Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

--- On March 25 Jon Cleaves said: ---

>
> Another idea to toss into the ring. Maybe at HCon 06 we have the NICT with
> 14.3, but the theme is preset terrain.....
>

I actually like this idea a lot. In a theme event we are less likely to have
matchups with armies from different climates, and we have a clearer idea of
what the general terrain was like in the theater of operation the theme
represents. You could also have, say, three different types of setups and do
table assignments such that each player has to deal with each setup at some
point. For example, in a Roman theme, you could have the "hilly central Italy"
setup, the "wooded, Germanic" setup, and the "desert North African setup".
Romans, presumably, would do well in all three, but Sassanid Persians, for
example, would not. This might be a way of keeping players from hijacking the
Roman Theme into the Sassanid Theme tournament.

As for the NICT, I am, as I've said before, with the majority that see terrain
selection as an interesting and vital part of the tactical nuance of our game.
Though I see nothing wrong with requiring, at a showcase event like the NICT,
that all terrain be up to a certain standard. If Scott, understandably, doesn't
want to pass judgment, then I suggest he appoint a committee of three from among
Warrior players who are (a) at Historicon, (b) not participating in the NICT,
and (c) have all brought clearly decent looking terrain with them. Prior to the
first round all terrain must get a thumbs up from 2 out of 3 of this committee.
Players who have extra/unused terrain are encouraged to make it available for
loan on a first come, first serve basis. Players who, for whatever reason, find
themselves unable to get the exact size and shape of a particular terrain piece
they want really have no one to blame but themselves.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

<<You misread my statement. My 'fine as is' has nothing to do with the
quality of our terrain, but rather with the method in which size and
shape is decided upon after having been diced for.>>

No, I read it right. If a solution that works for getting our games to look
like they should means we don't do things exactly as we have done in the past,
we may go that way.

J


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

[joncleaves]

Not since 2001. Something I think we need to revisit at some point this summer.

-----Original Message-----
From: darnd022263@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 13:07:25 EST
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Terrain in Warrior Events



If this
turns out to be, as it has been, what the majority of players want to
preserve
as the 'normal' way of doing business in a tourney, then that's cool.

Have you taken a vote on the preset terrain issue before?

Derek


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




Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/25/2005 17:26:14 Central Standard Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST (eventually got to a valuable point here)
that FHE keep a website where folks can submit scanned terrain
images of different features or patterns/textures to use for
features to use with this or similar techniques. I couldn't submit
my GeoHex stuff because even though they are defunct I think I would
be sued. However, there is a lot of even better stuff around if you
look on the web.>>


Send your terrain pics to me and I will organize and post them.

J







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

[scott holder]

> Subbing is not allow at the NICT is it?

Nobody should "sub" nothin. However, there are those options for
figures ("Hmmmm, lessee here, how many of the 40 weapons do I want
to arm my LIR legionaries with?") and it's absurd to expect someone
to have several sets of legionaries (for example) to cover every
option. The same for stuff like figs on model bases. I usually
have "death caps" to cover them up to make it visually easier to
know they're not there. But I digress.

Since players should be stating just about everything on a figure,
then in some ways it is on the opponent to keep track of that kind
of thing, at least when it comes to the whole "which options have I
used" perspective.

Since there are loads of generic looking figs out there that can
pull duty in a variety of ways, there is no excuse for "subbing"
other than how I've stated.

scott

[scott holder]

> Have you taken a vote on the preset terrain issue before?

It's been a while, yes. I'm all over the map on this issue. I
think for things like duplicate tourneys or thematic events, you
betcha, preset is a great way to go. And it certainly has its uses
in an open (NICT like) setting. But I also *really* like our
terrain generating system--it adds a very good component to the game
that I think sets us apart from most everybody else. The "pooled
terrain on the table" idea is nifty, might be a good middle ground
solution. But there are plenty of different ways to approach this
so my mind is open.

If there's enough informal groundswell on preset, I can certainly
start polling (when I do that after Cold Wars) again to see which
way the wind is blowing.

scott

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/25/2005 17:53:49 Central Standard Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

We're going to get back into the definition of 'we' again.

FHE - or in this case Jon - can of course include a terrain mandate in the
rulebook, misguided or not.

NASAMW can and should of course decide whether to ignore such, especially
if it removes from the game an element clearly desired by the majority of
tournament gamers.>>


I'm sorry, Ewan - maybe you missed this prior thread. I'll recap.

Despite our initial intent to have the players or player organizations
choose whatever tourney format they like and to be cavalier about 14.0 because
they can do whatever they like so why does it matter, the players have spoken
very clearly that far more often than not, a local tourney is going to use
whatever format is being used at CW/HCon in order to allow folks to practice,
etc. Just as clearly they have spoken that they want a defined base standard
in
the rulebook to go from - so that games between clubs/regions/countries do
not have to solve this themselves.

So, long ago, we decided to get a feel from the players what they wanted
that base standard to be and to incorporate that into 14.0. This way the
tourney organizer could, in most cases and in the case of most national events,
just say 'format is 14.0'. Or even sometimes, 'format is 14.0 with the
following modifications'.

What NASAMW 'should' do is up to NASAMW of course. Which means up to its
members who play that system. Which is the same group that is asking for a
single standard and to have it in 14.0.

So, the 'we' is the playership that cares what is in the book and what the
format at CW/HCon is.

FHE's job is to do what is best for the most customers and to get the most
customers. If that is to put a standard format in 14.0 that includes terrain
guidance, then so be it.

And of course, we would be silly not to be working closely with the NASAMW
leadership on any issue where they were involved in running our game.

Thanks!
Jon








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

I like the idea but as a cav general I like open space :)



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 3/24/2005 23:28:22 Central Standard Time,
> rockd@p... writes:
>
> Re setup of terrain rules-- I find it unbelevable that people can
> choose the exact size & shape of the terrain piece at the moment the
> are laying it down. I would only ask that the exact piece you want
> to use be specified before setup starts. If it won't fit, you lose
> it.>>
>
>
> I have considered this. You set the size and shape when you pick the pieces
> you are going to roll for. Thoughts from the gang?
>
> J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

Let's be sure we aren't mixing apples and oranges.

If a guy has an LIR legionaire and the figure itself physically has dart, but it
is armed with D, JLS, HTW and Sh then that is one thing. It will rarely be the
case where a multi-armed figure is manufactured that way.

But if a guy is using LC B for LC JLS Sh or, worse, peltasts for Aztecs, then
his opponent is not responsible - the opponent is allowed to ask any time he
wants and shouldn't be liable for any screw-ups. That is in those situations
where this is allowed in the first place, which should *not* be the NICT.

J



-----Original Message-----
From: irobot00 <Scott.Holder@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:34:12 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Terrain in Warrior Events




> Subbing is not allow at the NICT is it?

Nobody should "sub" nothin. However, there are those options for
figures ("Hmmmm, lessee here, how many of the 40 weapons do I want
to arm my LIR legionaries with?") and it's absurd to expect someone
to have several sets of legionaries (for example) to cover every
option. The same for stuff like figs on model bases. I usually
have "death caps" to cover them up to make it visually easier to
know they're not there. But I digress.

Since players should be stating just about everything on a figure,
then in some ways it is on the opponent to keep track of that kind
of thing, at least when it comes to the whole "which options have I
used" perspective.

Since there are loads of generic looking figs out there that can
pull duty in a variety of ways, there is no excuse for "subbing"
other than how I've stated.

scott






Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[scott holder]

Everything below is absolutely correct. If anybody shows up with
Hellenistic peltasts and wants to play them as Aztecs, don't bother
showing up.


> If a guy has an LIR legionaire and the figure itself physically
has dart, but it is armed with D, JLS, HTW and Sh then that is one
thing. It will rarely be the case where a multi-armed figure is
manufactured that way.
>
> But if a guy is using LC B for LC JLS Sh or, worse, peltasts for
Aztecs, then his opponent is not responsible - the opponent is
allowed to ask any time he wants and shouldn't be liable for any
screw-ups. That is in those situations where this is allowed in the
first place, which should *not* be the NICT.
>
> J
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: irobot00 <Scott.Holder@f...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:34:12 -0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Terrain in Warrior Events
>
>
>
>
> > Subbing is not allow at the NICT is it?
>
> Nobody should "sub" nothin. However, there are those options for
> figures ("Hmmmm, lessee here, how many of the 40 weapons do I want
> to arm my LIR legionaries with?") and it's absurd to expect
someone
> to have several sets of legionaries (for example) to cover every
> option. The same for stuff like figs on model bases. I usually
> have "death caps" to cover them up to make it visually easier to
> know they're not there. But I digress.
>
> Since players should be stating just about everything on a figure,
> then in some ways it is on the opponent to keep track of that kind
> of thing, at least when it comes to the whole "which options have
I
> used" perspective.
>
> Since there are loads of generic looking figs out there that can
> pull duty in a variety of ways, there is no excuse for "subbing"
> other than how I've stated.
>
> scott
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Greetings Jon, .
Most folks who wargame are competetive, giving those who have nice terrain an
advantage is a way to get us to put effort into our terrain. 50 points is a
decent amount, not so much that it unbalances the game, but enough that its a
reward.
> What I'd like help with is solutions, not more restatements of the problems.
>
> Thanks!
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

This is the best solution so far!

kw

darnd022263@... wrote:
Required decent looking terrain is not in the rule book anywhere. Is it? I
never read the rules that is Scott's job to tell me every year on my trip to
Pennsylvania. :)

Will the next thing be to send people's figs home for not being able to paint
them?

At my Derekcon's for years now. I have had preset terrain for each table.
This speeds up the start of the game and forces players to run more balanced
armies. This would also take care of the terrain look you are looking for. The 4
horse guys or whoever is running the tournament would be required to do more
work at the beginning. But it would improve the overall look, speed the game's
beginning, and which would lead to more time to have more decisive games.

Derek


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


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

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

[John Murphy]

I am in the "always plays too flat" group and would go for a bunch
more mandatory gentle hills, maybe give some steppe armies list
rules that they do not have to choose them.

On the artistic note cloth terrain is (a) flat so plays very well in
an actual game where it is used, (b) "sticky" to the game table so
it doesn't shift and the army men do not shift on it (another
playability issue) and (c) still can be just as nice and creative as
can be.

What I did is take the old Geo_Hex forest floors and scanned them.
Then I got a bunch of heavy cloth fabric from the local artsy-fartsy
store and some iron-on printer paper from Staples or Office Max. Now
I can manufacture very nice woods of absolutely any size or shape.
And I have little trees I can put out but I must say in most games
the other player actually prefers not to have the trees in the way
(when I use the woods with HYWE they are invariably trying to go
thru the trees to get at my always-tenuous flanks). Easy to store
and transport and enhances playability of the game instead of
creating measurement/sliding/tipping issues.

Now, I have a bunch of plowed fields of all different seasons
etecera which I like to use for flavor in open terrain (they might
make good open pieces actually instad of string) - but again most
folks prefer not to have the extras on the table as it is confusing
remembering what is and what is not actual game terrain. However, I
really like the look and will see if I can do this for my open
terrain areas at Cold Wars this year - downright creative for
someone who always pays to have his figures painted.

I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST (eventually got to a valuable point here)
that FHE keep a website where folks can submit scanned terrain
images of different features or patterns/textures to use for
features to use with this or similar techniques. I couldn't submit
my GeoHex stuff because even though they are defunct I think I would
be sued. However, there is a lot of even better stuff around if you
look on the web.

[John Murphy]

> From: JonCleaves@a... <JonCleaves@a...>
> 1. Terrain features cannot be made from felt or cloth. Flocked
and/or
> painted card/gatorboard/roofing paper is the standard.

Are you totally insane? Cardboard looks better than cloth or felt?
(to say nothing of stays in it's spot on the table better) Geesh,
Jon, what did you drink for breakfast?

> 2. Hills must be three dimensional and must be made in line with
12.0.
> Flocked.

See my other comments. Change the movement distances to about double
or triple then so you are not measuring two-inch moves with troops
who are falling over! There is a reason this kind of thing works for
Warhammer - because there you have units that move a foot at a time,
and I aint talking about march moves!

On the other hand seems like in Warrior you so very rarely (not
saying never just not often) see an actual hill get on the table in
an area where troops are set up maybe it doesn't really matter.

> 3. Woods must have trees. Painted/modeled or store bought.
Foliage.
> 4. Villages must have buildings/tents/huts of some appropriate
sort.
> Painted.
> 5. Marshes have lichen/weeds, rocky has rocks.

Aint nothin wrong with any of this in my book, provided you can
remove said objects and leave a CLOTH or FELT (so there!) pattern
underneath to actually determine the game boundary of the terrain.
Rocks roll, lichen shifts, building even shift, and the army men
only move two inches at a time.

[Ewan McNay]

We're going to get back into the definition of 'we' again.

FHE - or in this case Jon - can of course include a terrain mandate in the
rulebook, misguided or not.

NASAMW can and should of course decide whether to ignore such, especially
if it removes from the game an element clearly desired by the majority of
tournament gamers.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 JonCleaves@... wrote:

>
>
>
> <<You misread my statement. My 'fine as is' has nothing to do with the
> quality of our terrain, but rather with the method in which size and
> shape is decided upon after having been diced for.>>
>
> No, I read it right. If a solution that works for getting our games to look
like they should means we don't do things exactly as we have done in the past,
we may go that way.
>
> J
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>