Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/15/2002 18:05:25 Central Standard Time,
jjendon@... writes:

<< How exactly are you fitting them on table? When we use 4 Tr element camps,
they take up ALOT of rear zone room. They often make deploying one command
in front of another impossible. I have a real cool Fuedal English camp, but
do not use it because of the huge footprint. Ib fact no one in DFW uses a
base camp. We think they look awesome, but they are beastly to play with
due to their size. What is everyone out there doing?

Don >>

Don

4 Tr element camps do not have to be 'square'. they can be a line four
elements long. Even if 2x2, they only take up half a deployment zones depth.

And, if your event organizer is using 14.0, they are required.

I believe something else must be wrong with what you are doing with them
because they have been seen as nothing but a totally positive aspect of
Warrior throughout the playtest. Every one here is making multiple camps in
both scales. It has also brought a few DBMers to us.

J

[joncleaves]

Harlan

I would expect no less of such a group. :)

J

[Chris Bump]

The biggest reason we don't use them out here is they play so small a part in
the games as we play them. Points are basically irrelevant, in fact they are
completely so. We play all games to conclusion as opposed to a time limit.
Consequently one side or the other inevetibly concedes as one or more
commands go into retreat. I love baggage camps in tournaments as a prize or
bait with a substantial number of points tied to either use.

Chris

[Don Coon]

> Camps: This is not a rules issue, more of an "umpires intent" issue. I
> want to reiterate what's in 2.22 in terms of camp size (since this is
> related to Tr element size). If you have something that's larger, don't
> sweat it

How exactly are you fitting them on table? When we use 4 Tr element camps,
they take up ALOT of rear zone room. They often make deploying one command
in front of another impossible. I have a real cool Fuedal English camp, but
do not use it because of the huge footprint. Ib fact no one in DFW uses a
base camp. We think they look awesome, but they are beastly to play with
due to their size. What is everyone out there doing?

Don

[Harlan Garrett]

Hello All:

Having played with the DFW group, the baggage camps are just a hindrance
of the game. They have not real effect how we played, all they do is
take up space in the sustainment zone. Although, I am very impressed
with the baggage camp some of us have created.

Just My Two Cents
Harlan

-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 6:24 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Camps


In a message dated 3/15/2002 18:05:25 Central Standard Time,
jjendon@... writes:

<< How exactly are you fitting them on table? When we use 4 Tr element
camps,
they take up ALOT of rear zone room. They often make deploying one
command
in front of another impossible. I have a real cool Fuedal English camp,
but
do not use it because of the huge footprint. Ib fact no one in DFW uses
a
base camp. We think they look awesome, but they are beastly to play
with
due to their size. What is everyone out there doing?

Don >>

Don

4 Tr element camps do not have to be 'square'. they can be a line four
elements long. Even if 2x2, they only take up half a deployment zones
depth.

And, if your event organizer is using 14.0, they are required.

I believe something else must be wrong with what you are doing with them

because they have been seen as nothing but a totally positive aspect of
Warrior throughout the playtest. Every one here is making multiple
camps in
both scales. It has also brought a few DBMers to us.

J


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=215002.1818248.3328688.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705
059080:HM/A=847665/R=0/*http://ads.x10.com/?bHlhaG9vbW9uc3RlcjcuZGF0=101
6238273%3eM=215002.1818248.3328688.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705059080:HM/A
=847665/R=1>

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=215002.1818248.3328688.1261774/D=egrou
pmail/S=1705059080:HM/A=847665/rand=396592011>

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/> .



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

[Don Coon]

> 4 Tr element camps do not have to be 'square'. they can be a line four
> elements long. Even if 2x2, they only take up half a deployment zones
depth.
>
> And, if your event organizer is using 14.0, they are required.
>
> I believe something else must be wrong with what you are doing with them
> because they have been seen as nothing but a totally positive aspect of
> Warrior throughout the playtest. Every one here is making multiple camps
in
> both scales. It has also brought a few DBMers to us.

I see how thay can be in a line. My camps will not work in "line fashion"
though. The arming pavillion for my feudals is bigger than 1 element as it
is. If I do not go square is does not fit (its all done anyway). Chris has
an awesome Roman camp that is 6 elements (3X2) It is really cool visually,
but barely fits in the rear zone. I have a real cool dojo like hut for my
Japanese that is also over an element in size (forcing a square).

The 3 tourneys we have been to where 14.0 was invoked ALL had people just
drop 4 blank metal bases on the table to meet the rules. This was not just
DFW guys. At least in Texas, Baggage camps are not high on anyones list of
things to paint or include in a game.

Since Baggage camps count as in a command, they therefore count for the
footprint of the command (i.e. for determining overlap?) Maybe we just need
to rethink our camps as 1X4 instead of 2X2. That would solve a large part
of the deployment issues. I sure hate to bust up my made camps.

I am looking forward to seeing some games with people who use them. See how
others work out the deployment kinks. Also do you guys out there glue your
Tr elements together or leave them as 4 separate elements and butt them
together at game time? Our camps are all glued together and can not be
rearranged (at least so far - I am already rethinking future camps).

The bottom line on camps is definately that they look VERY COOL. After
that, there is obviously some differing opinions.

Don

[scott holder]

150 pt camps in tournaments is no small component. I have found in
playtest that camps play a BIG role in the game. And during "live
playtesting" (last year at CW, Hcon, and FI), camps often meant the
difference between making it or not making it into the next point
category.

If tourney organizers want to assign larger point values to camps, they
should do so. At CW, they'll be 150 pts

>>> cncbump@... 3/15/02 10:48:00 PM >>>
The biggest reason we don't use them out here is they play so small a
part in
the games as we play them. Points are basically irrelevant, in fact
they are
completely so. We play all games to conclusion as opposed to a time
limit.
Consequently one side or the other inevetibly concedes as one or more
commands go into retreat. I love baggage camps in tournaments as a
prize or
bait with a substantial number of points tied to either use.

Chris


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/