Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/8/2004 22:41:47 Central Standard Time, lsu90@...
writes:
... and with words like real competition and big boys you don't
expect people to take offense.>>

No, I didn't in fact. The level of competition at the national level is
significantly different than that at regional conventions. Sure, those top
players all live in a region and are tops there too, but it is often difficult
to
translate a local experience and its 'lessons' to a situation where most of the
field is top flight, experienced and focused all year on Warrior alone. I was
'warning' Boyd not to draw too many conclusions about that foot unit from a
single local con win, advice I have often given in the past. That 'warning'
was meant to help, not insult.
Jon


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

... and with words like real competition and big boys you don't
expect people to take offense. You've got a pretty dedicated group
of guys down here who could be playing something else. I haven't
played in a big tournament since 1994, but not many people where
playing anywhere over the last 10 years.

Warrior is different than TOG, armies seem to cause a lot more damage
on first contact (1 1/2 ranks of L, 2HCT, etc.). LTS could hold 3
units of SHK for long enough in the old days to kill the rest of a
guys army, where it can't as easily now. There are a few of us that
really like this game that are trying to figure out the subtle
differences. I wish I wan't attracted to big irregular foot armies
that have brittle flanks. I've had a flank turned in the final round
of two Derekcons in a row. Maybe with a little more practice I'll
become one of the big boys and play in a real competition lol.

Wes

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/9/2004 07:13:53 Central Standard Time,
spocksleftball@... writes:
I would put the Derekcon competitors like Derek, Wes and Jamie up
against any region's competitors.
I apologize - I thought Derek judged it and did not play....

:)

Jon


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

I would put the Derekcon competitors like Derek, Wes and Jamie up
against any region's competitors. Like I said, we've all learned
from "the" master, the innovator, the deception guru. Everyone of us
knows exactly what it means to see what you are doing wrong and not
be able to extract yourself from it, as this is what Derek does to
people. You learn best in Warrior, like chess, from loosing many
many times to good players.

Perhaps the FHE don't understand some of the real differences in the
game at lower points. Most of the posters here are talking 1600
points, but at 1100 points you don't get large screens of LI. You
don't get extra anything, and units come together and fight it out
quick. Games don't last 3 hours here, because fighting rather than
positional play is important. Rather than thinking of the "big boys"
as somehow more capable, I would ask myself under what contitions
they are shining. I wonder if some of the "big boys" could deal with
the rough and tumble world of lower points and quicker games. You
charge some 200 point SHK unit into my close order foot and I'll take
3 waver test just to have the pleasure of routing it's now tired,
disorered, unimpetuous self. At lower ap, you have to accept waver
tests as part of the price starting on bound 1. Unlike the larger
games with time, you must take wavers in order to charge and not to
halt. The halt would surrender the initiative and loose the game.
You must accept waver test in order to maintain a flank, to rescue a
routing unit, and to endure massive missile fire. What the "big
boys" talk about that is effective at 1600 points with screening,
alineing, one-two punching with foot then mounted--none of that stuff
has time to develop here. It is not a subtle game with waver
avoidance options. For example, if you think I'll allow enough time
to let you set up your El and maiden guard to hit something in a
coordinated effort, then you just haven't seen an 1100 point game. I
will absolutely take high risk charges with HC rather than have any
obvious coordinated attack hit my line. That is the difference:
Time. Time management is essential, and I plan on managing YOUR time
for the win. :)

Wes and I fought in round 3 both doing well. On the second bound I
caught a break and routed his LC, and this began the process of
crushing his flank. It was clear from the setup what was going to
happen, yet he was doing the only thing he could do to attempt to
save himself and that was charging forward with his foot. Had the
game gone 1 more bound, Wes would have turned that game into a near
run thing. One roll of the dice is always the difference. You have
to move forward or forget winning. No screens, no dancing LC, no
artillery, no gimics, no TF, no fire arrows, no waver avoidance, and
very few high point value units. Every unit has to be able to fight,
because every unit _will_ fight!

Wanax

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "lsu90" <lsu90@m...> wrote:
>
> ... and with words like real competition and big boys you don't
> expect people to take offense. You've got a pretty dedicated group
> of guys down here who could be playing something else. I haven't
> played in a big tournament since 1994, but not many people where
> playing anywhere over the last 10 years.
>
> Warrior is different than TOG, armies seem to cause a lot more
damage
> on first contact (1 1/2 ranks of L, 2HCT, etc.). LTS could hold 3
> units of SHK for long enough in the old days to kill the rest of a
> guys army, where it can't as easily now. There are a few of us
that
> really like this game that are trying to figure out the subtle
> differences. I wish I wan't attracted to big irregular foot armies
> that have brittle flanks. I've had a flank turned in the final
round
> of two Derekcons in a row. Maybe with a little more practice I'll
> become one of the big boys and play in a real competition lol.
>
> Wes

[scott holder]

Perhaps the FHE don't understand some of the real differences in the
game at lower points.

>That would be incorrect. We developed FW with that in mind and play it at
great length. It dictates a completely different playing style that at least
Jon and I are acutely aware of. I am a much better player running lower point
value armies. The reasons you describe (and I snipped) are precisely the
reasons I play better at lower point values. And it works both ways. Being a
good player at the lower point values doesn't always translate into having the
same ability at the upper end. This is *not* directed at you, per se, it's
simply an observation in general and a commentary on my "skill" level in this
game.

>I've umped and developed tournament formats for 15 years now, believe me, I'm
very aware of the real differences in the game at lower points.

scott

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Holder, Scott"
<Scott.Holder@f...> wrote:
> Perhaps the FHE don't understand some of the real differences in
the
> game at lower points.
>
>And it works both ways. Being a good player at the lower point
values doesn't always translate into having the same ability at the
upper end.

Scott, this I can see and agree with. Perhaps I should have
clarified this. I think that skills do not lessen as much as options
increase at higher ap, and it is this additional layer of options
that some people are more capable with. To think I could afford 2 or
3 units of SHC in my Nikephorian seems somehow an excess. However,
at higher points such options often mean one is able to have non-
combatant units lurking, and perhaps this is where Jon and I are
truely at odds. At lower points, if it doesn't fight, I don't want
it. At higher points you can afford to have bulk units to make
commands more resistant to retreat orders.


>This is *not* directed at you, per se, it's simply an observation in
general and a commentary on my "skill" level in this game.

I'm not so sensitive as to think everything is directed at me. What
you say here is true, and I'll admit that an aggressive play style
like mine does benefit from less options. Yet I've played many large
tournaments as done just fine at all point levels. Having never won
a large tournament, I have come in 2nd and 3rd on a number of
occasions at Historicon and Cold Wars in individual and team events.
Yes this was TOG, and back then LI was the thing and Lance was weak
without wedging. However, with Warrior I feel confident in taking an
army like First Crusader to any tournament and do well; how much of
this is skill and how much is willingness to chance fighting on
unfavorable terms is certainly up to speculation. Only face to face
would anyone be able to tell.

>
> >I've umped and developed tournament formats for 15 years now,
believe me, I'm very aware of the real differences in the game at
lower points.

And I wasn't particularly directing my statements to you all as
individuals. It was more towards the philosophical "yall" as in group
ethos. I really think the difference in the game is suggnificant
enough to say it is a better game at 1100 or 1200 points. I remember
when 1250 was the standard in the late 80s, and you were umping even
back then. I just wish there were a way to rectify the cost of units
and size of armies with options in order to keep the games small and
fast without any sacrifice.

Wanax
>
> scott

He didn't play in this one, but he usually does provide the even man.
Wanax

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 3/9/2004 07:13:53 Central Standard Time,
> spocksleftball@y... writes:
> I would put the Derekcon competitors like Derek, Wes and Jamie up
> against any region's competitors.
> I apologize - I thought Derek judged it and did not play....
>
>
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[scott holder]

I remember when 1250 was the standard in the late 80s, and you were umping even
back then.

>That's partially correct. I was umping then. The 1250 standard was for 6th
edition. The first year of TOG, Kruse bumped everything up to 1500 pts based on
some preliminary games run the tournament before. The players (of the time)
after a 1500 pt "season" clamored for 1600 pts, Kruse obliged them and that's
what I "inherited". Because of the reasons given in previous emails, I
instituted the 1200 pt "mini" format and have stuck with it ever since.

I just wish there were a way to rectify the cost of units
and size of armies with options in order to keep the games small and
fast without any sacrifice.

>I'm not sure what you mean here but if it has something to do with adjusting
mins/maxes for "smaller" armies, I'm not at all for that. I like the fact that
there are tradeoffs and constraints using smaller point sized armies. This
brings some armies into the "competitive light". Go further down the scale, ala
FW, and it really changes the table dynamic......which is a good thing. More
armies viable in various formats means more players who can play the game in the
niche they excel at.

>There is a myth that the old lists were written with 1600 points in mind and
using anything smaller *should* neccesitate adjusting the lists. That was never
true. There's also a myth that the FHE lists are done the same way. I can
safely say that's not true.

scott

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Holder, Scott"
<Scott.Holder@f...> wrote:
> I remember when 1250 was the standard in the late 80s, and you were
umping even
> back then.
>
> >That's partially correct. I was umping then. The 1250 standard
was for 6th edition. The first year of TOG, Kruse bumped everything
up to 1500 pts based on some preliminary games run the tournament
before. The players (of the time) after a 1500 pt "season" clamored
for 1600 pts, Kruse obliged them and that's what I "inherited".
Because of the reasons given in previous emails, I instituted the
1200 pt "mini" format and have stuck with it ever since.

Yes that was it. The minis. It has been so long. A game of
butchery. In 15mm those 1500 and 1600 games were grinding, but the
mini was like a wild ride on the coaster from hell. Sort of the
different between football and soccer. I thought, btw, that you
started umping with Jim Smith was President.

>
> I just wish there were a way to rectify the cost of units
> and size of armies with options in order to keep the games small
and
> fast without any sacrifice.
>
> >I'm not sure what you mean here but if it has something to do with
adjusting mins/maxes for "smaller" armies, I'm not at all for that.

Neither am I. I'm not sure exactly what I mean. Perhaps if some
optional troops were able to displace some non-option troops. Sort
of like what you've done with the minimum HC lancers in the Nike list
when SHC are purchased. I like that.

>
> >There is a myth .
> scott

I don't know of any myths, nor do I much care. I at first tought the
lists in the new first book all looked too similar, but now that I
have most of the books I rather prefer what you've done with them.
Many of the list options add real spark to some old tired dogs.

Wanax

Scott/ all,
I thought you all got your wish of small fast games with Fast Warrior?
Not only do I agree that the points and area have a great deal to do with a
players level/rating, but I also feel the scale is very important. Just because
a player wins the NICT in 25mm, that does not make him the champ in 15mm. I have
be told by Scott and many others that 15mm and 25mm are totally different game.
David

"Holder, Scott" <Scott.Holder@...> wrote:
I remember when 1250 was the standard in the late 80s, and you were umping even
back then.

>That's partially correct. I was umping then. The 1250 standard was for 6th
edition. The first year of TOG, Kruse bumped everything up to 1500 pts based on
some preliminary games run the tournament before. The players (of the time)
after a 1500 pt "season" clamored for 1600 pts, Kruse obliged them and that's
what I "inherited". Because of the reasons given in previous emails, I
instituted the 1200 pt "mini" format and have stuck with it ever since.

I just wish there were a way to rectify the cost of units
and size of armies with options in order to keep the games small and
fast without any sacrifice.

>I'm not sure what you mean here but if it has something to do with adjusting
mins/maxes for "smaller" armies, I'm not at all for that. I like the fact that
there are tradeoffs and constraints using smaller point sized armies. This
brings some armies into the "competitive light". Go further down the scale, ala
FW, and it really changes the table dynamic......which is a good thing. More
armies viable in various formats means more players who can play the game in the
niche they excel at.

>There is a myth that the old lists were written with 1600 points in mind and
using anything smaller *should* neccesitate adjusting the lists. That was never
true. There's also a myth that the FHE lists are done the same way. I can
safely say that's not true.

scott


---------------------------------
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]

Ah - so it's primarily the sum of side-effects due to the scale, rather than
the scale itself. This makes sense - thanks for the explanation!


Beers,

Corey


On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:57:00PM -0500, JonCleaves@... wrote:
> In a message dated 3/9/2004 18:40:41 Central Standard Time, corey_s@...
> writes:
> I'm wondering how playing a different scale with the same points would
> change the dynamics in a game.>>
>
> Corey,
>
> NASAMW tourneys play 1600 point games on an 8x5 table for 25mm and a 6x4
> table for 15mm. As the frontage goes from 40mm to 60mm from 15mm scale to
25mm
> scale, the width of a 25mm table in a NASAMW tourney is 'narrower' that it
would
> be if it was the same proportion larger than a 6 foot table as 60mm is to
> 40mm element width. This means that the same army covers more of the table
width
> in 25mm using these tourney formats than it would in 15mm. The effect of
> this is to make 15mm slightly more of a 'maneuver' game and 25mm more of a
> 'smashmouth' game - although that is a gross generalization.
>
> NASAMW keeps that difference for a lot of practical reasons -
>
> 1. There are a lot of 8 foot and 6 foot long tables in the world, but no 9
> foot or 5.5 foot.
>
> 2. 25mm armies are more expensive to buy, so players tend to play 'smaller',
> more expensive points armies in 25mm and larger, cheaper points armies in
> 15mm. Again a generalization, but expensive points 25mm armies, typically
> medieval, can cover proportionately more of an 8 foot than 9 foot table for
the same
> 1600 points.
>
> 3. It is perceived that some armies do better in 25mm vice 15mm because they
> suffer less from 'wider flanks' and vice versa.
>
> All this lends to the majority of players in the US liking the different
> formats so that more armies are highlighted.
>
> The critical thing to remember is that no one, especially FHE, is mandating
> anyone play any game on a specific size table. That's up to the event
> organizer.
>
> Jon
>

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/9/2004 8:20:18 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Scott.Holder@... writes:

> Perhaps the FHE don't understand some of the real
> differences in the
> game at lower points.>>

I agree with Scott that certainly we do (although why refer to FHE collectively
in that snip and not NASAMW??).

However, I can tell you from my perspective that all the players that concern me
at 1600 also do at 1200 and Fast and just because a player masters a certain
point level regionally does not make him a top player nationally - it's simply a
higher level of competition.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/9/2004 18:40:41 Central Standard Time, corey_s@...
writes:
I'm wondering how playing a different scale with the same points would
change the dynamics in a game.>>

Corey,

NASAMW tourneys play 1600 point games on an 8x5 table for 25mm and a 6x4
table for 15mm. As the frontage goes from 40mm to 60mm from 15mm scale to 25mm
scale, the width of a 25mm table in a NASAMW tourney is 'narrower' that it would
be if it was the same proportion larger than a 6 foot table as 60mm is to
40mm element width. This means that the same army covers more of the table
width
in 25mm using these tourney formats than it would in 15mm. The effect of
this is to make 15mm slightly more of a 'maneuver' game and 25mm more of a
'smashmouth' game - although that is a gross generalization.

NASAMW keeps that difference for a lot of practical reasons -

1. There are a lot of 8 foot and 6 foot long tables in the world, but no 9
foot or 5.5 foot.

2. 25mm armies are more expensive to buy, so players tend to play 'smaller',
more expensive points armies in 25mm and larger, cheaper points armies in
15mm. Again a generalization, but expensive points 25mm armies, typically
medieval, can cover proportionately more of an 8 foot than 9 foot table for the
same
1600 points.

3. It is perceived that some armies do better in 25mm vice 15mm because they
suffer less from 'wider flanks' and vice versa.

All this lends to the majority of players in the US liking the different
formats so that more armies are highlighted.

The critical thing to remember is that no one, especially FHE, is mandating
anyone play any game on a specific size table. That's up to the event
organizer.

Jon


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

[Phil Gardocki]

Scott,
You may not remember it, but I remember sitting next to you at Kruse's
demonstration game of TOG at Historicon/ Origins in Baltimore back in ...
...
1986????

Phil Gardocki.

(Our side won)


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

Anytime I'm lucky enough to get an army on a board its a real
competition. The reason I've come back to this game (never really
left in spirit, just couldn't find anyone else who played) is that I
don't believe I will never master it. It is a great game that is
simple in most respects, follows history most of the time, but has a
subtleness that always burns me at the most unexpected times.

At the last Derekcon I had two young players under 18 nearly clean my
clock. One found my weak point (LHI,Jls,Sh) and massed 3 Irreg A SHK
units on it. I got a lucky support shot from an adjacent unit,
rolled up, he rolled down. I hit his units in the flank with a
disordered close order Russ group of spear and saved the day.

Next game another under 18 hit my CinC and routed it much to my
suprise (he pushed a unit back unexpectedly caused a gap and I failed
a counter) because he learned how to exploit his success. Lucky for
me I was way ahead and passed a load of waivers.

Both of these players could hold there own and were competitors, both
are the future of this game system and may win the NICT someday if
they keep playing, both like me could use a little more experience.

This is a great game and everytime I play I learn something (probably
should know already if I paid attention to the Art of War or maybe
spent time at West Point instead of Air Force ROTC at LSU).

The point of this ramble is that FHE has done of good job so far
resurecting a great game that I thought died a horrible death. I
think everyone here wants this system to continue, and if you want us
to continue to support the game system you owe us answer on stuff
like shields for Moogs and Galloglaiches, Byzantine trapizitoi, and
dailami troops missing in a list. I will support any decision if its
fair and well thought out even if I don't agree, but if you blow my
concerns off, talk down to me, and threaten to ban me I get irritated.

I don't want to sound negitive, because the 4 guys that stuck there
necks out to bring this game back deserve a lot of praise and I'm
very thankful I'm not stuck playing DBM anymore. I hope to be at
Cold War or Historicon soon to get my clock cleaned by one of the big
boys (defending a lack of proficiency is a pilots favorite pastime at
the bar anyway).

Wes