Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Raphael]

Hello All,

Firstly some background might be in order. I live in the U.K., where wargaming is predominantly club-based. This is both a strength and a weakness. It allows you to get regular play against a wide variety of opponents, but only if you use the same rules. It allows you to see the rules you don't quite grasp played out, but also stretched in ways you just know the writer never intended. It allows you to hopefully, after the better games, discuss them in detail, but usually means you just rush home defeated and adopt the army/tactics/unscrupulous practices of your opponent.

When I first started gaming, WRG's dominance was absolute and ancients dominated the club scene. You could always get a game but only with their rules and their lists. At the time, 5th was just being supplanted by 6th and its '3 bound games' punctuated by arguments more ferocious than any on-table conflict.

WRG 7th and 15mm seemed to appear together, with rule mechanisms I really liked and with figures I could afford. However, I gave up wargaming at the club for several years. I returned to find that all Ancient gaming had totally vanished. This wasn't changed until the advent of DBM brought about a resurgence.

Phil Barker himself has said on his website that these rules are now becoming bland, hence DBMM.

Perhaps as a reaction to this, WAB with its seeming 'character' and buckets of dice is now as dominant as WRG ever was. (What exactly is it with gamers and dice anyway - the WW2 set currently in vogue also uses loads of them.)

Sadly, Warrior is nowhere to be seen and I don't think anyone I know even owns a set

So, all those 15mm armies lying unused are ripe for conversion to the true path that is Fast Warrior, if only I could get a game put on

As I said in my first post, the only actual experience I have of a 'real' game is the Demo Battle, so I can only base my real understanding on this and on years of playing DBM.

So, finally, to the subject of this post:

[Raphael]

Having lost several posts before they arrived on-site I have now started to break them down, both for resons of ensuring safe arrival and for purposes of hopefully, easier mental digestion

So, to continue. As I currently have to view this Forum as my 'club', some of the same circumstances apply. Mark Stone in his cogently argued posts concerning list analysis summed this up perfectly by saying that a perceived list weakness is often its strength (and perhaps the opposite also applies.)

These then is my points. I will probably never meet or game against anyone else on this forum, so seeing how they play and interpret the rules is not an option. To more than compensate, I can ask any question I like, whenever I like, and the author himself, despite this not being his regular job, in his genuine commitment to make these rules the best available will respond with unequalled clarity and speed (oh wonderful internet .)

This is then, as I see it, both its absolute strength and its Achilles Heel.

[Raphael]

(Hopefully this method of posting won't gum up the works too much. If it does, profound apologies in advance, and tell me to stop.)

To continue. If I am honest this actually makes me intellectually lazy. I have a situation, 'can't' resolve it and just bat it upstairs. Heaven forbid that this should be seen as a criticism of all those who genuinely post questions more complex than a Gordian Knot only to have Jon answer them so clearly (clearly Cleaves by name and Cleaves by nature in both senses of the word )

To be honest, the posts both here and on the Yahoo group that I have most enjoyed, although perhaps not at the time, are those where a question is posed, Jon charges in response, and 'army champions' like Mark, Ewan, Todd, Frank, and many others countercharge. In the ensuing melee I unfailingly gain a deeper understanding of both the letter and more fundamentally the intent behind the rules themselves. A prime example of this is the fairly recent Echolonning Topic. I fully appreciate that time constraints don't always permit this and I am much the poorer for it.

This then, finally, is getting to the point(s). The initial subject is a statement I have heard echoed through the years, usually as a justification for some impending act of blatant malfeisance which you just know to be wrong but cannot find an answer for in the rules (Scott's bogus meter concerning the elephant question is, to my mind a prime example of this).

[Raphael]

My points then are these, and are what I see to be examples of the strength/weakness dichotomy.

Jon's avowed intent is to answer every question posted. He quite rightly reserves for himself the right to answer such questions to ensure we all play by those same rules.

but, this can often stifle any form of 'post-game' debrief as we just sit back awaiting an answer (guilty as charged here ). This debate is, to me, perhaps one of the most rewarding and valuable parts of gaming as I strive to both understand the rules more and then blend what I learn of history to them in an ongoing attempt to enrich the whole Warrior experience and is a major reason why I want to wargame with Warrior for years to come.

This can also. perhaps, rob Jon himself of the valuable opportunity of seeing how our minds work as we try to resolve problems for ourselves (which must surely be the ultimate aim of it all) and where we either misinterpret or misunderstand the rules, so giving him the chance to pinpoint the exact cause and then clarify it in a way we all understand. Sadly, intent isn't good enough for many, they need black and white!

If I am to take Warrior to my club I must be prepared to face those who have vastly more experience of gaming than me with what I know to be a superb set of rules, confident both that I understand them and that they will have a great game as a result.

This unequalled combination of an ever increasing clarity combined with a corresponding increase in a grasp of just how infinitely rich and subtle these rules truly are is the driving force behind both my postings and why I give the reasons arrived at in my conclusions. somewhat along the lines of the give a man a fish/ teach him to fish argument.

So, with this in mind, what I would like to see if possible is some sort of Warrior approved playpen on the forum. In it, any questions can be asked of other members and (hopefully) discussed purely for the purposes of gaining an increased insight and understanding. Everything posted in it is utterly and absolutely non-binding rule wise (What's said in the pen stays in the pen .) Then, perhaps Jon could pop in occasionally just to see how, having put his baby to bed, it is still hopefully growing and maturing into what he and all at FHE intend it to be.

Apologies for such a long and rambling post, it really is meant with the best intentions,

Steve

[Raphael]

Hmmm...

Two things strike me about this. How can you take anything he says seriously. He talks to himself and he can't even get his own name right

Raphael (the real)

By way of excuse, I know of at least 4 genuine Steve's. When you are sneakily reading his postings on this forum while at work, talking to another in the office, trying to speak to another one on the phone while also composing a post yourself and discussing yet another in an e-mail ..... multi-tasking, what's that?

Raphael (I think)

[joncleaves]

[[So, with this in mind, what I would like to see if possible is some sort of Warrior approved playpen on the forum.]]

Raph, why wouldn't you just use the tactics section for this? That is indeed what it is for.

The rules section is so a player can go and - ideally - see threads that are just questions and just answers. And, more importantly, where one can go and ask a rules question and get a rules answer. The typical rules question asker just wants an answer and the reader of such posts just wants to see an answer and neither generally wants to "sift" to get it.

But debates about things Warrior have plenty of places here - and for various nuances of tactics, I should think the tactics section would serve.

As for Warrior in the UK, to increase playership, we'd have to market the game. And FHE's partners have decided not to take on that task. All we can do then is support our players' efforts to increase the base.

[Raphael]

Hello Jon,

I fully apreciate that. I was looking more for where to discuss Warrior rules and philosophy in a way that didn't actually require the yes/no type answers that most players want (and all definitely on occasion need).

I view the rules section as akin to taking place 'in the game itself' and so a promt clear answer with no sifting needed is indeed invaluable, similar to an Umpires ruling almost.

Let's take a case in point. I asked why the German Cavalry in the Demo Game couldn't simply counter straight forward out of combat. Your reply was that the 90 Degree turn to face their opponent was the only allowable counter. That is clearly your intent, but the rules don't actually say that.

After the 'game' I could then take this decision and ask 'what's going on here? What is the reasoning behind this particular rule? Why can't cavalry hit in the flank by infantry just cut their way clear? All questions without a definitive yes/no response but the answers to which would greatly enhance both my own understanding of the rules and my ability to think for myself so that I might later reach the correct decisions by myself.
Particularly in a country which has not seen fit to even support your venture!

If you say tactics is the area to go to then that's fine, now I know . This entire Forum is so much better than the old e-group I really didn't
want to just go cluttering up the rules section, (which I am doing) so I'll stop right now and come back later with some points I've been pondering.

[scott holder]

I would strongly urge you to go to the Lists section and read *all* the stickies. You'll see why we've shied away from being pulled into exactly what you're asking.

Now, if Jon wants to engage in such a dialogue, that's his decision. But don't look for Bill or myself delving into such things regarding lists.

If this sounds somewhat, abrubt, head into the archives and start reading from day one and you might see where the scars came from.

scott

[Raphael]

Hello Scott/Jon,

I appreciate what you are both saying. I've read the 'stickys' and wholeheartedly support the Warrior philosophy, that's why I'm here.

With all your other commitments I know I'm asking way, way too much. what I was perhaps hoping to recreate was that general post-game atmosphere that always made gaming so much more enjoyable. Knowing that you have kindred spirits, even hundreds of miles away, helps when faced with wall-to-wall Warhammer.

On reflection, posting the right things in the right places on the forum would be a good place for me to start. (It's just the zeal of the newly converted, it'll fade, honestly).

Thanks for all your patience, Raphael

[joncleaves]

[[Let's take a case in point. I asked why the German Cavalry in the Demo Game couldn't simply counter straight forward out of combat. Your reply was that the 90 Degree turn to face their opponent was the only allowable counter. That is clearly your intent, but the rules don't actually say that. ]]

That's exactly what they say and I have answered this same question yet again just now on the rules topic.


[[After the 'game' I could then take this decision and ask 'what's going on here? What is the reasoning behind this particular rule? Why can't cavalry hit in the flank by infantry just cut their way clear? ]]

Those discussions we can only get into on a case by case basis. But players are free to discuss them all they like.