Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/16/2005 09:54:44 Central Daylight Time, ncioran@...
writes:

The real solution to the problem if the problem becomes significant
enough is to give players a time budget to perform all of their
activities. When it runs out, they lose. >>


I'd like to see something like this for terrain and deployment at least.
Now in the doubles, with 2000 points and having to split commands and come up
with a plan for two people vice one, it isn't so much of a bother as it is
necessity. But in singles, it can be agonizing...

J








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

Charles wrote:
> In my 2 trips to Lancaster I have experienced two games that were
> held to 4 bounds total. In my opinion, this is ridiculously slow
> play and was done by the players in an attempt to get an advantage.
> I think this is the worst form of sportmanship around. I would
> rather face almost any type of opponent that one who drags the game
> out like this. It is not fun, it is not interesting, and it is not
> fair.

While I have only heard about this happening in Warrior, I have
experienced it in a number of other systems. In friendly play
slowness is not a big issue, but in a tournament with time limits its
the most offensive display of bad sportsmanship, because the player
who drags his feet is literally stealing his opponent's time.

This is something chess tournament organizations realized a long time
ago, leading to the introduction of the chess clock. Unfortunately
wargaming tournaments the issue hasn't really received the attention
it desrves.

When I have suffered from an opponent doing this I have had no qualms
about verbally coaxing or abusing them to move things along smartly.
But really this is an imperfect solution, as it is no fun for me.

The real solution to the problem if the problem becomes significant
enough is to give players a time budget to perform all of their
activities. When it runs out, they lose.

Have fun
Cole

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Nicholas Cioran" <ncioran@m...>
wrote:
> When I have suffered from an opponent doing this I have had no
qualms
> about verbally coaxing or abusing them to move things along smartly.

While I have no reason to believe this applies to you, the only thing
worse than someone who is playing too slow on purpose... is someone
who is playing slow (or going around the room talking, or taking
forever and a day to set up) in his turn and then 'coaxing or abusing'
you in your own turn.

And sometimes there are points in the game requiring some thought -
when this 'coaxing and abusing' is actually more just of a distraction
(actually causing further delay) which maybe the other guy can assume
is motivated by not wanting him to find the right move.

As you said, this is not the solution - it isn't fun for the player
who has to do it, it isn't fun for the other guy wether he deserves it
or, as well might be the case, not, and it might actually just slow
down play even worse.

My observation is that the worst fiddling occurs in my play when in a
tight situation and I am unable to find a satisfactory resolution to
it. The difference between an experienced and inexperienced player is
simply the number of situations where they find they have to fiddle.

I am happy to say that in my years of gaming I have only seen two or
three instances where I thought my opponents were deliberately slowing
the pace to avoid playing the bound that would seal their doom. On
the other hand, it is only human nature to want to avoid defeat, and
so it can be seen as only natural that a player in such a situation
will become more deliberate in an effort to avoid such a conclusion,
even if they are not doing this conciously.

With these considerations in mind, timed phases make sense. It would
certainly increase the intensity of the games (as if they could be
made more so!) as players will try to think ahead to their next phase
as their opponents execute theirs. And it will put a final stop to ad
infinitum fiddling, to which I am all too prone! I imagine that this
would help me make a better player, forcing me to trust my first
instinct and stop agonizing about it.

A question I would put to the group is: has this ever been done before
in our hobby, and how did it turn out? I'm sure there are some strong
opinions out there, especially among experienced nationals players.

Bill Chamis

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jjmurphy@s...> wrote:
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Nicholas Cioran" <ncioran@m...>
> wrote:
> > When I have suffered from an opponent doing this I have had no
> qualms
> > about verbally coaxing or abusing them to move things along smartly.
>
> While I have no reason to believe this applies to you, the only thing
> worse than someone who is playing too slow on purpose... is someone
> who is playing slow (or going around the room talking, or taking
> forever and a day to set up) in his turn and then 'coaxing or abusing'
> you in your own turn.
>
> And sometimes there are points in the game requiring some thought -
> when this 'coaxing and abusing' is actually more just of a distraction
> (actually causing further delay) which maybe the other guy can assume
> is motivated by not wanting him to find the right move.
>
> As you said, this is not the solution - it isn't fun for the player
> who has to do it, it isn't fun for the other guy wether he deserves it
> or, as well might be the case, not, and it might actually just slow
> down play even worse.

[Ewan McNay]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Nicholas Cioran wrote:
> While I have only heard about this happening in Warrior, I have
> experienced it in a number of other systems. In friendly play
> slowness is not a big issue, but in a tournament with time limits its
> the most offensive display of bad sportsmanship, because the player
> who drags his feet is literally stealing his opponent's time.

I've experienced two types of slow play that I think merit distinction.
There are players (thankfully, few) who are just ridiculously slow. My
first game in the NICT last year didn't get through *3* bounds, and the
speed was glacial all along.

There are others (also, thankfully, very few) who will play at a normalish
pace up to the point where they perceive themselves to have an advantage,
and then shift into full-delay mode: multiple trips to the bathroom,
prolonged reading of (unknown and not-answered) rules, single approach
moves taking 20 min for a unit. Etc. This is, I agree, unethical and
frankly repulsive.

Occasionally, the two are combined. You can imagine the resultant pace.
One game at CW, it took our outscouted opponents 30 min to put a single
unit on the table.

I've asked umpires - Scott, in particular - for help, and it's been
explicitly stated that there's no mechanism to make folks play at any
given speed. I'm 100% behind the idea of a chess clock system - although
it would need careful decisions on what periods count against one's time.

> When I have suffered from an opponent doing this I have had no qualms
> about verbally coaxing or abusing them to move things along smartly.
> But really this is an imperfect solution, as it is no fun for me.

And doesn't always work. Especially among opponents whose slow pace is
from fear of losing - the tendency is then to slow even further if they
feel hassled .

E

[Mark Stone]

--- On April 16 Ewan McNay said: ---
>
> I've asked umpires - Scott, in particular - for help, and it's been
> explicitly stated that there's no mechanism to make folks play at any
> given speed. I'm 100% behind the idea of a chess clock system - although
> it would need careful decisions on what periods count against one's time.
>

This is one of those areas where Ewan and I disagree. I'm 100% opposed to the
chess clock system until all reasonable alternatives have been explored.

We've had this discussion before (after last Cold Wars, as I recall), so I won't
go into detail, but just reiterate a summary of my objections to clocks:
- difficult to implement, given that we have different phases of a bound that
require different amounts of time and attention;
- expensive, or at least cumbersome to implement;
- sets an image of our hobby that is negative with respect to recruiting, namely
that we are ultra competitive and not gentlemanly;
- is likely to push the whole problem one step further without solving anything;
i.e. we'll have clock arguments instead of delay arguments

I'd like us to at least try the following straightforward solution at one of the
major tournaments and see whether or not it works. Sometimes the simplest
solution is the best. Here goes (again, I've proposed this before):

Each game is played until 8 bounds or 4 hours have passed, whichever comes
first.

The number of bounds is derived from the time it would take force marched close
order foot in 25mm to drive an opponent off the table if plodding straight
ahead maximum every bound. It seems to me if you have enough time for that, then
you have enough time to accomplish whatever it is you need to do.

The only objection I can think of to this approach would be that it might take
more than 5 hours to complete 8 bounds, thus running into the start of next
round. That's a risk, but if players know that's their ultimate constraint I
think there will be motivation enough to move along promptly. And a lot of
silly delaying tactics would be made irrelevant by this approach. Finally,
someone who is so methodical and deliberate in their play that they know they
just aren't going to complete 8 bounds in 4 hours will be discouraged from
entering the tournament in the first place. That's an unfortunate consequence,
but seems to me also the right consequence. If you can't get through 8 bounds
in 4 hours, then you really shouldn't be dabbling in tournament play; it's
discourteous to other more prompt players.


-Mark Stone

[Todd Schneider]

Maybe a game shouldn't count unless a minimum number
of bounds has been played? Say six?

The only other thing I can think of is a variable time
sclae thats predicated on the number of units you have
in your army. If you have 16 Units, I can see the
need for them to take a little bit longer time than an
army with only 11 units. The questions is what should
the penalty be as well.

But I do think Marks idea has some merit as well.

I think what need sto happ[en at one of the bigger
cons is the time needed to play eached game needs to
be tracked, that way theres at least a baseline of
information to go off of.

Todd


--- Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
> --- On April 16 Ewan McNay said: ---
> >
> > I've asked umpires - Scott, in particular - for
> help, and it's been
> > explicitly stated that there's no mechanism to
> make folks play at any
> > given speed. I'm 100% behind the idea of a chess
> clock system - although
> > it would need careful decisions on what periods
> count against one's time.
> >
>
> This is one of those areas where Ewan and I
> disagree. I'm 100% opposed to the
> chess clock system until all reasonable alternatives
> have been explored.
>
> We've had this discussion before (after last Cold
> Wars, as I recall), so I won't
> go into detail, but just reiterate a summary of my
> objections to clocks:
> - difficult to implement, given that we have
> different phases of a bound that
> require different amounts of time and attention;
> - expensive, or at least cumbersome to implement;
> - sets an image of our hobby that is negative with
> respect to recruiting, namely
> that we are ultra competitive and not gentlemanly;
> - is likely to push the whole problem one step
> further without solving anything;
> i.e. we'll have clock arguments instead of delay
> arguments
>
> I'd like us to at least try the following
> straightforward solution at one of the
> major tournaments and see whether or not it works.
> Sometimes the simplest
> solution is the best. Here goes (again, I've
> proposed this before):
>
> Each game is played until 8 bounds or 4 hours have
> passed, whichever comes
> first.
>
> The number of bounds is derived from the time it
> would take force marched close
> order foot in 25mm to drive an opponent off the
> table if plodding straight
> ahead maximum every bound. It seems to me if you
> have enough time for that, then
> you have enough time to accomplish whatever it is
> you need to do.
>
> The only objection I can think of to this approach
> would be that it might take
> more than 5 hours to complete 8 bounds, thus running
> into the start of next
> round. That's a risk, but if players know that's
> their ultimate constraint I
> think there will be motivation enough to move along
> promptly. And a lot of
> silly delaying tactics would be made irrelevant by
> this approach. Finally,
> someone who is so methodical and deliberate in their
> play that they know they
> just aren't going to complete 8 bounds in 4 hours
> will be discouraged from
> entering the tournament in the first place. That's
> an unfortunate consequence,
> but seems to me also the right consequence. If you
> can't get through 8 bounds
> in 4 hours, then you really shouldn't be dabbling in
> tournament play; it's
> discourteous to other more prompt players.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>

[Mark Stone]

--- On April 16 Todd said: ---
>
> Maybe a game shouldn't count unless a minimum number
> of bounds has been played? Say six?
>

The problem with this is it penalizes both players, when probably only one is
responsible for slow play.

While this is an unfortunate issue when it arises, I hope we don't blow it out
of proportion. Does this really come up all that often? Just out of curiousity,
was there anyone involved in a game at Cold Wars where:
(a) The high scoring side scored less than 3 points, and
(b) less than 6 bounds were played


-Mark Stone

[Todd Schneider]

I can't apeak for bigger cons, but I have played 1200
point games with a 3 hour limit where the final score
was 2-1 and we we're just starting turn 4.
--- Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
> --- On April 16 Todd said: ---
> >
> > Maybe a game shouldn't count unless a minimum
> number
> > of bounds has been played? Say six?
> >
>
> The problem with this is it penalizes both players,
> when probably only one is
> responsible for slow play.
>
> While this is an unfortunate issue when it arises, I
> hope we don't blow it out
> of proportion. Does this really come up all that
> often? Just out of curiousity,
> was there anyone involved in a game at Cold Wars
> where:
> (a) The high scoring side scored less than 3 points,
> and
> (b) less than 6 bounds were played
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
>

[John Murphy]

A system already exists, and we are using it, which deals with this.

It does not affect the loser's score to have more of his units dead.
So he gains nothing by delaying.

In fact, he loses something. It is literally better for your
adjusted point score to lose 5-2 than it is to lose 3-2.

Not saying this is adequate by itself, apparently some folks do not
think so. But...

a) Some players are learning the rules. Saying they should not be
playing in tournaments is ridiculous and Mark should be ashamed of
himself for making a statement like that. He's a bright man and
knows better I am sure.

b) It is JUST A GAME folks. Geesh! Beating on someone who plays slow
normally, maybe they are just trying to have fun and relax, is just
as unsportsmanlike as the guy who is doing it on purpose. There is
no prize money at stake. The sole reason for indulging in this hobby
is to have a good time. If somebody's liesurely pace interferes with
your need for self-aggrandizement necessitated by deeper feelings of
inadequacy do not take it out on someone else. "Chill out". Next
thing you know people will be doing like I saw at a Chess tourney
once (where there _is_ large cash prizes at stake often) and
flipping over tables when they lose.

For crying out loud let's just not go there folks.

[Mark Stone]

--- On April 16 John Murphy said: ---
>
> Some players are learning the rules. Saying they should not be
> playing in tournaments is ridiculous and Mark should be ashamed of
> himself for making a statement like that. He's a bright man and
> knows better I am sure.
>

Let me clarify.

I assumed from the context of this thread that we were talking about the Cold
Wars team tournament, and it was in that context that I made my remarks. So I
will revise:

At the NICT, and at the Cold Wars team tourney, if you are not reasonably sure
you can get through 8 bounds in 4 hours, then I have no problem with some sort
of penalty befalling you. These are _the_ big events, where the best and most
competitive players come out, and prompt play is both a courtesy and a
necessity.

At any other tournament than these two, I agree that our priorities should be
recruitment and education. Slow play at a lower key event is frustrating, but
if it is indeed part of the learning experience for someone, then of course we
should all understand and accomodate.

And John, I apologize if you took my meaning to be anything other than the
above.


-Mark Stone

[Charles Yaw]

I agree with Mark in that 8 turns is a very reasonable number to
expect players who know the rules to complete in 4 hours.

I also happen to agree with the suggestion for the use of clocks.

There is an obvious difference between new players who are
struggling with the rules and experienced players who are delaying
the game. Talking to someone elso, looking up rules, asking the
judge questions that both players already know the answer to, going
to the bathroom when it is your turn to deploy, move, etc. These
are examples of delay, pure and simple.

One simple solution, though harsh, using 8 turns as a base would be
to take a point off both player's scores for each bound (or 2
bounds) not completed in the alotted time.

Most of the other games I play have a set number of turns that are
to be completed and because of that factor, I do not remember a game
where I thought an opponent was stalling for advantage. This is an
unfortunate problem Warrior has at the tournament level, as there is
currently no mechanisms to prevent it. Confronting one's opponent
is not something many of us want to have to do at the game table.





--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> --- On April 16 John Murphy said: ---
> >
> > Some players are learning the rules. Saying they should not be
> > playing in tournaments is ridiculous and Mark should be ashamed
of
> > himself for making a statement like that. He's a bright man and
> > knows better I am sure.
> >
>
> Let me clarify.
>
> I assumed from the context of this thread that we were talking
about the Cold
> Wars team tournament, and it was in that context that I made my
remarks. So I
> will revise:
>
> At the NICT, and at the Cold Wars team tourney, if you are not
reasonably sure
> you can get through 8 bounds in 4 hours, then I have no problem
with some sort
> of penalty befalling you. These are _the_ big events, where the
best and most
> competitive players come out, and prompt play is both a courtesy
and a
> necessity.
>
> At any other tournament than these two, I agree that our
priorities should be
> recruitment and education. Slow play at a lower key event is
frustrating, but
> if it is indeed part of the learning experience for someone, then
of course we
> should all understand and accomodate.
>
> And John, I apologize if you took my meaning to be anything other
than the
> above.
>
>
> -Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/17/2005 07:39:26 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

The NICT, fine. It is an invitational event and likely nobody
playing in it is doing it for the fun anyhow.>>


Well, I know I play in it for fun. I'm not sure what the other reason would
be...lol

J








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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/17/2005 08:00:00 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

In short, is there anyone who actualy admits to purposefully delaying
the game and if so why? Or are we just ascribing such behavior to
everyone else, without really knowing, out of our own antsy-ness?>>


Ok, we need to kill off this part of the thread. It isn't anecdotal - but
neither are we going to name names here and get into some kind of urinary
olympics over who did or didn't do what. Scott will be made aware of the
people
involved and he can do or not do what he sees fit.
Let's leave the thread at how folks feel about slow play, etc. in general
terms.

For my $0.02, I would say it is not at all about some minimum number of
bounds. 4 bounds between certain players/armies can be more action-packed than
8
between another pair.

J








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

[John Murphy]

The NICT, fine. It is an invitational event and likely nobody
playing in it is doing it for the fun anyhow.

Don't turn the doubles into that kind of event. If you wish to hold
an invitational doubles championship then fine. Currently it is an
open format and while there may be some "power gamers" that play in
it there are plenty of folks who are there for the more relaxed
social environment and generally _less_ competitive atmosphere than
you see even in the mini/open in some cases. If you bother looking
past the tables of the perennial NICT-winners then you might see
this to be the case.

I have no problem myself getting thru 8 bounds in 4 hours. But I
would hate to see the best tournament in Lancaster get turned into a
chess tournament or NICT atmosphere by applying those kinds of
standards.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> At the NICT, and at the Cold Wars team tourney, if you are not
reasonably sure
> you can get through 8 bounds in 4 hours, then I have no problem
with some sort
> of penalty befalling you. These are _the_ big events, where the
best and most
> competitive players come out