Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Todd Schneider]

--- John <jjmurphy@...> wrote:
>
> > From: JonCleaves@a... <JonCleaves@a...>
> > 1. Terrain features cannot be made from felt or
> cloth. Flocked
> and/or
> > painted card/gatorboard/roofing paper is the
> standard.
>
> Are you totally insane? Cardboard looks better than
> cloth or felt?
> (to say nothing of stays in it's spot on the table
> better) Geesh,
> Jon, what did you drink for breakfast?

***I don't see Cardbaord in the list there. But Heavy
Card stock thats been textured and flocked looks quite
good IMO, ecspecially for Brush

The "standard" piece of material I would use is
Gatorboard. Lightweight, solid, doesn't warp, easy to
work with, comes in various thicknesses as well (from
1/8th to an inch). To bad it generally runs about 80
bucks a 4x8 sheet.


>
> > 2. Hills must be three dimensional and must be
> made in line with
> 12.0.
> > Flocked.
>
> See my other comments. Change the movement distances
> to about double
> or triple then so you are not measuring two-inch
> moves with troops
> who are falling over! There is a reason this kind of
> thing works for
> Warhammer - because there you have units that move a
> foot at a time,
> and I aint talking about march moves!

***OK. Lets be a little realistic here. I don't
think anyones suggestting the hills have to be
accurate in terms of topography. And in every game
I've played in, where a stand won't stay in place
because of a slope, you tell your opponent where the
forward edge is, and you go from there. If a stand is
a bit tilted or leaning over, and this is somehow
throwing you off your game, well then...


Todd

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 24/03/2005 17:22:53 GMT Standard Time,
grimmetttim@... writes:

Jon --

I hear you and admit to being a guilty bastard in bringing minimalist
kindergarden-quality terrain to conventions.

But if I have stands of trees or lichen stuff sitting on top of
non-square-ish felt how am I not meeting your intent?

Tim



We have always done this, the store bought stuff sits too high on the table
giving false raised areas.

mark mallard


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

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 24/03/2005 19:28:26 GMT Standard Time,
mark@... writes:

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.


See my other post - this causes a false raised area. Felt/fabric is best,
its what you put on it that matters.

mark mallard


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

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 24/03/2005 19:32:50 GMT Standard Time,
Turnerm@... writes:

If it had been a
piece of felt, I might have been able to fold a corner up and still
fit my terrain in.


Folding it should be a no no but you could trim it.

mark mallard


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

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 26/03/2005 15:08:30 GMT Standard Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

> In a message dated 24/03/2005 17:22:53 GMT Standard Time,
> grimmetttim@y... writes:
> But if I have stands of trees or lichen stuff sitting on top of
> non-square-ish felt how am I not meeting your intent?

Furthermore...

A lot of terrain, well okay some terrain, _is_ representing
something man-made or man-trimmed and "square-ish" might be more
appropriate.

For instance, woods.

Assuming you are not fighting in an area generally overgrown with
centuries of unabated forest - in which case your one or two or even
three woods pieces are hardly going to be representative - then you
are probably fighting in an area like many where cultivation of some
sort (wether plowed fileds or cleared pasture) meets the wilderness.
The impact of man on these areas tends toward straight-line
segments, if not segments following a grade (which are all too
rarely put on table probably).

You could say the same for brush and perhaps some others (i.e.
farmers picking rocks out of their fileds except for that
rectangular piece over there they have not gotten to yet).






** was thinking the same, very true.

mark mallard


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

[John Murphy]

> In a message dated 24/03/2005 17:22:53 GMT Standard Time,
> grimmetttim@y... writes:
> But if I have stands of trees or lichen stuff sitting on top of
> non-square-ish felt how am I not meeting your intent?

Furthermore...

A lot of terrain, well okay some terrain, _is_ representing
something man-made or man-trimmed and "square-ish" might be more
appropriate.

For instance, woods.

Assuming you are not fighting in an area generally overgrown with
centuries of unabated forest - in which case your one or two or even
three woods pieces are hardly going to be representative - then you
are probably fighting in an area like many where cultivation of some
sort (wether plowed fileds or cleared pasture) meets the wilderness.
The impact of man on these areas tends toward straight-line
segments, if not segments following a grade (which are all too
rarely put on table probably).

You could say the same for brush and perhaps some others (i.e.
farmers picking rocks out of their fileds except for that
rectangular piece over there they have not gotten to yet).

[John Murphy]

And felt/fabric stays where you put it, that is what it is designed
for, board slips every time someone brushes it.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, markmallard7@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 24/03/2005 19:28:26 GMT Standard Time,
> mark@d... writes:
>
> 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.
>
>
> See my other post - this causes a false raised area. Felt/fabric
is best,
> its what you put on it that matters.
>
> mark mallard
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Todd Schneider]

Well, truth be told, I haven't seen a woods thats
perfectly rectangular/square shaped in all my travels,
but I would agree straight lines do make for easier
gameplay.

The question is are we concerned about aesthetics, or
gameplay, or are they bot equally important?

Todd

--- markmallard7@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 26/03/2005 15:08:30 GMT Standard
> Time,
> jjmurphy@... writes:
>
> > In a message dated 24/03/2005 17:22:53 GMT
> Standard Time,
> > grimmetttim@y... writes:
> > But if I have stands of trees or lichen stuff
> sitting on top of
> > non-square-ish felt how am I not meeting your
> intent?
>
> Furthermore...
>
> A lot of terrain, well okay some terrain, _is_
> representing
> something man-made or man-trimmed and "square-ish"
> might be more
> appropriate.
>
> For instance, woods.
>
> Assuming you are not fighting in an area generally
> overgrown with
> centuries of unabated forest - in which case your
> one or two or even
> three woods pieces are hardly going to be
> representative - then you
> are probably fighting in an area like many where
> cultivation of some
> sort (wether plowed fileds or cleared pasture) meets
> the wilderness.
> The impact of man on these areas tends toward
> straight-line
> segments, if not segments following a grade (which
> are all too
> rarely put on table probably).
>
> You could say the same for brush and perhaps some
> others (i.e.
> farmers picking rocks out of their fileds except for
> that
> rectangular piece over there they have not gotten to
> yet).
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ** was thinking the same, very true.
>
> mark mallard
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>

[Mike Bard]

> A lot of terrain, well okay some terrain, _is_ representing
> something man-made or man-trimmed and "square-ish" might be more
> appropriate.
>
> For instance, woods.
>
> Assuming you are not fighting in an area generally overgrown with
> centuries of unabated forest - in which case your one or two or even
> three woods pieces are hardly going to be representative - then you
> are probably fighting in an area like many where cultivation of some
> sort (wether plowed fileds or cleared pasture) meets the wilderness.
> The impact of man on these areas tends toward straight-line
> segments, if not segments following a grade (which are all too
> rarely put on table probably).

All true.

However, the primary purpose of this is to make the terrain look pretty.
There is a human preconception that "wilderness" should look irregular.
I.e. not square. Yes, it is perfectly logical to make man-made items (BUA,
Orchard, Vineyard, Field) square, and that helps the aesthetic nature of it.
However, "wilderness" terrain needs, I believe, to look irregular to
emphasize the non-manmade nature, and to be more pleasing to the eye.

Which is what this is all about.

Michael Bard
That Greek Hoplite Guy

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/24/2005 11:22:28 Central Standard Time,
grimmetttim@... writes:

I hear you and admit to being a guilty bastard in bringing minimalist
kindergarden-quality terrain to conventions.

But if I have stands of trees or lichen stuff sitting on top of
non-square-ish felt how am I not meeting your intent?

Tim>>


Tim, just to close the loop on this - it isn't my *intent*. Green felt with
trees on it has a lot of good characteristics. Bright yellow felt with
nothing on it serving as a 'brush' looks awful.
I was also just throwing out ideas.
We are a long way from doing anything on this, specifically. But I wanted a
long lead time to get as many good ideas - as well as a feel from the
players - as possible.

J









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

[Greg Preston]

Dear All,

Down here in Oz, it is a very rare tourney indeed if it allows terrain
placement.

The standard down here for comps is pre-set terrain. While this hasn't
always produced excellent terrain- at least we know who to blame :)

A modification which we have used down here is that we make up sets of
tables and designate them Open- Medium- Closed.
Open might have 1-3 terrain features
Medium might have 4-7 terrain features
Closed might have 8-10 terrain features (for example)

At the beginning of the tourney each player writes down their choice of
terrain, and submits this along with their army list etc to the Umpire.

The Umpire then uses this info to assign tables once the draw is done.

Eg if both players want the same type of terrain eg "Closed" then they
play on a closed table
If One wants open and the other wants Closed they play on a Medium table
If one wants closed and the other wants medium then they might play on
a table with either a high feature count from the Medium range or a low
feature count from the Closed range.
You get the picture

It is a fairly simple job for the Umpire to add or subtract the odd
feature here or there to ensure a match between the tables required and
those set up.

Personally, I am ALL for fixed terrain- but the system above gives a
balance between terrain resources, and a quick start- and getting
terrain which each player has some input towards.


Greg Preston

Greetings,

I once ran a tourney and did the terrain setup very similar to what
Gregg described. I did get a few complaints but overall I thought it
played out rather well.

What I like about this idea is that it takes away the aspect of
terrain being part of the army and makes the General have to best use
whats at his disposal.

KT

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Greg Preston <edgdp@a...> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Down here in Oz, it is a very rare tourney indeed if it allows
terrain
> placement.
>
> The standard down here for comps is pre-set terrain. While this
hasn't
> always produced excellent terrain- at least we know who to blame
>
> A modification which we have used down here is that we make up sets
of
> tables and designate them Open- Medium- Closed.
> Open might have 1-3 terrain features
> Medium might have 4-7 terrain features
> Closed might have 8-10 terrain features (for example)
>
> At the beginning of the tourney each player writes down their
choice of
> terrain, and submits this along with their army list etc to the
Umpire.
>
> The Umpire then uses this info to assign tables once the draw is
done.
>
> Eg if both players want the same type of terrain eg "Closed" then
they
> play on a closed table
> If One wants open and the other wants Closed they play on a Medium
table
> If one wants closed and the other wants medium then they might play
on
> a table with either a high feature count from the Medium range or a
low
> feature count from the Closed range.
> You get the picture
>
> It is a fairly simple job for the Umpire to add or subtract the odd
> feature here or there to ensure a match between the tables required
and
> those set up.
>
> Personally, I am ALL for fixed terrain- but the system above gives
a
> balance between terrain resources, and a quick start- and getting
> terrain which each player has some input towards.
>
>
> Greg Preston

The warrior system uses the luck of the dice to determine what terrain a
player gets and where he gets to put it. How does this simulate a general that
knows what the terrain is that exits between him and the enemy and then
maneuvers so as to end fighting on a field of his choice? I also take issue
with
the statement that Jon made many months ago that it is impossible to have a
closed in table unless both players roll for a lot of terrain. For years I
have played cavalry armies. I either go for four opens or a road and three
opens. Once in awhile my fourth piece is a hill. I can't tell you how many
times I have ended up on a table with four woods. By the same token I have
seen
many players with loose order armies roll for four brush or woods and end up
with one or even none. This is not a rare happenstance.
The list rules for the Mongols are the first thing I have seen that
reflects the ability of mobile armies to chose where they want to fight. In
many
games I have played if it was a real battle I would have simply rode off and
looted the general's home town while he hid it the woods. Instead, my
cavalry army with three times the scouting points is forced to fight in the
Black
Forest.
The terrain rules in Warrior can be fun and interesting and certainly
add a set of factors to consider when planning and playing a game. They do not
represent a general's ability to out scout and out think his foe. Having
good or bad luck rolling dice is not a capability of real generals.
As far as having fancy terrain, I understand Jon's desire to put on a
good show so he can recruit more players to buy his products. As a player of
Warrior and TOG for about 30 years I applaud the improvements of the Four
Horsemen and would like the game to grow. The more players the better because
then it pays for the company to support the game and put out more products, and
I certainly would like to see them make a profit. However, I must admit I
prefer terrain that is easy to haul around and won't be damaged. I carried
trees for several years, they take up an entire extra box, tend to get damaged,
and mostly get in the way. I would be happy with pre-set terrain if that
meant I did not have to bring my own. I don't like any idea that gives someone
an advantage because he has prettier terrain. Someone could have quite
acceptable terrain, but someone else, who is artistic, has great terrain so he
gets an advantage, that does not seem reasonable to me at all. There are many
armies that are painted extremely well, others that are painted very well,
but are not collector quality. Are you going to penalize the players whose
armies aren't as pretty as others?
I don't write very often on this forum, but sometimes I just can't
believe what I am reading. If people want pretty terrain they can bring it. I
will be happy to use it. If someone wants to impress the tourists, okay, but
don't say that I have to shell out my money or work nights making terrain to
pass your inspection. As someone noted, it does not and, as far as I am
concerned, should not say in the rules that terrain has to be attractive, as if
you could really define that.

Mike Kelly


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/27/2005 20:04:49 Central Standard Time,
mike400802@... writes:

The warrior system uses the luck of the dice to determine what terrain a
player gets and where he gets to put it. How does this simulate a general
that
knows what the terrain is that exits between him and the enemy and then
maneuvers so as to end fighting on a field of his choice?>>

Both generals would be vying for a field of their own choosing. By letting
the players choose the terrain features that they attempt to place we
simulate that contest.

<< I also take issue with
the statement that Jon made many months ago that it is impossible to have a
closed in table unless both players roll for a lot of terrain. For years I

have played cavalry armies. I either go for four opens or a road and three
opens. Once in awhile my fourth piece is a hill. I can't tell you how
many
times I have ended up on a table with four woods. By the same token I have
seen
many players with loose order armies roll for four brush or woods and end
up
with one or even none. This is not a rare happenstance.>>


It is true that if the other player goes first, has the +1 due to climate
and rolls well he will often get 1-2 woods where he wants them or even on both
flanks before the opponent can open one up. All cavalry armies suffer in
such open settings, as would an all-infantry army. In open events it is clear
that typically a combined arms force provides an advantage. I do stick by my
statement that it is very rare that a player can close both flanks if the
other guy is trying to open them - but I would suggest a deterministic terrain
table to combat the possibility of some bad luck - that is part of the game.

Based on player suggestions I will be opening up a couple of polls to get a
feel from the folks on this list about some of these issues. I will also
include a couple of terrain options in 14.0 that will save folks having to come
up with them on their own even though they want to try something new.

<< The list rules for the Mongols are the first thing I have seen that
reflects the ability of mobile armies to chose where they want to fight.
In many
games I have played if it was a real battle I would have simply rode off
and
looted the general's home town while he hid it the woods. Instead, my
cavalry army with three times the scouting points is forced to fight in the
Black
Forest.>>

Again, this is because you are limiting yourself to a single event
structure. Try as we might, people keep using 14.0 like it is written in
stone. Make
a cav-friendly terrain table. Offer an alternative up here. Pre-set your
event's terrain. Do your own thing.

I will say this again and highlight it for everyone to read:

NO ONE IS MAKING ANYONE PLAY THEIR GAMES EXACTLY LIKE THE NICT.

THE NICT FORMAT IS PRIMARILY CHOSEN BY THOSE WHO QUALIFY FOR IT.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT FORMAT, USE ANOTHER.

IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THAT FORMAT, OFFER ALTERNATIVES.

You can play your games on any size table, at any point value with any
terrain selection method. We are not telling anyone how they have to do this.

But no matter how many times we say this, the majority of folks want to play
the same way it is done in Lancaster. So, we have no choice but to make a
standardized solution that pleases the most people possible and is clearly
going to be nothing more than a major compromise solution. Three years of
trying to get folks free of the way it is done in July in PA has been like
bashing
my head against the wall. So, we're going to give them what they asked
for....

I am writing a new 14.0. The base version will be what folks want the
national events to be, so the tourney judge can just say use 14.0 as written.
This also allows for some standardization between different clubs (or
countries)
as a start point. I am seeking ideas from every source I can before we go
final.

Complaints that tables are too closed means you are choosing to use 14.3 as
written with an all cav army. I don't think that is a good idea.

If you want to take an all-cav army to HCon and 14.3 isn't helping you -
make your suggestions here. In the end, we will have to go with the majority
for the baseline, but every good idea we get will be in the book as an option.

<< However, I must admit I
prefer terrain that is easy to haul around and won't be damaged. I carried
trees for several years, they take up an entire extra box, tend to get
damaged,
and mostly get in the way. I would be happy with pre-set terrain if that
meant I did not have to bring my own. I don't like any idea that gives
someone
an advantage because he has prettier terrain. Someone could have quite
acceptable terrain, but someone else, who is artistic, has great terrain so
he
gets an advantage, that does not seem reasonable to me at all. There are
many
armies that are painted extremely well, others that are painted very well,
but are not collector quality. Are you going to penalize the players whose
armies aren't as pretty as others?>>

Mike, we are only collecting ideas at this point. Nothing will be done for
this year and nothing will be done without a lot more discussion. I am
saving all the terrain ideas in a big file and we will go through them in about
a
month and repost the ones we will consider to see what players think.
Nothing we do will impact 2005. No decision has been made on anything. But I
have
to let folks brainstorm.

J




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

[Doug]

Hmmm, missed seeing a few msgs from some days ago:

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

No you just pick up the pieces and put them on your lap, if you need
to hide them from your opponent. I don't think you should have any
"reactive ability" at all.

>
>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?