Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

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.
Wanax

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/1/2004 08:00:20 Central Daylight Time,
> spocksleftball@y... 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]

Right, Jon.

Bottom line is people play this system because they want to. A few
changes may effect a preference for this troop or that, but nothing
will dislodge your core here.

Changing the basis of the rules rather than a few mechanical tweaks
will certainly drop your base. A rule mechanic would be distance of
close order foot moving, while a basis of the game would be more of
something like CPF calculations or allowing chariots a + bonus in the
woods.

As far as I can tell, people play Warrior rather than DBM, DBA, or
Armati because they want the complexity of interaction. The combine
arms effect is fundamental, and scale certianly plays different.

Some, like myself, play different systems to fit different needs.
Wanax


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/1/2004 09:43:19 Central Daylight Time,
> spocksleftball@y... 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]

[Ewan McNay]

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.

Not the topics I'd pick . But sure, answers follow (as I catch
up from actually playing this weekend! Thanks, Bill, Tim, Dan.)

> 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?

None. Don't care about the history. Care about the game
balance. Yeah, that's an extreme, but it's pretty close.


> 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?

None. If this brings better game balance, do it. Expect lots of
complaints, and be prepared with ample justification, but that's
assumed.

[I think that there are better solutions to the latter, if it
were actually being considered, of course. Changes to skirmish
likely being sufficient, for instance. But the answer above
makes the (imnsho reasonable) assumption that this is considered
a priori to be the bext solution to a perceived problem.]

E

[joncleaves]

<<> 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.>>
[
[
This is precisely the case. If someone has missed it in the past, FHE will
indeed consider any historical research a player wishes to submit, and always
will. As Mark has said, the submitter should enter this process with the
practical knowledge that the bar for change is about as high as it could
possibly be.


>
<<> 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.>>
[
[

Agreed.

<< 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.>>
[
[
I could not agree more.

>
> 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.>>
[
[
I also agree with the above 100%.

>
>
> 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.>>
[
[
I think we are already there in a way. The exception is that there is no beta
version discrete from the experimental version. The experimental version is any
version of the current rules containing one or more x-rules and can be used in
any manner the player owning a rulebook and mixing in x-rules so chooses.


>
<<> To make this process work there would have to be an effective and motivated
> network of volunteers.>>
[
[
Until FHE has a 'staff' this is quite true.

<< 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.>>
[
[
Not quite true. We have made the statement that we will not change the rules
because we have the clear indication from the vast majority of our players that
core rules changes are NOT wanted. We had it in 1999-2001 while we were in
development and it has been reinforced in my mailbox almost daily since. *IF* a
groundswell-like majority of players indicated they wanted to see changes
incorporated one time or every three years or whatever, we would certainly
reconsider. But nothing even remotely like that has happened - thus the
promise.

If I were a player hard over on changing Warrior I would get the groundswell
first and *then* bring in the playtested x-rule for consideration. But heck,
that's just me...

And by groundswell, since by my count there are about 1000 players worldwide, we
are talking more than someone's local game group here. I am not sure what the
number would be - but it is certainly well into 3 digits...


> Have a process for the best of the X-rules to slowly but eventually become
> official.>>
[
[
Again that process is a well-playtested x-rule and a clear majority of players
desiring change. For well-playtested I should think our standard of 20 or so
games per list period would be a good start and as for clear majority I would go
out on a limb and say I'd even take 300 'core' players as at least a start
point.

<< 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>>
[
[
I would recommend in this case folks proposing to Scott what x-rules they's like
to see in theme or open events at these cons. But I will tell you this - if you
asked me right now as an intelligence officer to predict how many folks who go
to these cons want the mini/theme/open not to be 'core' Warrior, I would tell
you it would not top 20% max. But, I have no problem with being proven wrong.

Jon

[Doug]

Jon-Glad you figured out a way to get around your software's funky
desire to concatenate blank lines. Now I can follow who said what.


> > with established lead investments by the existing core of players.>>
>[
>[

--- 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?

[1] find out more about the research and (using your hypothetical
example) which type(s) of weapon, period, circumstances were involved
to see whether special circumstances or situations created the
discrepancy
[2] if the result of [1] is that the rule is unhistorical in specific
terms test whether the interaction using the revised data appreciably
affects the model using an x-rule and/or list x-rules if there be
such things
[3] if the incorporation of the revision would lead to no ill effects
after a year of playtesting incorporate it if not then document on
the website the data and explain why it has not been incorporated
(otherwise you run the risk of 'Warrior ignores history'

> 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?

Zero in theory. You can change the rule as you wish, this is not a
jury system - and should not be because the more vocal/committed can
give an impression of overwhelming support/disdain which may not
truly reflect the population. If the Warrior community is like
others you'd be lucky to get a 30-40% response at most.

In practice a significant playtest group.


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

A later post wondered why there had been so few responses. Answer
(a) it was a holiday weekend both in the US and Europe
(b) see 30-40% rule above

Kind regards

Edward