Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Steve Hollowell]

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. Playtest
them for a set amount of time (1 month, 1 year, whatever), ask for feedback from
these games/cons and decide from there. If players continue to desire to use
those rules in local games and cons, I think you will have your answer. Having a
rules system where the actual creators of the ruleset listen to players is very
empowering for the players and, to me, definitely makes the game more appealing.

As far as question 1 goes, ask for their research/sources and make a command
decision based on whatever historical justification criteria you have in place.
Any rules change, even making things more historically accurate, will change the
fundamentals of the game, to whatever degree. Too much of that and people will
complain, just as they do when things are too rigid. It is a difficult line to
walk and I don't envy those who have to make those decisions. I just keep
thinking about a saying I heard over and over in the military, "Too many
generals, not enough soldiers..." Balancing historical accuracy (which I am all
for) with gameplay is a balancing act at best.

I wish I could provide a better answer but have addressed it as best as I could.

JonCleaves@... wrote:

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


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

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

[Steve Hollowell]

Another thought, put an x-rule or three in the Historicon/Cold Wars minis. As
far as I understand it, quite a few people attend those cons and it would be a
good place to test some things out and be assured of feedback (feedback forms or
something). Task that form stuff out to someone and peruse them whenever you
have time.



JonCleaves@... wrote:
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]





Yahoo! Groups Links






---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/31/2004 08:28:16 Central Daylight Time,
grimmetttim@... writes:

What I expect are discussions, extensive playtesting to determine the ripple
effects and common sense. >>
The playtesting to get 120p CO foot right alone would take us offline other
projects for a year at minimum. Then there is the issue of what that would
do to lists - both absolutely and relatively. I will not mess with people's
purchased lead and would not consider doing so unless a near unanimous request
was made by the Warrior playership. Where I was going with the question was
to have people think about the actual effect of their requests - the
practical realties of what any core change would bring about - something other
game
companies don't really worry about, but which is at the heart of the FHE
philosophy.




The capital region Warrior tournaments for next year will have both deeper
rear zones and 120p close foot move/charges as we had discusses several months
ago.>>
I think that is 100% the way to go. The 'way NASAMW does things' influences
how local games are done far too much IMHO.



My recommendation remains: announce 2005 NICT X-rules now and you'll have
plenty of feedback from a year's worth of games. Then the great unwashed can
weigh in with opinions based on experience.>>
That is a NASAMW decisions and a completely different can of worms. It is
possible the player base would support such for the opens/themes/minis but I
would not expect anything like that for the NICT given who routinely qualifies.
But, awesome input - thanks.
Jon





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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/31/2004 08:30:56 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

Are you disatisfied with the number of responses or how many
directly reply to your exact question?>>
I am not dissatisified, but I am amused that until this post of yours it was
0-7...lol I am not surprised either.....
Jon


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

[John Murphy]

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

> How many out of a 1000 Warrior players supporting the idea would
it take before you'd recommend we change the rules structurally?

Zero, I think you need to do what is right regardless of consensus
so how many support it is not the issue - I think most would come
around after the initial bitch and moan period.

But caveat that with "what is right" involves a lot more than even
an overwhelming case of a particular data item, as already stated.

> And the new question 3 - why is everyone not answering the
questions?

Are you disatisfied with the number of responses or how many
directly reply to your exact question?

[Tim Grimmett]

Sorry Jon, I don't have these democratic impulses you are describing. There is
no specific number I have in mind. In my mind that misses the point, all of us
could have preconceived notions that are wrong.

Design a horse by committee and you get a camel.

What I expect are discussions, extensive playtesting to determine the ripple
effects and common sense.

I do not view Warrior as written in granite; sandstone maybe.

The capital region Warrior tournaments for next year will have both deeper rear
zones and 120p close foot move/charges as we had discusses several months ago.

My recommendation remains: announce 2005 NICT X-rules now and you'll have plenty
of feedback from a year's worth of games. Then the great unwashed can weigh in
with opinions based on experience.

Tim



JonCleaves@... wrote:
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]


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]

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Tim Grimmett <grimmetttim@y...>
wrote:
> I do not view Warrior as written in granite; sandstone maybe.

Sandstone? I thought it was Sanskrit! <huge laughing grin - please
take as unresistable and undeserved joke>

> My recommendation remains: announce 2005 NICT X-rules now and
you'll have plenty of feedback from a year's worth of games. Then
the great unwashed can weigh in with opinions based on experience.

Ya know, this ain't a bad idea for X-rules you are real serious
about considering.

- If you are playing the NICT that way you are going to get a
significant ripple effect as smaller tourneys mimick the rules to
try them out in preparation.

- NICT players (or prospective qualifiers) are going to be generally
sufficiently experienced and creative with "bending the rules" of
Warrior to find any exploitable holes created or left by an X-rule -
and this is real important to find out.

- At the NICT itself typically 3 or 4 ho's are physically present
and you can get feedback and ask iterative questions first-hand
while the results are still fresh in everyone's memory.

- Easy enough to drop an X-rule once tried like a hot rock if
doesn't work out. Becomes a temporary perturbation.

[Dave Smith]

Jon;

I'll throw my opinion in here, with the caveat that I have played
TOG, and am dabbling with Warrior and am looking to broaden my
playing Warrior exeriences with it.

For Q#1, I would let the individual know that I appreciated his
input and then put his piece of information into an historical
disputed facts file, with the idea that once a year, all debated
facts would be researched. If there was overwhelming evidence (FHE
would have to set that parameter) that would support a change, then
change it with a clarification or future reprint.

For Q#2, I would say, as the Brits's say...'bollocks'. Warrior must
be your vision, based on your understanding of history, game
mechanics and play balance. I would not be swayed by a certain
number of players, or a few squeaky wheels. We all have choices in
the games we play. I can't imagine that someone would stop playing
Warrior just because of CO movement.

Dave



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... 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]

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> I will not mess with people's
> purchased lead and would not consider doing so unless a near
unanimous request
> was made by the Warrior playership. Where I was going with the
question was
> to have people think about the actual effect of their requests -
the
> practical realties of what any core change would bring about -
something other game
> companies don't really worry about, but which is at the heart of
the FHE
> philosophy.

There is no suprise here I think for anyone who has been following
the traffic for any amount of time.

I think you have the overwhelming backing of the player community in
this vein even if some of us mice occasionally "squeek" and piss off
the elephant.

I don't expect to see Mark Stone complain because you do not
implement his well-stated skirmish suggestion and the CO movement
item, as far as I remember, originated with one Mr (or insert rank
and "ret" if you did yet) Jon Cleaves and I'd still be suprised to
see it come about!

I was actually kind of shocked to see you even go to the length of
conducting this little survey, but glad I will not have to go and
sell all my 25mm HYWE I just bought. <g>

I think you have provided the X-rules as a vent for trying things
out if people want to experiment (heck personally I treat the entire
rulebook that way anyway but in a social hobby like this you need to
have some stable common ground) and if sufficient interest is
generated over time by them then you can examine it at your leisure
without causing undue concern to the player community at large that
changes to the core interactions are going to wipe out their
miniatures collection on a whim.

[Greg Regets]

It seems to me Jon, that you got some very good answers.

When you ask someone's opinion, you pretty much have to take that
opinion at face value.

Take care ... greg :-)



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 5/31/2004 08:30:56 Central Daylight Time,
> jjmurphy@s... writes:
>
> Are you disatisfied with the number of responses or how many
> directly reply to your exact question?>>
> I am not dissatisified, but I am amused that until this post of
yours it was
> 0-7...lol I am not surprised either.....
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/31/2004 19:30:44 Central Daylight Time,
greg.regets@... writes:

It seems to me Jon, that you got some very good answers.

When you ask someone's opinion, you pretty much have to take that
opinion at face value.

Take care ... greg :-)


I have gotten some very interesting opinions, and have saved them all. But
I have gotten only one answer to question 2. Question 1 has fared better,
but as an answer would have to contain a course of action for FHE, most of the
replies have still only been opinions tied to the subject and not a coherent
picture of the desires of the playership.
I am not really surprised by this, as the questions are designed to show
that it is not possible for one person's research to change a rule, nor is it
possible to change a rule at all without a vast majority of, if not all,
players supporting it. No recommended change to the core rules to date has
even
remotely come close to the standard we have and must set for such things. The
fact that the questions have been circumvented repeatedly only highlights
this issue.
Progress is being made, however. The DC lads are about to have a tourney
implementing a recommended change as an x-rule - clearly stated as part of the
process for any change over two years ago. I am looking very forward to what
they discover, but even then that is only a small fraction of what would
have to be done for us to consider a change.
Jon


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

[Mark Stone]

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

>
> 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?

Short Answer:

1: There should be a public and established procedure for the player who
believes himself to be in possession of such research to submit that research
for consideration as a possible basis for a list rule change or, in an extreme
case, for an actual rules change. All of this should be with the understanding
that either outcome is extremely unlikely, given that much research has already
been done on history, game balance, and the need for "backward compatibility"
with established lead investments by the existing core of players.

2: Well, if 1000 players wanted such a claim, then it would clearly be
warranted. If only 1 player wanted such a claim, then clearly not. Numbers in
between are hard to gauge because not all players are or should be counted
equally. I would guess that if 750 out of 1000 players wanted such a change,
and those 750 included the vast majority of players who have been active at
conventions _and_ active at recruiting new players, then a change would
probably be warranted. But it would have to be far more than a simple majority,
it would have to be with the acknowledgment that some players matter more than
others, and it would have to be with the understanding the on rules matters FHE
rules by decree, not by consensus of the players, and that's as it should be.

Long Answer:

My professional vocation is as a technology consultant, with expertise generally
in the software development process, and with expertise specifically in the
open source software development process.

For some time I've been struck by the similarities between development software
systems and developing game systems. Both are ultimately processes composed of
iterations of steps, where the rules governing steps do not gracefully handle
vagueness or ambiguity. Both are development processes that benefit from large
scale user input, but that the same time where final development decisions must
be made by one or a few.

Open source software development in particular is fascinating. This is software
that is developed in a distributed, community process where anyone has the
right to freely modify and freely redistribute the resulting software. (For
details, see http://www.opensource.org or
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/toc.htm).

I've heard open source software called anarchic, communist, anti-competitive,
and anti-American. Many people cringe at the ending of not only relinquishing
redistribution rights, but encouraging redistribution and modification. Yet
open source software is the software that today dominates the Internet. Some of
its better known examples have penetrated general public awareness. Most people
have heard of the Linux operating system or perhaps the Apache web server, both
of which are open source. Most people don't realize that all of Google, all of
Amazon, and all of Yahoo -- to name a few high profile examples -- run on open
source software, or that it is virtually impossible for an email message to
reach its destination without passing through a server somewhere running the
open source Sendmail or Bind programs.

What's often overlooked though is despite the fact that there are hundreds or
even thousands of people who think of themselves as contributors to open source
projects, there is nonetheless a very strict hierarchy imposed. I like to think
that such projects follow this principle:
"Development is egalitarian, but not democratic; everyone gets a voice, but not
everyone gets a vote."

Software development simply breaks down if more than a handful of programmers
work on the core code. Software development breaks down without strong central
decision-making about features and functionality. Open source developers in
fact follow these principles of hierarchy better than other developers. No
patch makes it into the Linux kernel without the approval of Linus Torvalds
(creator of Linux) and the recommendation of Alan Cox (systems programmer
extrordinaire), both of whom volunteer their time to the project. No new module
makes it into the Apache project without passing the Apache Foundation's
rigorous approval process. Foundation members all volunteer their time.

The parallels with game development in general and Warrior in particular
intrigue me. Let's be clear: Warrior is not an "open source" project. FHE holds
the copyright, and no one has the right to modify or redistribute Warrior
without explicit permission of FHE. Nonetheless, FHE has made a remarkably open
process of the whole thing. Lists and rules are playtested extensively by
volunteers. X-rules are discussed, debated, and encouraged, despite the fact
that under the letter of copyright law FHE could pretty much shut down X-rules
if they wanted to. Yet at the end of the day there is a clear hierarchy. Final
decisions are made by FHE. We all get a voice, but only they get a vote. This
development model stands in explicit contrast to Phil Barker's rather secretive
development process and Phil Barker's notorious hostility to feedback, at least
feedback originating from the North American continent. And I think that
contrast -- open vs. closed -- is a big part of the reason why Warrior is
gaining momentum and DBM seems to have stalled.

The other big parallel I see between software development and game development
is that both software and games are typically in need of regular and constant
improvement. Managing change while respecting the needs of current customers is
the greatest development challenge. In the case of software there are legacy
systems running older software that customers are simply not going to pay to
upgrade. Yes, you can add features to your software, but not so as to break
backwards compatibility with systems your customers aren't going to change.
Game development faces similar dilemmas. In the world of miniatures players
make large investments in lead, and expect game systems to maintain
compatibility with the rationale that went into those investments.

I do not believe the answer in either software development or game development
is to draw an absolute line and say no features will be changed or added, only
"bug fixes" released from now on. That may please customers for now, but
ultimately will kill the project.

How then to manage change?

As a model I'd point to one of the open source projects I've been involved with
and followed fairly closely over the years: the Debian project
(http://www.debian.org). Debian is a variant of the Linux operating system.
While Linux is distributed in commercial form by companies like Red Hat and
Novell (and IBM and Dell for that matter), Debian is an entirely volunteer
project.

At any given moment you can download three variants of the Debian/Linux
operating system:
- Stable
- Testing
- Unstable

The stable version has been subjected to the most rigorous review, and is
regarded as largely bug-free. This does not mean that it is completely free of
defects, or that no development work is done on the stable version. Quite the
opposite. An enormous amount of development effort goes into the stable
release, but (a) none of it is towards adding new features, and (b) all of it
is geared towards fixing discovered problems.

The testing version is in fact relatively stable. It's used in many production
systems. It's the version I run on all four of my computers at home. But new
features do make their way into the testing version from time to time, and
testing is still fair game for some experimentation. It isn't a matter of
anything goes, however. The goal of the testing version is for it to solidify
into the next version of stable after some suitable period. Thus new features
are added only when that is the best way to address a problem or shortcoming.
They are not added simply to try something out.

The unstable version is the free-wheeling version. Most things in it work. Not
everything does. It isn't suitable for use as a regular, dependable operating
system. However, it does have a number of advanced features not found in either
the stable or testing versions, and new features are being tried out all the
time. Unstable never migrates to testing; that's not its purpose. Unstable
always remains exactly that: unstable. But occaisionally new features are found
in unstable that solve a real problem in testing. So feature by feature, there
is some migration. And since testing ultimately becomes the next version of
stable, there is a mechanism whereby even the wildest new feature might some
day become part of a stable Debian system.

And that's basically the process: in unstable, anything goes. On a case by case
basis ideas from stable make their way into testing. Testing is exactly that:
rigorously tested over a long period (typically two or three years). When
testing has been tested enough, it becomes the new version of stable, and the
whole cycle starts over again.

I believe something like this model could in fact work very well for Warrior.
Imagine that at any given time we had three "versions" of Warrior:
- the official released version
- the beta version for the next release
- the experimental version

FHE would need to have extensive involvement and exclusive decision-making
authority over the offical and beta versions. Feedback from players on possible
rules changes would be primarily with the beta and experimental versions,
whereas the only changes to the official released version would be
clarifications. The experimental version would tolerate almost any reasonably
plausible idea, with the understanding that most ideas will ultimately be
rejected and with a clear and probably not democratic process for reaching a
decision point. The best and most successful ideas from the experimental
version would be migrated to the beta version to undergo more rigorous testing.
Again, the understanding would be that most new ideas will be rejected, FHE has
final say over anything getting final approval for a new official version, and
that new official versions would be rare (every three years or so).

To make this process work there would have to be an effective and motivated
network of volunteers. Warrior has much of this already. But notice how little
activity we have around X-rules. That's because -- and these are related --
there's no real hope held out by FHE that an X-rule would ever become official,
and there's no real official support for X-rule play and/or tournaments at
major conventions.

Have a process for the best of the X-rules to slowly but eventually become
official. Have an FHE endorsed beta version of Warrior, and FHE endorsed
experimental version of Warrior, and nominated playtesters for each. Then have
the following:
- a beta event and an experiemental event at every Cold Wars
- a beta event and an experimental event at every Historicon
- one beta event each year must be a scenario or a theme tourney
- on experimental event each year must be a scenario or a theme tourney

If FHE were to do all of this they would have a reasonable process for change
and evolution without overly threatening the cherished investments in lead so
many players have made over the years.

This is the process that makes the best software in the world. Surely it can be
harnessed to help the best miniatures game in the world.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/1/2004 08:00:20 Central Daylight Time,
spocksleftball@... writes:

Jon, a suggestion. Do not change the tactical movement rate of close
order, but rather make the "CHARGE DISTANCE" of all foot 120p. This
will keep the dynamic of movement between the loose and close order
foot in determining where the battle is fought, but it will also make
close order foot viable historically and game-wise.>>
Again, as stated in my original post - both situations (160p CB and 120p CO
foot movement) are EXAMPLES. What I am trying to discover is what our
players believe the standard for change should be. There is no plan at this
time
to make either of those changes - they are EXAMPLES only.
Jon





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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/1/2004 09:43:19 Central Daylight Time,
spocksleftball@... writes:

right, but on the charge distance please use it as a example of how
to approach some of the problems some people are having.
differentiation between movement and charge distance is perfectly
normal game mechanic.>>
I'm sorry Boyd. I do not get what you are saying. Both are major changes
to the core rules, one slightly less so than the other, but still a change.
The issue is, how to handle calls for change from a minority of players,
particularly given our policy of not screwing anyone who made an investment in
an
army.
Jon





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

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

Well I disagree with his research first, I do not think such a change
would benefit any, and as this weapon is one of the least effective
in Warrior why bother.

> 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, a suggestion. Do not change the tactical movement rate of close
order, but rather make the "CHARGE DISTANCE" of all foot 120p. This
will keep the dynamic of movement between the loose and close order
foot in determining where the battle is fought, but it will also make
close order foot viable historically and game-wise.

Marching to maintain a line is one thing, but when the trumpets blew
everyone ran. I think the original model of regular hoplites as the
model for close order does a vast injustice to all spearmen in
history including the non-spartan hoplites.

Wanax