Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Cool! Can they be Regular if their Owner is Morgoth?

kelly

JonCleaves@... wrote:
In a message dated 12/23/2003 15:51:17 Central Standard Time, gar@...
writes:
There are also troop types that do not exist, such as a loose order
man in armor that would historically classify him as Loose Order
Extra-Heavy Infantry.
Funny, but lizardmen in Fantasy Warrior are LEHI.....lol

Jon


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



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




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

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

[scott holder]

DBM has its problems in terrain rules but the system absolutely forces you to
make terrain part of your plan from the get go and I think I am personally a
better Warrior player now (though still not very good) for having
gone through that experience.

>Terrain is crucial in Warrior, both in terms of what you want and what you want
to deny your opponent. Folks who don't factor terrain into their plan,
particularly as it works for their army, are gonna lose this game. One reason
why I've shied away from preset terrain at the large east conventions is
precisely because it's such an important tactical factor in games. Of course if
we went with preset terrain and had virtually none of it (like they did at the
"worlds" in 1990), games go faster:):)

But on that note I will also say that (when not put alone against
horse archers in the open) your Roman legions in DBM not only get
into the battle but kick butt outright on a whole bunch of stuff and
depend which way the dice go for a bunch more. So they get held up
by Parthian horse archers in either system but as it stands until IW
comes out they fare much better, I think, in DBM than against either
impetuous barbarian trash that runs over them (more of a dice roll
in DBM) or loose order missile foot that they can never close with.

>I guess "kick butt" is in the eye of the beholder. I've been playtesting the
Roman rules with Darrell Smith in St Louis. His basement group is
overwhelmingly DBM and one guy, Bill Fisher, who's a pretty noted DBA player.
ALL of them commented on how DBx doesn't do much for Roman legionaries. Now
maybe that wasn't the case in version 1.x or 2.x but in 3.x, nobody plays Romans
because in the overall scheme or tournament armies, they just don't stand up
well. Again, I'm just passing along the consensus of 6 guys in a basement.

scott

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/23/2003 14:18:42 Central Standard Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:
First off, the single real reason why I think DBM _appears_ so
simple is that you can actually resolve shooting and close combat
without looking up the charts,
A good point. One of the reasons why the combat system for Warrior Battles
only has one chart (the same weapon factor table as Warrior) without the need
for the second casualty chart or the need for math. In addition, the whole WB
combat system will be modular enough to drop right into a larger Warrior game
if desired.
Now, it is true that this takes a few games of DBM to have the
factors in your head (and they sometimes get tweaked in small ways
between revisions) but the people I know who can do this for Warrior
have I expect taken a much longer time to do it - I am not there
yet - because you need to know the weapons table and the casualty
table both.
It is true that the Warrior casualty table is a linear progression that can
be memorized. As for the weapon factor table, I have some of the more common
factors memorized (such as B vs LC) but others I would have to look up, like
HTW vs EHI...lol

The single best feature of DBM is the command control system, also a
good thing for a "general's-eye" orientation. There are no orders to
interpret (or forget to interpret at critical moments). This is not
necessarily good - if orders were always played correctly (and I am
as much or more at fault there as anyone) that would be much better.
Another excellent point. I have often wondered what to do about the fact
that Warrior players have a tendency to ignore the orders they gave their troops
and act like they can operate without restriction. Without the orders part of
the game, individual units have way too much freedom. I'd be interested to
hear what folks think about this and maybe I can include some optional rules in
the orders section of the reprint.

Jon


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

[Paul Georgian]

In a message dated 12/24/2003 2:35:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,
JonCleaves@...
writes:
In a message dated 12/23/2003 15:51:17 Central Standard Time, gar@...
writes:
There are also troop types that do not exist, such as a loose order
man in armor that would historically classify him as Loose Order
Extra-Heavy Infantry.
Funny, but lizardmen in Fantasy Warrior are LEHI.....lol
Yes, this is exactly correct. My observation is that Warrior's tactical feel
falls between the almost totally abstract tactical feel of DBM and the almost
purely small unit tactical feel of Warhammer Ancient Battles (WAB) where such
things as LEHI can and do exist. In some sense that's the beauty of having
these three systems. You can find a rules set that has the right tactical feel
you want. Right now my gaming preference is the down and dirty tactical feel
of WAB but I can easily see myself changing to the more elevated grand
tactical feel of Warrior at some time. DBM's abstract feel will probably never
tempt me again without major changes.

Paul G.


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/26/2003 05:48:11 Central Standard Time,
tibnmich@... writes:
Dear Jon
Man, seems all i ever get are dear jon letters...lol


Just in reply to orders not being kept in games. What of simply
having players writing down their orders at the start of a game on a
card or piece of paper/per general and left on table which is
revealed at games end?
I do that myself. That way the ump can come and check it if there is a
dispute. And we do have a guide for adjuticating issues with orders in 4.22.


Likewise, an even sterner modification which would not really be hard
to implement, would be that on the third bound - after orders are
possibly changed for first time etc - (or on first occasion
thereafter?) that a charge is ORDERED (rather than as a response)
then orders for THAT unit (or maybe a whole command is revealed).
This could simulate the understanding an opposing general would have
gleaned by careful observation of battlefield movement and responses.
If done on a unit by unit basis, command orders could be rapidly
assessed watching on table positioning.
I always watch the other guy's approaches and unprompted charge attempts.
But you are correct that bound three is where these things go wrong if they are
going to.


The last would be my preferred option - needs no paperwork, still
leaves real room for real generalship error (a unit does not always
belong to a command that also happens to be in same sector etc) and
would seem to prevent shenanigans by the less scrupulous??
I really don't think it is an issue of scruples. Sure, there are always a
couple guys who will want to use this to advantage. But in most cases, the
player gets into the heat of things and then discovers that what he originally
told his subgenerals isn't optimal for him any more and in the excitement and
desperation of the bound gets carried away doing something that isn't consistent
with those instructions.



Anyway, that's my thoughts for what they are worth!
They are worth a very great deal.

Jon


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

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 12/24/03 6:34:40 PM GMT Standard Time, JonCleaves@...
writes:

> The single best feature of DBM is the command control system, also a
> good thing for a "general's-eye" orientation. There are no orders to
> interpret (or forget to interpret at critical moments). This is not
> necessarily good - if orders were always played correctly (and I am
> as much or more at fault there as anyone) that would be much better.
> Another excellent point. I have often wondered what to do about the fact
> that Warrior players have a tendency to ignore the orders they gave their
> troops
> and act like they can operate without restriction. Without the orders part
> of
> the game, individual units have way too much freedom. I'd be interested to
> hear what folks think about this and maybe I can include some optional rules
> in
> the orders section of the reprint.
>
>

We have toyed with the idea of declaring what our commands and orders are to
our opponent - so that they may police our compliance. At first glance this
may seem like a poor idea, but the effect is right.


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

Dear Jon

Just in reply to orders not being kept in games. What of simply
having players writing down their orders at the start of a game on a
card or piece of paper/per general and left on table which is
revealed at games end?

Game play which seems inconsistent would then be revealed at games'
end (with no cahnce for "re written" orders nor hidden orders) for
the satisfaction of players. Refs can also adjudicate or be called
into adjudication when a player suspects something is amiss (eg
impetuosity being countermanded by wrong order etc) and easily and be
checked?

Likewise, an even sterner modification which would not really be hard
to implement, would be that on the third bound - after orders are
possibly changed for first time etc - (or on first occasion
thereafter?) that a charge is ORDERED (rather than as a response)
then orders for THAT unit (or maybe a whole command is revealed).
This could simulate the understanding an opposing general would have
gleaned by careful observation of battlefield movement and responses.
If done on a unit by unit basis, command orders could be rapidly
assessed watching on table positioning.

The last would be my preferred option - needs no paperwork, still
leaves real room for real generalship error (a unit does not always
belong to a command that also happens to be in same sector etc) and
would seem to prevent shenanigans by the less scrupulous??

Anyway, that's my thoughts for what they are worth!

Regards

Tibor of OZTRALIA


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:> Another
excellent point. I have often wondered what to do about the fact
> that Warrior players have a tendency to ignore the orders they gave
their troops
> and act like they can operate without restriction. Without the
orders part of
> the game, individual units have way too much freedom. I'd be
interested to
> hear what folks think about this and maybe I can include some
optional rules in
> the orders section of the reprint.
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]