Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

<< This is just my two cents on the wrap around .... once again. I will try
not
to say pissy things like "sez you" and actually speak on this logically.>>

Sorry Greg, I should have included a smiley face. I have never been "pissy"
(sitting here, in real life) in any response to this group.

<<The wrap rule was put in to allow troops that were right in front of an
exposed flank>>

The wrap rule was put in because Phil gave it to everyone that night without
any real thought to the effect on the overall game. It was off the cuff, and
in his defense, that is the difference between an American rules writer and a
British one. They are more fast and loose than we are. Warrior is an
American rules set. Its mechanics must be consistent throughout the body of
the rules and not simply some sort of guide to judges.

<<and that had sufficient movement to do so, to actually act
like REAL soldiers and hit what was right in front of them. I would venture
to say that if you were a lot of Gauls in a big warband, it would be almost
impossable in real life to stop them from doing it!>>

No argument that in reality there would be a swarming around the 'faces' of
'units' both of which are artificial constructs themselves. And how about
them guys on the flank not fighting? Not very realistic either, wouldn't you
say?

<<As far as rallying goes, whats the big deal. You pivot back to your
original
formation>>

Forcing the player to remember where he was. If a three-wide split one on
the front and two on the flank, does he rally in line with the flank
elements? How do those elements get to 'snap back', if we are so worried
about realism at the individual fighter level? What would that look like on
the ground?

<<on the point of the wrap and do whatever it is your supposed to
do, be it rally, pursue, etc. It seems to me that this is not a question of
people understanding it, but rather the fact that it was poorly written in
the first place>>

So, so true. But it wasn't even written. It was made up verbally using
three three-by-five cards on a hotel coffee table. We were forced to use it.
Now we are not.

<<.... and I though THAT was why we were buying Warrior.>>

'We' did not buy Warrior. Me and Scott and Bill and Jake are. :)

<>

Cute. I did. 90 degree wraparound is not a rule.

<< I also remember every time anyone suggests something, the arguement came
out about not having time to screw with things or play test them, etc .... I
guess this was all b/s?>>

Huh? We'd be months making this thing work to no useful end. Your sentence,
Greg, makes it sound like this is a universally well understood rule now
standing in the body of the text of WRG 7th. It most assuredly is not. For
every interpretation you have of the "face or faces exposed" bit from page
25, I can show you two more.

The big disconnect between you and us is that we do not believe this
situation is important enough. You can only get to the point where the 93
interp takes effect if you can get a guy's flank. Since you can get to his
flank anyway, what's the problem? You must need an extra 3-4-5 figures
fighting. Ok, but he gets some too, if there is a wrap. Will players be
deciding to wrap or not after counting in their heads the impact of letting
the enemy fight to the front. YES!!! I have seen it. I've even done it
(and took a shower afterwards). What the hell does THAT represent in real
life? Asterix telling his guys to slide sideways cause the HTW might give
out too much damage to the front? Or ordering a 90 degree bend cause he
needs 12 more casualties to break the enemy? Are we some how to make
'wrapping' mandatory? For a couple extra figures in 5% of charges? Sorry.
Not worth it.

<< Just my two cents .... Greg>>

And I value those $.02, Greg. Trust me, if I did not, there would have been
no time spent on a response to your last mail.
Disagreement is not = to not wanting to hear what you have to say.

Jon

[scott holder]

You can only get to the point where the 93
interp takes effect if you can get a guy's flank. Since you can get to his
flank anyway, what's the problem? You must need an extra 3-4-5 figures
fighting. Ok, but he gets some too, if there is a wrap. Will players be
deciding to wrap or not after counting in their heads the impact of letting
the enemy fight to the front. YES!!! I have seen it. I've even done it
(and took a shower afterwards). What the hell does THAT represent in real
life? Asterix telling his guys to slide sideways cause the HTW might give
out too much damage to the front? Or ordering a 90 degree bend cause he
needs 12 more casualties to break the enemy? Are we some how to make
'wrapping' mandatory? For a couple extra figures in 5% of charges? Sorry.
Not worth it.

>Thank you. I'd drafted a preliminary reply to this and then stopped. What
Jon describes above is the "Chris Damour" Ploy. You carefully position a unit
in such a way that the opponent doesn't believe:

a) you're in charge reach since such moves involve micromillimeter wheels in
order to connect one corner of the charging element to the corner of the
target element. Reason #1 for umpire to be called over.

b) because of the barest shred of possibility that the charging unit contacts,
you can massively wraparound getting all kinds of movement as the tails whip
around. Reason #2 for the umpire to be called over.

Chris pulled this stuff for years before my dim mind caught on. Thereafter, I
told people that if such a charge was too close to call (meaning if I were
called over), I wouldn't allow it to happen. The point was to make such
things obvious which then resulted in less teleporting moves, and, suprise
suprise, less calling over of the umpire.

And as Jon has recounted doing himself, I've seen guys spend 5 minutes
agonizing over whether or not to wraparound and that usually prolongs into
another 5 minutes as the umpire comes over and walks the players thru the
machinations resulting from the 93/94 Interp Booklet.

One important facet of Warrior that I've seen posted here time and time again
is the desire to take the umpire out of the game. The mechanical approach
that *we* have settled on vis a vis flank charges and subsequent "line up
moves" resulting from said movement(s) is done precisely to clean up and
persistent gooey spot in the rules AND take the random element (the umpire)
out of the process.

Personally, I always liked the wraparound move. But, I also saw, better than
probably anyone, the endless confusion and "conflict" it created among
players. The approach we are taking now gets rid of all the problems with no
significant change in outcome.

Whew.

Scott

[Greg Regets]

This is just my two cents on the wrap around .... once again. I will try not
to say pissy things like "sez you" and actually speak on this logically.

The wrap rule was put in to allow troops that were right in front of an
exposed flank, and that had sufficient movement to do so, to actually act
like REAL soldiers and hit what was right in front of them. I would venture
to say that if you were a lot of Gauls in a big warband, it would be almost
impossable in real life to stop them from doing it!

As far as rallying goes, whats the big deal. You pivot back to your original
formation on the point of the wrap and do whatever it is your supposed to
do, be it rally, pursue, etc. It seems to me that this is not a question of
people understanding it, but rather the fact that it was poorly written in
the first place .... and I though THAT was why we were buying Warrior.

I remember some wise rules writer saying long ago that they were not going
to screw with the basic mechanics of the game. I also remember every time
anyone suggests something, the arguement came out about not having time to
screw with things or play test them, etc .... I guess this was all b/s?

If you want to screw with a rule, screw with charging out of skirmish for
infantry. The charging out of skirmish was put in for things like Mongol HC
and things like that, remember? What they have done is tell every Roman
commander, that they would be an idiot to "waste" their Auxilia to control
terrain when its so good out in the open .... something that is really not
very historical.

Just my two cents .... Greg

[joncleaves]

Sorry, Greg. As far as FHE is concerned, the issue is closed. I cannot
afford to get into an extensive discussion of this. We vehemently disagree
and are going to have to leave it at that.

One very important point-of-view thing. Warrior is NOT (I say again, NOT)
warmed over WRG 7th + all interps. Many of the interps are in Warrior, many
are not. It is a set of rules in its own right and Scott is absolutely
correct that we do not intend for there to be (the 'need' for) an interp book
for it or have it rely on judges to make it work. It is precisely the issue
that your group played wraparounds as mandatory and many I have played in
have not. We want a standard everyone can understand without being a NASAMW
member (if they choose not to be) and, more importantly, a standard that
holds up when groups from different parts of the country meet.
I cannot emphasize that last sentence enough. You may claim that your group
is representative in its 'understanding' of the interps. But the fact that
we disagree on the use of a particular interp precisely proves my point that
it fails our standard.
If you are taking the view that Warrior should be WRG 7.7, you view is in
conflict with our philosophy. The 35th boardgame to use hexes and zones of
control used concepts developed from the previous 34, but was not beholden to
everything done in those games. WRG 7th broke a lot of ground as well as
using the best parts of the state of the art of its time. That state of the
art has advanced since 1985 and we are taking advantage of that fact where it
makes sense to.

I would ask for your continued support despite your feelings on this issue.

Roll up and win!
Jon

[Greg Regets]

You can only get to the point where the 93 interp takes effect if you can
get a guy's flank. Since you can get to his
flank anyway, what's the problem? You must need an extra 3-4-5 figures
fighting. Ok, but he gets some too, if there is a wrap.

>>>>Greg>>>> Units contacted only on the flank do not get to fight. Its the
same principle. At least with the wrap, he gets to fight whats in front.


Will players be deciding to wrap or not after counting in their heads the
impact of letting the enemy fight to the front. YES!!! I have seen it.
I've even done it (and took a shower afterwards).

>>>>Greg>>>> If you have seen it, then the players are not reading
correctly. The same holds true if you have done it. Players do not get a
choice of wrapping or not. It says right in the interp that wraparounds are
NOT optional moves (p12 interp). If the wrap around exists, you must take it
both on the front and flank (p25 rule book, "units do not stop at the point
of contact, but pivot to conform to the face or faces exposed").


What the hell does THAT represent in real
life? Asterix telling his guys to slide sideways cause the HTW might give
out too much damage to the front? Or ordering a 90 degree bend cause he
needs 12 more casualties to break the enemy? Are we some how to make
'wrapping' mandatory? For a couple extra figures in 5% of charges? Sorry.

Not worth it.

>>>>Greg>>>> Nobody is ordering anything .... they are just fighting things
that are right in front of them. Wraparound is already madatory. Many things
only happen 5% of the time. Are we going to throw these out too?


>Thank you. I'd drafted a preliminary reply to this and then stopped. What
Jon describes above is the "Chris Damour" Ploy. You carefully position a
unit
in such a way that the opponent doesn't believe:

a) you're in charge reach since such moves involve micromillimeter wheels in
order to connect one corner of the charging element to the corner of the
target element. Reason #1 for umpire to be called over.

>>>>Greg>>>> Gentlemans rule .... tell your opponent how far away you are
when you approach. This has worked down here since the dawn of time.


b) because of the barest shred of possibility that the charging unit
contacts, you can massively wraparound getting all kinds of movement as the
tails whip around. Reason #2 for the umpire to be called over.

Chris pulled this stuff for years before my dim mind caught on. Thereafter,
I
told people that if such a charge was too close to call (meaning if I were
called over), I wouldn't allow it to happen. The point was to make such
things obvious which then resulted in less teleporting moves, and, suprise
suprise, less calling over of the umpire.

>>>>Greg>>>> Then the judges ruled it wrong, as wraps are not optional. The
fact that one player did something that is clearly not legal is not the
issue, nor should it be the basis of rules writing. The elements that
whipped around is also not legal. Only elements that made contact can wrap
around. The tale would not whip.


And as Jon has recounted doing himself, I've seen guys spend 5 minutes
agonizing over whether or not to wraparound and that usually prolongs into
another 5 minutes as the umpire comes over and walks the players thru the
machinations resulting from the 93/94 Interp Booklet.

>>>>Greg>>>> Once again, these players are spending time thinking about
something that the rules force them to do anyway. If the element facing ends
up in front, they have to conform, NO THINKING ABOUT IT. You do not get to
back up out of contact or pull up short because you want to. This violates
your original formation. If a player has enough move to contact only the
flank and not the front (which would mean he hits prefectly square), that is
not a wrap around, its just a flank charge. If the guy so wrapped/flanked
allows this to happen to them, perhaps they should pay a serious penalty!


One important facet of Warrior that I've seen posted here time and time
again
is the desire to take the umpire out of the game. The mechanical approach
that *we* have settled on vis a vis flank charges and subsequent "line up
moves" resulting from said movement(s) is done precisely to clean up and
persistent gooey spot in the rules AND take the random element (the umpire)
out of the process.

>>>>Greg>>>> I bet more time was spent convincing players that can't look at
diagram 13 and see that its legal, than is spent on the player doing the
wrapping.


Personally, I always liked the wraparound move. But, I also saw, better
than
probably anyone, the endless confusion and "conflict" it created among
players. The approach we are taking now gets rid of all the problems with
no
significant change in outcome.

>>>>Greg>>>> I like (liked) it too. FINALLY, there was a rule that put more
skill back in the hands of the players and made your play more important
than picking armies with killer troops. I'm shocked that so much time is
spent on this rule. We have been using it for quite some time and really
don't have a problem with it. If you play it EXACTLY like it says in the
rules and interps, its pretty clear.

>>>>Greg>>>> I have never been critical of the Warrior effort, as a matter
of fact I have never posted anything negative on the Warrior site before,
but as one of the most experienced players in the second largest region in
the NASAMW, I think removing this rule is a step in the wrong direction ....
so sez me! :-)

Greg

[Greg Regets]

Hey guys .... it no big thing. I stated my case, and the fact that you took
enough time to respond shows that it at least considered it. I don't agree
as you well know, and for the life of me can't figure out how the wraparound
rules would confuse anyone, but you made the call and as an old athlete, I
know when its time to move on to the next play.

I have, and will continue, to support Warrior in any way I can. Your efforts
are noble and well worth the undertaking. Just try to leave a little skill
in the rules for us old gamers .... ok?

Thanks for the consideration .... Greg

[Mike Turner]

Just a few observations from a relatively "new" ancients gamer.

First off I'm not a "new" gamer, I've gamed Napoleonic's, ACW, SYW, and WWII
for about 28 years and painted for longer, and been a contributing painter
to a few services.
My background: Bachelors Degree in Military History, 2 years enlisted
service and 16+ years as an Infantry Officer, serving in Mechanized, LT, and
AASLT units. I've seen combat at the tactical and operational level, urban,
jungle, wooded and open terrain.

I hesitated getting into ancients because of the comments from other gamers
over the years, that the group was overseen/full of a group who knew all of
the various WRG rewrites and NASAMW lists/rules and used this confusing mix
of information to beat new gamers over the head and shoulders until they
lost all interest (read lack of fun). I've competed in several tournaments
for other periods so I understood the groups they spoke of, and those who
would use the info=power to make a game no fun for new people. I also know
this leads to the fall out of players and eventual death of a rules/period
of gaming. Don't get me wrong, I like to win, and I play hard to do so, but
I like there to be an opponent across the table from me and know that
certain attitudes and actions can empty seats quickly.

I applaud the efforts of the 4 Horsemen and their yeoman's effort to write
the Warrior Rules (I say write not rewrite). If you
compare the rules to WRG you'll see you have a hard time calling them
simply a rewrite. I can say that ancients have picked up drastically in our
area and the figures are appearing in growing numbers in the Hobby stores,
we're having FUN (and isn't that what it is all about, everyone having
fun?). We can all look at 1 source for the rules during a game, and not
pull out some old tidbit from a bygone era. Understand we use the WRG
lists, but also understand that as Warrior produces their lists they will be
the only source we use. When we play Warrior we play Warrior.

I think some of the older ancients gamers are bringing a lot of baggage with
them, Hey guys!, it's a new world, drop it! Rejoice that someone is doing a
clean sweep and ancients gaming might flourish again because of it, don't
sit in a corner, poo-pooing because a certain "game winning"/ "only I
understand" rule is being changed/cleaned up. Don't ever forget we're
talking about one set of rules covering over a thousand years, making it
possible for armies that never fought could.

To the 4 Horsemen, write the rules, make the lists, guys, you own them!
Let's play Warrior and leave all of the old baggage behind that almost
killed ancients a decade ago. For the old guys, change is good, think about
it, otherwise you're the Biblical guy getting overrun Knight. If you still
want to mix apples and oranges, go ahead, just do so in your club/group, but
don't beat up Jon for doing a hell of a job.

Just my 2 cents.

PS. As a History Major and someone who has seen combat I get a good laugh
every time someone backs up their argument with "WHAT REALLY HAPPENS IS"
don't think anyone in the e-group "was there" or is old enough to have been,
so personally I stay away from using that phrase.

-----Original Message-----
From: Holder, Scott <FHWA> [mailto:Scott.Holder@...]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 6:06 AM
To: WarriorRules@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Wraparound

You can only get to the point where the 93
interp takes effect if you can get a guy's flank. Since you can get to his
flank anyway, what's the problem? You must need an extra 3-4-5 figures
fighting. Ok, but he gets some too, if there is a wrap. Will players be
deciding to wrap or not after counting in their heads the impact of letting
the enemy fight to the front. YES!!! I have seen it. I've even done it
(and took a shower afterwards). What the hell does THAT represent in real
life? Asterix telling his guys to slide sideways cause the HTW might give
out too much damage to the front? Or ordering a 90 degree bend cause he
needs 12 more casualties to break the enemy? Are we some how to make
'wrapping' mandatory? For a couple extra figures in 5% of charges? Sorry.

Not worth it.

>Thank you. I'd drafted a preliminary reply to this and then stopped. What
Jon describes above is the "Chris Damour" Ploy. You carefully position a
unit
in such a way that the opponent doesn't believe:

a) you're in charge reach since such moves involve micromillimeter wheels in
order to connect one corner of the charging element to the corner of the
target element. Reason #1 for umpire to be called over.

b) because of the barest shred of possibility that the charging unit
contacts,
you can massively wraparound getting all kinds of movement as the tails whip
around. Reason #2 for the umpire to be called over.

Chris pulled this stuff for years before my dim mind caught on. Thereafter,
I
told people that if such a charge was too close to call (meaning if I were
called over), I wouldn't allow it to happen. The point was to make such
things obvious which then resulted in less teleporting moves, and, suprise
suprise, less calling over of the umpire.

And as Jon has recounted doing himself, I've seen guys spend 5 minutes
agonizing over whether or not to wraparound and that usually prolongs into
another 5 minutes as the umpire comes over and walks the players thru the
machinations resulting from the 93/94 Interp Booklet.

One important facet of Warrior that I've seen posted here time and time
again
is the desire to take the umpire out of the game. The mechanical approach
that *we* have settled on vis a vis flank charges and subsequent "line up
moves" resulting from said movement(s) is done precisely to clean up and
persistent gooey spot in the rules AND take the random element (the umpire)
out of the process.

Personally, I always liked the wraparound move. But, I also saw, better
than
probably anyone, the endless confusion and "conflict" it created among
players. The approach we are taking now gets rid of all the problems with
no
significant change in outcome.

Whew.

Scott







































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