Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 2/11/04 6:53:22 PM GMT Standard Time,
mark@... writes:

I am a uk player i also play chess tourneys with 4 hours per game, i would be
concerned about the guy who is losing or about to but just stops moving his
troops. in chess we have clocks of course and he would lose on time. i like
your ideas though with the reservations mentioned. with chess clocks it could be
done. say an hour each for the parts of the game where only one party is
active.

On the other hand i enjoy a long game, most of mine go over 4 hours, we are
learning. i did win two in less than 8 hours tho one day so am improving.

I played i think 13 moves at derby in TOG one year my head was frazzled. too
quick no time for thought. a real battle may take only a few hours but a
general doesnt have to check up on the rules and look up combat tables.

If we are going to go truly international please do not shorten the game
time. Start earlier end later. look at how chess tourneys are organised.


> With Cold Wars -- and hence another 12 hours of gaming in one day --
> looming,
> I've been thinking about tournament formats. Obviously we are all free to
> run
> whatever format we want at local/regional events, but I'm thinking about
> what
> should be the format for national events like Cold Wars and Historicon.
>
> Let me say first off that I doubt that there is an ideal solution, and that
> what
> makes or breaks the enjoyment of a tournament is ultimately the
> sportsmanship of
> the players involved. In that regard, Warrior is far more successful than
> TOG.
> That's a testament to the example set by FHE, and by the rank and file of
> those
> of you who have been so dedicated to this game for so long. So if no changes
> are
> made, it's hardly a disaster. We have a good system, a great group of guys,
> and
> I always have a lot of fun at tournaments.
>
> Still there is room for improvement, and I'd like to start a discussion
> about
> what some alternatives might be. The powers that be can then decide whether
> any
> of these ideas warrant more serious consideration.
>
> I'm concerned about two problems.
>
> On the one hand, 3 games of 4 hours each is a lot to cram into one day. I
> know
> that by the end of the third game my brain is pretty much mush. This is
> somewhat
> mitigated by the team format at Cold Wars, where the "mental load" gets
> distributed between two players, but still 3 games in one day with little
> break
> between is a grind. For those of us who get in late Friday, it also makes it
> very difficult to find time to get to the dealer's room.
>
> On the other hand, I'm concerned about whether 4 hours is the right amount
> of
> time for a game. Experienced players willing to accept either a win or a
> loss so
> long as they feel they've had a good fight can certainly finish in less than
> 4
> hours. Chris D'Amour comes to mind as a perfect example of both good player
> and
> good sport with this mentality. But inexperienced players clearly struggle
> with
> 4 hours, and there is a tendency, conscious or otherwise, for players who
> perceive themselves to be facing a disadvantageous matchup to drag things
> out.
> Our scoring system does a lot to mitigate this behavior, but there are still
> many players out there who have yet to think through that they'll fare
> better in
> tournaments taking a 4-2 loss than a 1-1 draw.
>
> These are tough problems to resolve. You can't expect everyone to arrive in
> time
> on Friday for a round Friday night. Those -- like me -- who travel 3000
> miles
> to get to Cold Wars or Historicon, with the change in time zones working
> against
> us, would be hard put to make a Friday night round. Nor can you expect to
> fit in
> two rounds on Sunday. Too many people need to be able to make an early start
> home.
>
> Yet everyone would like to have time to get to the dealer's room on
> Saturday,
> and everyone would benefit from a more relaxed, less stressful pace on
> Saturday.
> It would also be nice to de-couple game completion from playing time. Here's
> what I mean:
>
> 4 hours, or indeed any other time limit, is an artificial game limit. It
> doesn't
> relate to what is happening on the table, and is also subject to what should
> be
> irrelevant variables, such as how long a particular player takes to complete
> a
> bound. So what if we threw that out? What if we said that a game is a set
> number
> of bounds, regardless of how long it takes to complete?
>
> My guess is that such a change would significantly speed up games. There's
> no
> point in dragging your feet on moves if it isn't going to change the
> outcome. If
> players know they have a set number of bounds they are going to play, then
> they
> will stop thinking about the clock, and focus on playing the game. This will
> surely speed up the process. It's also more realistic. If a battle is going
> to
> have a decisive outcome, that should happen within some number of bounds.
>
> Let me make an analogy here: imagine how horrible baseball would become if,
> instead of playing 9 innings, teams played however many innings they could
> complete in 3 hours. We're the other side of that coin: we have a game that
> has
> a natural tempo, determined by a number of bounds, being fit into an
> unnatural
> constraint: to complete a game within a time limit indepedent of number of
> bounds.
>
> So one thought is this: it would take a close order foot unit, in 25mm, 8
> bounds
> to start from the center line and use tactical moves to either contact an
> enemy
> or clear any enemy directly in front of it off of the table. To me that
> seems to
> provide a meaningful mathematical limit on game time: if you've had enough
> time
> to guarantee that your close order foot get into the battle and you still
> haven't achieved a decisive result, then it isn't that you lacked enough
> game
> time. So that's one proposal: make games 8 bounds, or until both players
> agree
> that the score will not change with further play, whichever comes first.
>
> The other thought is this: not everyone needs to play in every round. I
> think we
> need scores from three preliminary rounds plus a final round on Sunday to
> get
> good results. But you could schedule four preliminary rounds, of which
> players
> must play in at least three. You then take a player's three highest scores
> as
> his preliminary rounds score. Players who want to opt out of one round to
> make
> time for other things could do so. Players who want to max out and play all
> four
> rounds in the hope of improving their score could do so.
>
> So here's my proposal:
> 1. The tournament will consist of four preliminary rounds and a final round.
> The
> preliminary rounds will be: one on Friday evening, three on Saturday. The
> final
> round will be Sunday morning.
>
> 2. Start times for Saturday rounds will be at least 5 hours apart, and the
> Friday evening round will start no later than 7:00 PM.
>
> 3. Games in each round will be fair and open battles, and each game will
> last
> until 8 bounds have been completed, or until both players agree that further
> bounds will not change the score, whichever comes first.
>
> 4. Four finalists will play in the final round, based on the four highest
> scorers in the preliminary rounds.
>
> 5. A player's preliminary round score will be the three highest scoring
> games
> from the four rounds.
>
> 6. A player who opts not to play in a given round, or who is unable to
> complete
> a prior round before the start of the next round, receives a 0 score for
> that
> round.
>
> There are some negatives to this approach. It makes the pairings in each
> round a
> little more haphazard, and a little more complicated. It demands more of the
> tournament organizers, since there is an additional round they have to
> cover.
> And players who simply can't arrive in time to take part in a Friday evening
> round will be at a slight competitive disadvantage. To me those all seem
> like
> reasonable tradeoffs, given the many advantages of this approach:
>
> Time pressure would be substantially removed from the games. Overall play
> would
> proceed faster, and only two of four rounds -- Saturday morning and Saturday
> afternoon -- would be pressured by the need to get the next round started.
> Players who can arrive early enough on Friday would have the option to take
> a
> more relaxed schedule on Saturday, leaving time for the dealer's room or
> other
> activities.
>
> Overall this seems like a much better approach to me, but I'd like to hear
> the
> opinions of others.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
>



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

[Mark Mallard]

I say again look at chess tourneys. they been around longer. games are four
hours. often you can opt for a bye in the first round or even one of the others
and get effectively almost a draw .

one game friday night two saturday and two sunday. usually

friday 7 til 11pm
saturday 9 til 1pm
2 til 6pm

night out maybe

sunday same as saturday

this format has been tried and tested for many many years with chess i dont
see any difference.


some of the sadder tourneys miss the friday game and tag it on to saturday
night - to me it spoils the weekend.

mark mallard UK


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

[Mark Mallard]

no 40 move in 2 hour limit in my league tho it is fairly common

but remember that is 2 hours each

big difference

one guy could use 15mins while the other uses 2 hours


game over after 2 hours 15 mins


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

[Mark Stone]

With Cold Wars -- and hence another 12 hours of gaming in one day -- looming,
I've been thinking about tournament formats. Obviously we are all free to run
whatever format we want at local/regional events, but I'm thinking about what
should be the format for national events like Cold Wars and Historicon.

Let me say first off that I doubt that there is an ideal solution, and that what
makes or breaks the enjoyment of a tournament is ultimately the sportsmanship of
the players involved. In that regard, Warrior is far more successful than TOG.
That's a testament to the example set by FHE, and by the rank and file of those
of you who have been so dedicated to this game for so long. So if no changes are
made, it's hardly a disaster. We have a good system, a great group of guys, and
I always have a lot of fun at tournaments.

Still there is room for improvement, and I'd like to start a discussion about
what some alternatives might be. The powers that be can then decide whether any
of these ideas warrant more serious consideration.

I'm concerned about two problems.

On the one hand, 3 games of 4 hours each is a lot to cram into one day. I know
that by the end of the third game my brain is pretty much mush. This is somewhat
mitigated by the team format at Cold Wars, where the "mental load" gets
distributed between two players, but still 3 games in one day with little break
between is a grind. For those of us who get in late Friday, it also makes it
very difficult to find time to get to the dealer's room.

On the other hand, I'm concerned about whether 4 hours is the right amount of
time for a game. Experienced players willing to accept either a win or a loss so
long as they feel they've had a good fight can certainly finish in less than 4
hours. Chris D'Amour comes to mind as a perfect example of both good player and
good sport with this mentality. But inexperienced players clearly struggle with
4 hours, and there is a tendency, conscious or otherwise, for players who
perceive themselves to be facing a disadvantageous matchup to drag things out.
Our scoring system does a lot to mitigate this behavior, but there are still
many players out there who have yet to think through that they'll fare better in
tournaments taking a 4-2 loss than a 1-1 draw.

These are tough problems to resolve. You can't expect everyone to arrive in time
on Friday for a round Friday night. Those -- like me -- who travel 3000 miles
to get to Cold Wars or Historicon, with the change in time zones working against
us, would be hard put to make a Friday night round. Nor can you expect to fit in
two rounds on Sunday. Too many people need to be able to make an early start
home.

Yet everyone would like to have time to get to the dealer's room on Saturday,
and everyone would benefit from a more relaxed, less stressful pace on Saturday.
It would also be nice to de-couple game completion from playing time. Here's
what I mean:

4 hours, or indeed any other time limit, is an artificial game limit. It doesn't
relate to what is happening on the table, and is also subject to what should be
irrelevant variables, such as how long a particular player takes to complete a
bound. So what if we threw that out? What if we said that a game is a set number
of bounds, regardless of how long it takes to complete?

My guess is that such a change would significantly speed up games. There's no
point in dragging your feet on moves if it isn't going to change the outcome. If
players know they have a set number of bounds they are going to play, then they
will stop thinking about the clock, and focus on playing the game. This will
surely speed up the process. It's also more realistic. If a battle is going to
have a decisive outcome, that should happen within some number of bounds.

Let me make an analogy here: imagine how horrible baseball would become if,
instead of playing 9 innings, teams played however many innings they could
complete in 3 hours. We're the other side of that coin: we have a game that has
a natural tempo, determined by a number of bounds, being fit into an unnatural
constraint: to complete a game within a time limit indepedent of number of
bounds.

So one thought is this: it would take a close order foot unit, in 25mm, 8 bounds
to start from the center line and use tactical moves to either contact an enemy
or clear any enemy directly in front of it off of the table. To me that seems to
provide a meaningful mathematical limit on game time: if you've had enough time
to guarantee that your close order foot get into the battle and you still
haven't achieved a decisive result, then it isn't that you lacked enough game
time. So that's one proposal: make games 8 bounds, or until both players agree
that the score will not change with further play, whichever comes first.

The other thought is this: not everyone needs to play in every round. I think we
need scores from three preliminary rounds plus a final round on Sunday to get
good results. But you could schedule four preliminary rounds, of which players
must play in at least three. You then take a player's three highest scores as
his preliminary rounds score. Players who want to opt out of one round to make
time for other things could do so. Players who want to max out and play all four
rounds in the hope of improving their score could do so.

So here's my proposal:
1. The tournament will consist of four preliminary rounds and a final round. The
preliminary rounds will be: one on Friday evening, three on Saturday. The final
round will be Sunday morning.

2. Start times for Saturday rounds will be at least 5 hours apart, and the
Friday evening round will start no later than 7:00 PM.

3. Games in each round will be fair and open battles, and each game will last
until 8 bounds have been completed, or until both players agree that further
bounds will not change the score, whichever comes first.

4. Four finalists will play in the final round, based on the four highest
scorers in the preliminary rounds.

5. A player's preliminary round score will be the three highest scoring games
from the four rounds.

6. A player who opts not to play in a given round, or who is unable to complete
a prior round before the start of the next round, receives a 0 score for that
round.

There are some negatives to this approach. It makes the pairings in each round a
little more haphazard, and a little more complicated. It demands more of the
tournament organizers, since there is an additional round they have to cover.
And players who simply can't arrive in time to take part in a Friday evening
round will be at a slight competitive disadvantage. To me those all seem like
reasonable tradeoffs, given the many advantages of this approach:

Time pressure would be substantially removed from the games. Overall play would
proceed faster, and only two of four rounds -- Saturday morning and Saturday
afternoon -- would be pressured by the need to get the next round started.
Players who can arrive early enough on Friday would have the option to take a
more relaxed schedule on Saturday, leaving time for the dealer's room or other
activities.

Overall this seems like a much better approach to me, but I'd like to hear the
opinions of others.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

Mark

Good thread, my friend.

[FHE hat off]
As a player, everyone knows I despise 4 hours at 1600 points. For many reasons
(dealer area, players who like other games too, players arriving Friday
night,...) it is just plain too long.

I also agree with your 8 bound reasoning. One issue, however, is with
'spoilers' who take gullies, UBA's and palisades and sit in their deployment
zone. Not feeling any compunction to attack a spoiler, he now only has to wait
you out 8 very quick bounds if there is no other mechanism to discourage such
play. I have no answer yet, but I am working on it. Just want to be sure we
think out any proposal and don't inadvertantly help a spoiler in any way.

I have played in tourneys with the 'get X rounds done by Y time' format and
found them very helpful in getting all the other things done I want to do at a
con. Frank Gilson and I both have played in SFB tourneys like this and it can
be done. We have experience with it and the issue will be the fact that the
tourney director has to work very hard in this format to make pairings and watch
for snipers sitting around waiting for someone they think they can take to show
up and say they are ready to play a round. Food for thought.

One of the reasons given for 4 hours is player inexperience. Maybe so, but I
see far more often lack of player preparation - particularly in terrain feature
choosing and deployment. Most of the wasted time in a four hour round is one or
both players waiting until game time to figure out what terrain they want in
what situations and how they will deploy. Worse, I have seen guys just deciding
at game time they want a particular piece of terrain and they have to go
searching for it because they don't have it. In a tourney that uses 14.0
terrain and deployment, a player should come to the table with a basic idea of
what he will do given most opponents and the terrain pieces he plans to use.

As far as player experience goes in the speed of playing the game, that
reasoning would argue AGAINST a four hour round in the NICT as all the players
are experienced....lol

[FHE hat on]

Folks have heard me lament before that we have one of the only game systems on
the planet whose national tourneys are run and sanctioned by a non-profit and
not the game company itself. While FHE is still growing, it's overall a good
thing that we have NASAMW and its resources to help us, and I appreciate it as
much as anyone. But at some point, FHE will take control of the national level
competitions and work out an arrangement of sponsorship with the society.

To be sure, however, any international sanctioning of a 'world championship',
will be done by FHE when the time is right to do so. We will save all these
discussions of formats and choose the one that best fits player desires and the
needs of the international gaming community.

Jon

[scott holder]

I have no plans at the present to change the basic format at CW and Hcon.

One caveat will be the NICT and I'll be discussing that with folks at CW.

The whole "8 bound" tourney concept doesn't usually work because there will be
at least 1 game, probably more, that would take 8 hours to get to 8 bounds.
That hoses everything up. I really didn't see anything in Mark's "proposal"
that would offer anything new and improved to what we do, simply different.

NASAMW WARRIOR CHUMP HAT OFF

Like John, I don't like 4 hour rounds. For that matter, I don't really like
1600 point tourneys.

NASAMW WARRIOR CHUMP HAT ON

But, informal caucasing over the years has resulted more or less in both being
the common denominator that causes the least grief by the most people, hence,
that's what we do. In fact, the current format offers the widest array of
gaming possibilities to the greatest number of people. I've repeated this
mantra like a Greek chorus over the years but ALL formats cause heartburn. Any
alternatives would simply cause different heartburn, quite possibly for more
people. Currently, we have a pretty good format that's attracting players and
satisfying a wide variety of desires at the conventions. Just look at what we
did last year.

Single tourneys over multiple days tend to cause problems, I know cuz I've run
em like that before. There's a greater tendency to see people drop out or drift
away.

Yes, three 4 hour rounds in a day can be tough but if all you're doing is
playing for one day, it's not that big a deal. And if you want to do other
stuff at a convention AND plan on being there for the full time, take a day off,
don't play in the Mini or Theme or Open.

I'll be honest, I'm not desiging a format for someone who comes into an east
coast show for one day. If shopping and whathaveyou is that important, I'd
strongly suggest folks come in earlier and get that done.

scott

[Mark Mallard]

I know we are slow in playing our games maybe 30 mins a move but we deploy
our terrain in a couple of minutes and our troops in say 15 max all over a
coffee or beer. first move typically 15 minutes too. Its later that things get
slowed down to 30 minutes a move, even more when the crunch starts. Combats
including say 6 units, of all different types can take some time to resolve.

It is the nitty gritty problem areas that slow us down and resolving combats
etc.

Could someone do a flow chart for after shooting/combat do you think?it could
even be extended to include charges and those already routing.

as an aside we usually play until one side has certainly lost his whole army
or is about to and concedes, at what point do your sub 4 hour games get ended
usually.

we also so far have not used what i consider unfair terrain. i would not
attack a fortification of some sort or cross some defended minor water etc. so
the
game would drag.

historically how many battles were won attacking such positions without
superior troops numbers. i know of some obviously but there were many losses too
and more often than not the side with the poorer position would march to a more
advantageous position.

mark mallard


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

[scott holder]

I have played in tourneys with the 'get X rounds done by Y time' format and
found them very helpful in getting all the other things done I want to do at a
con. Frank Gilson and I both have played in SFB tourneys like this and it can
be done. We have experience with it and the issue will be the fact that the
tourney director has to work very hard in this format to make pairings and watch
for snipers sitting around waiting for someone they think they can take to show
up and say they are ready to play a round. Food for thought.

>Would you care to share some details on this. I really don't like the "8
round" idea, waaaay too open to abuse. But, in the "X by Y" format, I have
loads of questions and it would be interesting to see how it's done. For
example, what happens if you don't get X rounds done by Y time? Is the game
simply over? Moreover, most players in our game don't like just sitting around
waiting to snipe, they just don't like sitting around.

As far as player experience goes in the speed of playing the game, that
reasoning would argue AGAINST a four hour round in the NICT as all the players
are experienced....lol

>Yeah except that of the 23 players in last year's NICT who voted, the clear
majority liked 4 hour rounds. Just like the clear majority liked more than 3/4
games to determine the winner which is why I'll be exploring ways to make that
happen.

[joncleaves]

One caveat on my take on this thread.

No matter what my personal druthers on format, I agree with the current method
of choosing the format which is for the chief umpire to canvas the players who
routinely attend the major events and weight their opinions accordingly. If the
clear majority want four hours - then four hours it should be.

Jon

[Todd Schneider]

Most Chess tourneys also have the 40 move in two hour
time limit. At least they used to, it's been awhile
since I've read the FIDE rules.

Do we really need to add clocks to the game? I don't
think so, but my tounrmanet expierence is limited at
best.

Todd



--- markmallard77@... wrote:

---------------------------------
I say again look at chess tourneys. they been around
longer. games are four
hours. often you can opt for a bye in the first round
or even one of the others
and get effectively almost a draw .

one game friday night two saturday and two sunday.
usually

friday 7 til 11pm
saturday 9 til 1pm
2 til 6pm

night out maybe

sunday same as saturday

this format has been tried and tested for many many
years with chess i dont
see any difference.


some of the sadder tourneys miss the friday game and
tag it on to saturday
night - to me it spoils the weekend.

mark mallard UK


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


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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.

[scott holder]

The old clock idea has been bandied about for years.

The main inequity with it is that some armies have many more units to move. At
least in chess, you're starting out with the same number of pieces.

I feel that the scoring system is what *should* drive faster play. Yes, players
will sometimes "play not to win" and thus plod along but they'd do that whether
or not a game is X hours in length vs Y hours in length. This subject too comes
up from time to time and there's very little that can be done to "police" it.
It doesn't happen all that often so as to make me think it's a systemic problem.
But when it does happen to a player, he gets irritated. My advice is to have a
game strategy in mind when faced with that.

Let me repeat that I'm intrigued by the "X moves in Y time" concept but again,
what happens if you don't hit "X" in time? I definitely do not like the idea
that EVERY game plays to "X number of moves" no matter how long it takes to get
there. Way too open to abuse.

Let me remind everybody that currently, if time is called and you're in the
middle of resolving the bound's combat, you finish up all the combats, resultant
waver tests, etc., THEN you add up points. If you're in the middle of approach
moves or prep shooting, then yes, game over dude.

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Schneider [mailto:thresh1642@...]
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 2:58 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] tourney formats


Most Chess tourneys also have the 40 move in two hour
time limit. At least they used to, it's been awhile
since I've read the FIDE rules.

Do we really need to add clocks to the game? I don't
think so, but my tounrmanet expierence is limited at
best.

Todd



--- markmallard77@... wrote:

---------------------------------
I say again look at chess tourneys. they been around
longer. games are four
hours. often you can opt for a bye in the first round
or even one of the others
and get effectively almost a draw .

one game friday night two saturday and two sunday.
usually

friday 7 til 11pm
saturday 9 til 1pm
2 til 6pm

night out maybe

sunday same as saturday

this format has been tried and tested for many many
years with chess i dont
see any difference.


some of the sadder tourneys miss the friday game and
tag it on to saturday
night - to me it spoils the weekend.

mark mallard UK


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


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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.






Yahoo! Groups Links

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/11/2004 3:58:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,
thresh1642@... writes:

> Most Chess tourneys also have the 40 move in two hour
> time limit. At least they used to, it's been awhile
> since I've read the FIDE rules. Do we really need to add clocks to the game?
I don't think so, but my tounrmanet expierence is limited at best.>>
>>

No sweat, Todd. No one is going to add clocks to a NASAMW or DGS tourney, nor
is anyone considering doing so. But folks should offer any and all ideas here
even if never used in such an event, a local organizer may want to use them.

I personally don't find chess analogous to Warrior. For one thing, at every
chess tourney I have heard of is a one off event and not at a con where
literally hundreds of other options and a dealer area beckon the player. This
issue and the issue of multiple tourneys with different formats taking place at
the same con (theme, mini, open, championship) keeps the society restrained in
terms of over how many days a single event may take place.

Jon

[Jeff Zorn]

Howdy,

DBM player and NASAMW Secretary/Web Master here. Just hanging around this
list now looking for info to post to the web site as needed. Maybe I'll
make an occasional comment too.

At 02:06 PM 2/11/2004 -0600, you wrote:

>Single tourneys over multiple days tend to cause problems, I know cuz I've
>run em like that before. There's a greater tendency to see people drop
>out or drift away.

We've had a 2 day 6 game DBM NICT the last couple years. It is grueling,
but many people really like it.

Good to hear that Warrior players have the same problems with corner
sitters as DBMers do :-)

DBM has an international championship with no connection to Phil Barker (or
yet even to NASAMW), and there is now a US DBM Open with no ties to Phil
and mostly independent of NASAMW. There may come a day when someone
independent of FHE organizes a Warrior event and calls it the galactic
Warrior championship (or whatever); FHE may not like, but if many people
attend, enjoy it and pump it up, it may end up being THE warrior event on
the annual calendar. Trying to retain too much control is like holding on
to sand.

Back to lurking ;-)

Jeff Zorn

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

[Todd Schneider]

Well, in order to determine "X moves in Y time" you
have to get a baseline for avergae number of bounds
played in an hour per tournament.

And considering some of the things I've heard done (IE
Chris and Keely at the Nict awhile back) that could be
an intersting number.


--- "Holder, Scott" <Scott.Holder@...> wrote:

---------------------------------
The old clock idea has been bandied about for years.

The main inequity with it is that some armies have
many more units to move. At least in chess, you're
starting out with the same number of pieces.

I feel that the scoring system is what *should* drive
faster play. Yes, players will sometimes "play not to
win" and thus plod along but they'd do that whether or
not a game is X hours in length vs Y hours in length.
This subject too comes up from time to time and
there's very little that can be done to "police" it.
It doesn't happen all that often so as to make me
think it's a systemic problem. But when it does
happen to a player, he gets irritated. My advice is
to have a game strategy in mind when faced with that.

Let me repeat that I'm intrigued by the "X moves in Y
time" concept but again, what happens if you don't hit
"X" in time? I definitely do not like the idea that
EVERY game plays to "X number of moves" no matter how
long it takes to get there. Way too open to abuse.

Let me remind everybody that currently, if time is
called and you're in the middle of resolving the
bound's combat, you finish up all the combats,
resultant waver tests, etc., THEN you add up points.
If you're in the middle of approach moves or prep
shooting, then yes, game over dude.

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Schneider [mailto:thresh1642@...]
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 2:58 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] tourney formats


Most Chess tourneys also have the 40 move in two hour
time limit. At least they used to, it's been awhile
since I've read the FIDE rules.

Do we really need to add clocks to the game? I don't
think so, but my tounrmanet expierence is limited at
best.

Todd



--- markmallard77@... wrote:

---------------------------------
I say again look at chess tourneys. they been around
longer. games are four
hours. often you can opt for a bye in the first round
or even one of the others
and get effectively almost a draw .

one game friday night two saturday and two sunday.
usually

friday 7 til 11pm
saturday 9 til 1pm
2 til 6pm

night out maybe

sunday same as saturday

this format has been tried and tested for many many
years with chess i dont
see any difference.


some of the sadder tourneys miss the friday game and
tag it on to saturday
night - to me it spoils the weekend.

mark mallard UK


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


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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.






Yahoo! Groups Links






Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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.

Jon, good for you for leaving the format
interpretation to the local refs. What works for us
here in the Free and Independent Republic of South
Central Texas may not work so well in Oz or elsewhere.
Friday nights people are still traveling to get here.
If we go on the road, we play by their format. So it
goes. Thanks again. Michael


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html