentarily broken" (?) by all elements during
> replacement (i.e. all friendly elements in HtH are replaced)

> There aren't two cases there. There isn't any such thing
as 'contact
> momentarily broken'.

I quote you from earlier today...
"In this particular example the replacing unit leaves the Dacians in
contact with no one from the initial hand to hand - this makes this
for the purposes of the overlap rule, NOT the subequent bound of a
hand to hand combat. If the original unit had had even one element
left in the fight, then you'd be right."

So it seems there are very much two cases here. ? ! ?

Arrrrgggghhhh!!!!!!

Round and round we go...

> I think you think that overlap, which is only against guys already
in hth, somehow changed the nature of the replacement when
> every element from thwe original body got replaced. It does not -
it just
> prevent overlap against the new guy.

I am getting lost in all this but are you saying that a body can
count overlappers against one opponent and not another in the same
bound? And it depends on the "subsequent bound" status of the
possibly overlapped and not the overlappers?

My source of confusion here is your earlier assertion
that "subsequent bound" is determined by the body and "first contact"
by the element. And reading between the lines that this meant from
the perspective of the overlapping body not its enemies, which was
maybe something between lines that was not there.

> (b) Which enemy elements of a body which is the target of a
> replacement charge get to support shoot, and with which weapons?>>
>
> With B from a rank not eligible to fight.

Yeah. I know what the book says. But does this mean that for support
shooting the entire body is considered "in HtH", hence the above,
wether or not all the elements from last bound were replaced? After
all if you get overlap, or first contact, against some and not others
it is not so obvious to me you do not get support shot against some
and not others.

Could you be a bit more verbose about this, all this actually, and
save me trying to find just the right question to ask?

> Then there is the whole matter of the follow-up bonus, >>

> If you get following up against anyone, you get it against
everyone.
> Replacement does not change this.

See my other post. This (forget the replacement part, just the
anyone/everyone) is positively not, by what _I_ think is any stretch
of the English language, what the book says.

So that being the case I would hope there would be a change made.

But whatever. After all, apparently nobody else in two years has had
a problem with this one.

> I played four games
> of Warrior today and I did it in every game - and I played four
different
> armies: Free Company, Med. Spanish, Late Roman and Mithridatic.

I have played TOG & Warrior for 20 years, maybe 50 games or so in
that time, and pretty sure never had it even once in a single game,
certainly not that I recall anyway. Admittedly not a wealth of
experience, but still some. Must just be me!

Four games today... and I have been struggliong for twelve hours
trying to figure out how HtH replacement works. Unfair.

> And John, have no fear - I am un-wear-out-able. :)

You are fortunate then. I am not so durable myself. ;|

I believe, in fact, I have reached that point. So I apologize if I
have become a bit short.

I think maybe I should stick to playing checkers and drinking
lemonaide in my rocking chair.

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:

<big snip, because I am now tooo burned out on this to go into every
point anymore - hopefully I know a bit more about now than when I
started but who really knows we will see>

> Could you be a bit more verbose about this, all this actually, and
> save me trying to find just the right question to ask?>>
> I don't understand. You want me to use more words to answer? ???
Seriously
> John, what are you asking me to do here? Do you have an example?

No, I don't. And that is the point <g>. If I give you an example your
answer only applies to that example and not, for some reason I am not
likely to grasp yet, to some other example. But that is 12 hours of
frustration trying to figure this out and writing 10-page questions
while you have been playing 4 games and giving me "yes" or "no"
answers! You got the easy/fun end of that! <trying to manage some
humor here after all...>

I want to learn, for every possible case where it might come up in
advance before getting my ass kicked by someone who has already
learned, just exactly how HtH replacement (and other rules related in
some way to that event wether they are changed by it or not) works.

That way I can have _some_ kind of knowledge base against which to
plan and understand the tactics. Otherwise, obviously, planning is
pointless if the ground is changing underneath you (even if it is
because the ground is solid but you can't see past your toes).

I guess what I am asking you to do is teach me all that stuff. So
there. Hah!

You have a few minutes, should be no sweat right! Just impart to me
the wisdom of all those years of playing experince in one fell swoop!

[Todd Schneider]

FWIW I am running Marian Romans currently, in Fact Jon pretty much schooled
me today in our four games, and I have yet to use the interpenetration
rules. I know them, the mechanics behind them, and what situations I’d like
to be in order to use them, but more often than not I find myself being
unable to due to a variety of other reasons…the most likely being I need
that 2E unit as a closer or to plug a gap somewhere else.



I have been playing Warrior for close to three years now, and even with the
new Roman rules have yet to interpenetrate one legion with another. LI
interpenetration I’ve done more frequently as of late, because I finally got
the mechanics to that down.



Oh, And I finally took some ditches today as temporary fortifications. That
was a first. But I have rarely if ever used Elephants (at least the way
every other Warrior player has, as a Fantasy Warrior play tester I’ve not
only used Elephants, but their big brothers as well…but in those games
everybody has them, so it’s not a unique experience…). I’ve yet to play
with artillery, or Camels really; I used camels in a tournament once and
that was it…and I have yet to play an army that didn’t fight in Europe…well,
I take that back, I have New Kingdom Egyptians…so lets say I have yet to
play an Army that originated East of the Euphrates. I’ve never used a
detachment yet either. And that’s in three years of playing.



Warrior is very much a crawl, walk, run, sprint sort of game, and it’s not
something you’re going to be able to master or solve overnight. In the
three years, I would venture I average 4-8 games a month of Warrior against
other opponents (mostly Jon) and I spend a lot of spare time running unit
simulations and the like…or sometimes I “Waste” an hour building or tweaking
a list (but that’s not a waste…really). I am a much better player now than
I was when I first started, in fact Jon has to work a little bit harder to
beat me these days….



What’s helped me a lot, in addition to the amount of games I get in locally,
is throwing figs on the table top and trying out certain situations. I try
and practice for those situations I know are going to occur more often than
not on the tabletop, such as how does a Legion beat a Knight unit, how does
a 2E Unit of HC successfully hold the flank against 2 LC Units, and so on.
A lot of times its discovering the math behind certain situations, like it’s
ok to take a charge from a 6E Brigand unit when you’re a 6E Legion, because
in the next bound even though your both disordered, he’s shieldless and so
you’re an additional plus three.



I don’t spend a lot of time looking at situations that rarely, if ever,
occur on the tabletop, or haven’t occurred to me yet, because in doing so I
feel I am depriving myself of learning from the situations that happened to
me in the last game. A friend of mine started keeping an AAR (After Action
Report) Book, in which he writes down the details of the games he played,
what worked, what didn’t, where he screwed up…and I co-opted the idea from
him. Plus Jon and I usually go after what’s happened each game, so I learn
a lot that way as well. I spend a lot of time re-creating those situations
on the tabletop at home, and replaying them to see what I could do
differently. If it’s something that came down to a roll of the dice, then
so be it, sometimes no matter what you do your opponent is going to roll up
4 and theres not a thing you can do about that, right Jon , but if it’
something that occurred to me not maneuvering correctly or countering when I
should have, or looking a turn ahead to see that if I didn’t move my LC out
f the way it was going to cause a traffic jam…then that’s something to learn
from.



In a game as tactically “fluid” as Warrior, I don’t think your ever going to
be prepared for everything. When Jon comes home from a tournament showing
our local group something he’s never seen before on the tabletop, I know “I”
have a long ways to go. But I also know that you are more likely to see
certain tactics and troop combinations on the table top”, and by preparing
and practicing those and spending less time on “gimmicks” or “experiments”
you’re actually IMO gaining knowledge in about 85-90% of the game. How
often will that other 10% cost you a game? IMO not very often.



I’ve lost more games because a command is in retreat do to half or more of
it’s units shaking, which tells me I need to figure out why I am taking so
many wavers and how to prevent that from happening in the future, and not
worry so much about interpenetration, or detachments, or Artillery.



Once I have preventing wavers down, then I’ll move on.



Todd









_____

From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 11:47 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Re-re-re... RULES HtH replacement



In a message dated 4/17/2004 23:32:22 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:
I want to learn, for every possible case where it might come up in
advance before getting my ass kicked by someone who has already
learned, just exactly how HtH replacement (and other rules related in
some way to that event wether they are changed by it or not) works.>>

Gosh, me too. lol

Obviously I can't do every case, but let me try an example.

The most common form of replacement is through LI. For example, you face an

enemy mounted unit with LI with some missile weapon - say Irr C LI B, Sh.
The
LI get charged and pass their waver test. With shields and shooting, they
are likely to simply recoil disordered. Then, charging through them, you
get
your lancers charging impetuously his now following up other cav.

The Roman case allows, for example steady roman foot to charge through other

HI and get first contact HTW against an LMI 2HCW opponent that should be
disordered and therefore shieldless - recoiling it and giving the replaced
roman a
bound to recover.

Can I go over every possible instance and combination of when replacement is

possible, bad, and/or good? Of course not. Mark or Frank or I could take
an
example you set up and tell you exactly if it was good or bad. Note though,

that I treat rules questions as mandatory, but for me tactics questions are
optional. :)

I guess what I am asking you to do is teach me all that stuff. So
there. Hah!

You have a few minutes, should be no sweat right! Just impart to me
the wisdom of all those years of playing experince in one fell swoop!>>

You want some wisdom -

1. Don't try replacement until you have the Warrior basics down.
2. Don't try replacing with Romans until you have replacement in general
down.
3. Put a bunch of likely situations out on the table and find out for
yourself what is good and bad before you try it in a game.

Replacement is a dangerous business. You have to stack two units up and
that
means you are missing a unit in your line somewhere. Many times I find
players trying so hard to make a replacement work, they don't have a plan
for the
weakened line it leaves and get beat elsewhere long before the replacement
matters. Also, there is a lot of exacting distance and interpenetration
involved.
Someone trying replacement without having it all down in their mind how it
will work can just as easily create a traffic jam as some advantageous move.

J


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




_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
HYPERLINK
"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/W
arriorRules/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HYPERLINK
"mailto:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe"Warrior
Rules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the HYPERLINK
"http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/"Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.658 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 4/9/2004



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.658 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 4/9/2004



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

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Todd Schneider"
<thresh1642@s...> wrote:
> Warrior is very much a crawl, walk, run, sprint sort of game, and
it's not
> something you're going to be able to master or solve overnight.

Yeah, but Todd it's been 20 years for me. My first 7th game was back
in the mid-80's in Southern Cal when I used to live here for real. If
I can even remember the chain of events GMT's GBoH Alex (the first
one) had just come out and I got into the period as a result of that.
7th was brand spanking new and there were still people around very
much attached to 6th edition and refusing to play 7th (like my good
friend Tom Coveney who I haven't seen or heard from in years). The
guy who taught me 7th, Mike Reid, went on to become a NASAMW officer
in the midwest after he moved there I think. It was in fact the very
first time I ever pushed lead in any period across a table.

But my point is here... geez how long is it going to take me and when
am I going to be able to get serious about it? Words to the contrary
I know I am not a total dimwit as I hate to admit to being a
competitive SOB but through tons of hard work and study I used to be
a pretty kick-butt tournament chess player. Talk about wasting time!
Admittedly I took a hiatus from ancients and then played DBM because
it was what the gang I fell in with was playing (and that group still
is). But I never gave up on TOG (by then up to 7.6) and played it a
bunch at HMGS-E over the past 10 years, as much as DBM on that level.

Cripes at the rate I am progressing I'll be 164 years old when I win
my first local tournament! My grandkids, should I be so blessed, will
have to be reaching over the table and moving my figures for me!

But even so, the thing is I like to play, heck even have to say love
to play. Nothing in the world I would rather do. Warrior is better
than sex. I really need to get a life, huh!

But I like to make it a challenge for my opponent - because I like to
see my opponent having a good time its just how I am - and I like to
have a greater depth of understanding and enjoy a bit of the chess-
like tactical planning on those rare occassions when my grasp of what
is going on with the rules extends far enough to do so.

Unfortunately I usually just try to play off my my misguided notions
of what is in the history books without really haveing the rules
vision to calculate the results and that does not always work out as
intended.

In the
> three years, I would venture I average 4-8 games a month of
Warrior against
> other opponents (mostly Jon) and I spend a lot of spare time
running unit
> simulations and the like…or sometimes I "Waste" an hour building or
tweaking
> a list (but that's not a waste…really). I am a much better player
now than
> I was when I first started, in fact Jon has to work a little bit
harder to
> beat me these days….

The sad thing is you have played about the same in the past year,
just one of your three, that I have in 20 years.

And I do all those same things as you in terms of wasting time (look
at how I spent all friggin day today - ashamedly not all that
atypical), plus I enjoy reading a bunch of books about the historical
backgrounds of the armies I play.

I just can't seem to put enough of my life together, and some
prospective opponents get their lives together, to get in the type of
playing time you put in. You are very fortunate.

> What's helped me a lot, in addition to the amount of games I get in
locally,
> is throwing figs on the table top and trying out certain
situations. I try
> and practice for those situations I know are going to occur more
often than
> not on the tabletop, such as how does a Legion beat a Knight unit,
how does
> a 2E Unit of HC successfully hold the flank against 2 LC Units, and
so on.
> A lot of times its discovering the math behind certain situations,
like it's
> ok to take a charge from a 6E Brigand unit when you're a 6E Legion,
because
> in the next bound even though your both disordered, he's shieldless
and so
> you're an additional plus three.

That is great. I can that would be very helpful and will probably try
a bit of that myself. But you can see how if you are not as firmly
grounded in parts of the rules (and especially if you do not realize
it) then the lack of someone on the other side of the table to keep
you from making a rules error has the potential to be catastrphic to
your planning.

> I don't spend a lot of time looking at situations that rarely, if
ever,
> occur on the tabletop, or haven't occurred to me yet, because in
doing so I
> feel I am depriving myself of learning from the situations that
happened to
> me in the last game.

It is a good thing, I can tell, that you have developed a sense for
that. I might, a bit, but I am also looking at EIR without every
having played a single game with them yet. So it is for me, with that
army and on this subject, a bit difficult to say until I understand
the rules better and get a sense of what kinds of things I can make
happen or even try.


A friend of mine started keeping an AAR (After Action
> Report) Book, in which he writes down the details of the games he
played,
> what worked, what didn't, where he screwed up…and I co-opted the
idea from
> him. Plus Jon and I usually go after what's happened each game, so
I learn
> a lot that way as well. I spend a lot of time re-creating those
situations
> on the tabletop at home, and replaying them to see what I could do
> differently. If it's something that came down to a roll of the
dice, then
> so be it, sometimes no matter what you do your opponent is going to
roll up
> 4 and theres not a thing you can do about that, right Jon , but
if it'
> something that occurred to me not maneuvering correctly or
countering when I
> should have, or looking a turn ahead to see that if I didn't move
my LC out
> f the way it was going to cause a traffic jam…then that's something
to learn
> from.

That's another idea I might steal from you. I would probably be a bit
embarrased to be carrying around an after-action book with me to my
games, and not every single opponent is as gracious and able to
devote time as Jon appears to be in figuring out the details of how
you screwed up agterwards.

But it is a good idea, and if everyone else can have the dang combat
charts memorized I can carry my stinkin book around, so maybe.

> In a game as tactically "fluid" as Warrior, I don't think your ever
going to
> be prepared for everything. When Jon comes home from a tournament
showing
> our local group something he's never seen before on the tabletop, I
know "I"
> have a long ways to go. But I also know that you are more likely
to see
> certain tactics and troop combinations on the table top", and by
preparing
> and practicing those and spending less time on "gimmicks"
or "experiments"
> you're actually IMO gaining knowledge in about 85-90% of the game.
How
> often will that other 10% cost you a game? IMO not very often.

The hard part here is just drawing the distinction between gimmicks
and tactics. It was my presumption that HtH replacement and fulcum
were now key parts of EIR strategy - not the be all and end all but
the only way some things were going to work against opposition who
would not let you have it the easy way (which is everyone I play).

Having gone through even one example I now see already that it is
more problematic than that - that the legions did not in fact become
supermen the day IW was published as I remember I first thought on
seeing the list rules.

Simple one-two punches are probably going to serve in 99% of the
cases where replacement is a viable tactic to use (which is just not
as often as I thought at first), and be much easier to pull off. But
still I need to know how to do it to really reliably make that call.

> I've lost more games because a command is in retreat do to half or
more of
> it's units shaking, which tells me I need to figure out why I am
taking so
> many wavers and how to prevent that from happening in the future,
and not
> worry so much about interpenetration, or detachments, or Artillery.

Yeah, me too although mostly on the last bound or so when everything
caves all at once anyway as the "1's" pile in and cascading routs and
shakes occur. But then the few games where I win it is my normally
very capable opponents who suprisingly made all the wavers. So I am
not sure that wavers are always a cause and not an effect... but at
least they are probably a good yardstick to measure and say this is
when something went terribly wrong.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/18/2004 02:18:37 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:
That's another idea I might steal from you. I would probably be a bit
embarrased to be carrying around an after-action book with me to my
games, and not every single opponent is as gracious and able to
devote time as Jon appears to be in figuring out the details of how
you screwed up agterwards.>>

Todd learned this as a member of the Dead General's Society
(www.deadgenerals.org). Although the actual methodic 'AAR book' was Matt
Johnson's idea, the
idea of sitting around and AARing games when they are over is a cornerstone of
our play. The book is the next level and Matt has recently won his first
tourney after significantly improving his play using this method. DGSers took
ten
first and second places at the last two conventions they attended (Genghis
Con and Cold Wars).
Tood went from best rookie to a second place locally in about 18 months. He
keeps saying he has been playing Warrior for three years, but it is only two
years old and he never played 7th...lol

Jon


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

[Todd Schneider]

OK, it feels like three years… ;-)





<<<Todd went from best rookie to a second place locally in about 18 months.
He
keeps saying he has been playing Warrior for three years, but it is only two

years old and he never played 7th...lol>>>



_____

From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 7:42 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Re-re-re... RULES HtH replacement



In a message dated 4/18/2004 02:18:37 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:
That's another idea I might steal from you. I would probably be a bit
embarrased to be carrying around an after-action book with me to my
games, and not every single opponent is as gracious and able to
devote time as Jon appears to be in figuring out the details of how
you screwed up agterwards.>>

Todd learned this as a member of the Dead General's Society
(www.deadgenerals.org). Although the actual methodic 'AAR book' was Matt
Johnson's idea, the
idea of sitting around and AARing games when they are over is a cornerstone
of
our play. The book is the next level and Matt has recently won his first
tourney after significantly improving his play using this method. DGSers
took ten
first and second places at the last two conventions they attended (Genghis
Con and Cold Wars).
Tood went from best rookie to a second place locally in about 18 months. He

keeps saying he has been playing Warrior for three years, but it is only two

years old and he never played 7th...lol

Jon


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




_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
HYPERLINK
"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/W
arriorRules/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HYPERLINK
"mailto:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe"Warrior
Rules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the HYPERLINK
"http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/"Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.658 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 4/9/2004



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.658 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 4/9/2004



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