Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/25/2005 07:27:38 Central Standard Time,
darnd022263@... writes:

Required decent looking terrain is not in the rule book anywhere. Is it?>>

No, but it may end up something like that. Don't know yet.

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


No, but they have to have been painted by someone.....lol


<<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.>>

You know I agree. And if that were what the majority of our players wanted,
NASAMW and FHE in some combination would get the terrain for this. We and
DBM are the only systems with routinely terrain-generated tourneys. If this
turns out to be, as it has been, what the majority of players want to preserve
as the 'normal' way of doing business in a tourney, then that's cool. We'll
just have to find other ways to improve the look.
In a room with a WAB event, our tables look sad, no matter how nice the
figures are (and the quality of figures has risen in our games over time quite
nicely). This needs fixing - it's just a matter of how and when.

Another idea to toss into the ring. Maybe at HCon 06 we have the NICT with
14.3, but the theme is preset terrain.....

J




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

[John Garlic]

Personally, I have always been fascinated by the idea of preset terrain (and
especially foam core modules). One way to make preset terrain work would be
to have it and allow a scaled modification of the terrain based on scouting
points. For example, for every multiple of say 15 scouting points you can shift
one of terrain pieces by 'x' amount. In addition, if you are the outscouting
force, you can swap out one terrain piece in place. You could also allow the
played with higher scouting points to choose side of table. If you were going
to do this, it would only seem fair that all tables start with a basically
identical set of terrain for the round. This would allow different 'terrain
themes' for different rounds which could be announced in advance.

My only concern with preset terrain would be the desire to maximize speed on
board by minimizing amount of terrain. Frankly, there are some armies that
are close terrain armies and I worry that preset terrain would reinforce
whatever armies happen to be in vogue at that time. Just my $.02.

BTW, I don't particularly mind the idea of transporting terrain. I hate
flying and drive a pickup :-)

John Garlic


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

[Phil Gardocki]

Rob,
Firing away....
But seriously. No one doubts that pretty terrain enhances the view of
the game. And given my druthers, I love forest scapes and real hils and
actually own a few and occasionally play with them.
But for me, it is a playability issue. I cant play woods troops in the
forest scapes without moving them, and my figures are falling off the slopes
of the hills. As such, I use my pretty terrain only when I am sure I won't
be playing on them. Or I place the forest scape in my opponents deployment
area, where he would comfortably want to place his tablet or elbows:}

I do carry ruberized terrain, the water, edges, and roads look good, and
do are not a transport issue.

Phil



-----Original Message-----
From: Serennissimo <serenissimo@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thursday, March 24, 2005 8:16 PM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Terrain in Warrior Events


>
>
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Phil Gardocki]

Fire one:
I agree with your opinion that we spend all our creative talents in the
lead, and not the terrain.
And we make the trade offs of transport and playability vs esthetics.

However in addition to the other issues that are obvious there is one
problem leaning towards flat, straight line representation of terrain and
that is the rules. The rules require the units to be in block, (ie
perfectly straight lines) to maneauver. The rules require presise
measurement. The woods with a bit of natural wave make a difference as to a
units ability to be exposed to mounted charge and shooting range. There is
a line about conforming to a terrain features lines, but the unit cannot
move until restored into a block. As long as your units are required to be
in perfect geometric shapes, then the desire for terrain to be the same will
be there.

Tactica has a concept of center of mass, where shooting distances is
measured from the "standard" of the unit, not by the front edge (element),
so they look good skirmishing in dense terrain. War Hammer is measured from
each figure to each figure, but with ranges long enough for bunches to be
included in a single set of die rolls.

Medeaval warfare's ranges and rules are friendler to having units look
rumbled, and so look good in realistic terrain. But in Warrior(tm), if your
units are not shoulder to shoulder together, forget any support you derive
from the adjacent units. (this is not as true, now that the phantom element
is in play, but historically it was, and we don't change our play patterns
that quickly)

I am not advocating changing rules or structures without a lot of
thought. For example a unit can go from conforming to terrain to block when
charging for free), and this is not a critism.
I am saying that the felt culture has deeper roots than lazyness to go
the next step, but is sublimitably incouraged by the rules set we love.

-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... <JonCleaves@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thursday, March 24, 2005 11:15 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Terrain in Warrior Events




Ok, if we’re gonna debate controversial subjects, let’s at least
do one
that might result in change! Lol

Seriously, we need to change the way we present terrain at our public
events. In my own inimitable blunt manner, let me state that our terrain
sucks. I am speaking specifically of Hcon/Cold Wars, but also I have not
been in a regional event where it was any better. If some of you are out
there fighting the good fight and putting on events with classy terrain,
then lord bless you and please post some pictures so you can get credit for
your hard work and lead us all by example.

I would like us to get into a discussion about how to fix this issue. Many
ideas are on the table. What is not on the table is the status quo.
However we fix this, it is not our intent that it ends up with folded felt
and cloth hills. Repeated discussions of this and handing out awards for
good terrain have done nothing to improve the situation, so other types of
measures are in order. I’d like to hear thoughts on measures that would
actually work to get us to good looking and realistic terrain.

Here’s the goals:

1. Improve the quality of terrain on our tables to be at least as good as
that found in WAB games and other convention events.
2. Remove the ability of the player to use the terrain generation system to
place ‘gamey’ terrain.

By #2 I mean that a guy who places a perfectly rectangular woods because
that provides him the best micrometer advantage in the game is doing
something I find personally heinous but more importantly both reflects
sub-optimally on the Warrior hobby as well as making for a terrible looking
table. Ditto for someone who brings a piece of felt for a brush feature and
folds it in half because its size does not suit his current needs.

I don’t think this can be self-policed. I think we need a standard in
14.0 that helps fix this. I myself am for pre-set terrain in tourneys. But
our customers largely prefer the 14.3 method, which does indeed have the
advantage of the tourney organizer not needing 16-20 tables of terrain (or
more).

That means, though, that players have to bring their own and it is indeed
hard to bring every conceivable piece that one could want once one found out
opponent/army. But we HAVE to change – that isn’t negotiable.
Our
tables look like crap and it is high time we got it fixed.

So, here’s my thoughts to stir the pot:

1. Terrain features cannot be made from felt or cloth. Flocked and/or
painted card/gatorboard/roofing paper is the standard. Store bought
‘worldmaker’-like stuff is totally ok.
2. Hills must be three dimensional and must be made in line with 12.0.
Flocked.
3. Woods must have trees. Painted/modeled or store bought. Foliage.
4. Villages must have buildings/tents/huts of some appropriate sort.
Painted.
5. Marshes have lichen/weeds, rocky has rocks.

Tourney organizer can remove any terrain feature from any table that does
not meet this standard.

Tourney organizer ought to have as much correctly done ‘common
terrain’
available for use as possible. Maybe something to spend local club/NASAMW
funds on.

Ok, have at me.

Remember, we are looking for good ideas and the status quo is the only thing
off the table.

Jon


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




Yahoo! Groups Links

[Phil Gardocki]

There is nothing cheaper than felt...
There is nothing more transportable than felt...

I do not think the award for excellent terrain will work. Some people will
go for it, but the majority will go opt out.
I do not think punitive actions will be well received, but could work if
regously inforced.
Having said that, here is two offerings.
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.

Phil





-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stone <mark@...>
To: warrior <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thursday, March 24, 2005 2:40 PM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Terrain in Warrior Events


>
>A couple of other comments.
>
>First, there's no excuse for felt. Thin particle board or plywood (1/8" or
>1/16") is cheap, easy to work with, easy to paint and flock. So guys, lose
the
>felt. Other materials are avaiable as well. I use styrofoam blocks cut with
an
>exacto saw to shape hills, which are then spray painted and flocked.
Mounted on
>a wooden base so they don't crack.
>
>The point is, felt is a lousy choice when there are cheaper, better, more
>flexible, and more attractive choices available.
>
>Second:
>
>Why not start giving out terrain pieces as prizes? I, for one, would be
happy to
>make up a couple of pieces per tournament to donate as prizes. If we got a
few
>other people to do the same, we could probably give out terrain for first
>through fourth place at major events. This would save the tourney
organizers
>money, and gradually improve the appearance of our hobby.
>
>
>-Mark Stone
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Derek Downs]

If this
turns out to be, as it has been, what the majority of players want to
preserve
as the 'normal' way of doing business in a tourney, then that's cool.

Have you taken a vote on the preset terrain issue before?

Derek


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

[Derek Downs]

PS-Scott, if my opponent is playing with miniatures that are "subbing"
for something else (example, LC B on the table is supposed to be LC
JLS, Sh(not a big deal, but could be)) and I make an error based on
the way a figure is armed, is this on me? Can I place a post-it note
on my opponents figures that are incorrectly armed? I'm only talking
extremes, but if this is the "big event(s)" of the year, and we're
worried about terrain, we should also be worried about figures
Subbing is not allow at the NICT is it?

Derek


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

[Derek Downs]

Once again in Derekcon's I have preset terrain.
Also the player with the highest scouting gets to choose sides.
Never had anyone blame the terrain for a lose before.
Have had a ton of wow what a great game because of the terrain though.
It puts both players on a non-tailor made table and forces them to think and
play.

Derek


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

> 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;

**Not sure why this is bad. It certainly takes it out of a
individual players control. Because of a competitive tournament
setting it is natural that a player would like to contol as much as
possible, but so long as terrain is preset fairly then it is not a
bad thing. This seems to be more of an issue of letting go, not
necessarily bad.**


> (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

**I could not disagree more. Battle plans will be made when a
player is assigned a table and opponent. Lists (often more than
one) should plan for varied terrain. This is more of a challenge as
a general and more chance to show off your skill by meeting that
challenge.

The idea that one could pre-plan terrain to augment one's pre-
planned army structure prior to battle seems unrealistic. As Jon
alluded to, players will need to give up some control, but it would
be fair and equitable. The question is do you want to release said
control in a tournament setting. I obviously say yes.**

Rob

[Dave Smith]

JonCleaves@a... wrote:
'Seriously, we need to change the way we present terrain at our
public events. In my own inimitable blunt manner, let me state that
our terrain sucks.'

***Amen brother. I think anyone that knows me, realizes how I value
the aesthetics of our hobby. Terrain, playing boards, figures,
playing aids, should all look the part-I mean, that is one of the
fundamental concepts of_Miniature Wargming_.

Preset terrain boards are the way to the future, IMO. This will rub
a lot of players the wrong way, no doubt. I've participated or
sponsored/run several WAB tourneys, and nary a one had a diced-for-
terrain board - it was all preset. The players then diced for
sides.

Additionally, we had different 'scenarios' per round: Round 1 was a
pitched battle(typical tourney fare); Round 2 was a 'Take and Hold'-
a terrain feature was nominated as the 'target'-usually in the
center of the board, and extra points (around 150) were allocated to
the player that 'controlled' the terrain feature at the end of the
game; Round 3 was 'Hidden Deployment',a screen was placed in-between
players, and then deployment took place; Round 4 was a 'Meeting
Engagement' where troops entered the table (their side) much like an
arrival.

Variety is the spice of life-it also tests the abilities of the
player-generals more IMO.

Nice terrain pieces can be made on the cheap, or purchased.
Crimenetly, how much do we spend on the figures in time and money?
Could we not at least spend a few more shekels on nice terrain, or
put in the effort to construct it. Also, another pet peeve, is
markers for fatigue, disorder, shaken, etc. I wrote a post on this
a few months ago, so I won't go there again. But, I have now some
casualty figures that I will use in my games to designate all those
things. Currently working on 'Fire and Fury' type markers for
Testudo, and Fulcum.

As far as playablity goes, hills are the only thing that is somewhat
problematic, if they are irregular-surfaced all over. However,
there are so many options out there now, that you can buy hills
specifically designed to prevent the figure toppling problem
(WarZone).

The big attraction of WAB is the appearance of their games IMO, and
terrain plays a huge part in that. There is no reason that Warrior
cannot break out of the rut of the WRG'esque butt ugly games.

Dave

[Mike Turner]

I agree that the appearance of terrain needs to improve.
I agree that players placing/changing terrain is an important part of
Warrior.

Option/Idea - NASAMW or FHE or someone, in '06, places 8 random
pieces of terrain on each table. The organization has already
reviewed these pieces and found them acceptable. The two/four
players then move/remove these pieces using a modified 14.# (this
would require Jon to develop a chart, etc.)

This removes the need for everyone to transport (but certainly the
organizer might appreciate support), it also allows the orgainzation
to ensure all terrain is to "standard". It also allows the players
to place/manipulate the terrain as most players want.

Odd pieces of terrain, fortification, works, etc, should be worked
out and provided by the individual player.

?
Mike

PS-Scott, if my opponent is playing with miniatures that are "subbing"
for something else (example, LC B on the table is supposed to be LC
JLS, Sh(not a big deal, but could be)) and I make an error based on
the way a figure is armed, is this on me? Can I place a post-it note
on my opponents figures that are incorrectly armed? I'm only talking
extremes, but if this is the "big event(s)" of the year, and we're
worried about terrain, we should also be worried about figures.


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, jmgarlic@a... wrote:
> Personally, I have always been fascinated by the idea of preset
terrain (and
> especially foam core modules). One way to make preset terrain work
would be
> to have it and allow a scaled modification of the terrain based on
scouting
> points. For example, for every multiple of say 15 scouting points
you can shift
> one of terrain pieces by 'x' amount. In addition, if you are the
outscouting
> force, you can swap out one terrain piece in place. You could also
allow the
> played with higher scouting points to choose side of table. If you
were going
> to do this, it would only seem fair that all tables start with a
basically
> identical set of terrain for the round. This would allow
different 'terrain
> themes' for different rounds which could be announced in advance.
>
> My only concern with preset terrain would be the desire to maximize
speed on
> board by minimizing amount of terrain. Frankly, there are some
armies that
> are close terrain armies and I worry that preset terrain would
reinforce
> whatever armies happen to be in vogue at that time. Just my $.02.
>
> BTW, I don't particularly mind the idea of transporting terrain. I
hate
> flying and drive a pickup
>
> John Garlic
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Todd Schneider]

If it weren't for the can of worms this would open
with regards to players being "forced" to play on
tables not suitable to their Armies, I'd say this
makes sense.

But I guarentee it: When a player loses a game
because his Army wasn't suited to the terrain on the
board he had to play on, the horse will be dug up a
minimum of two times.

Todd

--- darnd022263@... wrote:
> 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]
>
>

[joncleaves]

<<Option/Idea - NASAMW or FHE or someone, in '06, places 8 random
pieces of terrain on each table. The organization has already
reviewed these pieces and found them acceptable. The two/four
players then move/remove these pieces using a modified 14.# (this
would require Jon to develop a chart, etc.)>>

Oh that is a good one....very good.

Wouldn't even make a new chart. There's be 8 pieces available to each table and
each player would roll a die to see who went first and then pick one and roll
for its availability/placement - even discarding it if he wants so it can't be
used by the other guy. The die rolls for placement would stay exactly as they
are...

Great discussion.

J





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

[Tim Grimmett]

Player with home climate might be able to designate up to two (or you pick a
number) of the eight.

JonCleaves@... wrote:
<<Option/Idea - NASAMW or FHE or someone, in '06, places 8 random
pieces of terrain on each table. The organization has already
reviewed these pieces and found them acceptable. The two/four
players then move/remove these pieces using a modified 14.# (this
would require Jon to develop a chart, etc.)>>

Oh that is a good one....very good.

Wouldn't even make a new chart. There's be 8 pieces available to each table and
each player would roll a die to see who went first and then pick one and roll
for its availability/placement - even discarding it if he wants so it can't be
used by the other guy. The die rolls for placement would stay exactly as they
are...

Great discussion.

J





[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!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.

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

[Frank Gilson]

You misread my statement. My 'fine as is' has nothing to do with the
quality of our terrain, but rather with the method in which size and
shape is decided upon after having been diced for.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 3/25/2005 01:22:01 Central Standard Time,
> franktrevorgilson@h... 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]