Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Hi, Bob. Jon Cleaves here - rules dude for FHE.

>
> But this kind of question, and the facts that it has to be asked, is
> exactly
> why I just don't compete in tournaments anymore.
>
> Isn't there any way to make ancients play less complicated?
>
>

I can't speak for any rules set but Warrior. Warrior is intended to be the
'top end' of ancients play - meaning it is a simulation designed to replicate
as much of the detail involved in ancient and medieval warfare as possible.
It's the 'as possible' that can get you. We choose to sacrifice some things
to get the rules set we want:
1. A small rule book.
2. Immediate understanding - especially of nuances of morale, command
control and maneuver.
3. 'Simplicity'.

We are serving a particular subset of ancient and medieval miniatures players
- a subset who wants ground scale, troop types, training, psychology,
formations, weapons effects, command and control, weather and terrain to
matter and to matter in very fine distinctions. We feel we are very
successful at that, if certainly not perfect.

We also feel we are achieving our goal of responding to players needs with
such things as:
1. Providing the most flexibility in basing (with respect to usefulness in
other rulesets) of any A/M game out there. While this may aid our
competition in some cases, it is the right thing to do for the player.
2. Providing answers to rules and lists questions in as timely a manner as
possible.
3. Providing clarification to the rules without the threat that some troop
unit a player has carefully acquired and poured time into is going to be made
useless to him at some later date.
4. Providing the best researched published ancient and medieval army lists
in the business, including some entirely free on the internet despite them
taking huge amounts of our time and resources to complete. See New World
Warrior when we release it.
5. Providing, in time, a complete A/M gaming system, allowing the player to
link his games in a campaign with sieges, skirmishes and naval warfare - as
well as introductory rules for the new Warrior player and fantasy
miniatures/skirmish and roleplaying rules both to stand on their own and,
more importantly, to bring new players into the historical branch of our
hobby.

Do we need one >
> page of interpretation for each page of rules?
>

Warrior does not. The clarifications are 3 pages, the rules and fast warrior
lists are 120. A ratio I am proud of, actually.

>
> Sorry for the outburst, and I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this is what
> drove me to Napoleonics and away from WRG. I'm trying to give Warrior a
> chance, but it sounds like the same old, same old.

I hope you continue to give us a chance. I would note that we will begin
work soon on Warrior Cadet, a game designed to introduce players to Warrior.

Jon


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

Thanks, Jon. I appreciate the e-mail response.

You're right; Warrior is different and is the best of the Ancients rules in
my mind in terms of realism, depth and subtlety. I guess I just need more
play time and a few tournaments to get back up to speed.

Bob Hess
Lanesboro, Mass.


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

[scott holder]

I hope you continue to give us a chance. I would note that we will begin
work soon on Warrior Cadet, a game designed to introduce players to Warrior.

>Bob, play Fast Warrior for starters. Much of the buried nuance doesn't float
to the surface. At the same time, you don't sacrifice much of the detail that
makes Warrior so attractive.

>We've got some folks here who have dived back into the game and found it
doesn't end up being as you (Bob) describes. Lordy lordy, if anyone knows the
pitfalls of what you say, it's me. Therefore, Warrior really tries (and for the
most part succeeds) in being a self contained unit. Now, having said that, this
is an awfully complex game so sometimes finding things isn't as easy as one
might like. But, we have an index to help with that and any complex gaming
system equals the occupational hazard of not finding something. But......that
something is almost always there.

scott