Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Greetings all,

I would also like to put my two bits in. The Texas boys never roll for
generals and I must say that I like taking this randomness out of a competition
game as I never really felt eager to take an ally general with the potential for
him to ignore my orders based on a die roll. Somehow I feel this cheapens a
competition game when it occurs and I for one have reservations for it's use in
competitive games. Any thoughts from anyone else?

kelly

"Holder, Scott" <Scott.Holder@...> wrote:
I would tell you, however, that - in my opinion only - I would never vote
for x-rules in the NICT. To me, the NICT (in its role as the US Nationals) is
the premier showcase of a player's ability to play Warrior. Having x-rules
thrown in would change the nature of the competition to something other than
that.

>That sums how I feel about it as well. Love x-rules, just don't love em in the
NICT.

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]

[Bill Chriss]

>
>
>
>
> Greetings all,
>
> I would also like to put my two bits in. The Texas boys never roll
> for generals and I must say that I like taking this randomness out of
> a competition game as I never really felt eager to take an ally
> general with the potential for him to ignore my orders based on a die
> roll. Somehow I feel this cheapens a competition game when it occurs
> and I for one have reservations for it's use in competitive games.
> Any thoughts from anyone else?
>
> kelly
>
>

Hey Kelly,

What about Bayou Wars in New Orleans next weekend? It's only an 8 to 10
hour drive.


Greek

[Greg Preston]

Dear Kelly,
I second that. I have enough trouble getting my guys to be where I
want them anyway- let alone is they start to think for themselves.

The idea that guys that I paid good points for might end up fighting
for the other side is always a bad idea.
This is further compounded by the idea that in a comp game I could be
killing my own points :)

Greg P

On 04/06/2004, at 15:59, kelly wilkinson wrote:

> Greetings all,
>
>      I would also like to put my two bits in. The Texas boys never
> roll for generals and I must say that I like taking this randomness
> out of a competition game as I never really felt eager to take an ally
> general with the potential for him to ignore my orders based on a die
> roll. Somehow I feel this cheapens a competition game when it occurs
> and I for one have reservations for it's use in competitive games. Any
> thoughts from anyone else?
>
>                                                                 kelly


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/4/2004 10:58:47 Central Daylight Time,
mark@... writes:

Given that I've _never_ witnessed a side-switch in a
competition battle, I'd have to say they are pretty much the same with
respect
to unreliability.>.
I too, in 19 years of 6th/7th/Warrior have never seen a sides switch in or
out of competition. I *have* seen unreliables roll down, but it is something
you account for and correct immediately.
I agree with Mark that subs and allies are 'effectively' the same in this
area given the unlikelihood of sides switching. Which is why I have no qualms
a
bout my English allies...
Jon


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

[Chris Bump]

That's not entirely true. The guys in the south may not roll for character, but
up here in yankeeland Tejas we do roll for it , all of the time.

In competitive games as opposed to "kitchen" games I can understand your point.
But I am opposed to the idea of the completely even playing field. I know that
the temptation is to make this as much like chess as possible. Eliminate as
much randomization as possible. Most who play this are controlists if not
control freaks and so the more control that they have the better. Our own
experiences influence our opinions on such matters. I have seen people pull
defeat from the virtually closed jaws of victory based on a die roll. Its
happened to me. And although the General's character is not all that likely to
swing a game in the latter stages, eliminating it is one less random factor that
should not be taken out of the game. IMHO. Besides, when it does happen it
makes for great war stories and great war stories are far more important than
accumulating another victory.

Chris

----- Original Message -----
From: kelly wilkinson
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 12:59 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Rolling for Generals


Greetings all,

I would also like to put my two bits in. The Texas boys never roll for
generals and I must say that I like taking this randomness out of a competition
game as I never really felt eager to take an ally general with the potential for
him to ignore my orders based on a die roll. Somehow I feel this cheapens a
competition game when it occurs and I for one have reservations for it's use in
competitive games. Any thoughts from anyone else?

kelly

"Holder, Scott" <Scott.Holder@...> wrote:
I would tell you, however, that - in my opinion only - I would never vote
for x-rules in the NICT. To me, the NICT (in its role as the US Nationals)
is
the premier showcase of a player's ability to play Warrior. Having x-rules
thrown in would change the nature of the competition to something other than
that.

>That sums how I feel about it as well. Love x-rules, just don't love em in
the NICT.

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]


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

[scott holder]

Every tourney I run, you roll for generals AND weather. That's what the rules
state and unless the tourney organizer says otherwise, that's what you should be
doing.

-----Original Message-----
From: CHRIS BUMP [mailto:cncbump@...]
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 7:50 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Rolling for Generals


That's not entirely true. The guys in the south may not roll for character, but
up here in yankeeland Tejas we do roll for it , all of the time.

In competitive games as opposed to "kitchen" games I can understand your point.
But I am opposed to the idea of the completely even playing field. I know that
the temptation is to make this as much like chess as possible. Eliminate as
much randomization as possible. Most who play this are controlists if not
control freaks and so the more control that they have the better. Our own
experiences influence our opinions on such matters. I have seen people pull
defeat from the virtually closed jaws of victory based on a die roll. Its
happened to me. And although the General's character is not all that likely to
swing a game in the latter stages, eliminating it is one less random factor that
should not be taken out of the game. IMHO. Besides, when it does happen it
makes for great war stories and great war stories are far more important than
accumulating another victory.

Chris

----- Original Message -----
From: kelly wilkinson
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 12:59 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Rolling for Generals


Greetings all,

I would also like to put my two bits in. The Texas boys never roll for
generals and I must say that I like taking this randomness out of a competition
game as I never really felt eager to take an ally general with the potential for
him to ignore my orders based on a die roll. Somehow I feel this cheapens a
competition game when it occurs and I for one have reservations for it's use in
competitive games. Any thoughts from anyone else?

kelly

"Holder, Scott" <Scott.Holder@...> wrote:
I would tell you, however, that - in my opinion only - I would never vote
for x-rules in the NICT. To me, the NICT (in its role as the US Nationals)
is
the premier showcase of a player's ability to play Warrior. Having x-rules
thrown in would change the nature of the competition to something other than
that.

>That sums how I feel about it as well. Love x-rules, just don't love em in
the NICT.

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]


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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





Yahoo! Groups Links

[Bill Chriss]

>
>
>
>
> Every tourney I run, you roll for generals AND weather. That's what the
> rules state and unless the tourney organizer says otherwise, that's what
> you should be doing.
>


I prefer it this way, as well. Gives me more opportunities for wiliness,
and presents the off chance that all those iffeminate, trouser-wearing
bowmen will lose their strings. Serves them right.


Greek

[Mark Stone]

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

> Message: 14
> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 22:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
> From: kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@...>
> Subject: Rolling for Generals
>
> I would also like to put my two bits in. The Texas boys never roll for
> generals and I must say that I like taking this randomness out of a
> competition game as I never really felt eager to take an ally general with
> the potential for him to ignore my orders based on a die roll. Somehow I feel
> this cheapens a competition game when it occurs and I for one have
> reservations for it's use in competitive games. Any thoughts from anyone
> else?
>

I have to say that one of the reasons I don't play chess any more is because
chess is a completely deterministic system. Nothing random ever happens. While
there is a certain aesthetic elegance to such systems, they don't reflect real
world events. Warrior has the same or greater tactical complexity as chess,
together with elements of randomness that specifically reflect what can
actually happen in the real world. You can't perfectly predict the weather. You
can't know which troops are going to have a good day or a bad day. And you
can't know for sure that a general is going to fail his "personal morale
check".

Great generalship depends on mastering the unknown and the unexpected, two
things that don't happen in chess.

By the way: what makes you think that only an ally general has the potential to
ignore your orders? Section 4.43 "Interpretation" very clearly says that:
"The following rules apply only to sub- and ally- generals".

So certainly sub-generals can go unreliable and ignore your orders. What
subgenerals _can't_ do is switch sides, but that's the only difference between
a sub and an ally. Given that I've _never_ witnessed a side-switch in a
competition battle, I'd have to say they are pretty much the same with respect
to unreliability.


-Mark Stone

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Thinking very hard on coming, Bill. Actually it's 13.5 hours according to the
yahoo travel planner. But Steve in a true advocate of Warrior and we try to
support our brothers in the South. We missed you at Nashcon.

kelly

hrisikos@... wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Greetings all,
>
> I would also like to put my two bits in. The Texas boys never roll
> for generals and I must say that I like taking this randomness out of
> a competition game as I never really felt eager to take an ally
> general with the potential for him to ignore my orders based on a die
> roll. Somehow I feel this cheapens a competition game when it occurs
> and I for one have reservations for it's use in competitive games.
> Any thoughts from anyone else?
>
> kelly
>
>

Hey Kelly,

What about Bayou Wars in New Orleans next weekend? It's only an 8 to 10
hour drive.


Greek

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]

As my students would say, "Fersheesy" (for sure). This is one random factor that
I'd not mind seeing go by the wayside. In my mind it's okay for a themed event,
but for a competition such as the NICT, I dislike it. Ally generals are
expensive enough as it is and often represent a good third of an army. To have a
catostrophic random event like this have the likelihood of happening limits the
options one has in a list to such a degree that it makes players not take the
option for an ally general.

kelly

Greg Preston <edgdp@...> wrote:
Dear Kelly,
I second that. I have enough trouble getting my guys to be where I
want them anyway- let alone is they start to think for themselves.

The idea that guys that I paid good points for might end up fighting
for the other side is always a bad idea.
This is further compounded by the idea that in a comp game I could be
killing my own points :)

Greg P

On 04/06/2004, at 15:59, kelly wilkinson wrote:

> Greetings all,
>
> I would also like to put my two bits in. The Texas boys never
> roll for generals and I must say that I like taking this randomness
> out of a competition game as I never really felt eager to take an ally
> general with the potential for him to ignore my orders based on a die
> roll. Somehow I feel this cheapens a competition game when it occurs
> and I for one have reservations for it's use in competitive games. Any
> thoughts from anyone else?
>
> kelly


[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]

Given that I've _never_ witnessed a side-switch in a
competition battle, I'd have to say they are pretty much the same with respect
to unreliability.


-Mark Stone


Mark,

The first time it happens to you, you will likely not ever forget it. I for
one think it cheapens my victory over my opponent when his allied command goes
unreliable and sits on wait orders. The purpose of competition is to put my
skills against that of my opponents and not to have some random event from 7th
edition WRG ensure my victory. There is enough randomness in the die roll
without this added complication. If you prefer lots of random events like this,
do so in pick up games and not competitive games is my opinion.

kelly



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

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Jon,

Here's the deal. We've hashed this out before. I very much doubt that the
Black Prince would have ever left his Spanish allies hanging when there were
French to be killed. In fact, I doubt he would EVER change sides and fight for
the French which makes the possibility of this in Warrior ludicrous. Assuming
your talking about Medieval Spanish.

kelly

JonCleaves@... wrote:
In a message dated 6/4/2004 10:58:47 Central Daylight Time,
mark@... writes:

Given that I've _never_ witnessed a side-switch in a
competition battle, I'd have to say they are pretty much the same with
respect
to unreliability.>.
I too, in 19 years of 6th/7th/Warrior have never seen a sides switch in or
out of competition. I *have* seen unreliables roll down, but it is something
you account for and correct immediately.
I agree with Mark that subs and allies are 'effectively' the same in this
area given the unlikelihood of sides switching. Which is why I have no qualms
a
bout my English allies...
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]

Hope this doesn't come out twice, I tried once and the Yahoo
software did something strange.

In the somewhat competitive environment of a recent NICT-qualifying
tournament, I had the left flank sub-general be unreliable _and_
roll the second "1" to go on WAIT, but _also_ had the other sub-
general on the opposite flank be rash and roll up to go from ATTACK
to RUSH! I think the game wound up one of what seems like a string
of recent 3-3 bloody draws.

This is most likely indicative that my whacko sub-generals know what
they are doing better than I do!

Yes I will remember it. But in a good way.

Me personally, I very much like the edge to the game that
uncertainty and need to overcome adversity provides.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Given that I've _never_ witnessed a side-switch in a
> competition battle, I'd have to say they are pretty much the same
with respect
> to unreliability.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
>
> Mark,
>
> The first time it happens to you, you will likely not ever
forget it. I for one think it cheapens my victory over my opponent
when his allied command goes unreliable and sits on wait orders. The
purpose of competition is to put my skills against that of my
opponents and not to have some random event from 7th edition WRG
ensure my victory. There is enough randomness in the die roll
without this added complication. If you prefer lots of random events
like this, do so in pick up games and not competitive games is my
opinion.
>
> kelly
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Mark Stone]

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

> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
> <jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Given that I've _never_ witnessed a side-switch in a
> > competition battle, I'd have to say they are pretty much the same
> with respect
> > to unreliability.
> >
> >
> > -Mark Stone
> >
> >
> > Mark,
> >
> > The first time it happens to you, you will likely not ever
> forget it. I for one think it cheapens my victory over my opponent
> when his allied command goes unreliable and sits on wait orders.

Oh, I've had plenty of generals go unreliable and sit around under wait orders.
That wasn't my point. My point was that I've never seen an ally general
actually _switch sides_ as a result of going unreliable.

As for unreliables getting stuck under wait orders:
(a) it can happen to either subs or allies; no difference there;
(b) it's an annoyance, but hardly a show stopper. A good general confronts the
unexpected and finds a way to succeed anyway. Not that I succeed all the time
by a long shot (just about everyone on this list who's played me has beaten me
at one time or another; quite a few have given me repeated beatings). Just that
it's not one of those events that I regard as a cause for despair.


-Mark Stone

[Ewan McNay]

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 JonCleaves@... wrote:
> Given that I've _never_ witnessed a side-switch in a
> competition battle, I'd have to say they are pretty much the same with
> respect
> to unreliability.>.
> I too, in 19 years of 6th/7th/Warrior have never seen a sides switch in or
> out of competition. I *have* seen unreliables roll down, but it is something
> you account for and correct immediately.

I've seen it once - a close order Viking deployed on his baseline, and the
unreliable ally was on the left flank. On bound 2, a large flank march
came on behind the right flank...

...but indeed, not something I worry about. I just see minimal, if any*,
advantage for the extra 25 pts over a Sub.

[*yes, there are a couple, but they're pretty rare.]