Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Brian,

Warrior is a game and so is DBM. DBM is even farther removed from
reality(in my humble opinion) as one unit can go an entire battle
without having counted previous combat fatigues or effects of
previous losses into account. Hmmm... I wonder which set is more
inferior? DBM is no more than complicated DBA; so complicated that
they are on their 3rd major revision correcting problems. Oh,
charging on the flank in DBM DOES preclude the enemy from fighting in
a direction to the front if the charger so wishes. Flanks are bad
things to leave open in ANY rules set and rules authors recognize the
historical significance of doing so.

Oh, lest I forget, being a past regional coordinator does not make
you a rules authority. I should know, I have been one Gee, since
DBM and WRG X.X are written by the same company, don't you think the
thought process in DBM is an extension of WRG X.X??

I have not found the perfect set of rules. I own quite a few sets of
Ancients/Medievals rules sets (WRG 6th, 7th, Warrior Draft, Ancient
Empires, SOI, Tactica, Medieval Tactica, DBM v. 1 & 2, DBA, Warcry,
Might of Arms)and none are perfect including Warrior. They ALL make
compromises of one sort or another. In my opinion, Warrior is the
best blend of simulation and historical accuracy. I would put DBM as
being second or third to last (last being DBA) as to historical
simulation in my list. I don't mean to say that DBM isn't a fun game;
but please, superior??? [baahhh!!] DBM does eliminate paperwork. It
does make historically inferior armies more viable. But
its 'superiority' was supposedly based on simplicity. If it is so
simple and superior, why are so many revisions released? But I don't
mean to criticize DBM because I don't play it. This wouldn't be fair.
DBM has its place and so does Warrior.

To each his own on rules sets. But when one claims 'mine is better
than yours because yours sux', it makes you wonder whether it is the
rules that are the problem or the player is. We all play by the same
rules no matter which set we play. There are things to watch out for
in any gaming system.

Real Life Situation:
Tell you what, you have some one try to attack you from the front. I
will attack you first from the flank or rear (your choice). You tell
me, are you going to be able to fight off the guy in the front? No,
you try and defend yourself to the first attacker and the side you
feel most threatened by. And guess what? You will be at a
disadvantage in the first moments of combat against me.

In Warrior, the simulation of being at a disadvantage is a minimum of
one round of no responses. Seems fair to me..

Well, I doubt I am getting through since you have your mind made up
on Warrior and are trying to convince the rest of the world to be as
closed minded as you appear to be. Have fun with DBM. I wish you
great success in tournaments. But leave Warrior to the ones that want
to play it just as I will leave DBM to the ones that want to play it.
You have offered no CONSTRUCTIVE criticism and have only served to
remind us that there are no superior rules systems, just superior
gamers.

Chris Tebo

--- In WarriorRules@y..., "Brian K. Fritz" <bfritz@l...> wrote:
> Allow me to paraphrase "Theodoric of York, Medieval Barber:"
>
> Gee, could it be that this particular rules system, whose core
mechanics were devised in 1969 and for a troop scale of 1 figure =
only 20 men, has become so fundamentally inadequate, inaccurate,
pedantic, arcane, clumsy and outdated that years ago it ceased to be
a VIABLE, historically accurate yet playable simulation of
ancient/medieval battlefield GENERALship?
>
> Naaaaaaah!
>
> Brian K. Fritz
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cncbump@a... <cncbump@a...>
> To: WarriorRules@y... <WarriorRules@y...>
> Date: Thursday, October 25, 2001 12:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] A little help...
>
>
> >In a message dated 10/25/2001 11:04:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> >jwilkinson62@y... writes:
> >
> ><< What if the troops are that run of the mill Irregular
> > "C" variety? Why would they be able to hit harder than
> > the best of the best? Shouldn't Regular "A"s be given
> > the same opportunity to slaughter inferior foes that
> > is given to Irregular"A"s? It just seems to stand to
> > reason that the best troops in the Warrior system
> > shouldn't just have to hang or stick around in a
> > battle over inferior trained and morale troops. This
> > somehow feels wrong. . .
> >
> > Kelly
> > >>
> >Kelly,
> >
> >This battle has been fought and lost. No one has come up with a
really
> >viable solution and the rules ho, supported by the list ho have
decided this
> >aspect to be unbroken. Rule of thumb therfore applies........Not
broken, not
> >fixed. Many feel this to be an error or lacking in historical
flavor, but it
> >is what it is. All rules have their idiosyncrasies and we then
have the
> >option to play with them or not. Se' La Vive.
> >
> >Chris
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >WarriorRules-unsubscribe@e...
> >
> >
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]