Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[scott holder]

NASAMW is taking a long look at providing terrain for use in Warrior and DBM events at the three Big East conventions. The idea is to improve the terrain standard so that it matches the general figure standard we've shown over the last several years.

One reason that out terrain sucks is that we have to travel. As such, making comparisons to other systems in which a local or regional club hauls everything up is unfair. It's hard enough these days to fly with figs much less bring nice looking terrain.

Thus, NASAMW is looking to be that "club". The general idea is that they would provide plenty of the most used, usual pieces. If you use something odd, then it would have to be up to standard. In fact, any of your terrain could be used if it looked good enough.

Three examples of this. Rich Kroupa's terrain is fantastic! Nothing fancy mind you but it looks good and is crafted with Warrior in mind. His hills were great and his major water feature is the standard by which all major water features should be judged. A second example would be the two pieces of woods that Tim Brown brought. These were static pieces in that the trees didn't move which meant players had to take that into account when playing, but they were nice. In either case, if those players had shown up and said "I want to use my woods", I would have had no trouble saying yes. And Bill Chris brought some minor water feature, march concoction that looked great.

The idea is to get rid of felt.

So, now to the crux of this. What are the most often used pieces of terrain? In my world, there are only three:

Major Water feature
Brush
Woods

Anything else? By going thru this exercise, NASAMW can best determine what needs to be purchased that would fit the bulk of players needs, tool it for Warrior standards (in both scales).

And if you know of a vendor that does this kind of stuff, please provide that info here and we'll follow up on it.

scott

[Mark Stone]

[scott holder]

Um, Mark, please don't hijack the thread.

This isn't about what people *should* be using, that's a wonderful topic for another thread. This is about what people *do* use and want to use and having that available at the cons.

If you want to start that thread, I'll be more than happy to move your post to it.

And by your post I take it to mean that we should add hills to the list.

scott

[jamiepwhite]

Off the top of my head, in the last few months we (Steve, Derek, Rick, and myself among others) have been using the following:

Woods, usually max sized
Hills, usually steep, rocky, and conical, max sized, sometimes the other extreme at min size
Marsh
Minor water feature once or twice
bog, rocky area (Has different visibility rules than brush)
brush
open space
major water feature (makes a convenient place to keep your fatigue sheet)
Woods on hills
Ditch (temporary fortification)
palisade (temporary fortification)
ditch and stone wall (temporary fortification)

Built over areas, gullies, orchards and vineyards we talk about but never use.

Jamie

[Frank Gilson]

Hills Hills Hills...I most frequently roll for hills.

Some gentle, some steep, never rocky...

Some max length but min width, some max size entirely, rarely the smallest hill possible...

It's very tough to have hills at hand that are steep and gentle, and various sizes.

Hills!

[Bill Chriss]

[Ewan McNay]

Hills indeed. And road(s).

I almost never place aggressive terrain that is not a hill; I often place defensive hills, or use them - as Mark notes - to cut down frontage.

Never woods. Rarely brush; the Theme in '05 (where I specifically took a terrain-friendly army) was an odd exception. Never any form of water. Just hills and roads.

[Frank Gilson]

Did I say hills earlier?

Yup...

Hills...

They're tricky though...sometimes I place one that is only partially steep, along 1/2 the frontage...or the steep portion may only be 80p deep, etc.

Also, I rarely place circular features as such don't work well for troop placement given our troops are in rectangular units...

Hills please...

[Tim Grimmett]

Major Water Feature

Marsh

Woods

[John Murphy]

I have to just say here that felt is not the worst thing in terrain.
I have some cheapo hills from a set. The angle along the edge of the hill is extreme so troops do not stay where they belong when placed along it. And the fact that it looks like a plateau with no elevation features except a incline along the edge makes it look, in my opinion, no better than felt which would at least have the benefit of being practical.

So, my point is, if you are going to have NASAMW buy terrain to use in Lancaster I would hope it would be stuff that is not just a different kind of bad terrain just because it is not felt. So the statement "the main idea is to get rid of felt" disturbs me. Because I've owned and played on plenty of terrainthat was not felt but was still junk and possibly worse than felt.

Oh - Open, Minor Water, Major Water, Woods, Road, Hills, Marsh (obviously not all of those at once, or even for the same army)
I see a lot of other players use Brush but I do not myself
Bogs and BUA's would be nice to see more of but hardly ever. Must be something in the rules that discourages BUA's in the optimizing mindset.

[scott holder]

Um, John, where did the perception "perenially cheap" come from? Are you a member? I don't believe so.

NASAMW just spent over $1000 on custom dice and a nifty playing aid for both 15mm and 25mm. This is not an organization awash in cash but is taking some steps to do more. Remember, it's a small, all volunteer organization. Should you feel it needs better leadership or take a different approach in doing things, I'd urge you to join and run for office to affect such change.

scott

[John Murphy]

sorry, retracted, my bad. not intended to slam on the leadership or membership, shame on me, in fact the volunteerism and enthusiasm is what keeps it going.