Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Tom McMillan]

In a message dated 6/5/01 8:12:19 AM, WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com writes:

<< >Obviously I fully agree with Jon. I had the "pleasure" of using the Feb
Warrior at Nashcon and then switch over to reading DBA 2.0. Man oh man, what
a difference. It actually *hurt* to read DBA. >>

I realise this isnt really the place for the discussion, but I do think the
new DBA is indeed something of a warning in terms of rewrites. Much of it is
very good, like the Blade/spear/pike/knight interaction, but those terrain
rules!!?! Talk about open to abuse. (Speaking littorally, in particular.) It
seems the real killer army is the Mayans, believe it or not, because with an
Aggression of 0 they are almost certain to fill the entire board with jungle.
Post traumatic stress flashbacks to '4th edition' terrained boards (the
entire enemy deployment area filled with woods, impassable to elephants, so
they had to force march through them- figure that one out-) start to haunt my
dreams...
I'm afraid the local assessment is that, despite the need for reforms of
the old '12 blades fear nothing' system, the rewrite is an inferior game. So
take your time.

[scott holder]

I realise this isnt really the place for the discussion, but I do think the
new DBA is indeed something of a warning in terms of rewrites.

>Actually, I was referring only to the prose. Don't get me wrong, the more
I've worked on rules and lists, the more I've come to respect Phil. But, the
writing in this iteration of DBA is very very very painful to read.
Incredibly long sentence structure made it tough to pull out small albeit
important items. To be honest, I could read Warrior rules (and I'm still not
all that familiar with them in terms of where things are placed etc), a far
more complicated set, and found things easier to find and easier to understand
than I could in DBA 2.0.

Much of it is
very good, like the Blade/spear/pike/knight interaction, but those terrain
rules!!?! Talk about open to abuse. (Speaking littorally, in particular.) It
seems the real killer army is the Mayans, believe it or not, because with an
Aggression of 0 they are almost certain to fill the entire board with jungle.

>On the other hand, those of us who played it at Nashcon game away thinking
Mayans would suck precisely because of their 0 Aggression factor. It means
they'll always setup first and being able to setup 2nd has always struck me as
the real advantage (and thus flaw) in DBA. Gimme an army with a 4 Aggression
factor anyday. Of course this also highlights one major reason why we've
never liked the whole "aggression" rule anyway and that's why you won't see it
in any Warrior army lists.

Post traumatic stress flashbacks to '4th edition' terrained boards (the
entire enemy deployment area filled with woods, impassable to elephants, so
they had to force march through them- figure that one out-) start to haunt my
dreams...

>I have something similar only it's in 6th edition where deployment was so
important you could lose the game from the outset with one misplaced unit.
Our DBA games were almost that bad, weeny aggression person sets out army,
testosterone agression person then lines up all his best combats and slogs
forward.

>I too hesitate to bring DBA up here in the Warrior forum but I think it
highlights the care we're trying to take in getting Warrior out *correctly*.

Scott

If anything, take your time and write the rules with simple syntax
and short sentences. Phil Barker can not write rules for
comprehension. If I want to read Wuthering Heights, I would prefer to
read the orginal.

The current set of Warrior is going in the right direction. We gamed
last weekend with a reluctant player. Afterwards, the reluctant
player was very happy with the new rule re-write (Warrior) over that
of the last "offical" WRG 7th edition set.

Clarity has a very soothing quality in wargaming.

Scott Turner