Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Don Coon]

> We try here in DFW to conform to the world at large so we have
discontinued
> the practice.
>
> Don
>
> >>> I heard that conformity was the last refuge of the unimaginative!
That
> said... we try to conform too. Makes it a lot easier if you play at a con
> or at another group's table.

Thats exactly why we do it. We do tinker with some variations now and then
(we have a cool simultainious set up rule that we use once in a while), but
always have an eye the the core rules the world at large is using.

Don

[Mark Stone]

I wanted to comment on several of the recent points about when one dices for
events/facts potentially not known to your opponent.

(1) Flank marching commands. You really _can't_ withhold dicing for the
character of a general on a flank marched command until arrival. At present the
rules call for dicing for the character of generals prior to issuing orders, and
this is based on the well-founded idea that a commander in chief typically knows
the character of his sub-commanders and thus can tailor orders accordingly. So
you're stuck with the fact that (a) the c-in-c should know the character of his
flank marching general before issuing orders, and (b) you cannot plausibly or in
fairness to the game wait until the arrival of the general before issuing orders
to him. One could conceivably modify the rules to allow dicing for
interpretation to occur at arrival, but I don't see much point to that given
that you'll have already tipped your hand regarding number of generals by
dicing for character.

(2) Dicing for arrivals. There is a point of view that says that a flank march
is a "secret" event until its arrival, but I don't think this is the only point
of view or even the best point of view. Any battle, even a tournament battle, is
supposed to represent the culmination of a series of actions and maneuvers that
finally result in two armies meeting at a particular place and particular time.
The rules already reflect a certain amount of "pre-knowledge" the two generals
have regarding the makeup of each other's armies and the lay of the land around
them. I think this is sensible and realistic given two armies that were often in
each other's vicinity for days or weeks before battle was finally drawn. For a
classic example of this look that the Black Prince's chevauchez campaign that
culminated in the Battle of Poitiers. The English and French armies were never
more than about 10 miles from each other for, as I recall, about two weeks
prior to the battle as the English desperately tried to withdraw to the coast
and the French frantically tried to cut them off. The battle ensued when the
two armies awoke one morning to find that they were camped too close together
for the English to muster for march. In situations like this -- and they are
_very_ common throughout this period of warfare -- the general makeup of each
army and the likelihood of maneuvers we recognize in the game as flank marches
was pretty well known to each commander.

(3) Scouting points. Much the same reasoning applies to the disclosure of
scouting points. Scouting points do in fact reflect pre-battle scouting done by
both sides, and each side would have a fairly good idea of how successful they
had been in light of the other side's scouting.

(4) Tournaments vs. history. This is really the most important point. In any
setting other than a tournament conforming to the national format, event
organizers are, as Jon repeats over and over, free to do as they please. If you
wish to represent a certain aspect of fog of war that you feel is not covered by
the national tournament format, then by all means go ahead and alter rules
accordingly. This may be appropriate for a campaign, a scenario battle, or even
a tournament in which you want to emphasize different aspects of warfare than
what the national tournament format offers.

Within that national tournament format, however, I certainly favor more
disclosure of information over less. Some people may feel this is unrealistic
in certain ways, but let's remember that this is in the context in which
Italian Condottieri can fight ancient Egyptian chariots. So have some
perspective. In these situations having a clean, fair competition takes
precedence over getting every historical nuance right. My overriding concern in
such tournaments is to have a set of rules that minimize the temptation for one
to mislead one's opponent in ways that (a) bend the rules, and (b) can only be
discovered well past the point at which such bending can be corrected.

So: if my opponent's troops have darts, I want to know about it. I'm happy to
disclose the same. I want to know how many generals my opponent has, and what
their character is. I'm happy to disclose the same. Likewise with the outcome
of interpretation rolls, number of scouting points, existence or nonexistence
of flank marches, and so on. That way my opponent and I can focus on the core
aspects of generalship tested by this tournament format: command and control in
a fair and open battle. In a tournament allowing ahistorical matchups, anything
else is a distraction and unecessary temptation to gamesmanship.


-Mark Stone

I would agree that there is a spectrum of what could possibly be known
about an opponent, from omnipotence to nothing, with reality being
somewhere in between. I also know that some people like knowing
everything. But, the suggestions about uncertainty (with regard to
flank marches, the morale class of enemy troops, scouting points, etc.)
are not to say that players know nothing about their opponents

For example, when a 5 or 6 is rolled on a flank and there is no flank
march, everyone knows nothing is coming that way. Regarding scouting
points, let's say I have an army and I put 2 elements of Irr LMI into
the woods (that is 6 figures worth). Now, no one knows that I have any
units hidden. But now I put 3 elements of LI into the woods (also 6
figs) and now everyone knows immediately that I have those units in
ambush or on a flank march. So in one case, your pre-battle scouting
doesn't detect anything, and in the other case, it does.

In the end, I believe that realism should be as much a part of the game
system and tournaments as reasonably possible. Fog of war is an example
of reality that is no different than anything else.

As far as the issue of dicing for generals, if I had my wish, all
generals would be bold in tournaments anyway. (But that's another
topic,)

-- Charles

On Sep 29, 2004, at 2:21 PM, Mark Stone wrote:

> I wanted to comment on several of the recent points about when one
> dices for
> events/facts potentially not known to your opponent.
>
> (1) Flank marching commands. You really _can't_ withhold dicing for
> the
> character of a general on a flank marched command until arrival. At
> present the
> rules call for dicing for the character of generals prior to issuing
> orders, and
> this is based on the well-founded idea that a commander in chief
> typically knows
> the character of his sub-commanders and thus can tailor orders
> accordingly. So
> you're stuck with the fact that (a) the c-in-c should know the
> character of his
> flank marching general before issuing orders, and (b) you cannot
> plausibly or in
> fairness to the game wait until the arrival of the general before
> issuing orders
> to him. One could conceivably modify the rules to allow dicing for
> interpretation to occur at arrival, but I don't see much point to
> that given
> that you'll have already tipped your hand regarding number of
> generals by
> dicing for character.
>
> (2) Dicing for arrivals. There is a point of view that says that a
> flank march
> is a "secret" event until its arrival, but I don't think this is the
> only point
> of view or even the best point of view. Any battle, even a tournament
> battle, is
> supposed to represent the culmination of a series of actions and
> maneuvers that
> finally result in two armies meeting at a particular place and
> particular time.
> The rules already reflect a certain amount of "pre-knowledge" the two
> generals
> have regarding the makeup of each other's armies and the lay of the
> land around
> them. I think this is sensible and realistic given two armies that
> were often in
> each other's vicinity for days or weeks before battle was finally
> drawn. For a
> classic example of this look that the Black Prince's chevauchez
> campaign that
> culminated in the Battle of Poitiers. The English and French armies
> were never
> more than about 10 miles from each other for, as I recall, about two
> weeks
> prior to the battle as the English desperately tried to withdraw to
> the coast
> and the French frantically tried to cut them off. The battle ensued
> when the
> two armies awoke one morning to find that they were camped too close
> together
> for the English to muster for march. In situations like this -- and
> they are
> _very_ common throughout this period of warfare -- the general makeup
> of each
> army and the likelihood of maneuvers we recognize in the game as
> flank marches
> was pretty well known to each commander.
>
> (3) Scouting points. Much the same reasoning applies to the
> disclosure of
> scouting points. Scouting points do in fact reflect pre-battle
> scouting done by
> both sides, and each side would have a fairly good idea of how
> successful they
> had been in light of the other side's scouting.
>
> (4) Tournaments vs. history. This is really the most important point.
> In any
> setting other than a tournament conforming to the national format,
> event
> organizers are, as Jon repeats over and over, free to do as they
> please. If you
> wish to represent a certain aspect of fog of war that you feel is not
> covered by
> the national tournament format, then by all means go ahead and alter
> rules
> accordingly. This may be appropriate for a campaign, a scenario
> battle, or even
> a tournament in which you want to emphasize different aspects of
> warfare than
> what the national tournament format offers.
>
> Within that national tournament format, however, I certainly favor
> more
> disclosure of information over less. Some people may feel this is
> unrealistic
> in certain ways, but let's remember that this is in the context in
> which
> Italian Condottieri can fight ancient Egyptian chariots. So have some
> perspective. In these situations having a clean, fair competition
> takes
> precedence over getting every historical nuance right. My overriding
> concern in
> such tournaments is to have a set of rules that minimize the
> temptation for one
> to mislead one's opponent in ways that (a) bend the rules, and (b)
> can only be
> discovered well past the point at which such bending can be corrected.
>
> So: if my opponent's troops have darts, I want to know about it. I'm
> happy to
> disclose the same. I want to know how many generals my opponent has,
> and what
> their character is. I'm happy to disclose the same. Likewise with the
> outcome
> of interpretation rolls, number of scouting points, existence or
> nonexistence
> of flank marches, and so on. That way my opponent and I can focus on
> the core
> aspects of generalship tested by this tournament format: command and
> control in
> a fair and open battle. In a tournament allowing ahistorical
> matchups, anything
> else is a distraction and unecessary temptation to gamesmanship.
>



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

[joncleaves]

Mark

Extremely well said. I hope everyone reads that carefully...

To highlight:

"Within that national tournament format, however, I certainly favor more
disclosure of information over less."

This is quite the majority opinion. The revised 14.0 is being written under a
'minimum secrets' philosophy for this reason and others.

Jon

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Charles,

I very much agree with your point in which all generals should be bold in
tournament play. Dicing for general in pick-up games is fine, but when it's me
verses my tournament opponent, I'd prefer to win on an open/even playing field.
I had a situation at Fort Worth Wars where my Hungarian Ally went unreliable and
rolled a 1 for his interpretation of my orders. That sucked, but turned out okay
for me in the end. But, this could have been a situation where the ally could
have joined my opponents army which is in my opinion not the kind of probability
that needs to be part of tournament play. Just my opinion.

kelly wilkinson

Charles Randow <clr198@...> wrote:
I would agree that there is a spectrum of what could possibly be known
about an opponent, from omnipotence to nothing, with reality being
somewhere in between. I also know that some people like knowing
everything. But, the suggestions about uncertainty (with regard to
flank marches, the morale class of enemy troops, scouting points, etc.)
are not to say that players know nothing about their opponents

For example, when a 5 or 6 is rolled on a flank and there is no flank
march, everyone knows nothing is coming that way. Regarding scouting
points, let's say I have an army and I put 2 elements of Irr LMI into
the woods (that is 6 figures worth). Now, no one knows that I have any
units hidden. But now I put 3 elements of LI into the woods (also 6
figs) and now everyone knows immediately that I have those units in
ambush or on a flank march. So in one case, your pre-battle scouting
doesn't detect anything, and in the other case, it does.

In the end, I believe that realism should be as much a part of the game
system and tournaments as reasonably possible. Fog of war is an example
of reality that is no different than anything else.

As far as the issue of dicing for generals, if I had my wish, all
generals would be bold in tournaments anyway. (But that's another
topic,)

-- Charles

On Sep 29, 2004, at 2:21 PM, Mark Stone wrote:

> I wanted to comment on several of the recent points about when one
> dices for
> events/facts potentially not known to your opponent.
>
> (1) Flank marching commands. You really _can't_ withhold dicing for
> the
> character of a general on a flank marched command until arrival. At
> present the
> rules call for dicing for the character of generals prior to issuing
> orders, and
> this is based on the well-founded idea that a commander in chief
> typically knows
> the character of his sub-commanders and thus can tailor orders
> accordingly. So
> you're stuck with the fact that (a) the c-in-c should know the
> character of his
> flank marching general before issuing orders, and (b) you cannot
> plausibly or in
> fairness to the game wait until the arrival of the general before
> issuing orders
> to him. One could conceivably modify the rules to allow dicing for
> interpretation to occur at arrival, but I don't see much point to
> that given
> that you'll have already tipped your hand regarding number of
> generals by
> dicing for character.
>
> (2) Dicing for arrivals. There is a point of view that says that a
> flank march
> is a "secret" event until its arrival, but I don't think this is the
> only point
> of view or even the best point of view. Any battle, even a tournament
> battle, is
> supposed to represent the culmination of a series of actions and
> maneuvers that
> finally result in two armies meeting at a particular place and
> particular time.
> The rules already reflect a certain amount of "pre-knowledge" the two
> generals
> have regarding the makeup of each other's armies and the lay of the
> land around
> them. I think this is sensible and realistic given two armies that
> were often in
> each other's vicinity for days or weeks before battle was finally
> drawn. For a
> classic example of this look that the Black Prince's chevauchez
> campaign that
> culminated in the Battle of Poitiers. The English and French armies
> were never
> more than about 10 miles from each other for, as I recall, about two
> weeks
> prior to the battle as the English desperately tried to withdraw to
> the coast
> and the French frantically tried to cut them off. The battle ensued
> when the
> two armies awoke one morning to find that they were camped too close
> together
> for the English to muster for march. In situations like this -- and
> they are
> _very_ common throughout this period of warfare -- the general makeup
> of each
> army and the likelihood of maneuvers we recognize in the game as
> flank marches
> was pretty well known to each commander.
>
> (3) Scouting points. Much the same reasoning applies to the
> disclosure of
> scouting points. Scouting points do in fact reflect pre-battle
> scouting done by
> both sides, and each side would have a fairly good idea of how
> successful they
> had been in light of the other side's scouting.
>
> (4) Tournaments vs. history. This is really the most important point.
> In any
> setting other than a tournament conforming to the national format,
> event
> organizers are, as Jon repeats over and over, free to do as they
> please. If you
> wish to represent a certain aspect of fog of war that you feel is not
> covered by
> the national tournament format, then by all means go ahead and alter
> rules
> accordingly. This may be appropriate for a campaign, a scenario
> battle, or even
> a tournament in which you want to emphasize different aspects of
> warfare than
> what the national tournament format offers.
>
> Within that national tournament format, however, I certainly favor
> more
> disclosure of information over less. Some people may feel this is
> unrealistic
> in certain ways, but let's remember that this is in the context in
> which
> Italian Condottieri can fight ancient Egyptian chariots. So have some
> perspective. In these situations having a clean, fair competition
> takes
> precedence over getting every historical nuance right. My overriding
> concern in
> such tournaments is to have a set of rules that minimize the
> temptation for one
> to mislead one's opponent in ways that (a) bend the rules, and (b)
> can only be
> discovered well past the point at which such bending can be corrected.
>
> So: if my opponent's troops have darts, I want to know about it. I'm
> happy to
> disclose the same. I want to know how many generals my opponent has,
> and what
> their character is. I'm happy to disclose the same. Likewise with the
> outcome
> of interpretation rolls, number of scouting points, existence or
> nonexistence
> of flank marches, and so on. That way my opponent and I can focus on
> the core
> aspects of generalship tested by this tournament format: command and
> control in
> a fair and open battle. In a tournament allowing ahistorical
> matchups, anything
> else is a distraction and unecessary temptation to gamesmanship.
>



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


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!

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