Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Doug]

>1. Tournament: how will this affect scoring?
>2. Casual play: again, I think if I was the player "forced" to attack,
>I might just say "you win" and not bother to actually play it out

How about a "do over" rule where the player invoking it concedes some
amount of victory points, and the terrain setup is done again? But
you need a way to make sure the 'defensive' player can't just set up
the same way again.

Or maybe allowing the invoking player to take away from his opponent
certain things - enemy fortifications and terrain picks - up to an
allowed AP value, while losing some higher multiple of his own army
points.

And if you let the formerly fortified player pick _which_ of his
opponents units are discarded, things could get interesting.

You could rationalize it by saying that the attacker force marched to
the battlefield before there was time to construct the
fortifications, but some of his army is straggling and doesn't show
up for the battle.

[Todd Schneider]

Well, the bigger issue in my mind is this:

What as a player is preventing me from dicing for
terrain thats puts my opponenet at a disadvantage?

Even if there was to be an "Agression Factor" based on
whatever reason being assigned to an Army, why
wouldn't I want to place as much terrain as possible
to disrupt his now mandatory advancce, thereby giving
myself an advantage. That is to say, as an example
Mongols have a High Agression factor, that compels
them to advance to fulfill the new "X-Rule". Whats to
prevent me from throwing out a minor water feature and
other terrain designed and placed specifically to
disorder his troops and make any advance he does make
a losing proposistion? Wheres the fun in that game?

From my readings, which are admittedly thin, ancient
battles took place on as open a ground as possible,
with perhpas their flanks protected or anchored on a
prominent terrain feature. Currently the terrain
chart reflects this, as many of the results are
"Either Flank" or "Not in Forward Zones of Central
Sector".

I am not completely sure of the justification behind
the Mongol List rules, I believe it has something to
do with the fact they almost always outscouted their
opponent and was generally always fought on the
terrain of their choosing, which was generally open
space so as to use thier mounted most effectively.
So, if aplayer is trying to lay dow as much terrain as
possiblr to disrupt his mongol opponent, the Mongol
player has the option of removing the terrain in
question, but only if he has the scouting points. If
I have the wrong I apologize, my books are packed.

I don;t think theres any rule out there that can
compel a player to advance that won't be abused in one
form or another.

Todd

--- Doug <rockd@...> wrote:

> >1. Tournament: how will this affect scoring?
> >2. Casual play: again, I think if I was the player
> "forced" to attack,
> >I might just say "you win" and not bother to
> actually play it out
>
> How about a "do over" rule where the player invoking
> it concedes some
> amount of victory points, and the terrain setup is
> done again? But
> you need a way to make sure the 'defensive' player
> can't just set up
> the same way again.
>
> Or maybe allowing the invoking player to take away
> from his opponent
> certain things - enemy fortifications and terrain
> picks - up to an
> allowed AP value, while losing some higher multiple
> of his own army
> points.
>
> And if you let the formerly fortified player pick
> _which_ of his
> opponents units are discarded, things could get
> interesting.
>
> You could rationalize it by saying that the attacker
> force marched to
> the battlefield before there was time to construct
> the
> fortifications, but some of his army is straggling
> and doesn't show
> up for the battle.
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com