Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Fellow Warriors,
In the interest of improving service to WarriorRules group members, I am
looking for advice. Take a moment to read and answer the following questions
if
you have interest and time.
Note that for the sake of discussion of 'what to do', I picked rules
examples. I do not do that with the intent of indicating displeasure at the
current
text of those particular rules - they are examples only.
This discussion is also NOT directed at a particular member. It is an
honest-to-Betsy attempt to ask the group what its specific needs are.
1. A member of WarriorRules posts a mail directed to FHE telling us that
his research shows that crossbows were not effective past 160p and that the
240p max range in Warrior is completely inaccurate. What action would you like
or expect FHE to take with regards to this post?
2. Let's say for argument that, 1) there are 1000 Warrior players in the
world, 2) FHE considers relaxing its policy of not changing the rules and 3) we
consider changing the tactical movement rate of close order foot to 120p
vice 80p when we print the new rulebook. How many players' concurrence with
this idea would it take for you to feel we were justified in making such a
change?
Jon


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/29/2004 19:09:00 Central Daylight Time,
redcoat24@... writes:

Jon, do you mean to say that the examples are not actually under
concideration and you are only looking for advice on how to approach major
rules changes?>>
No, that is not what I am saying. The crossbow thing is purely an example
for discussion purposes. We actually have been asked number two and have no
plans to change for a variety of reasons but would like to learn from people's
opinions on the question I asked in reference to it.
Jon


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

Jon, do you mean to say that the examples are not actually under
concideration and you are only looking for advice on how to approach major
rules changes?

I have an opinion on the Crossbow, but not a firm one on the charge range
for close order. My own tendancy is to leave the rules alone unless
something is glaringly wrong.

There are quite a few things in the rules that I think are strange, but I
see no real need to change. Everyone probably has something. And the degree
of passion arroused over a rule will also change from one person to the
next.

I'll give you an example without really intending to start a discussion;
Horses are disordered by Camels. Personally, I've never seen a horse get
freaked out over a camel being nearby. My understanding is that the history,
and the everyday reality behind the rule was tenuous. On the other hand, I
don't really care. It can't be easy being a camel, let the camels have their
fun.

Allan Lougheed

----- Original Message -----
From: <JonCleaves@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 7:34 PM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Recommendations to Jon for change - please read


> Fellow Warriors,
> In the interest of improving service to WarriorRules group members, I am
> looking for advice. Take a moment to read and answer the following
questions if
> you have interest and time.
> Note that for the sake of discussion of 'what to do', I picked rules
> examples. I do not do that with the intent of indicating displeasure at
the current
> text of those particular rules - they are examples only.
> This discussion is also NOT directed at a particular member. It is an
> honest-to-Betsy attempt to ask the group what its specific needs are.
> 1. A member of WarriorRules posts a mail directed to FHE telling us that
> his research shows that crossbows were not effective past 160p and that
the
> 240p max range in Warrior is completely inaccurate. What action would you
like
> or expect FHE to take with regards to this post?
> 2. Let's say for argument that, 1) there are 1000 Warrior players in the
> world, 2) FHE considers relaxing its policy of not changing the rules and
3) we
> consider changing the tactical movement rate of close order foot to 120p
> vice 80p when we print the new rulebook. How many players' concurrence
with
> this idea would it take for you to feel we were justified in making such
a
> change?
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

[John Murphy]

Well, you have a known quantity in the system. The important
consideration here is that the basic engine is 20 years old and
there has been no change in that time I think comparable to either
of these items.

So I would say my primary concern would be serious playtesting under
diverse and envelope-pushing conditions by quality creative players -
sufficient to filter out rule effects from things like die rolling
and generalship. The idea being here you are overthrowing 20 years
of playing experience with a rules engine and better have real
playtest data of the kind of depth suitable to doing that!

Second would be the importance of listening to all feedback before
modulating the results and going out for more testing. Getting it
right is more important than getting it fast.

Third would be some concern addressed not just to the particulars of
a piece of quantitative historical data against the stated scales in
the game, but to the fact (IMO) that those are meaningless except in
how they interact with the remainder of the game and the effects
produced by this. The question is more than just wether CB shoot 160
or 240 or whatever, but even more importantly does whatever
mechanism produce the desirable interaction between them and the
full range of their historical opposition and give the mechanics of
the game the right "feel" (the latter especially so key for me to
Warrior because it is the heart and soul of what makes the system
fun for me).

Beyond that, to me personally I would rather make the fix once these
criteria are met and it still looks like a good idea, than continue
onwards just to avoid forcing game tactics to change. But that is
only my "vote" and I admit there is an argument to be made against
this too.

[Bill Chriss]

> 1. A member of WarriorRules posts a mail directed to FHE telling us that
> his research shows that crossbows were not effective past 160p and that
> the
> 240p max range in Warrior is completely inaccurate. What action would you
> like
> or expect FHE to take with regards to this post?

1. Determine independently if he's correct. 2. If he is, determine if
changing the rules would make the game a more accurate simulation (given
the way rules interact with one another, e.g., you wouldn't want to just
go to 160 if that would mess up play balance or something else. 3. Make
any justified change the next time you write a new set of rules (or
publish a new book), or else preferably incorporate it for some armies in
army lists or army list errata. I would prefer to avoid Warrior 1.008 or
Warrior 3.2, etc.


> 2. Let's say for argument that, 1) there are 1000 Warrior players in the
> world, 2) FHE considers relaxing its policy of not changing the rules and
> 3) we
> consider changing the tactical movement rate of close order foot to 120p
> vice 80p when we print the new rulebook. How many players' concurrence
> with
> this idea would it take for you to feel we were justified in making such
> a
> change?
> Jon


None. It either makes sense from a game design and historical standpoint,
or it doesn't. That's the game designer's call. You know more about it
than I ever wiil. This requires playtesting and analysis, not democracy.





Greek

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/30/2004 10:10:02 Central Daylight Time,
greg.regets@... writes:

Please forgive me if I get to my point in a somewhat roundabout way.

Question 1.

Separate the answer for the rules from the answer for the army lists.
Clearly you cannot knee jerk with the rules to accomodate this sort
of thing, but just as clearly FHE has done exactly that with the army
lists. Troop types vanish, get things they didn't have, and cannot
operate as they did historically. Each army list book that comes out
gets more, and better list and X rules. None of these cost a thing.
As a player, I feel like offering you money to see if you will do the
list for my favorite army, last! >>
So, the answer to the theoretical point in my question is what, exactly?
lol Seriously, I think I understand what you are saying above, but you did not
tell me your opinion on what we should do in that specific hypothetical
case, which would be instructive and is what I was looking for.



As an aside, if you ever do another version of the rules, for the
love of God, please make a larger weapons and armor factor chart.
This adds a huge amount to the game with no added complexity. I
believe when you first started writing the rules, you were given
countless proposals on this. Specific to your example, even Dungeons
& Dragons has a heavy and light crossbow.>>
We were 'given' a lot of stuff. What passed historical muster AT ITS SCALE
got into Warrior. Several weapons systems showed promise but needed more
work and we not so 'universal' (1HCW, fire lance, etc.) so we tied them to
their
lists and did the work when the list came up. The difference for 'light'
and 'heavy' crossbows did not qualify as a necessary 'change' at Warrior's
scale.




Question 2.

This really comes down to a question of historical accuracy vs.
marketing. My head tells me that historical accuracy should win out,
and you should tailor your decisions towards historical effects. When
wearing my marketing hat on that head, I feel that if you want to
sell a ton of games, you should be trying your hardest to give
players something to make their mouth water. If there is a choice
between two things, give the player both, but always make sure they
have to pay for what they get.

Specifically, your CO infantry moving 120p tactical is a perfect
example. Why not allow it, and make the player pay an extra point per
figure for it. This addresses the whole issue as a "hill worth dying
on" ... do players that want this feel strongly enough about it that
they are willing to pay more to get it?>>
And your answer to the question is what, exactly? lol Seriously, Greg, I
am *am* actually looking for the answers to both questions specifically.
I *think* your answer to 1 is, yes, you would want us to make the change
based on this player's research. Is that right? And I have no clue what your
answer to 2 is...
Jon


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/30/2004 13:30:45 Central Daylight Time,
mark@... writes:

Anyway, it's great that we're even having this discussion, whether any
changes
come of it or not.>>
Thanks, Mark. And my offline to you really contains the core, *practical*
issue. I do not want my using it to make you think I do not see merit in your
'side' - I most definitely do.
Jon





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

[Greg Regets]

Please forgive me if I get to my point in a somewhat roundabout way.

Question 1.

Separate the answer for the rules from the answer for the army lists.
Clearly you cannot knee jerk with the rules to accomodate this sort
of thing, but just as clearly FHE has done exactly that with the army
lists. Troop types vanish, get things they didn't have, and cannot
operate as they did historically. Each army list book that comes out
gets more, and better list and X rules. None of these cost a thing.
As a player, I feel like offering you money to see if you will do the
list for my favorite army, last! ;-)

As an aside, if you ever do another version of the rules, for the
love of God, please make a larger weapons and armor factor chart.
This adds a huge amount to the game with no added complexity. I
believe when you first started writing the rules, you were given
countless proposals on this. Specific to your example, even Dungeons
& Dragons has a heavy and light crossbow.


Question 2.

This really comes down to a question of historical accuracy vs.
marketing. My head tells me that historical accuracy should win out,
and you should tailor your decisions towards historical effects. When
wearing my marketing hat on that head, I feel that if you want to
sell a ton of games, you should be trying your hardest to give
players something to make their mouth water. If there is a choice
between two things, give the player both, but always make sure they
have to pay for what they get.

Specifically, your CO infantry moving 120p tactical is a perfect
example. Why not allow it, and make the player pay an extra point per
figure for it. This addresses the whole issue as a "hill worth dying
on" ... do players that want this feel strongly enough about it that
they are willing to pay more to get it?

Thanks ... greg

I think we need to recognize that a game takes historical facts (which
may be estimates and/or may be averaged in a sense over centuries,
e.g., all bows are the same) and turns them into a model. Strange
things may happen if we forget this or are naive about what this
actually means. There are many examples of this, but here is one based
on an army I know and love.

We say a unit is HC. Does this mean that every man out there was
armored the same way? HC is a word of the model, not of reality. There
are troops who did not use shields in reality, but are counted shielded
in the model, e.g., my first army the Avars. Is this a problem? I don't
think so if we see the word shielded in the language of the model. When
troops are treated as EHC, this means the model says they can't
skirmish (among other things). Even designating troops as LC is a model
decision.

Based on the above, I would say from a historical standpoint if one
were to see a bunch of Avars riding along, you would see various levels
of armor (the wealthy would have horse armor and be more heavily
armored and the poorer Avars might have no armor whatsoever). You would
also see no shields. And we could have endless hours of discussion
about the length of their lances (some contemporaries credit the Avar
lance with making them better warriors, size does matter), the quality
or their bows, their skill in the use of the bow, their known
skirmishing tactics, how they formed up for battle, etc. But in the
end, we have to come up with something that fits within the language of
the model. And FHE decided this means there should be LC Avars and HC
Avars (half to all must be upgraded to EHC).

So, to answer question 1, let's say we found out that no crossbow known
to man was capable of firing past 160p. In my understanding of how a
model works, that does not necessarily mean that the ranges should be
changed.

Question 2: Assuming FHE decided they wanted to make a change, I would
suggest first determining how significant such a change would be. If it
is a big change, I do think it would be prudent to get customer input.

-- Charles

[Mark Stone]

Jon,

I just want to say thanks for even raising these questions. There are few game
designers that would engage so publicly with their customers. I have a longish
answer, but no time to compose it at the moment. I've been busy at Kubla Con
this weekend, doing some actually gaming for a change (and getting my butt
kicked by Ed Forbes).

Anyway, it's great that we're even having this discussion, whether any changes
come of it or not.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/30/2004 22:40:52 Central Daylight Time,
grimmetttim@... writes:

Item 2--I would not object to a such a change. But you don't have to change
Warrior rules to get us to do this. If Scott Holder announces that the
2005 NICT will have the following X rule---a 120p move/charge for close
foot--we'd be playing it that way. As a tourny organizer, I can change what I
want--rear zones, VP conditions, whatever.>>
That is soooo true. But the question remains as yet unanswered. How many
out of a 1000 Warrior players supporting the idea would it take before you'd
recommend we change the rules structurally? And the new question 3 - why is
everyone not answering the questions?..lol
Jon






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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/31/2004 01:04:00 Central Daylight Time,
sholl202000@... writes:

I think asking people who are running cons to try out x-rules at tournaments
and people on this list to try them during local games is the way to go. >>
We have done that. I have yet to get a single report on a single
x-rule...lol But the offer is there.
Jon


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

[Doug]

I can't answer #1 because I don't know what you mean by "his
research." If its one mans' conclusion, then it gets as much weight
as it deserves vs all other sources. But if it means he has
convinced you that the "weight of scholarly opinion" on the issue is
different from what FHE based the rule on, then you need to do a lot
of work. Does the "model" allow historical tactics even though the
range in the game isn't exactly the same as the actual range? If
yes, does the "historical feel" of the game suffer due to the
"unrealistic modeling" even though the end result is historic?

I'll leave #2 for the tournament players to decide, because everyone
else is adequately served by optional or X-rules. I'd like to see
them for the "top 10" issues that you struggled with, along with some
of the "philosophy" and pros & cons. This might be an area where the
rules might be improved for use in a "non-universal" (aka in-period
only) or scenario role.
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well
regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to
arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state." --
Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights
of the People," -- later adopted by the Virginia ratification
convention, 1788

This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains
information that may be privileged, confidential or copyrighted under
applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-mail,
in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender
by return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. Unless
explicitly and conspicuously designated as "E-Contract Intended",
this e-mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment,
or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-mail does not constitute
a consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing
purposes or for transfers of data to third parties.

[Tim Grimmett]

A single piece of research is just that, a single piece. I would not change
until a broader concensus emerged.

Item 2--I would not object to a such a change. But you don't have to change
Warrior rules to get us to do this. If Scott Holder announces that the 2005
NICT will have the following X rule---a 120p move/charge for close foot--we'd be
playing it that way. As a tourny organizer, I can change what I want--rear
zones, VP conditions, whatever.

Few things are immutable, I don't mind tinkering, but use the X rules to work
out the kinks and then make a change.

JonCleaves@... wrote:

Fellow Warriors,
In the interest of improving service to WarriorRules group members, I am
looking for advice. Take a moment to read and answer the following questions
if
you have interest and time.
Note that for the sake of discussion of 'what to do', I picked rules
examples. I do not do that with the intent of indicating displeasure at the
current
text of those particular rules - they are examples only.
This discussion is also NOT directed at a particular member. It is an
honest-to-Betsy attempt to ask the group what its specific needs are.
1. A member of WarriorRules posts a mail directed to FHE telling us that
his research shows that crossbows were not effective past 160p and that the
240p max range in Warrior is completely inaccurate. What action would you like
or expect FHE to take with regards to this post?

2. Let's say for argument that, 1) there are 1000 Warrior players in the
world, 2) FHE considers relaxing its policy of not changing the rules and 3) we
consider changing the tactical movement rate of close order foot to 120p
vice 80p when we print the new rulebook. How many players' concurrence with
this idea would it take for you to feel we were justified in making such a
change?
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!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Jon,

As far as the movement concerns for close order troops goes, I feel this
would perhaps cause a ripple effect that would create problems with other troop
types and definitly change the way the game is played dramatically and not
necessarily for the better. Consider Mounted that move and charge at 120 paces.
Would their charge range have to be increased? I'm not sure that a change in
movement is the answer. I liked your idea quite a few posts back where close and
loose order troops could go up in a pursuit on the appropriate die roll. That
would still give CO types a chance to catch loose or open types that ran away.
What do you think?

kelly

JonCleaves@... wrote:
Fellow Warriors,
In the interest of improving service to WarriorRules group members, I am
looking for advice. Take a moment to read and answer the following questions
if
you have interest and time.
Note that for the sake of discussion of 'what to do', I picked rules
examples. I do not do that with the intent of indicating displeasure at the
current
text of those particular rules - they are examples only.
This discussion is also NOT directed at a particular member. It is an
honest-to-Betsy attempt to ask the group what its specific needs are.
1. A member of WarriorRules posts a mail directed to FHE telling us that
his research shows that crossbows were not effective past 160p and that the
240p max range in Warrior is completely inaccurate. What action would you like
or expect FHE to take with regards to this post?
2. Let's say for argument that, 1) there are 1000 Warrior players in the
world, 2) FHE considers relaxing its policy of not changing the rules and 3) we
consider changing the tactical movement rate of close order foot to 120p
vice 80p when we print the new rulebook. How many players' concurrence with
this idea would it take for you to feel we were justified in making such a
change?
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!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

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