Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

We are doing a 25mm Fast Warrior tourney at Call to Arms, 4 May 2002.

[Patrick Byrne]

When and where is Call to Arms, I couldn't find it on the NASAMW site.

Do you have Tourney format information?
-PB


> You'll just have to come up to Call to Arms...
>

[Dave Smith]

Patrick;

Here is the link to the CTA website: http://www.hahmgs.org/cta.htm
and I also have info on my site http://www.miniwars.com

Dave



--- In WarriorRules@y..., Patrick <cuan@f...> wrote:
> When and where is Call to Arms, I couldn't find it on the NASAMW
site.
>
> Do you have Tourney format information?
> -PB
>
>
> > You'll just have to come up to Call to Arms...
> >

[scott holder]

Jon is gonna write up something a bit more formal and comprehensive but
I wanted to add my spin.

Dave Smith provided very generous prize boosts (along with stuff kicked
in by NASAMW and HAHMGS and a couple of dealers at Call To Arms). Dave
also brought two terrain boards. He will be posting the web site from
which to order these. Man they are great. They fold in half, some in
different colors, and well, you'll hafta look at some online photos to
know what I mean. He brought one that was white so we were able to
feature the Post-Mongol Russians vs Late Teutonic Order fighting on the
snow. Very striking game. And they come in FW sizes.

Also thanks to Tom Keegan for bringing three pairs of 25mm armies. We
used two and of those, Armenians vs Early Imperial Romans, was probably
the most intriquing matchup of the day. In fact, I came away somewhat
impressed with myself *breaking arm patting my back* for somehow getting
the balance between those two historical foes. Obviously terrain is key
for the Romans but with preset terrain, Jon and I also managed to hit
upon the right combination that setup the tactical situation so that the
Romans could "win" only by doing certain things.

We ran 1.25 hour rounds, too short, but I think we knew this going into
the thing. Ideally, 1.5 hours should work for most games using preset
terrain. 2 hours would be max per round if letting players do their own
terrain. Even then, I think 1.5 hours should suffice and will suggest
that's what we do at Historicon for the Fast Warrior Theme tourney
(Bronze Age) Sunday morning.

The more I play FW, the more I begin to understand how "different" it is
tactically. I played Indians in the Indians vs Macedonian game and
charged HCh into the pike-armed Hypaspists and had a reasonable
expectation of not getting creamed. The relative number of units to
"offensive action" dictates a different approach to setting up key
attack points than one would see in Warrior proper. The EIR vs Armenian
game was even better in terms of "allowing" certain things to happen
with the expectation of counterpunching actually winning the game. On
the surface, that's not unlike some Warrior games but here, games tend
to focus on catastropic end-results, not a slow grind to victory.
Nonetheless, one thing that offsets this game from others is that you
really do need to link 2-3 things together, not just place advantageous
matchups across from the other guy during deployment, slog forward,
watch the lines meet, and roll dice.

I will be posting a play aid (more like a tournament aid) that shows how
duplicate matchups "flow" in 6, 8, 10, and 12 player games. That way,
anyone wanting to run one of these can simply number the table sides and
assign a player a number, and his route thru the tourney is literally
predefined. What's great about this is that you never play the same
army pair twice nor do you play the same player twice.

Scott
List Ho

[Dave Smith]

Thanks to Jon and Scott for a very enjoyable FW tourney this past
Saturday. I agree the rounds should have been 1.5 hours which would
have resulted in a little more definitive outcomes in my games, but
basically just wanted the opportunity to learn (or relearn?) the
system. It's much easier when you don't need to think to much on the
rules, but rather concentrate on the tactics and matchups.

I'll put the URL up for the warboards that were used for the FW
tourney later in the day. They are very nice and I have several
different sizes and 'looks', so highly reccomend them.

I took a few pictures that I will post here and on my website later
in the week (have to go to Tulsa for a small bizness excursion).

Dave



--- In WarriorRules@y..., "Holder, Scott <FHWA>" <Scott.Holder@f...>
wrote:
> Jon is gonna write up something a bit more formal and comprehensive
but
> I wanted to add my spin.
>
> Dave Smith provided very generous prize boosts (along with stuff
kicked
> in by NASAMW and HAHMGS and a couple of dealers at Call To Arms).
Dave
> also brought two terrain boards. He will be posting the web site
from
> which to order these. Man they are great. They fold in half, some
in
> different colors, and well, you'll hafta look at some online photos
to
> know what I mean. He brought one that was white so we were able to
> feature the Post-Mongol Russians vs Late Teutonic Order fighting on
the
> snow. Very striking game. And they come in FW sizes.
>
> Also thanks to Tom Keegan for bringing three pairs of 25mm armies.
We
> used two and of those, Armenians vs Early Imperial Romans, was
probably
> the most intriquing matchup of the day. In fact, I came away
somewhat
> impressed with myself *breaking arm patting my back* for somehow
getting
> the balance between those two historical foes. Obviously terrain
is key
> for the Romans but with preset terrain, Jon and I also managed to
hit
> upon the right combination that setup the tactical situation so
that the
> Romans could "win" only by doing certain things.
>
> We ran 1.25 hour rounds, too short, but I think we knew this going
into
> the thing. Ideally, 1.5 hours should work for most games using
preset
> terrain. 2 hours would be max per round if letting players do
their own
> terrain. Even then, I think 1.5 hours should suffice and will
suggest
> that's what we do at Historicon for the Fast Warrior Theme tourney
> (Bronze Age) Sunday morning.
>
> The more I play FW, the more I begin to understand how "different"
it is
> tactically. I played Indians in the Indians vs Macedonian game and
> charged HCh into the pike-armed Hypaspists and had a reasonable
> expectation of not getting creamed. The relative number of units to
> "offensive action" dictates a different approach to setting up key
> attack points than one would see in Warrior proper. The EIR vs
Armenian
> game was even better in terms of "allowing" certain things to happen
> with the expectation of counterpunching actually winning the game.
On
> the surface, that's not unlike some Warrior games but here, games
tend
> to focus on catastropic end-results, not a slow grind to victory.
> Nonetheless, one thing that offsets this game from others is that
you
> really do need to link 2-3 things together, not just place
advantageous
> matchups across from the other guy during deployment, slog forward,
> watch the lines meet, and roll dice.
>
> I will be posting a play aid (more like a tournament aid) that
shows how
> duplicate matchups "flow" in 6, 8, 10, and 12 player games. That
way,
> anyone wanting to run one of these can simply number the table
sides and
> assign a player a number, and his route thru the tourney is
literally
> predefined. What's great about this is that you never play the same
> army pair twice nor do you play the same player twice.
>
> Scott
> List Ho