Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/25/2006 08:35:23 Central Standard Time,
hailkaeser@... writes:

Please, lets move on and have Jon finish the rules so everyone can be on the
same page?!?! >>
Todd, this discussion is not delaying me - other things are, but not
this...lol

I am letting all x-rule discussions just flow and will look at them when the
book is done.

Jon




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

[Todd Kaeser]

WARNING - Rant coming up - feel free to ignore.

As if WARRIOR isn't already unbelieveably complicated - why toy w/ the terrain
placement? I understand the difficulties that come from playing an opponent who
takes up defensive position and doesn't want to come out and fight. It sucks
and it takes both of you out of the tournament. I've never understood why
people throw terrain like that or bring armies like that, but I guess it's their
choice. I don't find the enjoyment in a 1-1 battle and i'll not risk entering
certain death.

That being said - I don't think that too many people are placing horrific
terrain and not coming out to fight. Tinkering with a system that works most of
the time seems a waste of manpower considering all the other things that have to
be worked on. I want a clean and finished rules set. I'm very tired of
constantly adding little rules here and there to my rulesbook or adding errata
to my lists.

With the current tournament format almost everyone comes out to fight b/c
otherwise they won't gets points. Most of the players out there would rather
lose 5-3 than get a 1-1 draw. A 3 keeps you in the hunt. Now some don't play
it that way. They sit back behind fortifications/terrain/whatever and take a
skirmish game for 4 hours. Why??? - beats the hell out of me. Why spend so
much money and time and not come to fight??? Drives me nuts (obviously).

With the current system, depending upon the luck of the dice, an opponent can
keep a board terrain free (opens and road) or cluster it up w/ terrain depending
upon the type of army. It goes both ways. I've been the unfortunate victim of
luck and have had too much or to little terrain to work with. It's the luck of
the die sometimes.

Please, lets move on and have Jon finish the rules so everyone can be on the
same page?!?! I would like to see siege warrior, or fantasy warrior, or
campaign warrior, or naval warrior sometime before I cannot enjoy it any longer.

Sorry to upset anyone, had to rant.

Todd K

Todd Schneider <thresh1642@...> wrote:
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


SPONSORED LINKS
Miniature wargaming Wargaming Warrior

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

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.


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





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.

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

[Mark Stone]

--- On February 25 Todd said: ---

> With the current tournament format almost everyone comes out to fight b/c
> otherwise they won't gets points. Most of the players out there would rather
> lose 5-3 than get a 1-1 draw. A 3 keeps you in the hunt. Now some don't play
> it that way. They sit back behind fortifications/terrain/whatever and take a
> skirmish game for 4 hours. Why??? - beats the hell out of me. Why spend so
> much money and time and not come to fight??? Drives me nuts (obviously).

I'm glad to see some of the more veteran voices chiming in to point out how
silly and futile it would be to tinker with the terrain placement rules. Todd
has hit the nail on the head with what he says here.

If:
You find yourself regularly facing an opponent who avoids a decisive fight by
hiding behind terrain, and
You want to fix the problem by changing the terrain rules,
Then:
YOU'RE LOOKING IN THE WRONG PLACE.

No amount of tinkering with terrain will force a player to fight who'd rather
get a 1-1 draw than a 5-3 loss. The incentive to fight is in the scoring
system, not in terrain placement.

Several fallacies have lurked in this discussion:

First, a defensive army does not mean an indecisive one. I've yet to see Dave
Stier or Frank Gilson cross the center line with a single unit in their 100YWE
army, and they've won Cold Wars with it three years in a row.

Second, if you want a large swath of open field on the table, you can absolutely
get it (road, open space, etc.). That doesn't mean you can make your opponent go
there.

Third, if you want a large swath of difficult terrain on the table, you can
absolutely get it (brush, minor water, marsh, steep hill, etc.). That doesn't
mean you can make your opponent go there.

Fourth, nothing compels you to charge headlong into a death trap. That's what
"Wait" orders are for. Use them.

Put all this together and come up with a terrain strategy. Where can you fight
that plays to your army's strengths, and yet entices your opponent to fight as
well. All great generals knew how to do this. The better Warrior players know
how too.



-Mark Stone

This question is coming from someone who is still learning the rules of
tournament play. From what I read, you could "lose" every game in a tournament
and still win on points?

Harmon

Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
--- On February 25 Todd said: ---

> With the current tournament format almost everyone comes out to fight b/c
> otherwise they won't gets points. Most of the players out there would rather
> lose 5-3 than get a 1-1 draw. A 3 keeps you in the hunt. Now some don't play
> it that way. They sit back behind fortifications/terrain/whatever and take a
> skirmish game for 4 hours. Why??? - beats the hell out of me. Why spend so
> much money and time and not come to fight??? Drives me nuts (obviously).

I'm glad to see some of the more veteran voices chiming in to point out how
silly and futile it would be to tinker with the terrain placement rules. Todd
has hit the nail on the head with what he says here.

If:
You find yourself regularly facing an opponent who avoids a decisive fight by
hiding behind terrain, and
You want to fix the problem by changing the terrain rules,
Then:
YOU'RE LOOKING IN THE WRONG PLACE.

No amount of tinkering with terrain will force a player to fight who'd rather
get a 1-1 draw than a 5-3 loss. The incentive to fight is in the scoring
system, not in terrain placement.

Several fallacies have lurked in this discussion:

First, a defensive army does not mean an indecisive one. I've yet to see Dave
Stier or Frank Gilson cross the center line with a single unit in their 100YWE
army, and they've won Cold Wars with it three years in a row.

Second, if you want a large swath of open field on the table, you can absolutely
get it (road, open space, etc.). That doesn't mean you can make your opponent go
there.

Third, if you want a large swath of difficult terrain on the table, you can
absolutely get it (brush, minor water, marsh, steep hill, etc.). That doesn't
mean you can make your opponent go there.

Fourth, nothing compels you to charge headlong into a death trap. That's what
"Wait" orders are for. Use them.

Put all this together and come up with a terrain strategy. Where can you fight
that plays to your army's strengths, and yet entices your opponent to fight as
well. All great generals knew how to do this. The better Warrior players know
how too.



-Mark Stone




Yahoo! Groups Links











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

As a "experiment" one tournament I ran my 25MM Holy Roman Empire (late) very
defensively (this was in DBM but it still applies to this discussion). Pike
blocks with their flanks protected by arty behind fortifications backed up by
mounted knights, with light infantry screening the pikes. My thought process
was this was often how the army fought historically and I was curious to see how
it would work against the varied opponents I would meet in a tournament setting.
I fully expected a lot of ties. Almost every opponent came right at me. In
retrospect they probably felt that they had a chance of beating the pike and
that if they wanted to win the tournament they couldn't settle for a tie. As a
result I won more games than I expected, though I did lose one to an opponent
who successfully attacked over the fortifications and turned the flank of the
pike. Knowing that your opponents have to attack you to win the event opens up
some interesting deployment possibilities. Of course you
need to balance this line of thinking with the fact that you want to have games
that are enjoyable to play for both players, especially as players may have
driven or flow long distances, etc to play. It was an interesting experiment
though......

I think if I ever ran the list like this again I would want a second list
that was very offensively oriented so that based on my knowledge of my
opponent's style of play (i.e will he attack me or will he wait me out) and his
army selection I could choose to play either defensively or offensively.

Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
--- On February 25 Todd said: ---

> With the current tournament format almost everyone comes out to fight b/c
> otherwise they won't gets points. Most of the players out there would rather
> lose 5-3 than get a 1-1 draw. A 3 keeps you in the hunt. Now some don't play
> it that way. They sit back behind fortifications/terrain/whatever and take a
> skirmish game for 4 hours. Why??? - beats the hell out of me. Why spend so
> much money and time and not come to fight??? Drives me nuts (obviously).

I'm glad to see some of the more veteran voices chiming in to point out how
silly and futile it would be to tinker with the terrain placement rules. Todd
has hit the nail on the head with what he says here.

If:
You find yourself regularly facing an opponent who avoids a decisive fight by
hiding behind terrain, and
You want to fix the problem by changing the terrain rules,
Then:
YOU'RE LOOKING IN THE WRONG PLACE.

No amount of tinkering with terrain will force a player to fight who'd rather
get a 1-1 draw than a 5-3 loss. The incentive to fight is in the scoring
system, not in terrain placement.

Several fallacies have lurked in this discussion:

First, a defensive army does not mean an indecisive one. I've yet to see Dave
Stier or Frank Gilson cross the center line with a single unit in their 100YWE
army, and they've won Cold Wars with it three years in a row.

Second, if you want a large swath of open field on the table, you can absolutely
get it (road, open space, etc.). That doesn't mean you can make your opponent go
there.

Third, if you want a large swath of difficult terrain on the table, you can
absolutely get it (brush, minor water, marsh, steep hill, etc.). That doesn't
mean you can make your opponent go there.

Fourth, nothing compels you to charge headlong into a death trap. That's what
"Wait" orders are for. Use them.

Put all this together and come up with a terrain strategy. Where can you fight
that plays to your army's strengths, and yet entices your opponent to fight as
well. All great generals knew how to do this. The better Warrior players know
how too.



-Mark Stone



SPONSORED LINKS
Miniature wargaming Wargaming Warrior

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

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.


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





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

[Todd Kaeser]

Harmon,

The likelihood that losing every game could put you in 1st is almost
impossible, HOWEVER... I have had times where I have lost 5-3 or 5-2 in the
first round of the NICT and come back to almost win the whole enchilada. I have
also seen two opponents refuse to take chances due to either defensive terrain
placement (minor rivers do this awlfully well sometimes) or a defensive stance
and they've fought to a 1-1 draw. Now both are out of the tournament. I'm sure
that there are many others who would echo my feelings and take the 5-3 loss vs.
the 1-1 draw.

I don't always understand the mentality of some gamers. I've been in battles
where I've be winning decidedly (would be a 3-1 or 4-1 type score) and my
opponent refuses to come out and fight... WHY??? - He's already lost with the
current point total, but doesn't want to lose worse??? (even happened in the
final round of a tournament) I'd risk it all (the big 1 here) and come out guns
ablazing trying to make something happen. Don't get it.

Todd K

Harmon Ward <hjw@...> wrote:
This question is coming from someone who is still learning the rules of
tournament play. From what I read, you could "lose" every game in a tournament
and still win on points?

Harmon

Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
--- On February 25 Todd said: ---

> With the current tournament format almost everyone comes out to fight b/c
> otherwise they won't gets points. Most of the players out there would rather
> lose 5-3 than get a 1-1 draw. A 3 keeps you in the hunt. Now some don't play
> it that way. They sit back behind fortifications/terrain/whatever and take a
> skirmish game for 4 hours. Why??? - beats the hell out of me. Why spend so
> much money and time and not come to fight??? Drives me nuts (obviously).

I'm glad to see some of the more veteran voices chiming in to point out how
silly and futile it would be to tinker with the terrain placement rules. Todd
has hit the nail on the head with what he says here.

If:
You find yourself regularly facing an opponent who avoids a decisive fight by
hiding behind terrain, and
You want to fix the problem by changing the terrain rules,
Then:
YOU'RE LOOKING IN THE WRONG PLACE.

No amount of tinkering with terrain will force a player to fight who'd rather
get a 1-1 draw than a 5-3 loss. The incentive to fight is in the scoring
system, not in terrain placement.

Several fallacies have lurked in this discussion:

First, a defensive army does not mean an indecisive one. I've yet to see Dave
Stier or Frank Gilson cross the center line with a single unit in their 100YWE
army, and they've won Cold Wars with it three years in a row.

Second, if you want a large swath of open field on the table, you can absolutely
get it (road, open space, etc.). That doesn't mean you can make your opponent go
there.

Third, if you want a large swath of difficult terrain on the table, you can
absolutely get it (brush, minor water, marsh, steep hill, etc.). That doesn't
mean you can make your opponent go there.

Fourth, nothing compels you to charge headlong into a death trap. That's what
"Wait" orders are for. Use them.

Put all this together and come up with a terrain strategy. Where can you fight
that plays to your army's strengths, and yet entices your opponent to fight as
well. All great generals knew how to do this. The better Warrior players know
how too.



-Mark Stone




Yahoo! Groups Links











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



SPONSORED LINKS
Miniature wargaming Wargaming Warrior

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

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.


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





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

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

[John Murphy]

Ah, suck it up, be a man, and roll up 4 with your Irreg A's, Todd,
geez d'ya wanna live forever? <grin>

I have to admit I am with Todd and Tim 200% here these last two posts
really hit the nail on the head I think.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Kaeser <hailkaeser@...>
wrote:
> As if WARRIOR isn't already unbelieveably complicated - why toy w/
the terrain placement? I understand the difficulties that come from
playing an opponent who takes up defensive position and doesn't want
to come out and fight. It sucks and it takes both of you out of the
tournament. I've never understood why people throw terrain like that
or bring armies like that, but I guess it's their choice. I don't
find the enjoyment in a 1-1 battle and i'll not risk entering certain
death.

[John Murphy]

first round
A beats B 5-3
D beats C 1-0

second round
C beats A 1-0
D beats B 5-3

third round
A beats D 1-0
C beats B 5-3

total points
B 9 (3 losses)
C 6 (2 wins)
A 6 (2 wins)
D 6 (2 wins)

B loses every game, wins the tourney
unlike other tourney systems there is not a fixed pool of points
divided up so it is actually better to charge into a death trap and
take a chance rather than play to a 0-0 draw

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Harmon Ward <hjw@...> wrote:
>
> This question is coming from someone who is still learning the
rules of tournament play. From what I read, you could "lose" every
game in a tournament and still win on points?
>
> Harmon
>
> Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
> --- On February 25 Todd said: ---
>
> > With the current tournament format almost everyone comes out to
fight b/c
> > otherwise they won't gets points. Most of the players out there
would rather
> > lose 5-3 than get a 1-1 draw. A 3 keeps you in the hunt. Now
some don't play
> > it that way. They sit back behind
fortifications/terrain/whatever and take a
> > skirmish game for 4 hours. Why??? - beats the hell out of me.
Why spend so
> > much money and time and not come to fight??? Drives me nuts
(obviously).
>
> I'm glad to see some of the more veteran voices chiming in to
point out how
> silly and futile it would be to tinker with the terrain placement
rules. Todd
> has hit the nail on the head with what he says here.
>
> If:
> You find yourself regularly facing an opponent who avoids a
decisive fight by
> hiding behind terrain, and
> You want to fix the problem by changing the terrain rules,
> Then:
> YOU'RE LOOKING IN THE WRONG PLACE.
>
> No amount of tinkering with terrain will force a player to fight
who'd rather
> get a 1-1 draw than a 5-3 loss. The incentive to fight is in the
scoring
> system, not in terrain placement.
>
> Several fallacies have lurked in this discussion:
>
> First, a defensive army does not mean an indecisive one. I've yet
to see Dave
> Stier or Frank Gilson cross the center line with a single unit in
their 100YWE
> army, and they've won Cold Wars with it three years in a row.
>
> Second, if you want a large swath of open field on the table, you
can absolutely
> get it (road, open space, etc.). That doesn't mean you can make
your opponent go
> there.
>
> Third, if you want a large swath of difficult terrain on the
table, you can
> absolutely get it (brush, minor water, marsh, steep hill, etc.).
That doesn't
> mean you can make your opponent go there.
>
> Fourth, nothing compels you to charge headlong into a death trap.
That's what
> "Wait" orders are for. Use them.
>
> Put all this together and come up with a terrain strategy. Where
can you fight
> that plays to your army's strengths, and yet entices your opponent
to fight as
> well. All great generals knew how to do this. The better Warrior
players know
> how too.
>
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/25/2006 13:59:16 Central Standard Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

B loses every game, wins the tourney
unlike other tourney systems there is not a fixed pool of points
divided up so it is actually better to charge into a death trap and
take a chance rather than play to a 0-0 draw>>
Let's not jump to any conclusions based on a three round four player tourney
where everyone plays everyone else. That is an example of theory not
reflecting real life.

Jon




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

[Tim Grimmett]

This last post from an opponent I slimed with all kinds of terrain--minor water
feaure, marsh, woods as I recall-- in a fight where he showed up with Knights/LC
against my Gauls (with hold orders no less) and still made a fight of it.

John <jjmurphy@...> wrote: Ah, suck it up, be a man, and roll up 4 with
your Irreg A's, Todd,
geez d'ya wanna live forever? <grin>

I have to admit I am with Todd and Tim 200% here these last two posts
really hit the nail on the head I think.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Todd Kaeser <hailkaeser@...>
wrote:
> As if WARRIOR isn't already unbelieveably complicated - why toy w/
the terrain placement? I understand the difficulties that come from
playing an opponent who takes up defensive position and doesn't want
to come out and fight. It sucks and it takes both of you out of the
tournament. I've never understood why people throw terrain like that
or bring armies like that, but I guess it's their choice. I don't
find the enjoyment in a 1-1 battle and i'll not risk entering certain
death.






SPONSORED LINKS
Miniature wargaming Wargaming Warrior

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

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.


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





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

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