Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[paullieb]

I posted on TMP stating that Warrior was an example of a very complex rules system. I got many responses that basically stated that this was not the case. I believe warrior to be a great set, but to deny its complexity? Am I off base on this?

[Frank Gilson]

First off...what does the term 'complex' mean when associated with a body of miniatures wargaming rules?

Next, do you have a ranking of rule sets according to this definition from 'low complexity' to 'high complexity' that includes Warrior?

All of that would provide us with a platform for debate. Otherwise, the term 'complex' means different things to different people.

Complex may mean for one person that a rule set is complex when it has a lot of text in it, regardless of what that text says or how it says it.

Complex may mean for someone else a count of number of concepts covered by a set of rules.

...or, other things entirely?

Frank

[smoke]

I agree this is a question for which the answer is relative. As a history maniac and a gamer I find that it is no more complex than any other game which so realistically portrays battle on this scale. i.e. great bang for the intellectual buck.

that being said i do find it a little disturbing that after the many years that these rules have been out even the moderators are occasionally suprised by various rules and their interpretation. this implies not so much complexity as an occasional lack of clarity. Again, any issues like this are more than compensated for by this great system which is unequalled in my opinion in the gaming world.

Bruce

[joncleaves]

Hi Bruce, Jon here - your friendly Warrior rules author.

First, thanks for the kind words.

Second, I am one of the people who thinks Warrior is the most complex miniatures game on the market - and I wrote it. I am not sure which game someone who felt Warrior was not complex would hold up as an example of being more complex - did any of these folks cite examples?

J

[scott holder]

An example springs to mind: Tractics. Or the Tractics-based set of WWII rules Mike Kelly published around 10 years ago.

Just musing since you said "on the market". I don't find the basics of Warrior that complex once you get to know them. Execution on the other hand...

scott

[D PIPER]

Over the last year I have tried to teach Warrior to a few of my friends that are experienced war gamers. The complexity level of the game has not been the problem but the intricacies of the game and interpretations of the rules have been. As we can see by the forums there are questions arising that pertain to the rules all the time. These revolve more around players interpretations compared to the designers intent. Most groups that play routinely together usually have a general consensus about the rules. But when you get to play with players outside of our own little groups we get to see variations on the interpretation of the rules. I recently traveled over to Seattle and got to play a battle with an experienced player over there and I got to see this first hand. Things I took as granted came into question and I got to see how he deciphered the rules and allowed me to see some rules in a different light. When I played the origins of Warrior (forgive me, WRG 6th/7th edition) many years ago, the rule book was badly written and rules were commonly misread and misinterpreted. Warrior has come light years from then creating a fantastic, rich, and in depth game system. One of the things that have helped me tremendously to keep up on the rules is these forums! They allow questions to be raised, discussed and answered with a form of consensus that I think does not exist for any other game system out there.

Warrior is a game of strategy, tactics, and knowledge not just of rolling better dice than your opponent, not that this won’t help but for the most part it won’t win you the game.
If people out there want a Beer and Pretzel game of ancients they exist in plenty out there, put if players want a game that takes thought and ability Warrior is about the best that I have found.


Just my opinion!!!

Anyone up for a game…sucks living in no mans land.

[Craig Maksimik]

Well, hopefully once Warrior Battles is done it will provide a more widely accepted set of ancients rules.
I am looking forward to get a chance to have Jon give several of us a demo game of the latest Warrior Battles in a few weeks. He has a TON of stuff going on right now but is taking the time to get things squared away to show us the latest incarnation of the game. Should be a blast!

I personally think that Warrior is a great system, but it is difficult to get people to committ the time and effort to really get into it. So many of the more recent rules systems have been so formulated and take an influence from GW style games that its hard to get people into something with more substance. I think that there will eventually be a point where people will get tired of rolling buckets of dice and want something more from their games.

As far as complexity goes, I think Warrior is one of those sets of rules that really needs someone who is familiar with them to teach new players otherwise it is easy to get bogged down in the minutae of the rules.
Its not that there is overly complex concepts, but every point of the rules is extensively explained. This is great for rules questions but difficult for reading through the first time to start playing.

I think that perhaps if there was a stepped level of rules from basic concepts to the full ruleset this would help people slowly get a handle on things. Another idea is if there was an abbreviated rules that only include the primary concepts at the begininng of the book this would probably be enough to get people started. Then a deeper reading of the full rules would fill in details and provide reference as needed.

[chrisbump]

I think that there will eventually be a point where people will get tired of rolling buckets of dice and want something more from their games.

I think that perhaps if there was a stepped level of rules from basic concepts to the full ruleset this would help people slowly get a handle on things. Another idea is if there was an abbreviated rules that only include the primary concepts at the begininng of the book this would probably be enough to get people started. Then a deeper reading of the full rules would fill in details and provide reference as needed.

I disagree with you on both of your thoughts. Your second idea is essentially fast warrior and that has not done much to make the game easier to learn or attract new players.

I am not a fan of the buckets of dice, but WAB and now FOG have taken that approach and they are clearly more popular than Warrior. They both are well supported from both a marketing and advertising perspective and so are known of. Warrior is virtually unknown outside its core of players.

In fact the Warrior Model is largely expiring. The player base continues to shrink and or drift to other game systems in the search for local competition. I do agree that the only way to learn the game is to have an experienced player teach it and as they decrease so does the pool of newly trained players.

I believe that in this day and age, without commercial support and a stream of revenue to pay for that support, Warrior will continue to shrink.

It is a fun game with lots of subtleties and complexities. I believe that the rules are still too easily subject to change and part of the initial allure was the promise that that would not be the case.

The hope or belief that some day the masses will recognize that "buckets of dice" or "beer and pretzels" games are not what they are looking for and thus will gravitate to Warrior is a bit of a pipe dream in my opinion.

Chris

[kevinrounsaville]

I was one of the people on TMP that felt that Warrior was not an overly complex system (Jon you might recognize one of the others that agreed with me, Allen Curtis). Yes in a tournament setting it certainly is a difficult game to master, but not one I find overly complex to play. I would liken it somewhat to chess in that respect. Some of the rules mentioned in the thread as difficult were as Scott stated Tractics, as well as Harpoon, and Flint and Steel and several others. I would add Heart of Oak, Legacy of Glory as more complex sets. The thing that gets me, is that all the hoopla and what not over sets of rules that are supposedly easier to play. FoG is a prime example, however, after reading trough it I found it no easier to play than Warrior. So I guess my question would be, Whats the big attraction? Why is it gaining so much steam?

[kevinrounsaville]

I was one of the people on TMP that felt that Warrior was not an overly complex system (Jon you might recognize one of the others that agreed with me, Allen Curtis). Yes in a tournament setting it certainly is a difficult game to master, but not one I find overly complex to play. I would liken it somewhat to chess in that respect. Some of the rules mentioned in the thread as difficult were as Scott stated Tractics, as well as Harpoon, and Flint and Steel and several others. I would add Heart of Oak, Legacy of Glory as more complex sets. The thing that gets me, is that all the hoopla and what not over sets of rules that are supposedly easier to play. FoG is a prime example, however, after reading trough it I found it no easier to play than Warrior. So I guess my question would be, Whats the big attraction? Why is it gaining so much steam?

[chrisbump]

Whats the big attraction? Why is it gaining so much steam?

In the simplest terms, commercial support.

I think that you may have read the rules with a bit of a jaded eye. The game is easier to learn and play. Jon said as much in his earlier post comparing the two games to an F-16 and a radio flyer wagon.

That degree of hubris has not helped the Warrior base nor its growth either.

Connection to WRG probably hurts to some degree, whether fairly or not.

I think that this forum has hurt the game and its base, since there is not an obvious community to discuss thiings with as there was when this was on Yahoo, and as both WAB and FOG have on Yahoo. Community is a large part of why people play wargames and Warrior does not offer that to the degree and simplicity tha other games do.

As there are multiple levels of complexity and subtlety in the Warrior set of rules, so too are there layers as to the reasons we've seen a gradual but steady decline in the number of participants.
Chris

[cloppdave]

Hi All
I am a person who loves a certain army and against most other army’s it struggles plus not being the best general and the real big one not enough time playing warrior.
To me Warrior is not a complex game it is a multi layered game that just needs to be mastered on all levels and it is not the systems fault if I am not up to speed.

When I started gaming the group i gamed with in california played at a LGS in Burbank.
We used Tractics (Scotts correct it is a complex game but fun) every week and SPI AIR WAR we played at least 2 times a week plus empire and WGR 4/5/6TH ED ANCIENTS, WRG renaissance rules and the ever fav WRG 1950-1975 MODERN ARMOUR RULES (yes I am that Old) then my work moved to Kansas.
I have had the honor and pleasure to Play with some of the best gammers I could ever hope to meet let alone game with yes that does include Jon in a very Large measure.
The reason the easy systems are "more popular" in my not so humble opinion is because it is so easy, just like vidio games are and fast food.
I have seen the same thing happen in the shooting sports.
The FOW rules are simple and fast/fun set of WWII that almost everyone likes or at least can agree on In will say it beats the 70's
The other Ancient rules mentioned I feel WAB has an advantage due to an association with the evil empire of Nottingham so a lot of new commers will go "Hey WAB AND WFB are real close and I play WFB".
This is Just my opinion so take that and $10.00 us to starbuck and that will get you a cup of coffee, just don't mention me and my opiniobn or you will probally get 86ed out the door.
Dave "The Black and Blue Theban" Clopp