Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Chris Bump]

Jon, Scott, et al,

We here in North Texas played a 7 player game this past weekend and talked of
this very issue, ( always ahead of the trend..........he haw) and the
unanimous consensus was that the sleaze belonged to the General who kept
troops back after seeing his opponent rolling for arrival. I think that I
can say from the Southwest that we would all like to see some kind of fog of
war interlaced into the game reference flank marches. I understand and
respect all that Scott has said on this issue, but with the proposed
ammendment to the rules I think that the info is there for all and the sleaze
factor is eliminated. It is only sleazy if one player does not know that the
other could be bluffing. The issue will eventually be decided once a 5 or 6
is rolled anyhow.

This brings me to Greg's point about declared Scouting points. I do not
understand why each player is not allowed to exaggerate his scouting factors
by a factor you FHM could arbitrarily decide upon (other than the rules
currently dictate otherwise). We are already 30K flyover commanders why
can't we add some uncertainity to the simulation. The differences will
impact the game minimally with regard to being outscouted, 66 points
outscouts 22 just as well as 60 points outscout 20, but places some doubt
into both opponents' minds. It will add a modicum of doubt to each
commander to add that much more reality to our simulation. It only makes a
potential difference in lower number scouting points, but a rule dealing with
trunkating decimals or mandating rounding up or down would satisfy that
problem for all intents and purposes.

I look forward to your responses, although I am relatively certain of their
content.

Chris

[joncleaves]

Scott sells short the 'FHE democratic process.' He and I have never disagreed.
:)

This rules proposal would be a great x-rule. Please resend when that time
comes.

FHE has no objection to anyone using this method in their games or tournaments.

It will not be in the basic rulebook.

Don't want to seem curt, but:
1. We have had this discussion before.
2. I am doing everything in my power to get this book published by Historicon
and will be devoting less and less time to explaining rationales for stuff as
that date grows closer. We have great reasons for not doing this in the basic
rulebook that have already been explained here. The same is true of a dozen
other 'new' ideas. Can't keep going over the thought process just because you
are new and weren't here last month (or last year or in 1989) when we went over
this suggestion before. Trust us. After July, we'll start adding things as
'x-rules', but if we don't get free of suggestions that were thought of and
determined to be inappropriate for the basic rules 10 years ago, this thing will
never make a store shelf.

Here's a suggestion. Before you write a suggested rule change, ask one of us if
we haven't heard of it before. :)

Sorry, guys, I am not doing this again. The next email like this I have to
write will just say:

X-rule.

Jon

Jon

[Greg Regets]

My personal favorite is when your opponent sits and counts your scouting
points to see if anything is hidden or on flank march.

G

P.S. Does anyone know where to get Ral Partha figs?



-----Original Message-----
From: Ewan Mcnay [mailto:ewan.mcnay@...]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 11:14 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Flank MARCHES: Gamesmanship or General's
Paranoia?


On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 quirk@... wrote:

<snip>
> MY CRITICAL POINT IS THIS:
> If both sides turn up for battle, KNOWING (as players) that they will
> BOTH have to dice for outflankers on EACH flank regardless of whether
> or not they (or their enemy) will send such a force (or two), then
> surely this aspect alone adds to the fog of war AND negates the
> "gamesman" attitude that you so rightly wish to banish from the game?

I agree (strongly, actually) with both Terry's thoughts and proposed
mechanisms here. The potential for flank marching is (I believe) too
quickly resolved. I send this, then, mostly to question one thing:

> Outflankers cannot include the CinC nor any bodies in his command.
> (This keeps the CinC honest.) (Add the usual suspects as well.)

The CinC himself - well, OK, if you wish, though I don't honestly see why.
[Care to enlighten me? It would at least ensure that he's not
unreliable!]

Bodies in his command, though - well, if the only suitable troops for
fighting in the wood on my opponent's baseline (or whatever) are inn my
command, why not send them there? I'm not sure what 'dishonesty' would
cause a problem.

[Ideally, both players would write their scouting on their list, and the
ump. would annouce to eaaach table the scouting situation - 'no
outscouting' or 'player X is outscouted' - which would also avoid the
current counting of scouting points.]

I know, I got into this too late in the process - so my apologies. But I
have a few spare brain cells for this stuff now .

Ewan
--
Dr. Ewan McNay - Behavioral Neuroscience, Yale University.

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great
moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. - Dante Alighieri (1265-1321)


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/

I like it when an opponent holds back a command or some expensive troops for one 4 fig. LC unit on a flank march. I like it when an opponent is paralyzed with indecision. If we are going to talk scouting points, then if one side is out scouted why should that side be allowed any undetected flank march? The side which is out scouted is allowed no ambush in the forward sectors unless I missed a change in the rules. I think an armies scouting points should considered in any change, this from someone who has played Aztec's for the better part of three years. I'm total up for allowing both flanks to be used for flank marches.

[scott holder]

My personal favorite is when your opponent sits and counts your scouting
points to see if anything is hidden or on flank march.

>Um, most players I know do this as a routine. Or if they're trusting they'll
ask "do I see all your scouting points?"

Scott
List Ho

[Greg Regets]

I didn't say we didn't do it ... I just said it's my personal favorite. What
is the point of having ambush and flank march if your opponent sits and
counts your scouting points to determine roughly what it is and quite
obviously where. Then, when you don't roll for flank march, he knows even
more of this "secret" information. All this sort of thing in my mind fits
into the catagory of LAME!

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Holder, Scott <FHWA> [mailto:Scott.Holder@...]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 11:37 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] Flank MARCHES: Gamesmanship or General's
Paran oia?



My personal favorite is when your opponent sits and counts your scouting
points to see if anything is hidden or on flank march.

>Um, most players I know do this as a routine. Or if they're trusting
they'll
ask "do I see all your scouting points?"

Scott
List Ho




















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/

[Ewan McNay]

On 23 Apr 2001, Holder, Scott <FHWA> wrote:
> >Um, most players I know do this as a routine. Or if they're trusting they'll
> ask "do I see all your scouting points?"

I thinnk that was the point - that the announncement of an exact scouting
point number is info that they wouldn't 'really' have.

Scott, why so opposed to the dicing suggestion? I can see it under 7.6
(or 7.x) where the strong implication was that there had to be an actual
flank march to dice for - but given that putting the rule in takes away
any sleaze factor, what's the objection?

Ewan
List Hd(I)
--
Dr. Ewan McNay - Behavioral Neuroscience, Yale University.

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great
moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. - Dante Alighieri (1265-1321)

I know how you like to look at behind, Greg.... I also knew you would not let that posting pass with out a note back... see on Tues. big guy!

[Chris Bump]

Greg and Dave,

There is no question that holding troops in reserve is a good tactic and in
no way sleazy. The comment was that the commander who decides to hold troops
back only after his opponent starts rolling the die for arrival is the holder
of sleaze and one who is reacting to G-2 that he would not normally have. WE
are not in any way knocking the practice of holding a reserve (a time honored
tactic by the way).

[Ewan McNay]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 cncbump@... wrote:
> This brings me to Greg's point about declared Scouting points. I do not
> understand why each player is not allowed to exaggerate his scouting factors
> by a factor you FHM could arbitrarily decide upon (other than the rules
> currently dictate otherwise). We are already 30K flyover commanders why
> can't we add some uncertainity to the simulation. The differences will
> impact the game minimally with regard to being outscouted, 66 points
> outscouts 22 just as well as 60 points outscout 20, but places some doubt
> into both opponents' minds. It will add a modicum of doubt to each
> commander to add that much more reality to our simulation. It only makes a
> potential difference in lower number scouting points, but a rule dealing with
> trunkating decimals or mandating rounding up or down would satisfy that
> problem for all intents and purposes.

Um, exactly. The more I think about my previous suggestion (of
umpire-declared scouting), the more it makes sense. It would take 5-10
seconds for the ump to be handed each list with scouts noted, and make the
annnouncement. Even for say 20 games, that's a max of maybe 3 minutes -
i.e., trivial. After the first round, scouting situation can be noted
when matchups are made, removing even that problem.

I see no reason not to do this, but doubtless I'll be enlightened .

--
Dr. Ewan McNay - Behavioral Neuroscience, Yale University.

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great
moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. - Dante Alighieri (1265-1321)

[Tim Brown]

Well. As long as this can is opened, I have a couple of worms to add: include into the fog o' war discussion the need to roll for a subgeneral with his entire command who is on a flank mission. You say'" Rolling two subs", followed by the deployment of only two commands. Duh! A whole command is missing. Gee - where can he be? That's like popping a red star cluster to your enemy as to your whereabouts. I'd like to see the subgen's character rolled for if and when he arrives, along with the order interpt as well at that point in the game. A very minor tiny rule addition along with the unknown flank march theory that would add lots of  welcome uncertainty. 
 
 
 -----Original Message-----From: cncbump@aol.com [mailto:cncbump@aol.com]Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 3:28 PMTo: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [WarriorRules] Flank MARCHES: Gamesmanship or General's Paran oia?
Jon, Scott, et al,We here in North Texas played a 7 player game this past weekend and talked of this very issue, ( always ahead of the trend..........he haw) and the unanimous consensus was that the sleaze belonged to the General who kept troops back after seeing his opponent rolling for arrival.  I think that I can say from the Southwest that we would all like to see some kind of fog of war interlaced into the game reference flank marches.  I understand and respect all that Scott has said on this issue, but with the proposed ammendment to the rules I think that the info is there for all and the sleaze factor is eliminated.  It is only sleazy if one player does not know that the other could be bluffing.  The issue will eventually be decided once a 5 or 6 is rolled anyhow.This brings me to Greg's point about declared Scouting points.  I do not understand why each player is not allowed to exaggerate his scouting factors by a factor you FHM could arbitrarily decide upon (other than the rules currently dictate otherwise).  We are already 30K flyover commanders why can't we add some uncertainity to the simulation.  The differences will impact the game minimally with regard to being outscouted, 66 points outscouts 22 just as well as 60 points outscout 20, but places some doubt into both opponents' minds.   It will add a modicum of doubt to each commander to add that much more reality to our simulation.  It only makes a potential difference in lower number scouting points, but a rule dealing with trunkating decimals or mandating rounding up or down would satisfy that problem for all intents and purposes. I look forward to your responses, although I am relatively certain of their content.ChrisTo unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Greg Regets]

I think the suggestions of Chris, Ewan and Tim are all excellent and would add much to the game at no cost. Call them x-rules or whatever ... just get them in!
 
Greg
 
P.S. Hey Chris ... lots of people keep a good amount of stuff back as a common practice ... please don't call us sleezy, when slimmy would really fit much better!!! ~wink~ See ya in San Antonio on May 19th. John Green is definately coming. Lets make sure he gets some of that Texas home cooking for his Saturday games!
 
G

-----Original Message-----From: Brown,Tim [mailto:Tim.Brown@trenwick.com]Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 3:00 PMTo: 'WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com'Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] Flank MARCHES: Gamesmanship or General's Paran oia?
Well. As long as this can is opened, I have a couple of worms to add: include into the fog o' war discussion the need to roll for a subgeneral with his entire command who is on a flank mission. You say'" Rolling two subs", followed by the deployment of only two commands. Duh! A whole command is missing. Gee - where can he be? That's like popping a red star cluster to your enemy as to your whereabouts. I'd like to see the subgen's character rolled for if and when he arrives, along with the order interpt as well at that point in the game. A very minor tiny rule addition along with the unknown flank march theory that would add lots of  welcome uncertainty. 
 
 
 -----Original Message-----From: cncbump@aol.com [mailto:cncbump@aol.com]Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 3:28 PMTo: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [WarriorRules] Flank MARCHES: Gamesmanship or General's Paran oia?
Jon, Scott, et al,We here in North Texas played a 7 player game this past weekend and talked of this very issue, ( always ahead of the trend..........he haw) and the unanimous consensus was that the sleaze belonged to the General who kept troops back after seeing his opponent rolling for arrival.  I think that I can say from the Southwest that we would all like to see some kind of fog of war interlaced into the game reference flank marches.  I understand and respect all that Scott has said on this issue, but with the proposed ammendment to the rules I think that the info is there for all and the sleaze factor is eliminated.  It is only sleazy if one player does not know that the other could be bluffing.  The issue will eventually be decided once a 5 or 6 is rolled anyhow.This brings me to Greg's point about declared Scouting points.  I do not understand why each player is not allowed to exaggerate his scouting factors by a factor you FHM could arbitrarily decide upon (other than the rules currently dictate otherwise).  We are already 30K flyover commanders why can't we add some uncertainity to the simulation.  The differences will impact the game minimally with regard to being outscouted, 66 points outscouts 22 just as well as 60 points outscout 20, but places some doubt into both opponents' minds.   It will add a modicum of doubt to each commander to add that much more reality to our simulation.  It only makes a potential difference in lower number scouting points, but a rule dealing with trunkating decimals or mandating rounding up or down would satisfy that problem for all intents and purposes. I look forward to your responses, although I am relatively certain of their content.ChrisTo unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Greg Regets]

So, those were Aztecs you were playing all those years big Dave? I could never quite tell ... what with seeing them only from behind.
 
G

-----Original Message-----From: DAVBEE217@AOL.COM [mailto:DAVBEE217@AOL.COM]Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 3:28 PMTo: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [WarriorRules] Flank MARCHES: Gamesmanship or General's Paran oia?I like it when an opponent holds back a command or some expensive troops for one 4 fig. LC unit on a flank march. I like it when an opponent is paralyzed with indecision. If we are going to talk scouting points, then if one side is out scouted why should that side be allowed any undetected flank march? The side which is out scouted is allowed no ambush in the forward sectors unless I missed a change in the rules. I think an armies scouting points should considered in any change, this from someone who has played Aztec's for the better part of three years. I'm total up for allowing both flanks to be used for flank marches. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Harlan Garrett]

Dave,
 
Your Aztecs are the only army that runs faster than mine.
 
HG
-----Original Message-----From: Greg Regets [mailto:greg@parkerwood.com]Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 4:37 PMTo: 'WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com'Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] Flank MARCHES: Gamesmanship or General's Paran oia?
So, those were Aztecs you were playing all those years big Dave? I could never quite tell ... what with seeing them only from behind.
 
G

-----Original Message-----From: DAVBEE217@AOL.COM [mailto:DAVBEE217@AOL.COM]Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 3:28 PMTo: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [WarriorRules] Flank MARCHES: Gamesmanship or General's Paran oia?I like it when an opponent holds back a command or some expensive troops for one 4 fig. LC unit on a flank march. I like it when an opponent is paralyzed with indecision. If we are going to talk scouting points, then if one side is out scouted why should that side be allowed any undetected flank march? The side which is out scouted is allowed no ambush in the forward sectors unless I missed a change in the rules. I think an armies scouting points should considered in any change, this from someone who has played Aztec's for the better part of three years. I'm total up for allowing both flanks to be used for flank marches. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[joncleaves]

Chris, its not a democracy. You have seven great players. The list has 139
members. And that is not all the folks who play 7th now or who we want to
play Warrior. The number of people talking about this issue openly on the
group is far exceeded by the number of people emailing me separately about
it. If I took a vote, the issue would also not go 'your way'. Not by a long
shot.

Its also more than coincidental that how FHE feels about a rule has never
conflicted with the vast majority. Scott and I have never decided upon a
rule and found ourselves 'outvoted' by the players. The few times Scott and
I had no opinion one way or another on a rule, we went to the players for a
read. But in most cases, we know what the players (as a group) are going to
want because we get plenty of opinions on and off the group.
You have a very vocal minority on this list who don't seem to have been
keeping current on WRG 7.6 (a collaborative effort bewteen Phil and the
Society, essentially) and the decisions that went into it. That's ok, but
doesn't give one the grounds to imply that we are not meeting the wishes of
our audience. We are.

I am not ignoring the call for this rules change. I feel the same way about
it that I did the very first time I got into a discussion about it in 1990.
And, so do the vast majority of the people who play the game.

This mail is time not spent on tonight's rule, #6.8.

Jon