Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Asif, I am on a business trip and don't currently have the time to give you a
response you deserve. I'll let the discussion run for a day or so and then
weigh in. I will try and bring together all that has been said offline and on,
summarize it and let you know why our plans are the way they are.

I am sorry if I offended you by reposting your mail to me. But I cannot respond
to every similar offline post - this group is designed to allow me to reach all
interested with one mail. If I stop to respond to every offline I get (of the
couple hundred mails I get a day, probably 20 or so on average are Warrior
offlines - often about the same subject. I just can't do it.....)

Please be patient - I will address your concerns when I can.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: shahadet_99 <shahadet_99@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 19 May 2005 15:00:48 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: New Rulebook Concerns


Before I start, I have to admit that I had some ambivalent feelings
about Jon posting my email to the list without first asking me.

After all, if I wanted to share those particular thoughts, I would
have posted it myself in the first place.

However, having seen all of the thoughtful and informative posts
that have resulted from it, I have to say that I'm glad that he did.

Reading these posts have helped me to clarify the somewhat nebulous
feelings I had regarding the rulebook.

Cole's 2nd post, and Peter's post in particular helped me realize
why I couldn't articulate better why the rulebook bothered me -
mainly that I had expended SO MUCH effort to learn and understand
the game, that the sequencing of the book, and many of the nuances,
had become 4th nature (can't say 2nd because I still don't command
the rules yet!). Thus, they didn't bother me as much as they used
to.

However, it was Mark's post that clarified for me where the
disconnect between the "young guns" and the "Elite Guard" may be, so
that is why I have selected his excellent post to reply to:

> Jon isn't the world's greatest writer. That hardly comes as a
surprise to anyone
> who has been on this list the last couple of years. However, he is
a far, far
> better writer than Phil Barker, and he has an enormous advantage
over Phil or
> others with more writing talent: he actually has a fundamental
grasp of how the
> game engine works and what he is trying to accomplish with it. And
Jon's getting
> a lot of help with the writing. It will get better.

Of this, I have no doubt. Simply updating the book and bringing
it more into line with his own thoughts, having the feedback of
other players and personal experience (such as portable Camel
obstacles), will make a significant difference to the rulebook.

> I have to say I fully support the order in which Jon is doing
things. You can't
> have a "ground-up" rules set if you don't have a foundation.

Mark, I think this is one of our first disconnects. If
by "ground-up", you mean an instructional rule set whose sole
purpose is to baby sit a player through the rules, similar to the
scenarios in GW's Battle for Macragge - then we agree.

However, if you mean by "ground-up", a rule set that
comprehensively defines and explains the rules, then I totally
DISAGREE. In my mind, such a definition is synonomous
with "foundation".

> We don't yet have
> a foundation. The current printing of the rules is a stop-gap put
out because
> something was urgently needed once FHE had been formed and
acquired the WRG
> rights. The forth-coming revision is, in a very real
sense, "Warrior 1st
> Edition". Nothing else can sensibly happen until that document
exists.

AGREED. 100%. Which is WHY I'm arguing that Warrior, 1st ed,
should NOT be of the exact same ilk as what you describe as
a "urgently needed stop-gap".

And yet, the basic layout of the new rulebook (the part that I have
personally seen) is the same.

Warrior, 1st ed, should be a rulebook that comprehensively explains
the rules in detail, in a pedagogically sound manner that promotes
understanding.

It shouldn't be a book that you can only read for a little while in
bed, before nodding off and going to sleep, which is what I did when
I tried to struggle through it on my own.

It should capture the reader's attention and get them to keep
reading (which is what the WARMACHINE rulebook did to me).

And before people argue that reading about a fantasy setting is
always more entertaining than reading history - au contraire. Human
history, especially warfare, has been rife with tremendous battles
and iconic figures who have literally changed the outlook of our
world.

Reading about those battle and those people, and learning how to
recreate their battles so that we can pretend to be them, even for a
short while, should NOT be boring and dry.


> Think of it this way: you don't teach college physics using
Newton's
> "Principia", but you certainly couldn't teach college physics
until "Principia"
> existed. We're in exactly that position right now. The current
printing of the
> rules is rather like the pre-Newtonian period of Copernicus,
Galileo, and
> Kepler: all the mechanics are correctly described, but still very
much in the
> language of the old paradigm. We need our "Principia Warrior"
before we can
> move forward to other more pedagogically useful documents.

This part of Mark's reply was like the proverbial light bulb
going off. Thank you for helping formulate my thoughts.

Again, I agree with Mark's basic thought 1000%. There MUST be
a "Principia" or complete and comprehensive ruleset that thoroughly
explains the game of Warrior.

However, his interpretation, both of the current circumstances, AND
of the structure of the new rule book, is diametrically opposite to
how I perceive the situation.

My current perception of the situation is thus (using analogy
form):

During a meeting of the Joint Chiefs, someone asks for an
explanation of the current tactical doctrine and equipment of an
enemy. The senior intelligence analyst presents a document prepared
by Colonel Jon Cleaves. This document CONCISELY points up the
situation, and highlights the important points through the use of
bulleted text and outline format.

Does such a report need to follow a standard teaching structure,
like a text book from West Point? No. Why? Because the Joint
Chiefs are all military veterans, well versed in the terminology and
ideas that are being expressed, and thus do not require pointless
explanation. It would be a WASTE OF THEIR TIME.

-----------------------------

The current (and by extension new rulebook) that Mark is espousing
as a "Principia" is in fact nothing of the sort. It is an ADVANCED
document, similar to my "intelligence report" in the above story.

It falls along the lines of a Schwalm's Outline series, or Cliff
Notes, that distills the essential knowledge into it's most concise
and data-like form.

The current rules are not inherently INTUITIVE in their
explanation of the rules - as Cole points out, a rulebook that
follows the flow of the game is MUCH more accomodating in helping
the reader understand.

> Respecting what that core
> group wants is just good business sense: without them, FHE would
have no reason
> to exist.

Granted.

What I don't understand is why you (and by extension, the rest of
the "Elite Guard") do NOT want a thorough, well flowing,
comprehensive rulebook?

And instead, you just want a rulebook which is an updated and
clarified "stop-gap"? And yes, I'm simplifying the enormous amount
of work that Jon, Todd, Todd's wife, and many others, have put in.

But I'm trying to make a point with regards to the layout and the
fact that if you're going to PUT that much effort into the book,
then the very first task should have been identification:

1.) Identify what the current rules strengths are? (concise rules,
bullet/outline form to draw the eye, summary cards in the back)

2.) And more importantly, identify the weaknesses (doesn't follow
the flow of the rules, not intuitive, laid out like a college
outline series, making for very dry reading that does not engage the
reader).

> I'm looking forward to Warrior Battles. But I don't think it makes
any sense to
> put that ahead of the new rules book in priority, and the new
rules book needs
> to be exactly what Jon is aiming for: the comprehensive,
authoritative
> foundation on which our system is built.

THANK YOU! I agree with you yet again.

What I would envision Battles being would be similar to GW's
Battle for Macragge. You have a set of linked scenarios that start
with VERY basic elements of the game, and as the missions progress,
you incorporate more and more sophisticated elements and strategems.

However, the rules that come in the box for Battles for
Macragge? They are EXACTLY the same as the big hardcover rulebook,
just physically shrunk down (from 8.5 x 11" to 5 x 8") and made into
a paperback handbook.

GW made their rulebook as a complete, authorative document on how
to play the game. Warrior, 1st ed, should do no less.

-----------------------

Now, are there going to be growing pains and issues with doing a
rulebook this way? Of course, including some I just learned from
reading peoples posts, and probably a bunch more that I have no idea
about:

- The list books. They all reference specific rules sections for
their special rules. If the layout is changed, people would have to
go through their army book(s) and black out the numbers there, and
write in the new rulebook ref #'s. I admit I totally spaced on this
problem until Peter pointed it out.

- There may be printer's agreements for publication that can't be
changed at this late date.

- Other projects (like Battles, and Fantasy) will get pushed back
even more.

- Todd's wife will probably kill (or at least seriously maim) most
people involved with changing the rulebook, probably starting with
ME. :O

However, from a business perspective, it just makes GOOD BUSINESS
SENSE, to make this re-write as GOOD as you can make it.

Unlike Games Workshop, FHE will NOT be re-writing rules every 5
years, thereby necessitating re-writing the list rules, causing
everyone to have to buy new rules, new list books, new minis, new
paints, etc.

And since FHE doesn't produce minis (although I wish they did -
then maybe THEN someone could tell me where I could find some darned
Almughaver minis!), FHE's primary mode of increasing revenues, is to
increase sales of the rules and list books.

And the #1 way to increase sales of the game is to acquire new
users for their product (otherwise known as new players).

And while it's nice to have a dedicated group of Elite Guard, who
go out and try to bring in new players, I know the un-readability of
the rules is a BIG detriment to their efforts.

While Jevon was teaching me, some of our most rabid minis gamers,
intelligent people, some working towards doctorates, others towards
bachelors, who picked up my rules & flipped through them while I was
playing, said "Dude, you're playing a game that has a freakin'
college textbook for rules - it's like you're doing homework!".

Watching me struggle, madly flipping back and forth between sections
and scratching my head alot, while Jevon calmly moved units and
rattled off combat factors from memory, didn't help.

-----------
Okay, I guess that's enough babbling again. I should probably do
some work at this point. Thanks again to all for reading through
this.

Hopefully, it has provided some food for thought.

Regards,
Asif






Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Todd Schneider]

Quoting:

"While Jevon was teaching me, some of our most rabid
minis gamers,intelligent people, some working towards
doctorates, others towards bachelors, who picked up my
rules & flipped through them while I was playing, said
"Dude, you're playing a game that has a freakin'
college textbook for rules - it's like you're doing
homework!". "

Thats because in its current version, it looks and
reads like a college textbook, or thesis paper.

Take away all the "Chrome", IE diagrams, pages of
miniatures, stories, how to guides et al from any GW
publication, and what do you have?

A College paper.

IMO One of the biggest hinderances of getting people
attracted to Warrior isn't the complexity of the
rules, but the lack of consumer interest in the rules.
In it's present form, theres nothing that makes it
stand out on the bookshelf at any LGS, and even a
cursory "flip thorugh" of the rules doesn't reveal to
much. It takes some time and not a little effort to
at least get involved in the rules, and to the casual
gamer (or even the discerning one) a rulebook with the
current production values isn't going to do that very
often, if at all.
I don't have the hard data to back it up, but I
suspect the vast majority of current Warrior players
came to the system as players of TOG, and those that
didn't come from TOG came by word of mouth, or by
"strong arming", such as myself with Jon (hey, we're
playing this great ancients game....) or in Asif's
case Jevon...and then after playing a game or seeing a
game we buy the rulebook

Speaking personally, is the next version of the
rulebook going to be everything I want it to be?
No. And I am not sure its going to be everything Jon
wants it to be either, but what it will be is done
right, and to the best of everyones ability at the
moment. There comes a time when you have to compromise
(and that time IMO usually involves production costs),
but you have to admit, the producct coming out is
light years ahaed of what the 1st edition is/was.

I think the rules could be more streamlined to get
newer players into the game, but I also know that
would be duplicating effort as spending time on it now
only takes away from Warrior Battles, which will be
the "gateway" game the system needs, and delays the
production of the 2nd edition rulebook. The current
"deadline" is written in Jell-O Salad, but theres no
compelling reason to stop the rulebook where it is
right now, and start from scratch, ecpspecially with
the next product being the intro game.

I think a great addition to any intro book/game guide
would be a Sample Battle, similar to if not the one I
did earlier and posted in the file section. I think
thats a great tool to get newer players into the game,
and show them some of the basic mechanics to the rules
set as a whole. But I also know that it's about 80
pages, and if it were to be done and reformatted for a
book would probably increase in length. And I know
that by doing that, the cost of any rulebook goes up
exponentially, ecspecially if you want it to look
good, and not like a Term paper.

Ultimately, I don't think this new rulebook is going
to make every player out there happy. But then I know
if FHe tried to accomodate that, the 2nd edition would
never get done.

Todd

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "shahadet_99" <shahadet_99@y...>
wrote:
>
> While Jevon was teaching me, some of our most rabid minis gamers,
> intelligent people, some working towards doctorates, others towards
> bachelors, who picked up my rules & flipped through them while I was
> playing, said "Dude, you're playing a game that has a freakin'
> college textbook for rules - it's like you're doing homework!".
>
> Watching me struggle, madly flipping back and forth between sections
> and scratching my head alot, while Jevon calmly moved units and
> rattled off combat factors from memory, didn't help.
>
> -----------
> Okay, I guess that's enough babbling again. I should probably do
> some work at this point. Thanks again to all for reading through
> this.
>
> Hopefully, it has provided some food for thought.
>
> Regards,
> Asif

Asif:

But don't you have to admit one thing? Regardless how difficult it's
been to learn this game, haven't you found it to be the most engaging,
entertaining, and challenging game that you have taken up yet? I guess
the process of becoming a Warrior player is a little like joining a
secret society - something which does have a certain romantic appeal
to it, right? Maybe not the best approach from a business growth
perspective though.

Peter

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Yes, those contributions are valuable, and it would be great if you
sent as many others as you'd like as soon as you can. I will say,
though, that many have good reasons or have been addressed - but there
is still much good stuff there.

Will do...

Thanks
Cole