Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Ok, ok, I can't stand it.

What if a player wanted a 'maneuver game' but wanted to paint and play with 25mm
figs? The only thing making 25mm games different from 15mm games (and therefore
different armies being 'more suited' to a particular scale) is the completely
arbitrary choice of table length.

25mm players who want to play armies 'commonly associated' with 15mm should just
play on tables at least 9 feet long for 1600 point-sized forces. Just because
NASAMW tourneys are a certain way doesn't mean we at FHE are encouraging that
each army be evaluated on whether it is 'better' in one scale or the other.

Just my $.02
J

[joncleaves]

You mean there are two cons called Genghis Con? I know of the big Denver
one, but where is the May one?


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

[scott holder]

Just because NASAMW tourneys are a certain way doesn't mean we at FHE
are encouraging that each army be evaluated on whether it is 'better' in
one scale or the other.

>I wasn't speaking for FHE, I was simply tossing in my nsho opinion on
games:) Every time I've played a game on a big table, I'm bored.
Instead of watching a coherent battle plan with significnat interplay
among the units involved, I've instead watched the battle break down
into separate "one-on-one" battles that, that for all intent and
purposes, might as well have been played on a "standard" table size. I
might add that I've spent 14 years evaluating armies and how they do "in
each scale" so it's pretty much ingrained in my player's mindset:):)

>Now, having said that, I see *plenty* of reasons to set up scenario
games with lotsa lotsa space. Some Mongol battles are good examples of
that, ie., give the Mongols plenty of room to move and potentially flank
opponents. Crassus at Carrhae vs the Parthians is another. In these
instances, yes, end of the world board edges get in the way of
*seriously* recreating the particular battle.

>I, more than anybody else, am aware of why "standard" table sizes
exist:) I also understand, at least in a tournament mindset, that
with Warrior, larger tables lead to less decisive battles because
players spend more time maneuvering than fighting. Hmmmmm, at USMC
Command & Staff, I was taught that good maneuvering pretty much solved
the fighting issue before either side came to blows:) But I
digress.

>And that, philisophically, gets to an interesting core feature of
Warrior or any other ancient/medieval miniature wargame, namely, how
each game defines its "tactical engagement zone". By opening up the
table in Warrior, we "slow" the game down because of the maneuver issue,
not a bad thing if that's what you're aiming at doing. But........with
numerous exceptions, the tactical engagement zone as artificially
defined by table sizes in tournaments doesn't do that bad a job of
realistically recreating battles, particularly at the smaller end of the
spectrum. It simply assumes that the manuever part of the operation is
done with and now we're coming to fisticuffs, or spearicuffs, or
whatever.

>FWIW.

Scott
Engagment Ho

[joncleaves]

Oh yeah, like *your* playing experience is relevant... ;)

In a message dated Thu, 16 May 2002  2:27:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
JonCleaves@... writes:

>25mm players who want to play armies 'commonly associated' with 15mm should
just play on tables at least 9 feet long for 1600 point-sized forces.

Or you could make 15mm play like 25mm by playing on 4 foot wide tables. Wouldn't
that be a hoot?

John Meunier

>In a message dated Thu, 16 May 2002 2:27:45 PM Eastern Daylight
>Time, JonCleaves@... writes:
>
>>25mm players who want to play armies 'commonly associated' with
>>15mm should just play on tables at least 9 feet long for 1600
>>point-sized forces.
>
>Or you could make 15mm play like 25mm by playing on 4 foot wide
>tables. Wouldn't that be a hoot?
>
>John Meunier

Done that with Late Imperial Romans. Ya gotta hustle!

Scott T.

[joncleaves]

<<Or you could make 15mm play like 25mm by playing on 4 foot wide tables.
Wouldn't that be a hoot?>>

Done it. And Fast Warrior in 15mm has similar traits...

[Tim Brown]

Except that table size is anything but arbitrary at ALL events, Jon. When
in the last 16 years of playing has table size differed from the usual in
any national event? I can answer, having been to every single one of them -
the single exception being the nationals down in Florida. Opps - missed
Coldwars in 92 as well,preoccupied fighting a war with my tank. The answer
of course is 'never'. While naturally anyone can choose a table size at
home, most of us are competitive by nature, which leads us to study armies
based upon a given table size ( after so long though, wondering about table
size is rather moot ). We can most certainly 100% expect to see the same
tables at tournies. Consider the comparisons about whether or not one army
is better in 15 or 25 as natural as the sun rising. You (collective
horsemen) want to sell more books, or persuade us not to do that - try
varying the table size at tourneys. That'll add a welcome element of
uncertainty back into the mix. And also perhaps bring back a few armies back
as tournament playable other than the 2 dozen or so same armies we usually
see.

One other side note - at PointCon I indeed ran the Warrior tournament with
preset terrain I built myself- I actually think all my players welcomed the
breath of fresh air. And it looked great - it attracted quite a few
onlookers. Of course it took a bit more work to setup - but isn't everything
worthwhile? I can post a few pics if anyone's interested.

And yes, I will put my money where my mouth is, so to speak, and volunteer
to head up any effort to organize the varying table size/ terrain upgrade at
any national Warrior event. I suggest starting with the mini or theme (
easier to build themed terrain, actually) and judge the results afterwards.

I've varied up things in tournaments before with good results - I ran a
'dogs of war' theme ( 40% mandatory D class in all lists, battlefield
upgrade in morale class),an elephant based theme (free CIC if elephants
included, are expendable), and a knight theme( free CIC with no wavers for
routing peasants) All were received well.

Comments, anyone?

Tim Brown

-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 5/16/2002 2:26 PM
Subject: [WarriorRules] 25 vs 15 and table size (was Arab Imperials!)

Ok, ok, I can't stand it.

What if a player wanted a 'maneuver game' but wanted to paint and play
with 25mm figs? The only thing making 25mm games different from 15mm
games (and therefore different armies being 'more suited' to a
particular scale) is the completely arbitrary choice of table length.

25mm players who want to play armies 'commonly associated' with 15mm
should just play on tables at least 9 feet long for 1600 point-sized
forces. Just because NASAMW tourneys are a certain way doesn't mean we
at FHE are encouraging that each army be evaluated on whether it is
'better' in one scale or the other.

Just my $.02
J


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=226014.2032696.3508022.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705
059080:HM/A=1000239/R=0/*http://ads.x10.com/?bHlhaG9vaG0xLmRhd=102157361
5%3eM=226014.2032696.3508022.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705059080:HM/A=10002
39/R=1>

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=226014.2032696.3508022.1829184/D=egrou
pmail/S=1705059080:HM/A=1000239/rand=780867687>

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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

[joncleaves]

The choice of a table size to play a miniatures game on is arbitrary unless it
is an historical scenario.

The choice of what table sizes to use at a con's tourney is NOT arbitrary as you
have pointed out. The ones chosen for NASAMW tourneys are chosen specifically
tied to event times and the desire to have certain armies 'play' certain ways
based on what scale you run them.

ALL I was saying is that non-NASAMW, non-national con games can have any damn
table size the players want.

J

[Greg Regets]

Fortunately, the 25mm figures are wonderful to paint for us high-end artist
types, because 25mm games on an 8x5 table are well past boring. My opinion of
course.

Have we considered going back to 1500 points?

Greg

P.S. There is an old expression I remember from way back when. Not sure I agree,
but here it is. "15mm battles tell us who is the better general, 25mm battles
tell us who had the better army."


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

[Dave Lauerman]

Hello- Jon and Tim mentioned preset terrain. For our upcoming (5/25)
FW tourney at Ghenghis Con,Dale Shanek & I have decided to provide
all the terrain, 6 pieces to a table. The players MUST choose and
roll for one of the pieces provided ( meaning 2 pieces would be
unused). W plan to set up 4 tables, 1 with brush and open spaces, 2
with a mix of orchards, woods, brush, and open, and 1 with a river, a
town, and lots of woods. In 4 rounds, each player gets each table
once. This is for 25mm FW. We hope to get nicer looking tables and
still let people have a bit of control over the layout. I'll let the
list know how it works-dave lauerman

[Kelly Wilkinson]

So True!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com

[Doug]

>So True!

I hate it when people think they are having a sequential conversation
with only one other person.
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at
present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come
in it's turn, but it will be at a remote period." James Madison, 15
March 1798 (_Papers of J.M._ vol 12, p.14; LC call no. JK.111.M24)

[scott holder]

Have we considered going back to 1500 points?

>Locally, anybody can do anything, just as Jon suggested relating to
table sizes. But I know from the 3 east coast cons that there is no
desire to "go back" to 1500 points, a size, I might add, that we used
for 1 year before moving up to 1600 points. The Mini at 1200 pts fills
the "smaller army" bill and we'll also see how it's received on
"regular" table sizes this summer at Hcon. Jon will be running the Mini
on Thu and I'm sure will be polling participants as to how they like
playing 1200 pts on either an 8x5 or 6x4 table.

Scott
Table Ho

[Todd Kaeser]

Greg,

I see your arguement about table size and quality of
general. However, there are some serious exceptions
to this rule. There are players in 15mm who are not
necessarily good generals, but they can putz around so
much that no real combats take place thus leading to
1-1 scores taking both people out of the tournament.
If you think this make for good generalship I disagree
playing not to lose is not good generalship.

There are quite a few generals out there, regardless
of scale that it doesn't matter what army they are
using. It does help to have a combat oriented army in
25mm as table space is limited, but that does not take
away quality generalship. Take Dave Markowitz and his
ferocious Scots Common (killer army if you ask me).
At least in 25mm (especially in the NICT) those
players who are good at putzing can be brought to
battle and their real generalship is put to the test.

Todd

--- "Greggory A. Regets" <gar@...> wrote:
> Fortunately, the 25mm figures are wonderful to paint
> for us high-end artist types, because 25mm games on
> an 8x5 table are well past boring. My opinion of
> course.
>
> Have we considered going back to 1500 points?
>
> Greg
>
> P.S. There is an old expression I remember from way
> back when. Not sure I agree, but here it is. "15mm
> battles tell us who is the better general, 25mm
> battles tell us who had the better army."
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com