Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Jon Cleaves wrote:
>As for ground scale, I've been in formations all my adult life from platoon
>to division and am VERY comfortable with the men per pace of the elements in
>Warrior, which IS a rule. I have photos of formations from 100 to 4400 men
>on a well-lined football field as my primary reference for what these things
>look like in real life. That plus what the ancient authors tell us (which
>these actual formations confirm) is about the best we can do.
>

I've sworn not to get involved in this argument again until I have
finished that article, "On Bases". All I will say is that the 7th
Edition ground scale is completely distorted, and 15mm games have
always (6th and 5th Edition) occupied far more "real" space on a 6ft
x 4ft table than 25mm ones on an 8ft x 5ft. The two facts together
mean 15mm under 7th is not, space-wise, anything like what it is
supposed to be modeling. And I got to this conclusion by consulting
the ancient authors and doing some mathematics. The fact that other
people have reported a different character of game using narrower
tables than 6ft x 4ft is symptomatic of the problems that have arisen
since 15mm scales were introduced way back in WRG's 4th or 5th
Edition.

Paul Szuscikiewicz

[Todd Kaeser]

Just checked up the Historicon site and I see that the
1200 mini tournaments are using the full size table.

What happened to the 4x4' table for the 15mm mini?

Todd K



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

[scott holder]

What happened to the 4x4' table for the 15mm mini?

>Like single list tourneys, I'm experimenting with format based on several years
of multi-player requests. We're gonna see how this runs for a while and
reevaluate.

>Table size is what it is because of, well, physical table sizes. Don't expect
to see larger tables than the 8x5 currently used and there are a variety of
reasons for that which many of you will experience Friday at Hcon (I expect us
to be packed). Any more, I'd rather share verbally.

scott

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Besides Todd,
If your a great general, "Size doesn't matter!" Or is that what SHE said?

Kelly

"Holder, Scott" <Scott.Holder@...> wrote:
What happened to the 4x4' table for the 15mm mini?

>Like single list tourneys, I'm experimenting with format based on several years
of multi-player requests. We're gonna see how this runs for a while and
reevaluate.

>Table size is what it is because of, well, physical table sizes. Don't expect
to see larger tables than the 8x5 currently used and there are a variety of
reasons for that which many of you will experience Friday at Hcon (I expect us
to be packed). Any more, I'd rather share verbally.

scott

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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



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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

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

I have been amazed at the discussions of table size.

In Australia there is no standard table size, and I imagine that
people would ignore any attempt to introduce one.

Generally the view is the bigger the better, especially given the
difficulty of dealing with the table edge in any wargame.

I personally see the greatest players as those who consistently win
with a variety of armies in 15mm and 25mm on a variety of table
sizes.

As a rundown of the format of our major tournaments,

CANCON January - 15mm 1500points on 6*4

Any Newcastle Tournament - 25mm usually 1500 points (though 1200 for
Biblical theme) on 9*6 tables with 480 pace deployment zone

MOAB (October) 25mm 1300 points on 6*4

These present a variety of challenges. I am not sure that anyone
here has ever obsessed over how many elements of frontage that is

Adrian Williams
Barbarians Wargaming Club
Sydney, Australia

[Mike Bard]

It's odd. I've been skimming the discussion and I think that the most
important fact of the table size has been overlooked.

It's the fact that we're playing on a fixed table size.

Yes, there are various ways that Warrior attempts to keep the table edge
from being an impenetrable barrier, and it helps somewhat. But the edge is
still there. As just one small example, if I want my cavalry to assault the
enemy flank, I deploy it against the short edge of the table. That prevents
them from flanking my calvary, and only because the physical table edge
exists.

That fact, more than anything else (in my opinion) skews any game of Warrior
away from a historical simulation.

We should be looking for solutions to this problem, not to how many extra
elements can fit on different table sizes.

Michael Bard
That Greek Hoplite Guy

[Doug]

>It's the fact that we're playing on a fixed table size.
>
>That fact, more than anything else (in my opinion) skews any game of Warrior
>away from a historical simulation.
>
>We should be looking for solutions to this problem

Problem exists for EVERY miniatures game...

I'm a proponent of allowing a player to use points to buy extra width
on a flank. This should not be revealed until after deployment (more
practically, until after detailed deployment notes & drawings).

But there is a problem of physical table layout in a convention. You
would need to allocate the potential extra space on each flank for
every table.

Could be solved by making the "base" table narrower and thus forcing
the armies that need more space (typically the cavalry types) to
purchase it.

This would probably lead to table crowding at 1600 points, but I
think making the "base" points size smaller would be a good idea,
simply because its a lot of money to buy that much lead.

Could also be solved with list rules that allow certain armies to get
extra width as a terrain pick; maybe for free.
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

"We will never disarm any American who seeks to protect his or her
family from fear and harm."
--President Ronald W. Reagan

"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well
regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to
arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state." --
Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights
of the People," -- later adopted by the Virginia ratification
convention, 1788

This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains
information that may be privileged, confidential or copyrighted under
applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-mail,
in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender
by return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. Unless
explicitly and conspicuously designated as "E-Contract Intended",
this e-mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment,
or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-mail does not constitute
a consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing
purposes or for transfers of data to third parties.