Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

something occurred to me while I was walking from the station to home
yesterday. Unfortunately my old computer, where my Warrior draft currently
resides, isn‘t working properly, so if this is covered in it, I apologize for
wasting time.

One of the few things I like about DBM is the victory point system used in
tournaments, whereby winning heavily gives ten points, and a draw five each. Is
it still possible to include something like that in Warrior?

Paul Szuscikiewicz

[Phil Gardocki]

I received the Spearpoint with the tournament schedules. I do not see the
Warrior demo tournament there. Is it running at the same time as the 7.6
mini?

Philip Gardocki

(610) 495-7923 (answering machine)
(610) 495 8937
When the avalanche falls, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.

Attachment: vcard [not shown]

[scott holder]

The DBM point system sucks. I say that with 7 years of directly scoring and
umpiring the games. As the game has "matured" so have the flood of 5-5 games.
The problem here in the states is an inately conservative gaming population
that ffears change and yet blindly follows it from Phil. John Shirey (the DBM
umpire) and myself have been working on an alternative point system for years
now to no avail. We've looked at all the systems used by others and still
really haven't found anything that captures what we're trying to do, namely
force people to fight. One thing that the 50% break rule in Warrior does (at
least thru my playtesting) is increase what "dies" at the end of a timed
tourney round.

NASAMW has been using a 0-5 point system for 6 years now and it works very
well. We overlay a weighted scoring system (you get % of your opponents final
score based on how well you did against him) and that really makes it all work
well. I run it off an old Lotus 123 spreadsheet for DOS. I should put a copy
of it up on my "7th edition" web page, which at some point needs to become a
Warrior web page:):)

Scott

>>> paulbrewer@... 6/30/00 5:43:00 PM >>>
something occurred to me while I was walking from the station to home
yesterday. Unfortunately my old computer, where my Warrior draft currently
resides, isn t working properly, so if this is covered in it, I apologize for
wasting time.

One of the few things I like about DBM is the victory point system used in
tournaments, whereby winning heavily gives ten points, and a draw five each.
Is
it still possible to include something like that in Warrior?

Paul Szuscikiewicz




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explore the popular High-End Room -
Go To Where The Smart People Shop-uBid.com
http://click.egroups.com/1/6141/2/_/_/_/962405154/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com

"Holder, Scott " wrote:

> The DBM point system sucks. I say that with 7 years of directly scoring and
> umpiring the games. As the game has "matured" so have the flood of 5-5 games.
>

Strong opinions. I haven’t played DBM all that much, but in the four tournaments
I have participated in, 5-5s were thin on the ground in my games. I had one
10-0,
and lost a couple by the same score. I think I have had two draws.

> The problem here in the states is an inately conservative gaming population
> that ffears change and yet blindly follows it from Phil.

I bet it is worse in the UK. We look on the States as a land of independent
characters who are willing to ignore the unwritten WRG Papal Infallibility
doctrine.

[snip]

> We've looked at all the systems used by others and still
> really haven't found anything that captures what we're trying to do, namely
> force people to fight.

I think this is not fair to those games such as Feudal French versus Swiss. A
French general doesn’t really want to mix it, in those circumstances.

Paul Szuscikiewicz

[joncleaves]

Tourney VPs are the realm of the tourney director, not the rulebook.
Warrior will suggest several systems and recommend one as 'standard.'

[joncleaves]

Spearpoint failed to note that the mini is Warrior (as it exists now) not 7.6.

I reiterate the differences here (for the MINI at Hcon ONLY):

Warrior to WRG 7.6 Conversion Sheet (as of 16 May 2000)

1. Rally rules have changed
a. Rally-back move now called Recall Move. (Separate action from rallying to
keep from having two kinds of rally.)
b. You can rally in the same bound if you meet the conditions.
c. You can't recover from disorder while in hand-to-hand.

2. Commands are demoralized after HALF units destroyed, broken, shaken.

3. To support close/loose foot, you have to have a body within 120p of each
flank. Can't be the same body for both flanks. Draw a straight line from
flank edge of supported to anywhere on supporter. This line can't be greater
than 120p and cannot go through an enemy body. Non-enemy occupied terrain at
40p still supports these troops.

4. Flank charge: The charger must end with front edge in contact with and
parallel to enemy side edge with one front corner touching an enemy corner.
No part of charger can travel more than its tactical move distance to make
this happen. No 20p hanging back from interp book.

5. "E" class rules have changed. They don't make others take wavers, and
they have some other basing options.

6. Competition games require an on-table baggage camp. 4 elements: 60x60
for 25mm, 40x40 for 15mm.

7. If LI choose to recall from close/loose foot (vice the waver, 7.6), this
does not take away the free charge from the close/loose foot's attack order,
if any.

8. The combat direction (the direction across the table that combat and
combat results are resolved) is determined by the player who had the approach
initiative rolling a d6. 1-3: that player's left to right, 4-6: that
player's right to left. (i.e. no more CINC furthest in stuff)

9. Troops identified as wedging in the current lists will count 1.5 ranks IF
they are not already armed with a weapon that ever receives 1.5 ranks. (e.g.
beserks, JLS cav wedgers, etc.) Note that this specifically does NOT apply
to any troop armed with lance or foot armed with HTW or JLS.

HI there -

>>The DBM point system sucks. I say that with 7 years of directly scoring
and
umpiring the games. As the game has "matured" so have the flood of 5-5
games.
The problem here in the states is an inately conservative gaming
population
that ffears change and yet blindly follows it from Phil. John Shirey (the
DBM
umpire) and myself have been working on an alternative point system for
years
now to no avail. We've looked at all the systems used by others and still
really haven't found anything that captures what we're trying to do, namely
force people to fight.<<

you have touched a sore point obviously This is not so much of a
problem here in Oz for some reason.. where our tournaments here in Victoria
at least tend to have between 5 and 10% draws (is it possible that an
honourable defeat is more acceptable outside the States? Cultural
differences and all.) We have experimented with a couple of systems
including bonus points for commands demoralised (DBM obviously) - but this
could be manipulated through player collusion, and using a straight Win,
draw, loss - where a a win was worth a zillion points and a draw worth 1 -
the big problem was that two 'corner-sitting' draws were worth as much as
one hard fought win.

Still no ideal answer, shaming players by a culture of playing for a win
appears to have been the most successful option to date.

Cheers

Doug Melville aka Maddog
*******************
Join the Oz MailList at :
http://dbm.freehosting.net
mail me at :
maddog@...
*******************
"whaur would yu be withoot your Nicky Tams." anon.

> From: dmelville@... [mailto:dmelville@...]

> >>The DBM point system sucks. I say that with 7 years of directly scoring
and
> umpiring the games. As the game has "matured" so have the flood of 5-5
> games.

> you have touched a sore point obviously This is not so much of a
> problem here in Oz for some reason.. where our tournaments here in
Victoria
> at least tend to have between 5 and 10% draws (is it possible that an
> honourable defeat is more acceptable outside the States? Cultural
> differences and all.)

I don't think it's cultural - I recently umpired a 25mm DBM event, while
simultaneously playing in 15mm. There were 4 rounds, with 12 players in the
25 and 18 in the 15.

The 15mm had 2 draws in 36 games, the 25mm had 10 or 11 in 24. Same
culture, different results!

What may haev been significant was that the 25mm players averaged about 40
yrs age!!

and using a straight Win,
> draw, loss - where a a win was worth a zillion points and a
> draw worth 1 -
> the big problem was that two 'corner-sitting' draws were
> worth as much as one hard fought win.

You shouldn't be having that problem with win/draw/loss, or any variant
based on points. the easiest way to simulate it is to award 1 pt for a
draw, and (# of rounds +1) points for a win. Then any number of draws does
not equal a single win, hard fought or otherwise.

Mike


_____________________________________________________________
Notice of Confidential Information - If you receive this message in error,
please notify the sender immediately. The information contained in this
e-mail may be legally privileged and is confidential. Unauthorised use,
dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message is prohibited.
_____________________________________________________________

[scott holder]

snipping stuff that Jon can better answer at this point

6. Competition games require an on-table baggage camp. 4 elements: 60x60
for 25mm, 40x40 for 15mm.

*** Will this camp be a permitted charge target to all troops? I'm
assuming we can leave a unit to protect the camp? This would give a place
for those armies which require troops that one has no idea what to do with -
i.e. Burgundian's unit of 8 MI 2HCT.

>Camps will be a permited charge target to all troops. I don't *think* at
this point that we've made specific verbage that it can/can't be an unprompted
charge just in case those Irr D's with bows get back behind the enemy and look
longingly at a camp.

>And you can leave troops in the camp to protect it ala the Burgundians (my
Burgundians now have a "use" for the 2HCT doods).

[Todd Kaeser]

Jon + FH,
*** A few comments and questions if you please since I have a Mac (sigh) and
can't download Warrior in its current state. :-(

Warrior to WRG 7.6 Conversion Sheet (as of 16 May 2000)

3. To support close/loose foot, you have to have a body within 120p of each

flank. Can't be the same body for both flanks. Draw a straight line from
flank edge of supported to anywhere on supporter. This line can't be
greater
than 120p and cannot go through an enemy body. Non-enemy occupied terrain
at
40p still supports these troops.

*** I understand the change, but is there any support to the rear as there
was before (480 paces back from the 80 paces to the side) I thought 480
paces was too extreme, and would love to see only 240 paces to the rear
providing support.

6. Competition games require an on-table baggage camp. 4 elements: 60x60
for 25mm, 40x40 for 15mm.

*** Will this camp be a permitted charge target to all troops? I'm
assuming we can leave a unit to protect the camp? This would give a place
for those armies which require troops that one has no idea what to do with -
i.e. Burgundian's unit of 8 MI 2HCT.

8. The combat direction (the direction across the table that combat and
combat results are resolved) is determined by the player who had the
approach
initiative rolling a d6. 1-3: that player's left to right, 4-6: that
player's right to left. (i.e. no more CINC furthest in stuff)

*** We have to have a way to remember who won the approach role. You could
also use the approach role for who counters first in a bound.

9. Troops identified as wedging in the current lists will count 1.5 ranks
IF
they are not already armed with a weapon that ever receives 1.5 ranks.
(e.g.
beserks, JLS cav wedgers, etc.) Note that this specifically does NOT apply
to any troop armed with lance or foot armed with HTW or JLS.

*** It will be nice to see the return of the Vikings and a few other armies
that we castrated
by the loss of wedge. Although I've seen Damour's Vikings one too many
times.

Todd Kaeser

> From: dmelville@... [mailto:dmelville@...]

> I agree - this is effectively what we did.. I was referring to the
> existing system when I described two corner sitting draws as
> equivalent to a hard fought win...

Sorry - my mistake then.

Yes, that's the major problem of the DBM style system, in whatever guise it
crops up (eg including the BHGS's 32-0 version).


_____________________________________________________________
Notice of Confidential Information - If you receive this message in error,
please notify the sender immediately. The information contained in this
e-mail may be legally privileged and is confidential. Unauthorised use,
dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message is prohibited.
_____________________________________________________________

Hi Mike, probably didn't make myself clear -

>>> draw, loss - where a a win was worth a zillion points and a
> draw worth 1 -
> the big problem was that two 'corner-sitting' draws were
> worth as much as one hard fought win.

You shouldn't be having that problem with win/draw/loss, or any variant
based on points. the easiest way to simulate it is to award 1 pt for a
draw, and (# of rounds +1) points for a win. Then any number of draws does
not equal a single win, hard fought or otherwise.

Mike <<

I agree - this is effectively what we did.. I was referring to the
existing system when I described two corner sitting draws as equivalent to
a hard fought win...

cheers

Doug

[joncleaves]

<< Jon + FH,
*** A few comments and questions if you please since I have a Mac (sigh) and
can't download Warrior in its current state. >>

Yeah, I've got to figure that out.

<< 3. To support close/loose foot, you have to have a body within 120p of
each
flank. Can't be the same body for both flanks. Draw a straight line from
flank edge of supported to anywhere on supporter. This line can't be
greater than 120p and cannot go through an enemy body. Non-enemy occupied
terrain at 40p still supports these troops.

*** I understand the change, but is there any support to the rear as there
was before (480 paces back from the 80 paces to the side) I thought 480
paces was too extreme, and would love to see only 240 paces to the rear
providing support.>>

You can still be directly behind as long as you have a point on your unit
within 120 paces of the supported unit.
480 (and even 240) too far back for the supporting unit to 'do anything' for
the psychology of the supported unit. Playtest comments are welcome, and
this is one of the major reasons for doing the mini in Warrior.

<<6. Competition games require an on-table baggage camp. 4 elements: 60x60
for 25mm, 40x40 for 15mm.

*** Will this camp be a permitted charge target to all troops?>>

They are transport elements, just like in 7th (pages 6, 15).

<< I'm assuming we can leave a unit to protect the camp?>>

'sup to you.

<< 8. The combat direction (the direction across the table that combat and
combat results are resolved) is determined by the player who had the
approach initiative rolling a d6. 1-3: that player's left to right, 4-6:
that
player's right to left. (i.e. no more CINC furthest in stuff)

*** We have to have a way to remember who won the approach role. You could
also use the approach role for who counters first in a bound.>>

It is already so: Warrior rule 6.14. I'll work on that Mac thing. Or you
could join the 21st century! :)

<<9. Troops identified as wedging in the current lists will count 1.5 ranks
IF they are not already armed with a weapon that ever receives 1.5 ranks.
(e.g. beserks, JLS cav wedgers, etc.) Note that this specifically does NOT
apply
to any troop armed with lance or foot armed with HTW or JLS.

*** It will be nice to see the return of the Vikings and a few other armies
that we castrated by the loss of wedge. Although I've seen Damour's Vikings
one too many times.>>

Agreed, but I fear Chris's vikings not. It's his coffee-powered teutonics.

Jon