Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

Jon,

Given the various restrictions on what troop types/points can be cashed in to
pay for TFs, and given that buying TFs at present is an extra step in setup
that slows down deployment, I'm wondering if this is all worth it.

You've always said that since this section of the rules is strictly for
tournament play, that you'd be more open to player opinion and player
suggestion. I'd like to suggest that we forgo the whole "adjust army lists for
TF" step, and simply pay for TFs just like any other troops. If you want a
ditched palisade, then leave yourself 20 points from your 1600 to buy it. If
you end up not wanting it, or not being able to place it, oh well; you've
wasted 20 points, and that's the risk you take.

Consider: In WRG 7th we used to dice for deviation in direction when marching in
the woods. While there is a certain element of realism to that rule, it was
something that complicated and slowed down game play well beyond any realism
benefit we were getting. You eliminated that rule from Warrior for those very
reasons.

I'd argue that we've reached a similar point with purchasing TFs. Yes,
historically this is something armies threw together after seeing the field of
battle and by dedicating certain troops as engineering crew to get the work
done. So there is a certain realism to the current, complex way we do things.
But frankly, I can't see that we are getting any significant realism benefit by
doing things this way as opposed to simply paying for TFs like we pay for stakes
or wagons or other equipment items. Why not simplify?

Just my $.02 worth. I'd be interested what you and others think.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

Mark, you are asking me my personal opinion. I would not have TFs in a tourney
game at all if it were up to me. The current rule is not based on my personal
wishes, but was crafted over two years of gathering the opinions of our players.

There is much in 14.0 I do not like. But the first mistake of game design is to
make the game you would play and not the one your customers want....

More saliently, the entirety of 14.0 is merely a guideline. Players are free to
ignore or change any or all of it at any time. And I would encourage them to do
so as I have done often here.


Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stone <mark@...>
To: warrior <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 16:54:31 +0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] buying TFs


Jon,

Given the various restrictions on what troop types/points can be cashed in to
pay for TFs, and given that buying TFs at present is an extra step in setup
that slows down deployment, I'm wondering if this is all worth it.

You've always said that since this section of the rules is strictly for
tournament play, that you'd be more open to player opinion and player
suggestion. I'd like to suggest that we forgo the whole "adjust army lists for
TF" step, and simply pay for TFs just like any other troops. If you want a
ditched palisade, then leave yourself 20 points from your 1600 to buy it. If
you end up not wanting it, or not being able to place it, oh well; you've
wasted 20 points, and that's the risk you take.

Consider: In WRG 7th we used to dice for deviation in direction when marching in
the woods. While there is a certain element of realism to that rule, it was
something that complicated and slowed down game play well beyond any realism
benefit we were getting. You eliminated that rule from Warrior for those very
reasons.

I'd argue that we've reached a similar point with purchasing TFs. Yes,
historically this is something armies threw together after seeing the field of
battle and by dedicating certain troops as engineering crew to get the work
done. So there is a certain realism to the current, complex way we do things.
But frankly, I can't see that we are getting any significant realism benefit by
doing things this way as opposed to simply paying for TFs like we pay for stakes
or wagons or other equipment items. Why not simplify?

Just my $.02 worth. I'd be interested what you and others think.


-Mark Stone





Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Doug]

How many armies would become "less viable" in a tournament by not
being able to buy them in response to facing a particular enemy? How
may armies currently become "more viable" by having the option?

Should buying TFs make it more likely that you are the Defender?

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
>
> Jon,
>
> Given the various restrictions on what troop types/points can be
cashed in to
> pay for TFs, and given that buying TFs at present is an extra step
in setup
> that slows down deployment, I'm wondering if this is all worth it.

I have to say Mark, coming from the foremost proponent of "don't
change anything, because you might screw up someone's army
purchase", I find this entire posting HIGHLY unusual.

> You've always said that since this section of the rules is
strictly for
> tournament play, that you'd be more open to player opinion and
player
> suggestion. I'd like to suggest that we forgo the whole "adjust
army lists for
> TF" step, and simply pay for TFs just like any other troops. If
you want a
> ditched palisade, then leave yourself 20 points from your 1600 to
buy it. If
> you end up not wanting it, or not being able to place it, oh well;
you've
> wasted 20 points, and that's the risk you take.

"That's the risk you take" ??? Uh, hello - No one ELSE has said
anything about this issue, even after I got shot down on the
whole "Offensive Incendiaries" issue. To try and NOW screw over
people, JUST as the new rulebook is about to be released, is in
EXTREMELY poor judgement.

Hey Mark, to use your prior arguments, WHAT IF someone went ahead
and invested in one of these Chinese armies, or any army with foward
deployable TFs for that matter, specifically because it had the
flexibility of being able to switch for troops on a match to match
basis?

Particularly in the "one list only" environment of tourneys, such
a thing might be particularly appealing to people who perform better
at defensive/reactive tactics, or whose army has a definite "I hope
this army type isn't paired on me because it eats my army dead".

The requirement of having to buy ALL their TFs from list points,
instead of having the choice of having TFs or troops depending on
what army your facing, could be the "showstopper" that makes a list
no longer worth playing.

> Consider: In WRG 7th we used to dice for deviation in direction
when marching in
> the woods. While there is a certain element of realism to that
rule, it was
> something that complicated and slowed down game play well beyond
any realism
> benefit we were getting. You eliminated that rule from Warrior for
those very
> reasons.

EXCUSE ME? I just looked at my rulebook, AND the posted errata,
AND the clarifications, and NONE of them have said anything about
eliminating or deleting section 6.712, pg 58, of the Warrior
rulebook.

Now, I happen to know that this rule IS getting deleted in the
new iteration of the rules, but UNTIL the new rulebook is actually
being used, talking about it is pointless

At any tournaments happening between now and the new rulebook's
release (such as Jevon Garrett's tourney in Upstate NY, Jan 14th, be
there or be square!), 6.712 is going to be in force.

> I'd argue that we've reached a similar point with purchasing TFs.

And I would disagree - I have yet to see the "adjust lists for TF"
step take up more than 5-10 minutes of time.

Considering 1600pt matches get allocated 4.5 HOURS, this is
HARDLY an onerous time burden, for a not-insignificant tactical
adjustment.

> Yes,
> historically this is something armies threw together after seeing
the field of
> battle and by dedicating certain troops as engineering crew to get
the work
> done. So there is a certain realism to the current, complex way we
do things.

What's so complex? Having learned that you can't get rid
of "minima" troops, it's easy to work around and plan ahead for,
both with list construction, and potential opponents.

Again, I have yet to see this part of set up take "undue" amounts
of time, or introduce "unneeded" levels of realism.

And while I'm at it, I would say the rule of "You can't deduct ANY
elements from units with a non-zero minimum" is the goofy rule that
should be changed. After all, my current rulebook says on page 96
that you CAN toss compulsory choices to pay for TFs.

If Player A can come with 4 elements of a 4-32 troop, and Player
B shows up with 6 elements, why can Player B NOT drop 2 elements?
This makes NO sense to me, either historically, OR game wise.

> But frankly, I can't see that we are getting any significant
realism benefit by
> doing things this way as opposed to simply paying for TFs like we
pay for stakes
> or wagons or other equipment items. Why not simplify?

Because things like Ditched Palisades and Ditches, with their
ability to stop mounted charges COLD, are DIFFERENT from hazards or
wagons, that's why. And against other opponents with high quality
foot, you might not WANT to have those ditches instead of more
troops.

Again, I'd think the argument of "someone's army choice/purchase
would be adversely affected" applies JUST AS WELL here, as it did
with offensive incendiaries.

My $1.50 into the hat,
-Asif Chaudhry

[joncleaves]

Mark - I got all of these opinions already went we went through this in
detail earlier in the year. Not going to revisit. Might do a 14.0 optional
rule
based on TF buying changes as an option AFTER rules are done.

Asif - You might look at softening the tone of your mails. And my 'lather'
was not about the tethered obstacles. I wrote that rule and our opponents
used them just like they should. What bothered me was the loophole that
allowed a ruling in contravention with my intent. Which is my fault,
ultimately.

Jon


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

[Ewan McNay]

Hey, Asif. Have a massage, relax, *then* post .

Oh, and a comment or two:

First, I agree that the solution I'd prefer would be to reverse the rule change
that now prevents use of elements-from-lines-with-minima for purchase of TFs
etc. So we are in accord there.

Second, though, I doubt that this change in the rules is about to be reversed,
and given THAT, I probably agree with Mark that it's essentially a pointless
part of the game right now.

And third:

Quoting shahadet_99 <shahadet_99@...>:
> Now, I happen to know that this rule IS getting deleted in the
> new iteration of the rules, but UNTIL the new rulebook is actually
> being used, talking about it is pointless

Really? Um, I guess I'd be amused, if not totally surprised, to find that all
of the claims about 'there will never be any rule changes' were once again
being ignored. But I'd be curious to know what else is changing. [sarcasm]
Perhaps Derek has succeeded in getting all Alexandrian foot to cost double?
[/sarcasm] Seriously, if this is the case, can we please let all the no-change
rhetoric die with it?

E

Whose commentary is unlikely to be valued as highly as $1.50 .

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, ewan.mcnay@y... wrote:
>
> Hey, Asif. Have a massage, relax, *then* post .

Sorry - incendiaries/TFs are hot-button topics with me. I'll try
and chill more next time.

> Oh, and a comment or two:
>
> First, I agree that the solution I'd prefer would be to reverse
the rule change
> that now prevents use of elements-from-lines-with-minima for
purchase of TFs
> etc. So we are in accord there.
>
> Second, though, I doubt that this change in the rules is about to
be reversed,
> and given THAT, I probably agree with Mark that it's essentially a
pointless
> part of the game right now.

Okay, asking calmly:

Why precisely do you, Mark, and the rest of the vocal minority
find this to be a pointless part of the game?

I'm not being facetious - I'm honestly confused. The tourneys I
have gone to have not had issues with TFs.

Have there been some notable instances in the past (besides the
tethered camel obstacles of Arab Conquest from last year that got
Jon in such a lather) that have led you and Mark to believe that
TFs, both their usage, and the way they are purchased on a match-to-
match basis, is "pointless"?

Personally, in the one-list environment, I find the ability to get
TFs (and Mantlets, Portable Hazards in the new section 14) to be an
excellent way to get MORE lists being played in tourneys.

I honestly feel that if you removed the ability to adjust for
TFs/Hazards/Mantlets, that you will simply reduce the variety of
lists being employed at tourneys in the future, as people continue
on their quest to find a "tourney capable" army to take to
Nationals, Cold Wars, Fall-In, etc.

And I think that would be a terrible thing - God knows, I'd hate
to go to a tournament and have 4 matchups, where 3 end up against
some form of Alexander & successors, and the last one is Sassinids
or Mongols.

> And third:
>
> Quoting shahadet_99 <shahadet_99@y...>:
> > Now, I happen to know that this rule IS getting deleted in the
> > new iteration of the rules, but UNTIL the new rulebook is
actually
> > being used, talking about it is pointless
>
> Really? Um, I guess I'd be amused, if not totally surprised, to
find that all
> of the claims about 'there will never be any rule changes' were
once again
> being ignored. But I'd be curious to know what else is changing.

Very little. In Jon's defense, the rules have been remarkable
consistent from previous edition to the new rewrite.

Most of the "changes" have been nothing more than incorporating
the errata and clarifications into the main rules.

Whatever changes there may be, have been to rules that were
overly complicated, obtuse, or downright silly.

And personally, I found the whole "deviation while in woods"
thing to be quite silly. I know it duff'ed me in one tournament,
where the Swiss player got two woods on flanks, set up his pike line
in between and said come and get me - while I was playing dopey
Hohenstaufen. My Knights got lost on the way to Grandma's house (or
the pike line, take your pick).......

[sarcasm]
> Perhaps Derek has succeeded in getting all Alexandrian foot to
cost double?

Hey, I'd put my vote in on that one. I have to agree that
the "free" list rules thing gets tiresome after awhile, especially
when there's almost an entire page of them at the front of the book!

> [/sarcasm] Seriously, if this is the case, can we please let all
the no-change
> rhetoric die with it?

But Ewan, if we let all the old dead horses get buried, what
would curmudgeonly old games get to beat when they are
bored/cranky? :)

> Whose commentary is unlikely to be valued as highly as $1.50 .

<humour mode>
That's because you don't value yourself highly enough. I mean,
you sit in the corner, all quiet. Your never write, you have no
opinions on anything, you are NEVER contentious. How do you expect
to get above the ubiquitous $0.02 until you do? :)

Regards,
Asif Chaudhry

[Mark Stone]

--- On December 29 Asif said: ---

> Okay, asking calmly:
>
> Why precisely do you, Mark, and the rest of the vocal minority
> find this to be a pointless part of the game?
>
> I'm not being facetious - I'm honestly confused. The tourneys I
> have gone to have not had issues with TFs.

Hmm. I don't find this part of the game pointless. And I don't have issues with
TFs. In fact I play several armies where I use TFs routinely (Knights of Saint
John is what I've been tinkering with most recently). Make sure you cap your
spending at 1598 points, make sure you buy an extraneous unit of 2 stands of
Reg D LI (18 points), and cash them in for stone wall/ditched palisade if the
situation warrants.

What I have problems with is getting to decisive results in 4 hours against a
slow, defensive player with a tendency to stall and prefer a 1-1 draw to a 5-3
loss. The sort of player who, by the way, might be inclined to max out on TFs
and sit behind them.

So if there's anything that can streamline the game, even by just a few minutes,
without overly detracting from the game experience, then I'm interested in
streamlining.

You obviously think that changing the TF rule in the way I suggested would
"overly detract", and that's fine. That's exactly the sort of opinion I hoped
people would speak up with, so Jon could see whether or not there were strong
opinions on this issue.


-Mark Stone

> What I have problems with is getting to decisive results in 4
hours against a
> slow, defensive player with a tendency to stall and prefer a 1-1
draw to a 5-3
> loss. The sort of player who, by the way, might be inclined to max
out on TFs
> and sit behind them.

Since Jon has ruled this thread a dead subject, I'm not going to
belabor anything else, but I would like to address the above bit.

Slow/Stalling Players: If someone is slow because they are new to
the rules, or simply by their natural inclination, then that is one
thing. If someone is slow because they are trying to stall and get
the fewest bounds in because they believe this will give them a
better result, then I agree with you Mark - that would be in poor
taste and bad sportsmanship.

Defensive players: I think it is a given (both from examination of
the army list books, and statements from both Scott and Jon) that
all Warrior armies are NOT created equal. In fact, some Warrior
armies simply destroy other armies without even breaking a sweat,
because their troops, options, and list rules are just BETTER,
assuming that both players are of a similar skill/experience level.

That being the case, I don't think you can really speak
negatively about a defensive tactical plan. It's the logical thing
to do. Is it "fun", "decisive", "exciting"? Nope - which is why it
should be avoided in fun, casual games. But in a tournament? Where
you are in direct competition with your opponent and the other
players present to place into Nationals, or win Nationals? In THAT
situation, I expect that anything is fair game - and that includes
going for the draw over the loss, if there is no reasonable
expectation of victory.

If I've got an army that deals well with good foot
(Alexander/Romans), or Elephants, but can only handle small Knight
forces, and I get paired with Sean Patrick Scott and his Horde
o'Knights, you can be darned sure I'll think about doing something
to give me a chance to NOT simply hand over 5 points to Mr. Scott.
If that means using loads of TFs to try and block out the Knights
and force them to dismount and wade in, then that'll be something I
definitely consider.

Regards,
Asif Chaudhry

[joncleaves]

<<Since Jon has ruled this thread a dead subject, I'm not going to
belabor anything else, but I would like to address the above bit.>>

I have not ruled this a dead subject. What I have said is, we have settled on
the basic 14.0 that will be in the rulebook. Once i get this two year old
monster off my back, a whole range of Warrior products will be forthcoming, some
fairly quickly.

One of those will be a set of optional 14.0 structures. I would think one or
more of those would have alternative TF buying rules (maybe even some
attack-defense scenarios). So, the discussion of what options you guys would
like to see would be very useful.

Jon


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

[Ewan McNay]

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005, shahadet_99 wrote:
> Why precisely do you, Mark, and the rest of the vocal minority
> find this to be a pointless part of the game?
>
> I'm not being facetious - I'm honestly confused. The tourneys I
> have gone to have not had issues with TFs.

Nor have I. I just agree that the amount of potential time and effort
spent both rules-wise and game wise (and that's *potential*, yes) are
probably past the point of break even. Incendiaries and their interaction
with TFs in the current rules iteration are a part of that, given the
history of perceived abuse and definite confusion.

I'm not strongly enraged either way, though; if you have some neat ideas
for how to use TFs, for instance, in the context of an army, I understand
that you'd like to see the capability stand. On the other hand, my guess
- note, guess, again - is that in most cases, use of TFs will lead to less
of a fun game, in the same way that minor water features can do, and
that's not something I'd like to encourage.

> Whatever changes there may be, have been to rules that were
> overly complicated, obtuse, or downright silly.

<bites tongue!>

> And personally, I found the whole "deviation while in woods"
> thing to be quite silly. I know it duff'ed me in one tournament,
> where the Swiss player got two woods on flanks, set up his pike line
> in between and said come and get me - while I was playing dopey
> Hohenstaufen. My Knights got lost on the way to Grandma's house (or
> the pike line, take your pick).......

What were your knights doing in the woods? That should have been an easy
game - Muslim LHI through the woods, into pike flank, shi into their
front... :)

E, quietly in his corner.

[Ewan McNay]

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Mark Stone wrote:
> Hmm. I don't find this part of the game pointless. And I don't have issues
with
> TFs. In fact I play several armies where I use TFs routinely (Knights of Saint
> John is what I've been tinkering with most recently). Make sure you cap your
> spending at 1598 points, make sure you buy an extraneous unit of 2 stands of
> Reg D LI (18 points), and cash them in for stone wall/ditched palisade if the
> situation warrants.

I agree with almost the whole content of Mark's post. I would just note
that this example is an excellent illustration of why - imnsho as ever -
the whole 'no cashing of troops with a minimum' is silly, if we're going
to allow trading in at all. Why should I be able to exchange that unit if
the line reads 0-144 but not if it's 1-144? Bizarre. I can see that one
might, perhaps, not allow any minima to be evaded by such means - so that
my Indian army must actually *field* 6 elements of MC, or whatever. But
the current rule? Well, silly. [Opinions. Mine. No-one else is likely
to accept responsibility for 'em, that's for sure.]

> You obviously think that changing the TF rule in the way I suggested would
> "overly detract", and that's fine. That's exactly the sort of opinion I hoped
> people would speak up with, so Jon could see whether or not there were strong
> opinions on this issue.

Yep.

e

> What were your knights doing in the woods? That should have been
an easy
> game - Muslim LHI through the woods, into pike flank, shi into
their
> front... :)

Oh, to have had SHK and LHI (that wasn't bow armed) in that game -
then you're right, it would have been easy!

I was playing early period Hohenstaufen - no SHK. And I set up
most of my support troops as Reg LHI/LMI Bowmen (not understanding
at the time how skirmish with mixed bodies works).

Usually, lots of quality bowmen with EHK/HK support works okay -
not so in that instance. I managed to notch up some 5pt wins in my
2nd and 3rd game, but not enough to overtake the Swiss (eventual
tourney winner). Of course, it didn't help that it was my first
time playing Swiss opponents, and I played a little dumb and
tentative - I was kicking myself afterwards for not doing some
stuff, but hey! that's how you learn.

> E, quietly in his corner.

I feel confident in saying that your corner will ALWAYS be the
loudest Ewan. And personally, I wouldn't have it any other way.

Happy New Year!
-Asif Chaudhry

[Greg Regets]

Certainly with some armies, the use of fortification lends historical
accuracy to the army, and serves to address the FHE mantra of making
armies fight in historical context against period opponents.

Knights of St. John are a perfect example. Other than a small cavalry
attack on the Turkish camp by the garrison of Mdina, there were no
battles fought on Malta that were not fought from behind or under the
cover of stone walls. Not only should they be allowed, but you could
make a case that they should be required in large numbers.

In addition, I think it may be somewhat problematic to link the use
of these sorts of things, with slow, stalling or defensive play.
They "can" be used this way, but so can woods, steep slopes or pikes
for that matter. My new army is Early Byzantine. Do I have a case if
I say that we should limit the wall of pikes anchored on the "table
edge end of the world" because I have a difficult time dealing with
this? Certainly not!

Another thing to keep in mind is that the person using
fortifications, can't place them in rolled open spaces. If you fear
that an enemy may want to use them against you ... you can make the
assumption that rolling your own terrain and placing it on your side
of the table, may end up giving you useless terrain. Consider rolling
open spaces and limiting where your opponent can place his
fortifications. Placed well, these can very much limit the ability of
anyone, to have a wall of anything.

Thanks ... g

[Mark Stone]

--- On December 30 Greg Regets said: ---

> In addition, I think it may be somewhat problematic to link the use
> of these sorts of things, with slow, stalling or defensive play.
> They "can" be used this way, but so can woods, steep slopes or pikes
> for that matter.

Yes, but woods and hills don't add an extra step to the setup phase.

And I don't want to equate "defensive" with "stalling". When I played chess I
always preferred to play black. And anyone who thinks a defensive posture
cannot lead to decisive results needs to go back and re-read a bit of
Napoleonic history (Austerlitz, etc.).

Last Historicon I played 10 Independent States. A friend of mine frowned on my
choice, saying it would be harder to get decisive results. In fact, that was
never my problem. It's about as static an army as you can play (8 scouting
points), and you have to play a counter-punching style, but it packs quite a
counter-punch. Just ask Derek, who took it to 2nd place in the NICT.

And "aggressive" armies can be played in a stalling manner as well. Your
opponent may have all the light troops in the world, but if all they ever do is
evade, you're both going to have a tough time getting decisive results.

> Another thing to keep in mind is that the person using
> fortifications, can't place them in rolled open spaces. If you fear
> that an enemy may want to use them against you ... you can make the
> assumption that rolling your own terrain and placing it on your side
> of the table, may end up giving you useless terrain. Consider rolling
> open spaces and limiting where your opponent can place his
> fortifications. Placed well, these can very much limit the ability of
> anyone, to have a wall of anything.

If I intend to place TFs, then I typically use open space picks of my own to
secure a place for them. Try placing a loop of string, of open space size, in
the shape of the letter "C", a very elongated "C". I think you'll find that
it's possible to create an interior space to the "C" that has room for a 6
element TF and still room for an element of space between this yet-to-be-placed
TF and the edge of this open space.

This approach is not a guarantee, of course. A lot depends on who goes first in
terrain picks, and whether or not you get your open space. But then, that's as
it should be. Terrain advantage on the field of battle (including TFs) should
go to the player who picks smarter and rolls better. If you can't do both, then
you just aren't going to get everything you want out of terrain.


-Mark Stone