Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

The following are recommendations to the NASAMW umpire for Warrior tourney
formats at HMGS cons. If any readers agree, I would sure appreciate your
telling the umpire so...

1. Shorter game lengths. I know I harp at this, but 4 hour games at 1600
points are unnecessarily long. They encourage slow play and prevent newer
players from enjoying the full range of activities at the con. There is no
'need' to have a four hour game to get a result - you can be decisive in Warrior
in far less time. What we have is players filling the space provided instead of
getting down to it.

2. Prohibited terrain. I would like to see the following prohibited from
Warrior tourneys at HMGS cons: gullies, more than 6 elements of TFs and
'horizontal' minor water features. Holing up in this type of terrain makes one
a 'spoiler'. It takes both the placer and the other player out of contention.
Sure, maybe he'll get frustrated and attack and give you the '5' for trying but
that is nothing more than a cheap trick and is not what I would like to see
encouraged in the hobby. We want and need new blood and the new players'
reaction to this sort of thing (and not a few long-time players..) is quite
negative. The idea that it is the opponent's responsibility to attack in such
conditions is complete rubbish.

Just my $0.02

Jon

[scott holder]

1. Shorter game lengths. I know I harp at this, but 4 hour games at 1600
points are unnecessarily long. They encourage slow play and prevent newer
players from enjoying the full range of activities at the con. There is no
'need' to have a four hour game to get a result - you can be decisive in
Warrior in far less time. What we have is players filling the space
provided instead of getting down to it.

>I hate umping 4 hour games, don't get me wrong but at Hcon, it was more of the
younger crowd (outside the NICT) who looked like they needed 4 hours. I'm not
gonna jump into changing anything here in the near term but we should try to
playtest this at something other than a regional level where playing styles and
pace can be similar enough as to not give us a broadly representative picture of
how this will impact the game, at least in the short term. I can certainly have
whoever runs WARRIOR at Fall In tweak the established format and we can playtest
faster games. More on that as I get Fall In roughed out.

2. Prohibited terrain. I would like to see the following prohibited from
Warrior tourneys at HMGS cons: gullies, more than 6 elements of TFs and
'horizontal' minor water features. Holing up in this type of terrain makes
one a 'spoiler'.

>I would like any specific folks involved in such games as this at Hcon to
contact me off list (except for Tim and Ewan, I saw what went on there:)). I
was there most of the time and didn't see much of the above going on. Now, one
player, Josh Johnson running Japanese (one of our newer and younger players) ran
the horizontal minor water feature complete with marshes in most if not all of
his Mini/Open games. And while it slowed down the first half of the game, Josh
was consistently getting hammered in the later stages so I'm not sure it helped
make him a spoiler. But that's just one data point.

>I'll make it a point of looking very closely at terrain at Cold Wars to see if
we have any major trends developing here or just some cases here and there.

>It's been 12 years now but Ewan can probably remember this but at Derby, were
the army sizes 1500 or 1600 points? And, I can't remember the game length times
per round, I'd swear they were 3.5 hours but there's something nagging me that
they were 4.5 hours which woulda been moronic at either 1500/1600 points.

>Next year, Mini table sizes are gonna go back to their smaller size. Of course
if we cut down on time per round (let's say 3 hours to 2.5 hours) that
definitely makes the the smaller table worthwhile. In fact, depending on how/if
any playtesting at Fall In goes, we might build on that by playtesting shorter
Mini rounds on the smaller table at Cold Wars. Doubles remains the same format.

>Single Lists: Despite some expected negative feedback on this issue, thus far,
most reaction has been positive and I think I can see that in the army spread as
well. Now, I have found a couple of list issues that dictate a 2-list tourney
(yunno, such and such troop type can have such and such weapon only if such and
such army could have such and such troop type) but that's probably something I
can get around in the lists. Fall In will be a one-list set of tournaments.
That reminds me, Fall In will go back to it's "regular" format this year, ie.,
Mini on Friday, Open on Saturday, FW on Sunday. Wish I could make it back to
run things but that's not gonna happen.

Scott

Jon,
Long games: AGREED! In fact I'll ask further....why 1600pt? 1200pt on 4x6 or
8 gives a good game in less than 3 hours for 25mm. So there are fewer El and
less glamor troops, it will still give a reasonable game full of action. Most
of my Norman 1200pt games last about an hour, but then I do love to charge :)

Terrain limitations: Hmmm... Part of my secret Hoplite project was to introduce
gullies and minor water in an effort to channel enemy forces. Hey otherwise
EVERYTHING kills hoplites So I do see your point and could live with it
otherwise.

Wanax

JonCleaves@... wrote:
The following are recommendations to the NASAMW umpire for Warrior tourney
formats at HMGS cons. If any readers agree, I would sure appreciate your
telling the umpire so...

1. Shorter game lengths. I know I harp at this, but 4 hour games at 1600
points are unnecessarily long. They encourage slow play and prevent newer
players from enjoying the full range of activities at the con. There is no
'need' to have a four hour game to get a result - you can be decisive in Warrior
in far less time. What we have is players filling the space provided instead of
getting down to it.

2. Prohibited terrain. I would like to see the following prohibited from
Warrior tourneys at HMGS cons: gullies, more than 6 elements of TFs and
'horizontal' minor water features. Holing up in this type of terrain makes one
a 'spoiler'. It takes both the placer and the other player out of contention.
Sure, maybe he'll get frustrated and attack and give you the '5' for trying but
that is nothing more than a cheap trick and is not what I would like to see
encouraged in the hobby. We want and need new blood and the new players'
reaction to this sort of thing (and not a few long-time players..) is quite
negative. The idea that it is the opponent's responsibility to attack in such
conditions is complete rubbish.

Just my $0.02

Jon

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.


Lord of the Meadehall of men! Aknowledged professional sack lounger. Creator
of semi-lifeforms in their millions. The good looking twin, though sinister in
thought and deed. He who would produce but for 7 years of inactivity punctuated
by frenzied finger touching. Smooth.

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

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Boyd,

Some lists are hamstrung with huge minimums such as the Late Arab Empire
and various Byzantine's for example. I know that as a player who wants to use
the Late Arab Empire, I have less choices even though the list gives more
choices because of my limit on 1600 points. If we were to cut out even more
points, many lists would become even more generic and less workable. YUCK!
Fortunately for myself, I've collected numerous armies and can use lists with
almost no minumum requirements but this forces me to not play my favorite
armies. On the issue of time, I found it interesting that my buddy Mike who I
came with had a 3 hour MW game in which his opponent stalled and they got in 3
whole turns. Mike plays Chris Damour style-- Student Body force march to the
center of the field and CHARGE! Luckily he fared better with Warrior players!

Kelly

spocksleftball@... wrote:
Jon,
Long games: AGREED! In fact I'll ask further....why 1600pt? 1200pt on 4x6 or
8 gives a good game in less than 3 hours for 25mm. So there are fewer El and
less glamor troops, it will still give a reasonable game full of action. Most
of my Norman 1200pt games last about an hour, but then I do love to charge :)

Terrain limitations: Hmmm... Part of my secret Hoplite project was to introduce
gullies and minor water in an effort to channel enemy forces. Hey otherwise
EVERYTHING kills hoplites So I do see your point and could live with it
otherwise.

Wanax

JonCleaves@... wrote:
The following are recommendations to the NASAMW umpire for Warrior tourney
formats at HMGS cons. If any readers agree, I would sure appreciate your
telling the umpire so...

1. Shorter game lengths. I know I harp at this, but 4 hour games at 1600
points are unnecessarily long. They encourage slow play and prevent newer
players from enjoying the full range of activities at the con. There is no
'need' to have a four hour game to get a result - you can be decisive in Warrior
in far less time. What we have is players filling the space provided instead of
getting down to it.

2. Prohibited terrain. I would like to see the following prohibited from
Warrior tourneys at HMGS cons: gullies, more than 6 elements of TFs and
'horizontal' minor water features. Holing up in this type of terrain makes one
a 'spoiler'. It takes both the placer and the other player out of contention.
Sure, maybe he'll get frustrated and attack and give you the '5' for trying but
that is nothing more than a cheap trick and is not what I would like to see
encouraged in the hobby. We want and need new blood and the new players'
reaction to this sort of thing (and not a few long-time players..) is quite
negative. The idea that it is the opponent's responsibility to attack in such
conditions is complete rubbish.

Just my $0.02

Jon

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.


Lord of the Meadehall of men! Aknowledged professional sack lounger. Creator
of semi-lifeforms in their millions. The good looking twin, though sinister in
thought and deed. He who would produce but for 7 years of inactivity punctuated
by frenzied finger touching. Smooth.

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

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


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]

[Bill Chriss]

I must respectfully dissent from the suggestion of shorter games.
The current system already puts a high premium on "fast" cavalry
armies, as close formation infantry basically have to force march to
table center to get into play at all, even in a four hour game. On
the other hand, reducing army size will just make matters worse for
the reasons given by Kelly. Finally, I ADMIT IT. I am one of those
guys who has rolled for minor water features. In doing so, I have
always been under attack or probe orders and never "laid behind the
log" playing for the draw. The reason I do it is because of the
ability to place difficult terrain (marsh) somewhere other than the
flanks (i.e. under the water feature) because otherwise infantry
armies (like hoplites and pikes) have no way to cut down the table
and they will be surrounded and killed in detail by the armies that
are frankly inherently more powerful under the current rules. You
can't extend you're phalanx all the way across the table, and if the
other guy has faster stuff (which is basically always the case)then
you lose, period. While we're at it, we could do away with major
water features, woods, and anything else that hinders the favored
tactics of the majority of players: outflank, surround, shoot, and
cavalry charge the enemy units you select because they are slower
than yours.

I play the game for the historical pageantry and I'm actually
willing to give everyone a free tournament shot at fundamentally non-
competitive armies like hoplite Greeks, so don't start depriving me
of the only equalizers that exist: strategy and terrain. If you're
really frustrated by "rope-a-dopers", a better solution would simply
be to amend the rules to remove "Hold," "delay," and "wait" as
tactical orders. That would more quickly and efficiently accomplish
the desired end without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In
my experience, everyone writes down "attack" anyway, or less
frequently "probe," whether they are diligent in following their
orders or not.

Just a modest suggestion a la Swift. In truth, any of this kind of
tinkering will produce tournaments where everyone runs either: a
bunch of irreg A troops; machine gun camels; machine gun elephants;
EHK and SHK; or almughavars. Come to think of it, with a few notable
exceptions among those of us who do not see this as strictly a
competitive endeavor, isn't that pretty much what we've already got?

I, for one, do not see any need to push matters even further in that
direction. I would like to see strategy and terrain mean more, not
less, than army selection. This hobby will never get anywhere as long
as we keep tinkering and tinkering and tinkering with rules. Where
would golf or tennis or anything else you can think of be under such
conditions. My own view is that it is the army lists that should be
tinkered with only as and when it becomes apparent that they are
either ahistorically uncompetitive or ahistorically invincible.

As to "horizontal" water features, the player has no say in this.
The location of the feature (you're zone, his zone, vertical vs.
horizontal) is not within player control, but based on what you roll.
You could very easily (it's 50/50) end up providing your opponent
with a defensive obstacle that might cause HIM to lay behind the log.
Finally, water didn't stop Alexander at Issus or Granicus, nor did it
stop every player (including me) in my games at Historicon from
having Probe or Attack orders (or "Wait" that rapidly changed to
Attack), so why should it stop anyone else? The water is not
important, the marsh is. Wagons and stone forts are much more
problematic than creeks. So under this rationale, shouldn't we outlaw
Knights of St. John or Hussites? Midiantie Arabs or Almughavars
anyone?


Bill Chriss



-- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> Boyd,
>
> Some lists are hamstrung with huge minimums such as the Late
Arab Empire and various Byzantine's for example. I know that as a
player who wants to use the Late Arab Empire, I have less choices
even though the list gives more choices because of my limit on 1600
points. If we were to cut out even more points, many lists would
become even more generic and less workable. YUCK! Fortunately for
myself, I've collected numerous armies and can use lists with almost
no minumum requirements but this forces me to not play my favorite
armies. On the issue of time, I found it interesting that my buddy
Mike who I came with had a 3 hour MW game in which his opponent
stalled and they got in 3 whole turns. Mike plays Chris Damour style--
Student Body force march to the center of the field and CHARGE!
Luckily he fared better with Warrior players!
>
> Kelly
>
> spocksleftball@y... wrote:
> Jon,
> Long games: AGREED! In fact I'll ask further....why 1600pt?
1200pt on 4x6 or 8 gives a good game in less than 3 hours for 25mm.
So there are fewer El and less glamor troops, it will still give a
reasonable game full of action. Most of my Norman 1200pt games last
about an hour, but then I do love to charge
>
> Terrain limitations: Hmmm... Part of my secret Hoplite project was
to introduce gullies and minor water in an effort to channel enemy
forces. Hey otherwise EVERYTHING kills hoplites So I do see your
point and could live with it otherwise.
>
> Wanax
>
> JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> The following are recommendations to the NASAMW umpire for Warrior
tourney formats at HMGS cons. If any readers agree, I would sure
appreciate your telling the umpire so...
>
> 1. Shorter game lengths. I know I harp at this, but 4 hour games
at 1600 points are unnecessarily long. They encourage slow play and
prevent newer players from enjoying the full range of activities at
the con. There is no 'need' to have a four hour game to get a
result - you can be decisive in Warrior in far less time. What we
have is players filling the space provided instead of getting down to
it.
>
> 2. Prohibited terrain. I would like to see the following
prohibited from Warrior tourneys at HMGS cons: gullies, more than 6
elements of TFs and 'horizontal' minor water features. Holing up in
this type of terrain makes one a 'spoiler'. It takes both the
placer and the other player out of contention. Sure, maybe he'll get
frustrated and attack and give you the '5' for trying but that is
nothing more than a cheap trick and is not what I would like to see
encouraged in the hobby. We want and need new blood and the new
players' reaction to this sort of thing (and not a few long-time
players..) is quite negative. The idea that it is the opponent's
responsibility to attack in such conditions is complete rubbish.
>
> Just my $0.02
>
> Jon
>
> 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.
>
>
> Lord of the Meadehall of men! Aknowledged professional sack
lounger. Creator of semi-lifeforms in their millions. The good
looking twin, though sinister in thought and deed. He who would
produce but for 7 years of inactivity punctuated by frenzied finger
touching. Smooth.
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> 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]

for Kelly, couldn't we say that tournaments at 1200pt require only 3/4 of
manditory troops? I agree that more viable armies are better, yet at higher pts
just as many armies are rendered untenable as those you mentioned are at lower
points. My solution, while not elegant, is workable in that more armies work
well. coupled with resizing the board (see below) I think the games would move
very quick even with hoplites and still provide the widest possible army
variety. :)

for chris, smaller boards and shorter times would both benefit the types of
armies you talked about, as close order foot have less distance to travel and
manuver opponants have less manuver room to dance. Close order foot, once in
HTH don't take long to decide something, but the more room a manuvering opponant
has to dance the more likely he will while wearing down the close order.
Someone a couple of weeks ago suggested a double FW force on double board. This
seems about right to me for tournament play as the depth is the factor that
needs decreasing moreso than the width. For removing features to speed play you
are technically correct. I think that reduced depth of board would solve many
of the issues discussed in this thread. :)

Wanax
hrisikos8 <hrisikos@...> wrote:
I must respectfully dissent from the suggestion of shorter games.
The current system already puts a high premium on "fast" cavalry
armies, as close formation infantry basically have to force march to
table center to get into play at all, even in a four hour game. On
the other hand, reducing army size will just make matters worse for
the reasons given by Kelly. Finally, I ADMIT IT. I am one of those
guys who has rolled for minor water features. In doing so, I have
always been under attack or probe orders and never "laid behind the
log" playing for the draw. The reason I do it is because of the
ability to place difficult terrain (marsh) somewhere other than the
flanks (i.e. under the water feature) because otherwise infantry
armies (like hoplites and pikes) have no way to cut down the table
and they will be surrounded and killed in detail by the armies that
are frankly inherently more powerful under the current rules. You
can't extend you're phalanx all the way across the table, and if the
other guy has faster stuff (which is basically always the case)then
you lose, period. While we're at it, we could do away with major
water features, woods, and anything else that hinders the favored
tactics of the majority of players: outflank, surround, shoot, and
cavalry charge the enemy units you select because they are slower
than yours.

I play the game for the historical pageantry and I'm actually
willing to give everyone a free tournament shot at fundamentally non-
competitive armies like hoplite Greeks, so don't start depriving me
of the only equalizers that exist: strategy and terrain. If you're
really frustrated by "rope-a-dopers", a better solution would simply
be to amend the rules to remove "Hold," "delay," and "wait" as
tactical orders. That would more quickly and efficiently accomplish
the desired end without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In
my experience, everyone writes down "attack" anyway, or less
frequently "probe," whether they are diligent in following their
orders or not.

Just a modest suggestion a la Swift. In truth, any of this kind of
tinkering will produce tournaments where everyone runs either: a
bunch of irreg A troops; machine gun camels; machine gun elephants;
EHK and SHK; or almughavars. Come to think of it, with a few notable
exceptions among those of us who do not see this as strictly a
competitive endeavor, isn't that pretty much what we've already got?

I, for one, do not see any need to push matters even further in that
direction. I would like to see strategy and terrain mean more, not
less, than army selection. This hobby will never get anywhere as long
as we keep tinkering and tinkering and tinkering with rules. Where
would golf or tennis or anything else you can think of be under such
conditions. My own view is that it is the army lists that should be
tinkered with only as and when it becomes apparent that they are
either ahistorically uncompetitive or ahistorically invincible.

As to "horizontal" water features, the player has no say in this.
The location of the feature (you're zone, his zone, vertical vs.
horizontal) is not within player control, but based on what you roll.
You could very easily (it's 50/50) end up providing your opponent
with a defensive obstacle that might cause HIM to lay behind the log.
Finally, water didn't stop Alexander at Issus or Granicus, nor did it
stop every player (including me) in my games at Historicon from
having Probe or Attack orders (or "Wait" that rapidly changed to
Attack), so why should it stop anyone else? The water is not
important, the marsh is. Wagons and stone forts are much more
problematic than creeks. So under this rationale, shouldn't we outlaw
Knights of St. John or Hussites? Midiantie Arabs or Almughavars
anyone?


Bill Chriss



-- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> Boyd,
>
> Some lists are hamstrung with huge minimums such as the Late
Arab Empire and various Byzantine's for example. I know that as a
player who wants to use the Late Arab Empire, I have less choices
even though the list gives more choices because of my limit on 1600
points. If we were to cut out even more points, many lists would
become even more generic and less workable. YUCK! Fortunately for
myself, I've collected numerous armies and can use lists with almost
no minumum requirements but this forces me to not play my favorite
armies. On the issue of time, I found it interesting that my buddy
Mike who I came with had a 3 hour MW game in which his opponent
stalled and they got in 3 whole turns. Mike plays Chris Damour style--
Student Body force march to the center of the field and CHARGE!
Luckily he fared better with Warrior players!
>
> Kelly
>
> spocksleftball@y... wrote:
> Jon,
> Long games: AGREED! In fact I'll ask further....why 1600pt?
1200pt on 4x6 or 8 gives a good game in less than 3 hours for 25mm.
So there are fewer El and less glamor troops, it will still give a
reasonable game full of action. Most of my Norman 1200pt games last
about an hour, but then I do love to charge
>
> Terrain limitations: Hmmm... Part of my secret Hoplite project was
to introduce gullies and minor water in an effort to channel enemy
forces. Hey otherwise EVERYTHING kills hoplites So I do see your
point and could live with it otherwise.
>
> Wanax
>
> JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> The following are recommendations to the NASAMW umpire for Warrior
tourney formats at HMGS cons. If any readers agree, I would sure
appreciate your telling the umpire so...
>
> 1. Shorter game lengths. I know I harp at this, but 4 hour games
at 1600 points are unnecessarily long. They encourage slow play and
prevent newer players from enjoying the full range of activities at
the con. There is no 'need' to have a four hour game to get a
result - you can be decisive in Warrior in far less time. What we
have is players filling the space provided instead of getting down to
it.
>
> 2. Prohibited terrain. I would like to see the following
prohibited from Warrior tourneys at HMGS cons: gullies, more than 6
elements of TFs and 'horizontal' minor water features. Holing up in
this type of terrain makes one a 'spoiler'. It takes both the
placer and the other player out of contention. Sure, maybe he'll get
frustrated and attack and give you the '5' for trying but that is
nothing more than a cheap trick and is not what I would like to see
encouraged in the hobby. We want and need new blood and the new
players' reaction to this sort of thing (and not a few long-time
players..) is quite negative. The idea that it is the opponent's
responsibility to attack in such conditions is complete rubbish.
>
> Just my $0.02
>
> Jon
>
> 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.
>
>
> Lord of the Meadehall of men! Aknowledged professional sack
lounger. Creator of semi-lifeforms in their millions. The good
looking twin, though sinister in thought and deed. He who would
produce but for 7 years of inactivity punctuated by frenzied finger
touching. Smooth.
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> 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]


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.


Lord of the Meadehall of men! Aknowledged professional sack lounger. Creator
of semi-lifeforms in their millions. The good looking twin, though sinister in
thought and deed. He who would produce but for 7 years of inactivity punctuated
by frenzied finger touching. Smooth.

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

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

[joncleaves]

<<In truth, any of this kind of
tinkering will produce tournaments where everyone runs either: a
bunch of irreg A troops; machine gun camels; machine gun elephants;
EHK and SHK; or almughavars. Come to think of it, with a few notable
exceptions among those of us who do not see this as strictly a
competitive endeavor, isn't that pretty much what we've already got?

Um, no. The last few wins certainly weren't any of those armies.
Almughavars didn't do Dave any favors..lol Midianites were played
well by a good player who overcame their extreme weakness vis-avis
missile foot. Khmer and Carthaginian elephants are hardly 'machine
gun'. Close foot won all of the last three NICTs. So again - no we
don't 'already got' that.

<<I, for one, do not see any need to push matters even further in
that
direction. I would like to see strategy and terrain mean more, not
less, than army selection. This hobby will never get anywhere as long
as we keep tinkering and tinkering and tinkering with rules. >>>>

I advocated 'pushing' nothing, certainly not a rules change, which
has not occurred in Warrior and will not.

Using 14.0 for tourneys is strictly an option. The players don't
have a right to it - they get what the tourney organizer chooses.
Asking to take a look at spoiler terrain choices isn't in any way
recommending a rules change.

For the HMGS cons, what matters is what the majority of players who
want to attend them want - in terms of game length, table size,
preset terrain or not, point value, etc. I offered my opinion as a
player in these events, not as a member of FHE. FHE does not and
will not even attempt to mandate this (like we could...lol).

Just want to be clear that what the tourney organizer does is his
option, NOT a mandated rule.

Also want to be clear that many people are apparently not aware of
just how rich and diverse the army choices at these events are and
that assuming what was played is different than being there and
seeing what was played. Which is also much less important than who
was leading those troops.

Jon

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Boyd,
I think that reducing the minumums would go a long way to helping make
things more equitable!
Kelly

spocksleftball@... wrote:
for Kelly, couldn't we say that tournaments at 1200pt require only 3/4 of
manditory troops? I agree that more viable armies are better, yet at higher pts
just as many armies are rendered untenable as those you mentioned are at lower
points. My solution, while not elegant, is workable in that more armies work
well. coupled with resizing the board (see below) I think the games would move
very quick even with hoplites and still provide the widest possible army
variety. :)

for chris, smaller boards and shorter times would both benefit the types of
armies you talked about, as close order foot have less distance to travel and
manuver opponants have less manuver room to dance. Close order foot, once in
HTH don't take long to decide something, but the more room a manuvering opponant
has to dance the more likely he will while wearing down the close order.
Someone a couple of weeks ago suggested a double FW force on double board. This
seems about right to me for tournament play as the depth is the factor that
needs decreasing moreso than the width. For removing features to speed play you
are technically correct. I think that reduced depth of board would solve many
of the issues discussed in this thread. :)

Wanax
hrisikos8 <hrisikos@...> wrote:
I must respectfully dissent from the suggestion of shorter games.
The current system already puts a high premium on "fast" cavalry
armies, as close formation infantry basically have to force march to
table center to get into play at all, even in a four hour game. On
the other hand, reducing army size will just make matters worse for
the reasons given by Kelly. Finally, I ADMIT IT. I am one of those
guys who has rolled for minor water features. In doing so, I have
always been under attack or probe orders and never "laid behind the
log" playing for the draw. The reason I do it is because of the
ability to place difficult terrain (marsh) somewhere other than the
flanks (i.e. under the water feature) because otherwise infantry
armies (like hoplites and pikes) have no way to cut down the table
and they will be surrounded and killed in detail by the armies that
are frankly inherently more powerful under the current rules. You
can't extend you're phalanx all the way across the table, and if the
other guy has faster stuff (which is basically always the case)then
you lose, period. While we're at it, we could do away with major
water features, woods, and anything else that hinders the favored
tactics of the majority of players: outflank, surround, shoot, and
cavalry charge the enemy units you select because they are slower
than yours.

I play the game for the historical pageantry and I'm actually
willing to give everyone a free tournament shot at fundamentally non-
competitive armies like hoplite Greeks, so don't start depriving me
of the only equalizers that exist: strategy and terrain. If you're
really frustrated by "rope-a-dopers", a better solution would simply
be to amend the rules to remove "Hold," "delay," and "wait" as
tactical orders. That would more quickly and efficiently accomplish
the desired end without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In
my experience, everyone writes down "attack" anyway, or less
frequently "probe," whether they are diligent in following their
orders or not.

Just a modest suggestion a la Swift. In truth, any of this kind of
tinkering will produce tournaments where everyone runs either: a
bunch of irreg A troops; machine gun camels; machine gun elephants;
EHK and SHK; or almughavars. Come to think of it, with a few notable
exceptions among those of us who do not see this as strictly a
competitive endeavor, isn't that pretty much what we've already got?

I, for one, do not see any need to push matters even further in that
direction. I would like to see strategy and terrain mean more, not
less, than army selection. This hobby will never get anywhere as long
as we keep tinkering and tinkering and tinkering with rules. Where
would golf or tennis or anything else you can think of be under such
conditions. My own view is that it is the army lists that should be
tinkered with only as and when it becomes apparent that they are
either ahistorically uncompetitive or ahistorically invincible.

As to "horizontal" water features, the player has no say in this.
The location of the feature (you're zone, his zone, vertical vs.
horizontal) is not within player control, but based on what you roll.
You could very easily (it's 50/50) end up providing your opponent
with a defensive obstacle that might cause HIM to lay behind the log.
Finally, water didn't stop Alexander at Issus or Granicus, nor did it
stop every player (including me) in my games at Historicon from
having Probe or Attack orders (or "Wait" that rapidly changed to
Attack), so why should it stop anyone else? The water is not
important, the marsh is. Wagons and stone forts are much more
problematic than creeks. So under this rationale, shouldn't we outlaw
Knights of St. John or Hussites? Midiantie Arabs or Almughavars
anyone?


Bill Chriss



-- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> Boyd,
>
> Some lists are hamstrung with huge minimums such as the Late
Arab Empire and various Byzantine's for example. I know that as a
player who wants to use the Late Arab Empire, I have less choices
even though the list gives more choices because of my limit on 1600
points. If we were to cut out even more points, many lists would
become even more generic and less workable. YUCK! Fortunately for
myself, I've collected numerous armies and can use lists with almost
no minumum requirements but this forces me to not play my favorite
armies. On the issue of time, I found it interesting that my buddy
Mike who I came with had a 3 hour MW game in which his opponent
stalled and they got in 3 whole turns. Mike plays Chris Damour style--
Student Body force march to the center of the field and CHARGE!
Luckily he fared better with Warrior players!
>
> Kelly
>
> spocksleftball@y... wrote:
> Jon,
> Long games: AGREED! In fact I'll ask further....why 1600pt?
1200pt on 4x6 or 8 gives a good game in less than 3 hours for 25mm.
So there are fewer El and less glamor troops, it will still give a
reasonable game full of action. Most of my Norman 1200pt games last
about an hour, but then I do love to charge
>
> Terrain limitations: Hmmm... Part of my secret Hoplite project was
to introduce gullies and minor water in an effort to channel enemy
forces. Hey otherwise EVERYTHING kills hoplites So I do see your
point and could live with it otherwise.
>
> Wanax
>
> JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> The following are recommendations to the NASAMW umpire for Warrior
tourney formats at HMGS cons. If any readers agree, I would sure
appreciate your telling the umpire so...
>
> 1. Shorter game lengths. I know I harp at this, but 4 hour games
at 1600 points are unnecessarily long. They encourage slow play and
prevent newer players from enjoying the full range of activities at
the con. There is no 'need' to have a four hour game to get a
result - you can be decisive in Warrior in far less time. What we
have is players filling the space provided instead of getting down to
it.
>
> 2. Prohibited terrain. I would like to see the following
prohibited from Warrior tourneys at HMGS cons: gullies, more than 6
elements of TFs and 'horizontal' minor water features. Holing up in
this type of terrain makes one a 'spoiler'. It takes both the
placer and the other player out of contention. Sure, maybe he'll get
frustrated and attack and give you the '5' for trying but that is
nothing more than a cheap trick and is not what I would like to see
encouraged in the hobby. We want and need new blood and the new
players' reaction to this sort of thing (and not a few long-time
players..) is quite negative. The idea that it is the opponent's
responsibility to attack in such conditions is complete rubbish.
>
> Just my $0.02
>
> Jon
>
> 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.
>
>
> Lord of the Meadehall of men! Aknowledged professional sack
lounger. Creator of semi-lifeforms in their millions. The good
looking twin, though sinister in thought and deed. He who would
produce but for 7 years of inactivity punctuated by frenzied finger
touching. Smooth.
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> 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]


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.


Lord of the Meadehall of men! Aknowledged professional sack lounger. Creator
of semi-lifeforms in their millions. The good looking twin, though sinister in
thought and deed. He who would produce but for 7 years of inactivity punctuated
by frenzied finger touching. Smooth.

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

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


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]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Jon Cleaves wrote:
"For the HMGS cons, what matters is what the majority of players who
want to attend them want - in terms of game length, table size,
preset terrain or not, point value, etc. I offered my opinion as a
player in these events, not as a member of FHE. FHE does not and
will not even attempt to mandate this (like we could...lol)."



Just out of curiosity, I was wondering. . . Why were we allowed only one list
this year? I don't remember ever being polled as to my preference and I attend
Historicon every year. The fact is that since I've been friends with Jake Kovel,
I primarily build 1 army list to take on all comers, but I thought that it was
still the popular choice of most of our Historicon Attendees to have two lists
available.

Kelly (6th Horseman Ho)




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

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

[Phil Gardocki]

My $0.02
Table Sizes. Our group has experimented with 3 foot deep tables for 15 mm,
by the expedient of expanding the rear zone to 4 feet. Our opinion is that
this allowed foot armies to engage sooner, without paying a 2 fatigue point
penalty.

The "good old days" Back in rev 6 tournaments were either 1000 or 1250
points, 3 hour rounds. When 7 came out this was expanded to 1500 points, I am
uncertain of the time frame. After much consideration and debate, this was
upped
to the current 1600 points. I believe that the main argument for the
expansion, was to support the armies with high minimums. My observance,
however, is
that those armies were still almost never deployed.

"Killer Armies" Yes there are armies who work better. But there is also an
evolution of tactics to deal with those armies. In Rev 6 tournaments, 3 of
the top four armies in any tournament were always Selecuid, Japanese, and German
Imperial. Up until Rev 7.6, when all lances became 1.5 ranks, wedging knight
armies ruled the roost.

With Warrior, the 50% breakpoint is causing more evolution. We are no
longer seeing large numbers of LI, and as a consequence not as much back and
forth
dealing with them. This is the first tournament where all four of my games
did not go 4 hours, while 3 of them did not go 3 hours.

1 verses 2 lists. My first Rev 7 tournament allowed 5 lists. I carefully
sculpted all five with conditions for each one. And then used the same list the
whole tournament. I have no problems with a 2 list rule, but I have long
since decided to play one list well.
Phil





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

Flame retarded suit in place....

I did some quick math based upon 1" = 40paces, so convert to mm in your spare
time.

If 1"=40 paces, then 6" = 240 or one march segment

If a table were 8x3', then there would be flank enough but the depth of the
table would allow HI to march to within one march segments of each other.
Admittedly LC would only get in 3 segments, but that's usual now as well. LI,
LMI and all 3 marchers would make the center quick. Because there would not be
as much depth, players would have to begin the game anticipating a reserve to
counter situational necessity; also there would be less ability to skirmish away
the center since the entire army would be at tactical move distance in a single
bound.

This would certianly speed play without a reduction in points or army size.
Also consider reducing the number of terrain choices by 1 and reduce the depth
of the central sectors accordingly.

Standing by for flames
Wanax


Lord of the Meadehall of men! Aknowledged professional sack lounger. Creator
of semi-lifeforms in their millions. The good looking twin, though sinister in
thought and deed. He who would produce but for 7 years of inactivity punctuated
by frenzied finger touching. Smooth.

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

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

[Todd Kaeser]

Here's my opinion if you want it.

The NICT in WARRIOR is fine the way it is:

1 - 4 hours is needed in some battle. Against slow
players (only a few in NICT) I need to push all battle
for a decisive victory, but I have needed the full
time a few times and was thankful for it. Most cases
I'm done early and can actually enjoy a meal. If you
play w/ only 1 hour in between people forget that most
of that time is cleaning up to get ready for your next
battle + post battle chatting. Nevermind some call
home to family etc... If I finish early than I have
some time in between - maybe even for the dealer area.

2 - 1 list was a nice change. I agree w/ Ewan that
some armies can be exposed w/ 1 list where with 2 they
have options galore.

3 - I don't see a need for more than 3 rounds + a
final. The Swiss pairings allow for the top 2 to play
each other in the finals. Robert Turnbull would agree
w/ me that with the top 2 playing each other if he or
Ted Furey win decisively then they win the NICT. They
played (despite their best efforts) to a 3-3 tie and
allowed Derek to squeeze past them for the
championship. This method was to prevent either of
the top two to "piddle around" for 1 unit to shake and
achieve victory. Having 6-8 players in the final was
nice.

4 - most people in the NICT know that playing
defensively rarely gets you the 3-5 points needed to
challenge for the title. Those who played to a 1-1 or
2-1 took themselves and their opponents out of the
title race. I'd much rather play a Chris Damour
knowing win or lose I'm getting at least a 3 and can
stay in the hunt. Other matchups vs. defensive
players can kill you and I often choose an army that
can go and get those players.

5 - keep the NICT in 25mm. Our championships needs
the visual created by 25mm. If you don't have an army
the players in WARRIOR are usually most gracious to
loan an army to you.

Todd Kaeser

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

I'm starting to think the chess clock is a good idea regardless of the time
decided upon. If each player has half the time, then that would certainly speed
delayers. Hmm...

Wanax


Lord of the Meadehall of men! Aknowledged professional sack lounger. Creator
of semi-lifeforms in their millions. The good looking twin, though sinister in
thought and deed. He who would produce but for 7 years of inactivity punctuated
by frenzied finger touching. Smooth.

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

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