Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

All: Please note that I did say there was no need for unsolicited advice on
WB. Givent that would have NO impact on our audience's behavior, I reserve the
right to comment on such advice when I feel like it - so if you give me some
and get ignored, hey - it's nothing personal... :)

I suggest dumping the entire "paces" thing as a neat thing for the
grognard but wholly and needlessly confusing to the uninitiated and
simply call them "inches" (with appropriate change in the numbers) with
a note in the introduction to measure 40mm "inches" in 25mm figure
scale. Why make everyone needlessly go through the mental agony of
dividing by 40 all the time when they are concentrating on learning a
new rules system?>>
Actually, the use of a single unit for every scale is a work of art to me...
Paces aren't going to change one bit, for a great many reasons - not the
least of which is that the extremely useful measurement of 2.5 feet/0.75 meters
is
the cornerstone of our entire projected line of games...lol
Ditto for the simply stylistic improvement of calling
"bounds" turns instead, if there are any references as such remaining in
the rules.
Now, I'd agree there. Bound, waver, unease and prompt are in Warrior over my
objections. You want to change this - see other horsemen...lol


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

[John Murphy]

Well....

First off it sounds like you are on a good track with Warrior Battles
for introducing new or cross-system players. My comments below are based
on not the region's best understanding of the rules anyway, but perhaps
for that reason have their own important perspective.

I suggest dumping the entire "paces" thing as a neat thing for the
grognard but wholly and needlessly confusing to the uninitiated and
simply call them "inches" (with appropriate change in the numbers) with
a note in the introduction to measure 40mm "inches" in 25mm figure
scale. Why make everyone needlessly go through the mental agony of
dividing by 40 all the time when they are concentrating on learning a
new rules system? Ditto for the simply stylistic improvement of calling
"bounds" turns instead, if there are any references as such remaining in
the rules.

Then, and more importantly, I would note that Warrior is only
quasi-interactive. You roll for first approaches and that roll is in
fact extremely important tactically in Warrior since "setting the range"
is such an important feature.

This has two, perhaps contradictory effects for the present discussion
on Warrior Battles rules sequence of play.

First, changing to fully Igo-Hugo probably isn't as big a conceptual
change per se as some have made it out to be. All you are doing is
removing the random die-roll and making it the same every turn.

Second, given the importance of that roll how in the world would you
make it Igo-Hugo the same way every turn without totally destroying the
game balance?

John Murphy

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Actually John,
I've always thought that the whole "Light Heavy Infantry classification
should become "Loose Heavy Infantry", hence creating "Loose Medium Infantry." I
see your point with the paces thing but it does cause my students to stop and
multiply or divide to come up with movement into inches.

Kelly

John Murphy <jjmurphy@...> wrote:
Well....

First off it sounds like you are on a good track with Warrior Battles
for introducing new or cross-system players. My comments below are based
on not the region's best understanding of the rules anyway, but perhaps
for that reason have their own important perspective.

I suggest dumping the entire "paces" thing as a neat thing for the
grognard but wholly and needlessly confusing to the uninitiated and
simply call them "inches" (with appropriate change in the numbers) with
a note in the introduction to measure 40mm "inches" in 25mm figure
scale. Why make everyone needlessly go through the mental agony of
dividing by 40 all the time when they are concentrating on learning a
new rules system? Ditto for the simply stylistic improvement of calling
"bounds" turns instead, if there are any references as such remaining in
the rules.

Then, and more importantly, I would note that Warrior is only
quasi-interactive. You roll for first approaches and that roll is in
fact extremely important tactically in Warrior since "setting the range"
is such an important feature.

This has two, perhaps contradictory effects for the present discussion
on Warrior Battles rules sequence of play.

First, changing to fully Igo-Hugo probably isn't as big a conceptual
change per se as some have made it out to be. All you are doing is
removing the random die-roll and making it the same every turn.

Second, given the importance of that roll how in the world would you
make it Igo-Hugo the same way every turn without totally destroying the
game balance?

John Murphy



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]