Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/9/2002 18:19:43 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:


> And I am wondering about a particular tactical response to a
> particular matchup, which I know from being on the other end can be
> frustrating, but I hope folks see this is very different from the kind
> of evil tournament-wide master plan you mention.
>
>

I assumed as much. Mike Turner and I recently used artillery very
effectively to support our Roman foot in a tournament. We had an over all
'defensive scheme' and it seemed to work well enough. At the level of play
we found ourselves, we were certainly pitted against players who knew the
basics of 'handling artillery', but there is no real 'quick solution' to
artillery and all we were looking for was some time.


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

[joncleaves]

> <<Jon, are you speaking on behalf of FHE here?>>

No, I was speaking as a player in NASAMW tourneys. FHE is a game company,
not a tourney directing body.

> <<If so, where does one draw the line? If I use stakes as a HYW, can my
> opponent get a ruling against me? How about with my Turkish archers?
> If I set out brush with my LMI and refuse to come into the open against
> the four SHK armies I happen to fight? How about if I spend 20 minutes
> moving my LC in order to avoid my knights getting any closer to your
> elephants? That's happened in a NTT final as I watched..
>

Those are all 'situations', as I define them, that might require defensive
tactics.

> <<I think that one has to accept that some people wish to play
> defensively, and that if you wish to win tournaments you may have to
> face one such and have a plan for it.>>

I would agree with that.

>
> <<Yes, this (sitting in a fortified position) can get silly, although
> refusing to allow folk to buy points-bought fortifications in a
> tournament goes a long way to removing the problem (and would I think be
> a legit ruling). But even then, if I place a minor water feature which
> ends up in my forward sector, am I supposed to cross it with my pike in
> the face of your LMI? If I defend the bank of the river, am I somehow
> acting illegally/inappropriately?>>


No, but neither is it your opponent's 'responsibility' to cross, as some
players have argued. The chooser of a minor water feature knows it might go
across the front and accepts that he might be the one making it a 'non-game'
if it does so.

Doing this in every game just to screw over aggressive players you don't like
is a behavior I would want my umpire to discourage.
I play competitively in a dozen game systems (called a lack of focus - lol)
and this isn't something confined to ancients. But I have seriously
witnessed players set up the maginot line and then when their disgusted
opponent refuses to impale himself on it, they whine to the judge that they
are 'defensive players' using a 'valid tactic' and their opponent should
have to attack. Really. Sound, tough decisions NASAMW umpires have made
over the years have made this untenable in society sponsored tourneys.





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

[John Murphy]

Two questions here...

(1) How do you translate temporary field fortifications between the
old WRG 6th list and Warrior (until Imperial Warrior arrives that is
of course)? EIR get up to 6 70p sections of ditch or palisade for 35
pts each. Is that 6 elements of ditch (10 pt obstacle only) or 6
elements of ditched palisade (20 pt cover and obstacle) under Warrior?
Then how to convert from 70p sections to 1-element sections - is it
just 1:1?

I hope all this isn't somewhere in the rules or interps. Sorry if I
this is another "read the rules" questions.

(2) How do Warrior players at Historicon and Cold Wars, for example,
generally regard opponenents who sit behind fortifications and fire
artillery, even if only in otherwise impossible circumstances? Should
one care is perhaps another issue only to be answered by each himself
but I am curious anyway. I guess it is really no different from hiding
in woods or sitting atop a hill, but those seem somehow to draw less
ire.

Although this is tempting to do I have always found timed convention
games frustrating (slightly) when someone has done something similar
to me - and given my personality (it's only a game) have usually
charged across the board anyway and lost just for sake of having
something more exciting to do than sit for a couple of hours for a
5-5 draw. Patience is a virtue I have yet to learn I suppose. But now
that the proverbial shoe is on the other foot it looks suddenly
different!?!*%&^%

Sorry, perhaps none of the latter is truly appropriate to this list.

[Ewan McNay]

rollsup3 wrote:
> (2) How do Warrior players at Historicon and Cold Wars, for example,
> generally regard opponenents who sit behind fortifications and fire
> artillery, even if only in otherwise impossible circumstances? Should
> one care is perhaps another issue only to be answered by each himself
> but I am curious anyway. I guess it is really no different from hiding
> in woods or sitting atop a hill, but those seem somehow to draw less
> ire.

If you bring an army designed to do that, and sit in a corner every
game, you can expect some derision (and also to lose* - see previous
posts on setting the game plan you want rather than your oppo wants).

If you do it in one game because of special circumstances, I can't
imagine people getting stressed - although your immediate opponent may
gripe, but then don't they all? :)

*[I fondly remember a game in qualifying for the Worlds one year. I'm
running Aztec, and I draw a guy running HYW English who set up in a
corner, all of his SHK inside a box of longbowmen. I guess he had never
encountered an Aztec before... it took about one turn of shooting for
him to realise that all of my troops out shot all of his front line, and
also out fought them . Ten minutes later he was off the table..]

[joncleaves]

<<(1) How do you translate temporary field fortifications between the old WRG
6th list and Warrior (until Imperial Warrior arrives that is of course)? EIR get
up to 6 70p sections of ditch or palisade for 35 pts each. Is that 6 elements of
ditch (10 pt obstacle only) or 6
elements of ditched palisade (20 pt cover and obstacle) under Warrior? >>

I've always wondered what Phil's plan for that was. I'd recommend (subject to
Scott's approval) letting that be (total) a Warrior-standard 6E wide ditched
palisade for 20 points. Just one of those, not 0-6. :)

<<(2) How do Warrior players at Historicon and Cold Wars, for example, generally
regard opponenents who sit behind fortifications and fire artillery, even if
only in otherwise impossible circumstances?>>

You need to be winning (4 or 5 points, usually 5) every game in a big tourney to
be in the hunt. You can't win this way unless your opponent does something
stupid, or more commonly, out of frustration. If it is part of some plan to
deny all your opponents their chances to win because it makes no sense to come
after you - you should have to forfeit or have some other ruling made to
discourage such. We briefly had a problem with this back in the 80's as I
remember.
If it is purely driven by the situation, then that's all part of battle. For
example, in a points-based swiss tourney you are in the finals and are ahead on
points of #2 comfortably. You go very defensive with TF and terrain to prevent
him getting any points from you as you need none. That's ok - you've earned it.

J

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> I've always wondered what Phil's plan for that was. I'd recommend
(subject to Scott's approval) letting that be (total) a
Warrior-standard 6E wide ditched palisade for 20 points. Just one of
those, not 0-6. :)

Well, hopefully "NASAMW ump Ho" will let us know <g>! I guess that is
really more of a NASAMW list question since it ties back to those
OTHER RULES but will you cut us a break on this one and let us know
Scott?

And I am wondering about a particular tactical response to a
particular matchup, which I know from being on the other end can be
frustrating, but I hope folks see this is very different from the kind
of evil tournament-wide master plan you mention.

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
> You need to be winning (4 or 5 points, usually 5) every game in a big tourney
to be in the hunt. You can't win this way unless your opponent does something
stupid, or more commonly, out of frustration. If it is part of some plan to
deny all your opponents their chances to win because it makes no sense to come
after you - you should have to forfeit or have some other ruling made to
discourage such. We briefly had a problem with this back in the 80's as I
remember.

Jon, are you speaking on behalf of FHE here?

If so, where does one draw the line? If I use stakes as a HYW, can my
opponent get a ruling against me? How about with my Turkish archers?
If I set out brush with my LMI and refuse to come into the open against
the four SHK armies I happen to fight? How about if I spend 20 minutes
moving my LC in order to avoid my knights getting any closer to your
elephants? That's happened in a NTT final as I watched..

I think that one has to accept that some people wish to play
defensively, and that if you wish to win tournaments you may have to
face one such and have a plan for it. I think that planning to prey on
opponents' mistakes is a valid - if unlikely to be successful -
strategy.

Yes, this (sitting in a fortified position) can get silly, although
refusing to allow folk to buy points-bought fortifications in a
tournament goes a long way to removing the problem (and would I think be
a legit ruling). But even then, if I place a minor water feature which
ends up in my forward sector, am I supposed to cross it with my pike in
the face of your LMI? If I defend the bank of the river, am I somehow
acting illegally/inappropriately?

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/9/2002 22:18:15 Central Daylight Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:


> Thought so; but given your desire to not confuse folk less familiar with
> e.g. the tournament scene, you might sometimes note your different hats.
>

I don't have a NASAMW hat. I'm just a player.


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

[Ewan McNay]

On Thu, 9 May 2002 JonCleaves@... wrote:
> No, I was speaking as a player in NASAMW tourneys. FHE is a game company,
> not a tourney directing body.

Thought so; but given your desire to not confuse folk less familiar with
e.g. the tournament scene, you might sometimes note your different hats.

> No, but neither is it your opponent's 'responsibility' to cross, as some
> players have argued. The chooser of a minor water feature knows it might go
> across the front and accepts that he might be the one making it a 'non-game'
> if it does so.

Agreed.

> I play competitively in a dozen game systems (called a lack of focus - lol)
> and this isn't something confined to ancients. But I have seriously
> witnessed players set up the maginot line and then when their disgusted
> opponent refuses to impale himself on it, they whine to the judge that they
> are 'defensive players' using a 'valid tactic' and their opponent should
> have to attack. Really. Sound, tough decisions NASAMW umpires have made
> over the years have made this untenable in society sponsored tourneys.

Well, such whining is clearly idiotic. But assuming no such - said player
just sits, apparently quite content to have a non-game. What sanction
would you desire?

[scott holder]

> I've always wondered what Phil's plan for that was. I'd recommend
(subject to Scott's approval) letting that be (total) a
Warrior-standard 6E wide ditched palisade for 20 points. Just one of
those, not 0-6. :)

Well, hopefully "NASAMW ump Ho" will let us know <g>! I guess that is
really more of a NASAMW list question since it ties back to those
OTHER RULES but will you cut us a break on this one and let us know
Scott?

>You buy them in 6 element-width "blocks" and cost them out of Warrior
rules. The number of such 6 element-width "blocks" can be found on page
96. Obviously, things like caltrops are purchased in 1 element-width
"blocks". The number of these "blocks" can be pulled from existing army
lists until sooooperceeeeeded by future lists.

And I am wondering about a particular tactical response to a
particular matchup, which I know from being on the other end can be
frustrating, but I hope folks see this is very different from the kind
of evil tournament-wide master plan you mention.

>The *only* thing that's driven the "bunker mentality" tactic out of
tournaments has been the scoring system. It simply doesn't reward
someone sitting on their but doing nothing for 3-4 hours. Unless, of
course, that ploy is designed to frustrate the opponent out of "his"
game. That's been mentioned here already and I know of one member of
this egroup who consistently pulls variations of that crap (without the
fortifications).

>Personally, I see nothing wrong with someone wanting to try something
static, mainly because *every* time I've seen this occur, yeah, sure,
said player wins 1-2 games but then the pairings push this person toward
the top and wah lah, really good players have *no* trouble defeating
such an on-table tactic and usually do so in about 1-2 hours time. Said
opponent rarely comes back with such fortifications in the future
although the "bunker mentality" player I'm thinking of here still does
and still plays that type of game. The concept is that you have given
up all options and initiative to your opponent who can choose to
leisurely find your weak spot and keep pounding it until you lose.

>Again, if someone makes this work, either tactically or
psychologically, more power to em. They simply always have to keep in
mind that every game they play can potentially end up 0-0. Plus,
someone playing Hussites (Jake for example) shouldn't be "penalized" for
fielding an army and then being forced to use it ahistorically. The
same applies for Sung, EIR behind forts, etc.

Scott
Ump Ho