Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Gee, I thought I was improving my gaming experience by using felt
instead of a plain piece of plywood as a gaming board and drawing the
terrain on it with a carpenter's pencil. Well I guess I will go with
the other option: four open spaces :^)

Ed

Greetings Frank,
You raise valid concerns about using terrain with the figures and their bases.
For 25mm figs its a bit less of a concern, but with 15mm hills are hell to deal
with. When I used to play Bactrians my terrain consisted a nice brown vynal
surface and some string
Having seen your dice work terrain magic I understand why you like it I
still recall taking a draw imediately after troop deployment because you got a
stream across the middle of the battlefield. Come to think of it you borrowed
my felt stream.
I suppose that tournament organizers could reward players with extra points for
having nice terrain in the same way that some let folks who submit their lists
early have extra points. This would give some incentive to get our terrain house
in order.

Jon

Christian and I have spent a fair amount of time discussing this very
thing of late...

On the square/rectangular terrain problem, the simple solution is to
specify that every terrain piece must have an irregular outline. As
for other standards, I agree, having a stated standard with examples
is the way to go.

For enforcement, the best solution is that a player has a substandard
piece of terrain or no terrain, allow his opponent to replace or
provide it with one from his own stock. I suspect standards will
rise across the board the event after people find their crappy but
perfectly sized woods replaced with a copses barely fit to hide a
mouse in ;)

As for the terrain placement system itself, I am of two minds about
it. It like it to some extent, but my main complaint is that it
generates battlefields that look nothing like historical
battlefields. As you've stated that your goal is to generate more
authentic looking playing surfaces, simply improving the quality of
the terrain isn't enough.

There is also a consistency issue with the current number of terrain
pieces to playing aread density. A 4x6 has a ratio of .25 to a ratio
of only .20 for a 5x8.

It seems to me that a good first step would be to drop the number of
terrain pieces to two each for 1200/4x6 games and three each for
1600/2000 5x8 games. This would result in much more
consistent .15/.16 ratio of # of pieces to playing surface area as
well as dropping the density a bit.

Now, I know from discussion with Christian that some of the army
lists have been subtly modified to make them more viable in the
current terrain situation, but frankly that seems to me to be putting
the cart before there horse...

And who knows, it may shake things up a bit, and change is always
good for the soul :)

Have fun!
Cole

[Chris Bump]

I see other potential logistical issues. Time seems to be one. Someone is
looking for a particular piece of terrain that meets standards and is running
aroung trying to borrow what he did bring.

Table idea may be a fix, but table space seemed to be at a premium and with even
half (per chance more) of the 40 participants gathered around the table trying
to gobble up all that they might or plan to roll for I see mayhem. Then of
course terrain that is not placed needs to be returned to the central table.
All of this will take time and detract from game time. Or the days must be
longer to accomodate this process.
Chris
>
> From: "turner1118" <Turnerm@...>
> Date: 2005/03/24 Thu PM 07:25:36 GMT
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Terrain in Warrior Events
>
>


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

[joncleaves]

Good stuff.

As for the terrain selection system, we really do have a vast majority of
players that prefer it at that level. That may change over time, but for now it
is a key feature of those events.

But local events can use any method and I would strongly recommend trying out a
variety of formats. Also make sure to post your results and conclusions so we
can take those experiences into account.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Cioran <ncioran@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:02:11 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Terrain in Warrior Events




Jon

Christian and I have spent a fair amount of time discussing this very
thing of late...

On the square/rectangular terrain problem, the simple solution is to
specify that every terrain piece must have an irregular outline. As
for other standards, I agree, having a stated standard with examples
is the way to go.

For enforcement, the best solution is that a player has a substandard
piece of terrain or no terrain, allow his opponent to replace or
provide it with one from his own stock. I suspect standards will
rise across the board the event after people find their crappy but
perfectly sized woods replaced with a copses barely fit to hide a
mouse in ;)

As for the terrain placement system itself, I am of two minds about
it. It like it to some extent, but my main complaint is that it
generates battlefields that look nothing like historical
battlefields. As you've stated that your goal is to generate more
authentic looking playing surfaces, simply improving the quality of
the terrain isn't enough.

There is also a consistency issue with the current number of terrain
pieces to playing aread density. A 4x6 has a ratio of .25 to a ratio
of only .20 for a 5x8.

It seems to me that a good first step would be to drop the number of
terrain pieces to two each for 1200/4x6 games and three each for
1600/2000 5x8 games. This would result in much more
consistent .15/.16 ratio of # of pieces to playing surface area as
well as dropping the density a bit.

Now, I know from discussion with Christian that some of the army
lists have been subtly modified to make them more viable in the
current terrain situation, but frankly that seems to me to be putting
the cart before there horse...

And who knows, it may shake things up a bit, and change is always
good for the soul :)

Have fun!
Cole







Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[John Murphy]

Motivation. My theory anyhow.

The game is a competition, albeit one in which folks usually like to
have nice-looking stuff.

However, terrain pieces as they currently play are usually (a)
something one side doesn't want any of, or very few of, or (b)
something another side would like to have but has no real reasonable
expectation of being guaranteed to get it.

Thus, unlike your lead, the kind of terrain that requires a bunch of
work/money might not ever wind up on the table. So it is difficult
to justify the labor or cost relative to other things.

ONE SOLUTION - albeit a "game change" so a bit more of a shake-up
than others might be

Pay points costs for all your terrain pieces like you do for the toy
soldiers in your list. You can still roll to see where they go on
the table, but at least let them show up SOMEWHERE if you pay for
them.

Maybe an X-rule to try out there?

Just a random brain-fart.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/24/2005 23:28:22 Central Standard Time,
rockd@... writes:

Re setup of terrain rules-- I find it unbelevable that people can
choose the exact size & shape of the terrain piece at the moment the
are laying it down. I would only ask that the exact piece you want
to use be specified before setup starts. If it won't fit, you lose
it.>>


I have considered this. You set the size and shape when you pick the pieces
you are going to roll for. Thoughts from the gang?

J








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

Jon and all:

Hiya!!

I have lurked here for awhile but feel like piping up on this
issue. First off I primarily play WAB and am working on a 25mm
Hauteville Norman army for Warrior. Perry Miniatures!!! Second,
nothing is more embarrasing than seeing beautiful figures fighting
on a tabletop that looks like a second grader's "felto-riffic" arts
and crafts project.

So, the point about WAB visual appeal is well taken. As for
terrain, most WAB tournaments are of the pre-set terrain variety.
The organizer places what s/he thinks is visually passable and a
fair set-up on each mat. Players are asked to bring what they have
and eventually asked to bring their terrain that is used most often
(i.e. prettiest..).

Bottom line, nice terrain and no squabbling over where to place it.
(Saves time too!!) No reason this should not work well in Warrior
and no reason why the tournament organizer can't override 14.x re
terrain set-up. The problem of terrian based upon mathematical
geometic patterns loosly resemling certain element sizes would also
be eliminated.

As for getting appealing terrain on the board, perhaps points for
visual appeal (e.g. contributing good looking terrain to the
tourney) could be added to a player's tournament score? If making
the game look better is a FHE/Warrior goal then a couple of extra
points for supplying good terrain should be emphasized. WAB events
(along with GW events, but we won't go there..) often give extra
points for appearance, I think it is a good thing.

So, sorry to be WAB heavy on my post, but I think some of the things
the/us Wabbits do are useful here. Second, I did not read all
responses, so sorry if I double up on another post. Finally, players
need to take pride in their hobby. Providing an incentive re extrta
points at tourney for appearance/presentation is one way to
effectuate that.

Fire away...

Rob

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Charles Randow <clr198@p...>
wrote:
> Jon,
>
> Is flocked felt OK? Or is the problem with a base that is
flexible? I
> just made up one of these by using a spray adhesive (used in
automotive
> trim applications) and applying the flocking to it. It no longer
looks
> like felt, so that should be a good thing.
>
> Actually, about 2 weeks ago I began to feel some guilt about my
terrain
> and am now in the process of painting of a dozen new trees to go
on
> mini-stands in groups of 2 or 3. I also will be making some new
hills
> that look more like hills and less like topographical maps.
>
> -- Charles

[Doug]

Carrying two Craftsman triple-drawer tool boxes of figures takes up
both my hands. So the terrain would have to go in a back pack :)

Compact, robust and light weight are critical for transport.

Felt is great stuff; it can be rolled up or folded for transport and
isn't fragile

I use the dark brown color, which looks like rich soil. Glue
Woodland Scenics green & tan shades over it, and the brown shows
through nicely. Its easy to make different color schemes that look
good with lichen scattered on top. Straight lines make fields with
row crops. You can do both sides differently.

For trees, we could give credit to the "classics" and use flats made
from balsa. They travel compactly and are not fragile. Painted
nicely they would give a pleasing look.

Hills are a real problem. Slopes need to be gentle enough not to tip
or slip figures. Even step-hills can have inconvenient step sizing.
Can someone suggest a good standard for step height and width for
15mm and another for 25mm?

Step hills have more utility since you can stack individual steps for
a larger hill, thus carrying less stuff. The larger steps can be cut
in half for transport or for setting up on the edge of the table.

Built up areas could be flat but drawn in 3D perspective.

Re setup of terrain rules-- I find it unbelevable that people can
choose the exact size & shape of the terrain piece at the moment the
are laying it down. I would only ask that the exact piece you want
to use be specified before setup starts. If it won't fit, you lose
it.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/25/2005 01:22:01 Central Standard Time,
franktrevorgilson@... writes:

I think we're fine as is.>>


The one thing we are not is fine as is. We have not made any final
decisions except that one.





Warrior is an historical miniatures game. Having the wrong figs,
bad-looking figs, unpainted figs and/or bad-looking terrain is counter to our
company
philosophy (which, in this regard, is the same as the rest of the miniatures
hobby). A player would not be allowed to play with just element bases
representing a unit - we don't think he should be playing with a piece of BDU
cloth
with no trees on it representing a woods. It looks like hell. It makes it
very difficult to recruit. It takes away from the hard work of the opponent
who kills himself to make his army look right only to have the other guy using
peltasts for aztecs and cardboard for hills.

What I'd like help with is solutions, not more restatements of the problems.

Thanks!
Jon


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

[Frank Gilson]

Ok, so you propose then that writing down terrain choices contains
the size and shape of it, and not just what type?

How well do I have to draw (no artistic ability here)?
What does happen if a piece I want now doesn't fit?
How does this apply to something like an open space?
How will this work with pieces that go in variable places? (minor
water feature)
Doesn't this take away from the reactive ability I have to what my
opponent places?

I think we're fine as is.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 3/24/2005 23:28:22 Central Standard Time,
> rockd@p... writes:
>
> Re setup of terrain rules-- I find it unbelevable that people can
> choose the exact size & shape of the terrain piece at the moment
the
> are laying it down. I would only ask that the exact piece you
want
> to use be specified before setup starts. If it won't fit, you
lose
> it.>>
>
>
> I have considered this. You set the size and shape when you pick
the pieces
> you are going to roll for. Thoughts from the gang?
>
> J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/25/2005 05:21:07 Central Standard Time,
PHGamer@... writes:

Require each player to have at least one piece of decent terrain on the
board. The rest can be felt. So there will be an upgrade in appearance,
without several cubic feet of addional transport.
Players in the nationals will be required to be 100% decent terrain. After
all, it is our showcase event.>>


Now we're talkin'. Not that we are anywhere near any sort of solution set
yet, but those are two very excellent and practical ideas that address the
situation.





The first I like because I do realize that we have loyal players who have
not grown up caring (or having to care) how their games look - who do not paint
their own figures or have an investment in the look of the game. A stepped
approach where we gradually change this over time might be an excellent
compromise.

I also think a by-event stepped approach might have significant merit.

Keep those cards and letters coming! This is a great discussion. I will
say I have heard from a lot of folks that are routine posters here - if you're
a lurker and have some thoughts on this, we'd love to hear from you.

Jon


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

[Ewan McNay]

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 JonCleaves@... wrote:
> I have considered this. You set the size and shape when you pick the pieces
> you are going to roll for. Thoughts from the gang?

Despite being, in general, an open space guy, I think this would be a bad
thing. There are some armies (or at least army setups) that have terrain
placement as a key element. It's hard enough to get much terrain (well,
usually) as it is; I would not want to take such a huge step against
terrain use (which is what it would end up being, I think) and toward
limiting army variability.

That's the downside to many preset terrain schemes, too: (i) takes control
out of the players' hands, which is bad in principle and certainly here;
(ii) leads to more homogeneity of both armies and tables, as the player
knows that terrain cannot form part of a battle plan, and the organiser
generally moves away from even slightly extreme terrain. [Or, if that
last is not true, gets sheer hell from the player who has to face
Midianites on the table with six dunes...]

e

[Ewan McNay]

Or, having just seen Frank's response, another vote for 'no need to mess
here.'

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 ewan.mcnay@... wrote:

>
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 JonCleaves@... wrote:
> > I have considered this. You set the size and shape when you pick the
pieces
> > you are going to roll for. Thoughts from the gang?
>
> Despite being, in general, an open space guy, I think this would be a bad
> thing. There are some armies (or at least army setups) that have terrain
> placement as a key element. It's hard enough to get much terrain (well,
> usually) as it is; I would not want to take such a huge step against
> terrain use (which is what it would end up being, I think) and toward
> limiting army variability.
>
> That's the downside to many preset terrain schemes, too: (i) takes control
> out of the players' hands, which is bad in principle and certainly here;
> (ii) leads to more homogeneity of both armies and tables, as the player
> knows that terrain cannot form part of a battle plan, and the organiser
> generally moves away from even slightly extreme terrain. [Or, if that
> last is not true, gets sheer hell from the player who has to face
> Midianites on the table with six dunes...]
>
> e
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Derek Downs]

Required decent looking terrain is not in the rule book anywhere. Is it? I
never read the rules that is Scott's job to tell me every year on my trip to
Pennsylvania. :)

Will the next thing be to send people's figs home for not being able to paint
them?

At my Derekcon's for years now. I have had preset terrain for each table.
This speeds up the start of the game and forces players to run more balanced
armies. This would also take care of the terrain look you are looking for. The 4
horse guys or whoever is running the tournament would be required to do more
work at the beginning. But it would improve the overall look, speed the game's
beginning, and which would lead to more time to have more decisive games.

Derek


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