Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:

> Tournaments serve two equal purposes (among others):
>
> 1. To determine a winner
> 2. To act as an ambassador to others interested in this hobby and this rule
> system.
>
> We all know that 90% of all players out there are not only good sports, but
> are enjoyable opponents whether they win or lose. The other 10% bicker,
> whine, bitch and moan and do everything they can to intimidate their
> opponent to get their way and eventually win. Unfortunately some of these
> players are also good at what they do (partly because they do take
> themselves and their hobby too seriously).

I'm surprised -- and frankly disappointed -- at how this discussion thread has
changed.

I started this discussion with a very different set of concerns in mind: is
there a way to get a more relaxed tournament experience from the big national
tournaments by either buying us more playing time, encouraging faster play, or
some combination thereof?

I stressed from the beginning that I don't think our current system is at all
bad, but that good discussion about how to improve it should be a positive
thing. Now I have my doubts.

What I absolutely _don't_ want is to create the impression to new players that a
Warrior tournament is tense, overly competitive experience with a lot of less
than scrupulous players you have to watch out for. I'm sure there are gaming
systems and associated communities that fit that description, but Warrior is
_not_ one of them. Overall we have a great group of guys that are good sports,
courteous players, and very accomodating to newcomers to the hobby. To say that
even 10% fit some other description is waaaay overstating it.

The way to affect change is by rewarding good behavior, not punishing bad. Maybe
we're going enough of that already. But if we can't do more of that, I'm
absolutely opposed to any "punitive" modifications to our tournament system.
Better to just leave things as they are, which, honestly is pretty darned good
and something we should all be proud of.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/18/2004 1:34:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mark@... writes:

> I'm
> absolutely opposed to any "punitive" modifications to our tournament system.>>

No worries, Mark.


> Better to just leave things as they are, which, honestly is
> pretty darned good
> and something we should all be proud of.>>

I could not agree more.

[Mark Stone]

Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:

> No this is 1200pt
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Schneider <thresh1642@s...>
> wrote:
> > Also, thats a 1600 point Army you have out on the
> > table, right?
> >
> > Todd
>

OK, I'll take a shot at this. I've been mulling over Italian Condotta a bit
lately, so I'll give that a try. Here's my 1200 points:

CinC w/2 stands of Reg A/C SHK L,Sh
1 x 2 stands or Reg C SHK L,Sh

Neapolitan ally w/2 stands of Reg B/C SHK L,Sh
1 x 2 stands of Irr B SHK L,Sh
2 x 4 stands of Irr B LMI HTW,JLS,Sh/HTW,JLS

Swiss ally w/1 stand of Reg A LHI P, 3 stands of Reg B LMI P, 1 stand of Reg B
LHI 2HCT, 1 stand of Reg B LMI 2HCT
1 x 1 stand of Reg B LHI P, 3 stands of Reg B LMI P, 1 stand of Reg B LHI 2HCT,
1 stand of Reg B LMI 2HCT
2 x 2 stands of Reg B LI HG

I force march the entire Swiss command, with 1 LI unit opposite the woods,
another in the center, and the two pike units opposite the hill.

The Neapolitan command operates in the center, just inside the hill, basically
supporting the Swiss.

The CinC acts as a reserve with the Neapolitans, and his other unit gets the
unhappy duty of keeping an eye on, and perhaps charging, the enemy LI unit in
the middle. That's the weak part of the plan.

The Swiss can take the hill, and indeed anything else that shows up in their
path. They have some mild vulnerability to shooting, but an ideal shot from the
LMI will still need to roll up to do 2 CPF, and if I take 2 CPF so be it; I take
the waver test and keep rolling. If you're going to pay for all that high morale
with the Swiss, you might as well get your money's worth.

The Almughuvars, backed by SHK, really don't fear anything on the field here in
hand to hand combat. They'd love to gobble up the LTS unit. It's size isn't
enough to protect it from a rout in this situation. The Almughuvars only real
fear is getting shot up by the LI, but one Reg B LI unit backed by SHK should be
enough to make sure that doesn't happen.

The woods, and anything near it, are no threat. It will take all game to dig my
Reg B LI out of the woods, and it will create a large zone around it of enemy
bodies moving only at tactical speeds, meaning they won't really affect things
elsewhere on the battlefield.

So it's a fairly classic approach. Delay/refuse on one side of the field, and
attempt to hammer the enemy on the other side.

The subtler theme here -- and this is reflected in all the knight armies I play
-- is to recognize that knights are support troops, not shock troops. You don't
send them in first. They wait for the shock troops to disrupt enemy in front of
them and then charge in, or they wait for enemy shock trooops to be committed
and then counter punch.

Using knights in this support capacity requires that there be some other shock
troop type in the army to initiate disruption, or at least threaten disruption
thus forcing the enemy to commit his shock troops early. That shock troop can be
one of two types: (a) foot troops who deal heavy hand to hand damage, as in this
example, or (b) foot troops who deal heavy missile damage, as in English
longbowmen or other 4 to a stand archers.

The larger theme is to always think in terms of combined arms tactics. I don't
care what the Almughuvars can beat straight up as much as I care what the 1-2
punch of Almughuvars and SHK can do. Similarly there are things the Swiss won't
rout at contact, but they'll pin an awful lot of stuff down that the knights can
then beat up on. And so on. Always think about the combinations of units working
together, rather than thinking of them in isolation.

There are no guarantees. The two units of enemy reg LC can be an enormous pain
in the ass, pinning troops and/or slipping in for a flank charge on the unwary.
The center and/or woods flank may sag faster than I want it to, due to an up
roll on enemy shooting or a failed counter or waver test. No plan is without
risks. But I'd be very comfortable taking the Italians in this matchup.


-Mark Stone

Mark,

If anyone construed what I said as a negative commentary towards a FHE,
NASAMW, or any of the other organizations represented here run tournaments –
I send my deepest apologies.

I have never had the pleasure of attending one of these tournaments so
obviously do not know anything about them, good or bad. However, based upon
the comments and discussions here, I would imagine they would be nothing
short of being a wonderful experience and look forward to when I can attend.
I sacrifice Barney dolls – and anything else Barney related to get the stars
and moons in alignment so that I can someday attend (well, actually I just
get a strange, perverse pleasure in mutilating Barney paraphernalia).

My comments were created in the vacuum of reading the thread specifically
about adding clocks, created in the spirit of “hey, I’ve seen this done and
it seemed to work”, and responding to specific concerns regarding my
specific comments. They should not be taken to reflect anybody or any
function related to this group or rules set. My personal experiences are
based upon mainly smaller, local venues involving other miniatures rules
sets with most attending having a level of familiarity with one another, and
where unfortunately there have been a 1:10 ratio of PitA’s. Further I would
never promote singling out “bad apples” with a prize or anything else for
that matter in anything but a small venue tournament where most, if not all,
know one another – and definitely not a larger or national venue. This
point, upon reflecting what I had written, was not made clear by me.

I feel that this hobby can promote many things in a young person that will
prove valuable to them in their later lives and among them is good
sportsmanship – something that I stress when I bring new players into it.


Scott A McCoppin, AIA
mccoppinarchitecture, pa
704.560.4154
architecture@...

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stone [mailto:mark@...]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 1:34 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Digest Number 1183

Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:

> Tournaments serve two equal purposes (among others):
>
> 1. To determine a winner
> 2. To act as an ambassador to others interested in this hobby and this
rule
> system.
>
> We all know that 90% of all players out there are not only good sports,
but
> are enjoyable opponents whether they win or lose. The other 10% bicker,
> whine, bitch and moan and do everything they can to intimidate their
> opponent to get their way and eventually win. Unfortunately some of these
> players are also good at what they do (partly because they do take
> themselves and their hobby too seriously).

I'm surprised -- and frankly disappointed -- at how this discussion thread
has
changed.

I started this discussion with a very different set of concerns in mind: is
there a way to get a more relaxed tournament experience from the big
national
tournaments by either buying us more playing time, encouraging faster play,
or
some combination thereof?

I stressed from the beginning that I don't think our current system is at
all
bad, but that good discussion about how to improve it should be a positive
thing. Now I have my doubts.

What I absolutely _don't_ want is to create the impression to new players
that a
Warrior tournament is tense, overly competitive experience with a lot of
less
than scrupulous players you have to watch out for. I'm sure there are gaming
systems and associated communities that fit that description, but Warrior is
_not_ one of them. Overall we have a great group of guys that are good
sports,
courteous players, and very accomodating to newcomers to the hobby. To say
that
even 10% fit some other description is waaaay overstating it.

The way to affect change is by rewarding good behavior, not punishing bad.
Maybe
we're going enough of that already. But if we can't do more of that, I'm
absolutely opposed to any "punitive" modifications to our tournament system.
Better to just leave things as they are, which, honestly is pretty darned
good
and something we should all be proud of.


-Mark Stone



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

Click HereClick Here
<http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12csmf1v9/M=274551.4550177.5718621.1261774/D=egroup
web/S=1705059080:HM/EXP=1077215665/A=1994230/R=2/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/
jump/N3349.yahoo1/B1282054.22;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=300x250;code=18634;dcopt=
rcl;ord=107712926%20>


_____

Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* 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]

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/19/2004 10:26:20 AM Eastern Standard Time,
sctrac@... writes:

> I feel that this hobby can promote many things in a young person that will
> prove valuable to them in their later lives and among them is good
> sportsmanship – something that I stress when I bring new
> players into it.>>

And please, Scott, don't take my 'passion' (or our decisions) about soft scoring
to be a message to discourage anyone from discussing tourney formats or
experiences or whatever on this group.

carry on!