Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Frank Gilson]

First off, I'll flash a credential . I work in game production and
game design and have done so for years. I play games for a living,
more or less.

Some of those games have been real time strategy games for the PC,
basically miniatures games.

They have maps and terrain. These are pre-created before you play
your games and thus somewhat correspond to the pre-placed terrain
idea.

If you examine the category of RTS game maps, you find a curious
thing. This is especially true of the tournament level maps. They
are symmetrical.

If there's a woods on one side, then the mirrored point on the other
side also has a woods, etc. Basically do your map design and terrain
placement on half the map, and then stick down a mirror and
identically fill out the other side.

Why? Well, because of fairness. If I have the advantage or
disadvantage of a particular terrain feature, then so should you, my
opponent.

If, in Warrior games, we had some form of pre-set terrain that
players couldn't 'touch', then the table side I end up starting from
had better not matter to the battle! Thus symmetrical terrain, which
is unnatural and not particularly appealing visually.

[joncleaves]

Frank, I, like you, pretty much live games. Unlike you my experience is mainly
with nearly every type of miniatures game there is, as opposed to computer/RTS
games.

Warrior and DBM are the only such systems where the tourney terrain is not
typically pre-set. The vast majority of such competitions use pre-set and
asymmetrical terrain.

As long as the amount of terrain is even, this is not an issue. I would not
personally make a decision on a solution for the terrain issue based on worries
that someone would complain they lost because the terrain did them in.

I will say, that for myself only and only at this VERY early date, that I like
the idea of having features set by the table and the players use 14.3 to choose
from those features. No player has to transport the terrain, the terrain can be
assured of being high-quality and 14.3 is in full use.

In any case, still way too early to stop or promote any particular solution and
there has been some great discussion in just the first 24 hours. keep it
coming!

J

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Gilson <franktrevorgilson@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 17:07:02 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Terrain, choosing, placement, size/shape, etc.




First off, I'll flash a credential . I work in game production and
game design and have done so for years. I play games for a living,
more or less.

Some of those games have been real time strategy games for the PC,
basically miniatures games.

They have maps and terrain. These are pre-created before you play
your games and thus somewhat correspond to the pre-placed terrain
idea.

If you examine the category of RTS game maps, you find a curious
thing. This is especially true of the tournament level maps. They
are symmetrical.

If there's a woods on one side, then the mirrored point on the other
side also has a woods, etc. Basically do your map design and terrain
placement on half the map, and then stick down a mirror and
identically fill out the other side.

Why? Well, because of fairness. If I have the advantage or
disadvantage of a particular terrain feature, then so should you, my
opponent.

If, in Warrior games, we had some form of pre-set terrain that
players couldn't 'touch', then the table side I end up starting from
had better not matter to the battle! Thus symmetrical terrain, which
is unnatural and not particularly appealing visually.






Yahoo! Groups Links






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