Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/30/2003 20:09:05 Central Standard Time,
dsa_uk@... writes:
Am I right in thinking that DBM uses small units and typically means
fewer figures on the field?
DBM does not use units. Each element is its own 'unit'.


I haven't seen Warrior which is hard to
find here
Caliver Books is our UK distributor. You can also order it online at
www.fourhorsemenenterprises .com
though I think I can find original WRG 7. Someone said that
the WRG lists are still good for Warrior. Does that mean that an army
selected from those lists would fit Warrior directly? >>
The old WRG 7th lists that we have not replaced with our own list books may
be used although you have to make the correction for those being in terms of
figures and ours being in terms of elements. Which lists have been superceded
are shown on the supercession list in the files section of this yahoo group.
Does Warrior
use the unit sizes and base dimensions of WRG 6 rules and lists or
has that all changed?
An element has the same frontage and depth as an equivalent number of 6th
figures of the same type, with a few minor exceptions.

Jon


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

I used to wargame ancients (mostly Roman, Seljuk) under WRG 5. When
WRG 6 came out I was underwhelmed by the abrupt reversals to what
seemed to me a balanced set. I gave up gaming at that time, though
not because my mainly horse archer army fled the field at the first
(infantry) charge against it. (In fact I often lent my hitherto
envied army to opponents and reverted to my Romans - one legionary
charge was enough under those rules to empty the table.)

A lot of people stuck to WRG 5 at that time and I don't balme them.
That is all a long time ago. Now I am thinking of (slowly) taking up
ancients again. It would have to be 25mm (sorry I don't like 15mm)
and as somebody who started out in Napoleoenics I think I want a
gaming system that utilises the kind of units traditional in WRG 5
(cavalry 12s, infantry 12, typically 24, maybe 36, even 4. I like
the spectacle.

Am I right in thinking that DBM uses small units and typically means
fewer figures on the field? I haven't seen Warrior which is hard to
find here though I think I can find original WRG 7. Someone said that
the WRG lists are still good for Warrior. Does that mean that an army
selected from those lists would fit Warrior directly? Does Warrior
use the unit sizes and base dimensions of WRG 6 rules and lists or
has that all changed?

Sorry to ask basic questions.

Judging from comments here I can imagine only one negative feature
that Warrior may have inherited from WRG - the unsubtle
classificationm of weapons and armor type. Really, the WRG concept
always aimed to allow the use of historically mismatched armies,
hence the desire to simplify and standardize weapons types.
Persoanlly I have come to feel that gaming in a very restricted
period, possible in the context of organised campains, is the way to
go.

One plus of Warrior in my view would be the tactical fiddling a.k.a.
playing with soldiers that WRG involved. I can quite see why many
don't like this. It is really an inheritance from Napoleonic rules
(from which for better or worse WRG decended) and reflects a liking
for wheeling single companies, forming column etc etc and all those
other Napoleonic things.

I can see why Barker and co decided to renounce this Napoleonic
inheritance - after all in ancients almost nothing is known about
tactical battlefield manouvres, except in the case of regular armies
for which we have descriptions and manuals (e.g .Romans). If you read
books by Barker and Heath it is really clear they are obsessed by
ancient army organisation (as Barker no doubt is or was by Napoleonic
organisation), but the way of thinking that goes with it (as
if 'units' were 'regiments') certainly makes the WRG concept a flawed
one however enjoyable it may be. In particular the concept of the
regimented unit makes irregulars behave anomolously, and even
(perversely) prevents the use of company size detachemtns by regular
units. It never quite felt right to have Turkoman horde advance up
the field in (subtly) color co-ordinated units of 12 instead of just
sweeping in a mass across the enemy front and around its flanks,
through gaps etc.

Sorry for thinking out loud. I asked about Warrior but maybe someone
will tell me I should investigate DBM...

Maybe I can find a group that has stuck to WRG 5 through thick and
thin...

Any comment appreciated regarding anything I hav raised - I have
enjoyed reading through a small number of the posts here and it is
good to find so much useful discussion.

Thanks Jon - I'll contact Caliver.

It seems WRG 7/Warrior has essential difference from WRG 5/6. Would
anybody who converted from 5/6 to 7/Warrior (back in the old days!)
like to comment on their experience?

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 12/30/2003 20:09:05 Central Standard Time,
> dsa_uk@y... writes:
> Am I right in thinking that DBM uses small units and typically
means
> fewer figures on the field?
> DBM does not use units. Each element is its own 'unit'.
>
>
> I haven't seen Warrior which is hard to
> find here
> Caliver Books is our UK distributor. You can also order it online
at
> www.fourhorsemenenterprises .com
> though I think I can find original WRG 7. Someone said that
> the WRG lists are still good for Warrior. Does that mean that an
army
> selected from those lists would fit Warrior directly? >>
> The old WRG 7th lists that we have not replaced with our own list
books may
> be used although you have to make the correction for those being in
terms of
> figures and ours being in terms of elements. Which lists have been
superceded
> are shown on the supercession list in the files section of this
yahoo group.
> Does Warrior
> use the unit sizes and base dimensions of WRG 6 rules and lists or
> has that all changed?
> An element has the same frontage and depth as an equivalent number
of 6th
> figures of the same type, with a few minor exceptions.
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 31/12/2003 14:24:42 GMT Standard Time,
Scott.Holder@... writes:

> I know in the UK, almost everybody took up DBM after it had been out for
> maybe a year but then I don't know how many of them go back pre-7th.

At my local club 99.99% of ancient games are DBM in both 15mm and 25mm. A lot
of these gamers go back 20+ years through most of the WRG editions. The
saddest time in my wargaming life was moving away after just starting to play
7th
and coming back to find it totally replaced by DBM. I'm not saying its an
inferior game, to each his own. I just don't find it satisfying to blame all my
defeats on poor PIP dice at the crucial moments! Also, the comment "I'm just
holding on for a 5/5 draw" drives me up the wall.

Steve


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

[scott holder]

It seems WRG 7/Warrior has essential difference from WRG 5/6. Would
anybody who converted from 5/6 to 7/Warrior (back in the old days!)
like to comment on their experience?

>It's been sooooo long and such a gradual process, it's hard to take you there.
I know that Bill and I both started with 5th, I know Jake played 6th but don't
know if where he started.

>Probably the biggest difference you'll deal with is the complete lack of morale
checking sequencing from those games--6th was moronic in that regard. And as
Jon mentioned, individual figures are no longer needed so moving stuff around is
easier. That being said, the figure mounting issues aren't huge between
6th-Warrior. You'll probably have more trouble with army composition from
something like 5th than anything else. FWIW, I liked 5th much more than 6th but
felt 7th (as far as it was developed) much much superior. And over the last 15+
years of playing and developing that system, I've never gotten bored with
it--that's a persistent theme many folks who play Warrior (or have come back to
Warrior) voice in here.

>Army lists: Our mantra is that local tournament organizers are free to
determine what they may or may not allow. Any tourney I run, only FHE lists are
allowed unless FHE lists are not yet published. The supercession list is also
available at www.fourhorsemenenterprises.com. If you are a 25mm player, horse
archer armies *can* be viable but that will depend on table size and how you run
the armies (Eric Turner consistently wins with Yuan Chinese for example). They
are more prevelant in 15mm fwiw.

>What game suits you: This is anybody's guess really. I know some of Bill's
New England crowd go waaaaaay back playing ancients (pre-5th) and one of them
moved into DBM, got tired of that, and currently plays WAB with occasional
forays into Warrior. Another plays DBR. I can say that most (but certainly not
all) current North American DBXers did not have any pre-7th experience. Most
old school Warrior players did, the two aforementioned exceptions
notwithstanding. But again, I over generalize here. I know in the UK, almost
everybody took up DBM after it had been out for maybe a year but then I don't
know how many of them go back pre-7th. Other ancient/medieval gaming systems
could be options but you might have trouble finding players in the UK. My
impression with Warrior is that we have a small core of players now
(re)established there who are antsy to get things moving so you'd at least have
some folks to learn from and play with.

>We will do whatever we can to support your efforts to get into Warrior so don't
hesitate to ask questions here. Jon and I split the duties, he with the rules,
me with the lists. He's busier:):)

Scott Holder
List Horseman

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Holder, Scott"
<Scott.Holder@f...> wrote:

> >And over the last 15+ years of playing and developing that system,
I've never gotten bored with it--that's a persistent theme many folks
who play Warrior (or have come back to Warrior) voice in here.
>
> >My impression with Warrior is that we have a small core of players
now (re)established there who are antsy to get things moving so you'd
at least have some folks to learn from and play with.
>

So true! As my game last night reaffirmed, Warrior forces one to
think through each decision, pre-plan the overall battle from the
start, and is enjoyable on an anticipitory level unlike any other.
I've returned to Warrior from DBM--was one of the orignial vocal
advocates for DBM--mainly because of the sameness of each DBM game.
But DBM is undergoing the continual morphing that drove me from 7th
originally. Now that Warrior has come into being, the greatest asset
the 4horsemen have is the steady nature of the rules. No more yearly
errata, alterations, interpretations, etc.

I came in on the last days of 6th. Played a few games and was
totally mistified. 7th came along and I forgot anything 6th
immediately. Each Warrior game is going to be different, and that is
very important to me.

Wanax

[Phil Gardocki]

Reply from an old WRG 6 gamer.

Welcome to Warrior!!

I was dragged kicking and screaming into Rev 7. But the end result was I
liked it more. Too be sure, it has its problems, but as you noted, Rev 6 had no
end of ways to snooker people. I have seen an hour long setup go flush on the
first missile shot, and I have seen an entire army of Roman legioneers go
impetuous as well.

You will find your army is more stable in Warrior/Rev 7. The enemy is not
going to take control of it. Morale rules are much simplified, but also keep
all the cumulitive effects. In Rev 5/6, the morale chart made you count every
plus and minus as a cumlitive effect, in Warrior this is emulated by more
often, but simplified, rout checks. Armies will suddenly depart after they have
been beat up, but not on the first volley of arrows.

The combat chart is "bloodier", but since figure removal is not an issue,
that does not seem to matter as much.
Shieldless infantry are much more vulnerable in Warrior.
The 2HCW weapon factors are not as good as in Rev 6/5.
Warrior's two forms of movement, march and tactical, make the maneauvers more
important. But also make the game have a marked difference between 25mm and
15mm Scales.
While figure points remain the same with Rev 6, SHC,SHK now have a shieldless
factor. So you pay 4 points for the armor upgrade, but do not get the full
benefit of that upgrade.
You do not have levels of disorder in Warrior, so that book keeping is no
longer necessary.
You also do not have to remember how many times a unit has been recoiled.
Just about every weapon type now fights multiple ranks, on contact and
subsequent bounds.

Be patient with the culture shock, but, from my opinion, it will be a worth
while.
Phil Gardocki


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

Greetings

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Holder, Scott"
<Scott.Holder@f...> wrote:
>.... I know in the UK, almost everybody took up DBM after it had
>been out for maybe a year but then I don't know how many of them go
>back pre-7th. Other ancient/medieval gaming systems could be
>options but you might have trouble finding players in the UK. My
>impression with Warrior is that we have a small core of players now
>(re)established there who are antsy to get things moving so you'd at
>least have some folks to learn from and play with.
>

I'm not sure what the UK core is like? There are a few UK locations
on the list of members of this group.

As mentioned before I've got a copy of Warrior (bought from Tin
Soldier UK (www.tinsoldieruk.com but they haven't updated their
website to refer to Warrior BTW) but have not yet played it as I'm
still building forces.

Edward

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Actually,
I heard that a group in Northern England just switched from 5th to 6th
edition WRG a couple of years ago. 5th must have really been a great game for
those guys to have played it so long.

kelly

still_at_lunch <dsa_uk@...> wrote:
I used to wargame ancients (mostly Roman, Seljuk) under WRG 5. When
WRG 6 came out I was underwhelmed by the abrupt reversals to what
seemed to me a balanced set. I gave up gaming at that time, though
not because my mainly horse archer army fled the field at the first
(infantry) charge against it. (In fact I often lent my hitherto
envied army to opponents and reverted to my Romans - one legionary
charge was enough under those rules to empty the table.)

A lot of people stuck to WRG 5 at that time and I don't balme them.
That is all a long time ago. Now I am thinking of (slowly) taking up
ancients again. It would have to be 25mm (sorry I don't like 15mm)
and as somebody who started out in Napoleoenics I think I want a
gaming system that utilises the kind of units traditional in WRG 5
(cavalry 12s, infantry 12, typically 24, maybe 36, even 4. I like
the spectacle.

Am I right in thinking that DBM uses small units and typically means
fewer figures on the field? I haven't seen Warrior which is hard to
find here though I think I can find original WRG 7. Someone said that
the WRG lists are still good for Warrior. Does that mean that an army
selected from those lists would fit Warrior directly? Does Warrior
use the unit sizes and base dimensions of WRG 6 rules and lists or
has that all changed?

Sorry to ask basic questions.

Judging from comments here I can imagine only one negative feature
that Warrior may have inherited from WRG - the unsubtle
classificationm of weapons and armor type. Really, the WRG concept
always aimed to allow the use of historically mismatched armies,
hence the desire to simplify and standardize weapons types.
Persoanlly I have come to feel that gaming in a very restricted
period, possible in the context of organised campains, is the way to
go.

One plus of Warrior in my view would be the tactical fiddling a.k.a.
playing with soldiers that WRG involved. I can quite see why many
don't like this. It is really an inheritance from Napoleonic rules
(from which for better or worse WRG decended) and reflects a liking
for wheeling single companies, forming column etc etc and all those
other Napoleonic things.

I can see why Barker and co decided to renounce this Napoleonic
inheritance - after all in ancients almost nothing is known about
tactical battlefield manouvres, except in the case of regular armies
for which we have descriptions and manuals (e.g .Romans). If you read
books by Barker and Heath it is really clear they are obsessed by
ancient army organisation (as Barker no doubt is or was by Napoleonic
organisation), but the way of thinking that goes with it (as
if 'units' were 'regiments') certainly makes the WRG concept a flawed
one however enjoyable it may be. In particular the concept of the
regimented unit makes irregulars behave anomolously, and even
(perversely) prevents the use of company size detachemtns by regular
units. It never quite felt right to have Turkoman horde advance up
the field in (subtly) color co-ordinated units of 12 instead of just
sweeping in a mass across the enemy front and around its flanks,
through gaps etc.

Sorry for thinking out loud. I asked about Warrior but maybe someone
will tell me I should investigate DBM...

Maybe I can find a group that has stuck to WRG 5 through thick and
thin...

Any comment appreciated regarding anything I hav raised - I have
enjoyed reading through a small number of the posts here and it is
good to find so much useful discussion.



---------------------------------
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,

Thanks for the archaeology – it does help me get the picture of what
happened.

Wanax,

What you say about the morphing of DBM certainly recalls the history
of WRG, which many of us felt had successfully stabilised at 5, but
which then overcompensated for certain perceived imbalances and went
waaay too far. I didn't stay around for 7 which was clearly wrote off
much of 6 isntead of reverting to the old certainties of 5. It seems
that PB still has the habit of revising rather than tinkering – which
is good in a way, I guess – he never stops asking questions: I'm just
not sure he adequately play tests the answers to those questions!


Edward

Hi to you in UK. I have no idea who is playing what in this country,
and in a way I am not too concerned. What I would really like is to
create a small enclave of like minded players, then think about
national profile after that.

Steve

It may be that we all go through these cycles of grief for rules we
like. I thought 6th had wrecked the whole hobby – and maybe it had –
fantasy seems to have taken hold around about that time ;)

Phil

Thanks for those details – they are encouraging. I definitely need to
see Warrior… From what you and others have said it sounds like 15mm
is the key to battles of manoeuvre in terms of table size, which may
mean I have to give up my preference for 25mm – that will be very
hard to do!

Kelly

This last reply is best in some ways! I lost contact with my former
northern group but we sound exactly like the kind of people who would
have clung to 5 through thick and thin. It just goes to show you
don't have to move with the times!



Thanks to all – I have another query and I started a new post…

David

[Jake Kovel]

In a message dated 12/31/03 4:59:28 AM, dsa_uk@... writes:


> Thanks Jon - I'll contact Caliver.
>
>

You can also contact Tin Soldier, UK. They probably have a better stock
than Caliver.


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