Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Paul said:

<<I'm obviously not making myself clear on this so here I go again. I fully
understand units reacting to the rout/destruction of nearby friends. My point is
why not resolve all combats started in that bound and then resolve wavers in the
combat direction which can of course mean units becoming shaken. However why do
we want a unit to possibly become shaken before it has resolved its own combat
which theoretically started at the same time?>>

Paul, this is precisely why I do not, as a rule, engage in what I call
designer's notes debates. But it is very illustrative of the problem, so I'll
go with it so people will understand why this is my last one.

We have a rule. The rule says you resolve each combat, to include rout moves
and wavers generated, before moving on to the next. This rule was written that
way for many reasons: design for effect being the primary one. I could explain
those many reasons (which would be 'explain again', since we went over this in
detail during the playtest, where such discussions are totally appropriate).
But why? The rule is not going to change. And what if you 'disagree' with the
reasons? Are you going to try to convince me you are right? To what end? We
aren't changing the rule, so what other purpose would it serve to convince me
the rule is 'wrong'? But to continue...
FHE thinks the 'ripple effect' generated by this rule is more realistic in its
effect than making the players remember how each combat played out just in the
name of some pseudo-simultanaeity. No bookkeeping to remember who should rout
and what waver tests to take. No having to establish subsequent rout move
precedence among several 'simultaneous' combats. But more importantly, the
player is generally rewarded for causing waver tests by having them impact on
ongoing fights, something that happened time and again historically (not the die
roll of a waver, but units 'breaking' in a fight due to seeing friends in
trouble or believing the cause lost). It has been playtested thoroughly and
both works fine and gets to the effects we are trying to achieve. Time spent
'debating' this rule, by me, is time not well spent given that my Warrior-time
is a zero sum game and we have other projects to complete. You wanna buy me a
beer at Cold Wars and debate design philosophy, I accept. Here in this forum, I
have enough to do. That sounds cold, but that is the nature of what I call
'task triage'. Your patient (design thoughts) will live. Campaign Warrior
needs this doctor's attention.

<<I meant a two rank unit, longbows behind spears which sometimes happened
apparently.>>

I thought we simulated that in the Warrior list differently. I will defer to
Scott.

<<I never said Warrior had a 25mm problem and neither was I attempting to bait
you. In future I will keep my sense of humour out of this.>>

Actually you said: "By the way, for financial and time reasons I am really glad
I didn't get into 25mm as it sounds like you guys are having a real problem
which once again demonstrates the superiority of 15mm."

Which I took in the humor intended and answered in kind. Relax, and humor away!

Jon

[joncleaves]

Well, Paul, you present me with a dilemma. As far as design logic there are
only two guys to ask: me and Scott Holder. I'm working on Campaign Warrior
and Fantasy Warrior and Scott is lip-deep in our army list books.

Tell you what. If you have a question or questions that you need answered,
and honestly the only reason you need them answered is because it will make
your job of recruiting new players easier - ask me here on this group and I
will answer. I don't want anyone here feeling 'turned away' and keeping that
from happening is more important than the rules I am working on.

Jon


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

----- Original Message -----
From: <JonCleaves@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Assorted queries, others should read


> Paul, this is precisely why I do not, as a rule, engage in what I call
designer's notes debates. But it is very illustrative of the problem, so
I'll go with it so people will understand why this is my last one.
>
> We have a rule. The rule says you resolve each combat, to include rout
moves and wavers generated, before moving on to the next. This rule was
written that way for many reasons: design for effect being the primary one.
I could explain those many reasons (which would be 'explain again', since we
went over this in detail during the playtest, where such discussions are
totally appropriate). But why? The rule is not going to change. And what
if you 'disagree' with the reasons? Are you going to try to convince me you
are right? To what end? We aren't changing the rule, so what other purpose
would it serve to convince me the rule is 'wrong'?

Jon,
Seeking to change rules was not my intention. Here am I with a new ruleset
which differs markedly from DBM, 6th and in some respects 7th. If I find
something different which I cannot reason out for myself where do I get an
explanation from? Having your reasons for the point in question gives me
another viewpoint and I can see what you are trying to achieve and that
seems fine. But in a couple of weeks I am giving a game to another DBM
player and when he starts to ask me about certain rules I would like to give
an explanation rather than " I have no idea why, that's the rule, get on
with it" You would obviously rather spend your time doing something else
because you have covered this ground already. Sorry but I was not involved
in the playtesting or the discussion groups prior to publication so this is
all new to me. In my very first post I said I was happy that there was
access to the designers to ask about queries; obviously I am asking the
wrong questions or I am on the wrong forum. Please advise to whom I should
speak in future.
Paul

[Doug]

>If I find
>something different which I cannot reason out for myself where do I get an
>explanation from?

Sounds like a call for a game design FAQ... Might just need some
collation & subject-line "topic-afying" from email discussians during
the design phase.

But the lists should have priority...
--

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)

----- Original Message -----
From: <JonCleaves@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 1:25 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Assorted queries, others should read


> Well, Paul, you present me with a dilemma. As far as design logic there
are
> only two guys to ask: me and Scott Holder. I'm working on Campaign
Warrior
> and Fantasy Warrior and Scott is lip-deep in our army list books.
>
> Tell you what. If you have a question or questions that you need
answered,
> and honestly the only reason you need them answered is because it will
make
> your job of recruiting new players easier - ask me here on this group and
I
> will answer. I don't want anyone here feeling 'turned away' and keeping
that
> from happening is more important than the rules I am working on.

Jon,
Thanks for that. Its obvious from some of the other posts that others out
there have a similar understanding of some of the background thinking that
make up Warrior so do you need to get involved? I got the impression that
you would keep an eye on things and only step in when we were all heading up
the garden path. The Warrior FAQ sounds good but obviously thats a lot of
work and not practical at the moment. So more responses from you
playtesters?
On the basing issue there has been a few interesting articles in Slingshot
challenging the current conceptions of ground scale but if changes are made
to popular base sizes there is automatically going to be resistance.
Rebasing is a royal pain( I once stuck a scalpel through my finger doing
this) and can come to nought anyway. Take my Classical Indian Irr Longbows.
4 to a base 15x40 under 7th, 3 to a base 20x40 under DBM and now back
again. Fortunately I rebased using magnetic strips just in case 7th came
back somehow. Shame I can't have the same feelings about the stock market.
Paul

>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

--- In WarriorRules@y..., "Paul A Marsh" <PAUL.JACQ@V...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <JonCleaves@a...>
> To: <WarriorRules@y...>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 4:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Assorted queries, others should read
>
>
> > Paul, this is precisely why I do not, as a rule, engage in what I
call
> designer's notes debates. But it is very illustrative of the
problem, so
> I'll go with it so people will understand why this is my last one.
> >
> > We have a rule. The rule says you resolve each combat, to
include rout
> moves and wavers generated, before moving on to the next. This
rule was
> written that way for many reasons: design for effect being the
primary one.
> I could explain those many reasons (which would be 'explain again',
since we
> went over this in detail during the playtest, where such
discussions are
> totally appropriate). But why? The rule is not going to change.
And what
> if you 'disagree' with the reasons? Are you going to try to
convince me you
> are right? To what end? We aren't changing the rule, so what
other purpose
> would it serve to convince me the rule is 'wrong'?
>
> Jon,
> Seeking to change rules was not my intention. Here am I with a new
ruleset
> which differs markedly from DBM, 6th and in some respects 7th. If I
find
> something different which I cannot reason out for myself where do I
get an
> explanation from? Having your reasons for the point in question
gives me
> another viewpoint and I can see what you are trying to achieve and
that
> seems fine. But in a couple of weeks I am giving a game to another
DBM
> player and when he starts to ask me about certain rules I would
like to give
> an explanation rather than " I have no idea why, that's the rule,
get on
> with it" You would obviously rather spend your time doing something
else
> because you have covered this ground already. Sorry but I was not
involved
> in the playtesting or the discussion groups prior to publication so
this is
> all new to me. In my very first post I said I was happy that there
was
> access to the designers to ask about queries; obviously I am asking
the
> wrong questions or I am on the wrong forum. Please advise to whom I
should
> speak in future.
> Paul

Maybe a "designer's notes" page should be added to the FHE website.
This does not have to be a priority and can be added to as time
allows, but it should be a consideration. In a game that the current
designer's continually refer to as a "simulation" designer notes are
a must - they would also cut down alot on the "why was this done?"-
type posts that would be better-served by a dedicated forum. Just
food for thought ;)