Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Ha, bet you think I'd fallen off the end of the world! Not so..

1. I have received the various playtest reports and suggestions of the last
few weeks and am working on them. Thank you for your efforts.

2. We will probably be delayed past Fall In for publication. Don't panic,
it is not all bad. First, here are the reasons:

a. Minor sticky stuff with England.
b. Example battle taking WAY longer than I expected to do (and do right).
c. Messing around with what I call "Little Warrior"

This last is a new brainstorm to help new guys get into the game. The idea
is to include with every list a fixed mini list (working on 600 points or so
at the moment) that can be used to get into the game immediately and play one
command each on a 2'x2' surface. The idea has been VERY well received with
my rookie corps here and I want to explore it a little before going further.

What I have not done (until now!) is propose to my fellow Horsemen that we
may look at including such a set of fixed lists in the basic rules. As they
are fixed, they would be consciously designed (a la DBA lists) to provide a
'feel' for the army in the smallest amount of units.
While I am hashing this around, I'd love your thoughts.

As for publication, I am personally more beholden (and always have been) to
Cold Wars than to Fall In. If we don't make November in order to get the
example battle (and possibly "Little Warrior" into the basic rules, I am
happy with that.

Keep those cards and letters coming.
Jon

[joncleaves]

I'll get a new version up in the files section sometime this week. I'll
announce its arrival here. There will not be many changes from the 10 July
version, just a few clarifications.

Little Warrior is a go. The idea has been very, very favorably received. Now I
just have to convince Scott that we need to have all the mini-lists in the
rulebook itself!

Don't get me wrong, I am a died in the wool 1600 point tourney player and
nothing about Little Warrior will detract from that. We have had many comments
that other rules sets allow for quicker development of armies. With LW, all the
units in the mini lists will be compulsories from the greater army list. This
way, a guy can start playing right away with his approx. 600 point force and
then move on to the full size item as forecs are acquired and painted.

I am picturing about 5 units + general and a 2x2 table in 15mm. Don't know
about table in 25mm, how big is it in DBA?

Greg, I was never gone, but thanks for the 'welcome'! No matter how long it is
between my posts, I read every word of every item posted here.

[Greg Regets]

The entry level Warrior is an awesome idea and represents the way most of us
get new players into the game anyway, by having them play one command of an
army. I bet this would make a kick butt tournament format, kind of like
4-on-4 flag football compaired the 8-on-8.

No problems on the introduction of Warrior, better to get it right than on
time. The only thing is that many of us have tournaments planned for the
near future so would it be possible to get a new playtest version posted on
the e-site?

Thanks .... and welcome back .... Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 9:44 PM
To: WarriorRules@egroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Status


Ha, bet you think I'd fallen off the end of the world! Not so..

1. I have received the various playtest reports and suggestions of the last

few weeks and am working on them. Thank you for your efforts.

2. We will probably be delayed past Fall In for publication. Don't panic,
it is not all bad. First, here are the reasons:

a. Minor sticky stuff with England.
b. Example battle taking WAY longer than I expected to do (and do right).
c. Messing around with what I call "Little Warrior"

This last is a new brainstorm to help new guys get into the game. The idea
is to include with every list a fixed mini list (working on 600 points or so

at the moment) that can be used to get into the game immediately and play
one
command each on a 2'x2' surface. The idea has been VERY well received with
my rookie corps here and I want to explore it a little before going further.

What I have not done (until now!) is propose to my fellow Horsemen that we
may look at including such a set of fixed lists in the basic rules. As they

are fixed, they would be consciously designed (a la DBA lists) to provide a
'feel' for the army in the smallest amount of units.
While I am hashing this around, I'd love your thoughts.

As for publication, I am personally more beholden (and always have been) to
Cold Wars than to Fall In. If we don't make November in order to get the
example battle (and possibly "Little Warrior" into the basic rules, I am
happy with that.

Keep those cards and letters coming.
Jon


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

[joncleaves]

Todd

After our discussion this weekend, Scott is feverishly at work on our
mini-lists and I am sure he'd take whatever you can give him. I'll let him
send you the mail address he prefers directly.

[Todd Kaeser]

Jon,
Its good to see others using the 600 pts system to teach rookies. If
you'd like I have a few lists (35-40 or so) I've already created. I'd be
happy to send them to you via snail mail. I even have the tournament
scoring system I used. Let me know.

Todd Kaeser
tnkaeser@...
----------
From: JonCleaves@...
To: WarriorRules@egroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Status
Date: Tue, Oct 10, 2000, 9:44 PM


Ha, bet you think I'd fallen off the end of the world! Not so..

1. I have received the various playtest reports and suggestions of the last

few weeks and am working on them. Thank you for your efforts.

2. We will probably be delayed past Fall In for publication. Don't panic,
it is not all bad. First, here are the reasons:

a. Minor sticky stuff with England.
b. Example battle taking WAY longer than I expected to do (and do right).
c. Messing around with what I call "Little Warrior"

This last is a new brainstorm to help new guys get into the game. The idea
is to include with every list a fixed mini list (working on 600 points or so

at the moment) that can be used to get into the game immediately and play
one
command each on a 2'x2' surface. The idea has been VERY well received with
my rookie corps here and I want to explore it a little before going further.

What I have not done (until now!) is propose to my fellow Horsemen that we
may look at including such a set of fixed lists in the basic rules. As they

are fixed, they would be consciously designed (a la DBA lists) to provide a
'feel' for the army in the smallest amount of units.
While I am hashing this around, I'd love your thoughts.

As for publication, I am personally more beholden (and always have been) to
Cold Wars than to Fall In. If we don't make November in order to get the
example battle (and possibly "Little Warrior" into the basic rules, I am
happy with that.

Keep those cards and letters coming.
Jon


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

[scott holder]

After our discussion this weekend, Scott is feverishly at work on our
mini-lists and I am sure he'd take whatever you can give him. I'll let him
send you the mail address he prefers directly.

>Did 15 army lists last night in 1.5 hours. How well they'll work is
anybody's guess at this point. Send lists to my usual work addy. Here are
some "things" I'm discovering in this process:

1) Almost all armies (thus far) have a "fighting CinC". I did a quick stab
over the weekend at Early Imperial Roman and thus far, that's the only army
with a CinC in one element.

2) L Romans ain't gonna be great. I'm making legionaires Reg D. Why?
Because they *should* be:):)

3) The 7 unit/body max limit makes for interesting lists. The Pict list (a
stand-alone list in WARRIOR, btw) has two 12 element LMI units in it as an
example. For those expecting lots of "standard fighting size" units, forget
it. I'm shooting for that when possible but in order to make things work, I'm
not bound by it.

4) Not all armies will be of equal "points". Right now, for RESEARCH PURPOSES
ONLY, armies are running between 605-650 points and that includes a PA
standard for those armies that had them. Therefore, generals are spensive.

5) I'm gonna make some armies (Seleucids, L Macedonians for example) "look"
historical. With the two listed armies, therefore, pike units won't be in
those friggin manipular 4 element sizes. Instead they'll probably be 8
elements in size, perhaps even up to 12 elements depending on points.

6) Thus far, there are no options for most of the lists. It just doesn't work
well. In two cases, the options are for either LMI or MI.

I would really like some people to playtest lists if for nothing else than to
make sure we get the right "feel". At present, we're looking for a "Little
Warrior" game to take between 1-2 hours to play. Table size will be 2x2 in
15mm and 4x4 in 25mm (a deliberate decision so as to make the games different,
not just the same with bigger figures). In fact, you probably don't even need
to wait for any lists, just do up your own 600-650 point list with no more
than 7 units/bodies per side and go at it.

This is an intruiging concept I must admit and we'll try to have as many army
lists as possible in the actual WARRIOR rules. Keep in mind that the 7
WARRIOR army list books (as planned) will contain close to 300! army lists
(and that doesn't include any New World stuff, those will be done up and put
on the web). My goal is to distill as many of those lists as I can down into
"Little Warrior" size for publication. Therefore, the lack of options in a
particular list should be offset by the fact that you'll have hopefully close
to 300 lists to play. Also keep in mind that these small lists may or may not
be exactly like their bigger, and yet unwritten, brethren.

All of the above could change when reality hits or Jon tells me something
different.

Scott

[joncleaves]

First, 'Little Warrior' is offically Warrior Fast Play. It will be included
in the rule book with as many WFP lists as we can manage.

We're ready to playtest lists here, Scott.

Due to the prompted charge waver, be careful of too many D's in LIR. A
crusade to right previous wrongs in historicity can make a list useless
within the mechanics. I agree that the morale available in the current LIR
lists is too much, but don't feel we should swing too much the other way.
Reg C's have enough trouble. Also need to look at limit. armies vs comit.
armies.

I'm with the more realistically sized units. Maybe list rules in the greater
lists for this?

Jon

[Mike Turner]

The change to Late Romans, is that to only "Little Warrior" or legionaires
Reg D. for the final "Warrior" list. Is this because Scott Holder believes
they should be that way, from Brittania to the East, from Gaul to Africa.
Or a change decided by all 4 Horseman? Late Romans covers a vast area and
timeline, at certain locations and times Reg D is accurate, but in others
very inaccurate, is this a personal grudge in the changing? Will Reg C-B-or
A be available for certain costs?
The lists have been around for awhile more or less as is, this changing
could result in a snowball effect of "desires" for change

-----Original Message-----
From: Holder, Scott <FHWA> [mailto:Scott.Holder@...]
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 4:04 AM
To: WarriorRules@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Status

After our discussion this weekend, Scott is feverishly at work on our
mini-lists and I am sure he'd take whatever you can give him. I'll let him
send you the mail address he prefers directly.

>Did 15 army lists last night in 1.5 hours. How well they'll work is
anybody's guess at this point. Send lists to my usual work addy. Here are
some "things" I'm discovering in this process:

1) Almost all armies (thus far) have a "fighting CinC". I did a quick stab
over the weekend at Early Imperial Roman and thus far, that's the only army
with a CinC in one element.

2) L Romans ain't gonna be great. I'm making legionaires Reg D. Why?
Because they *should* be:):)

3) The 7 unit/body max limit makes for interesting lists. The Pict list (a
stand-alone list in WARRIOR, btw) has two 12 element LMI units in it as an
example. For those expecting lots of "standard fighting size" units, forget
it. I'm shooting for that when possible but in order to make things work,
I'm
not bound by it.

4) Not all armies will be of equal "points". Right now, for RESEARCH
PURPOSES
ONLY, armies are running between 605-650 points and that includes a PA
standard for those armies that had them. Therefore, generals are spensive.

5) I'm gonna make some armies (Seleucids, L Macedonians for example) "look"
historical. With the two listed armies, therefore, pike units won't be in
those friggin manipular 4 element sizes. Instead they'll probably be 8
elements in size, perhaps even up to 12 elements depending on points.

6) Thus far, there are no options for most of the lists. It just doesn't
work
well. In two cases, the options are for either LMI or MI.

I would really like some people to playtest lists if for nothing else than
to
make sure we get the right "feel". At present, we're looking for a "Little
Warrior" game to take between 1-2 hours to play. Table size will be 2x2 in
15mm and 4x4 in 25mm (a deliberate decision so as to make the games
different,
not just the same with bigger figures). In fact, you probably don't even
need
to wait for any lists, just do up your own 600-650 point list with no more
than 7 units/bodies per side and go at it.

This is an intruiging concept I must admit and we'll try to have as many
army
lists as possible in the actual WARRIOR rules. Keep in mind that the 7
WARRIOR army list books (as planned) will contain close to 300! army lists
(and that doesn't include any New World stuff, those will be done up and put
on the web). My goal is to distill as many of those lists as I can down
into
"Little Warrior" size for publication. Therefore, the lack of options in a
particular list should be offset by the fact that you'll have hopefully
close
to 300 lists to play. Also keep in mind that these small lists may or may
not
be exactly like their bigger, and yet unwritten, brethren.

All of the above could change when reality hits or Jon tells me something
different.

Scott



































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

[Dave Smith]

What's the status of the release of Warrior. I seem to remember that
Fall In was the official release date, but alas, no word. Also, was
there a Fall In Warrior tourney. If so, any AAR's or other
information? I'm a little surprised that FHE are so quiet in
promoting the release (impending release)of these rules. This egroup
site appears to be the only on line source of information, and it's
been in sleep mode for some time. Waaaaasuuup?

Dave

[joncleaves]

Dave

We didn't quite make Fall In. Both Warrior and Biblical Warrior are at the
printers. You may place advance orders with Silver Eagle Wargame Supplies.
You can also get it from me if you live in KC. Tabletop Games will
eventually carry it when the distributors have theirs.

We are looking at the end of this month. Just layout and proofing stuff are
between us an publication.

And you have no idea how much I enjoy saying that.

As for 'sleep mode' - I am still on my post-partum 'vacation'. Next week,
I'll turn on the x-rule hose and begin work on Campaign Warrior....

Jon