Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

> Are a lot of the Warrior lists incompatible with figures based for
> the DBM list?
>

No.


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

[Doug]

The base depth difference between close and loose order is
inconvenient but doesn't make a DBM army fundamentally incompatabile
with Warrior.

But differences in the troop type do. For instance, Dark Age #24
Thematic Byzantine has required LC archers, whereas in DBM they are
three per base cavalry. So the figures aren't usable for playing
Warrior.

Are a lot of the Warrior lists incompatible with figures based for
the DBM list?
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at
present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come
in it's turn, but it will be at a remote period." James Madison, 15
March 1798 (_Papers of J.M._ vol 12, p.14; LC call no. JK.111.M24)

Wellllll.....
Regular Fast Blade dudes. 3 on an element in DBM, in Warrior they become
LMI, or 4 on a base. This affects my New Kingdom Egyptian guys, Early
Period, and that's about it. Since I haven't based my khepesh guys yet,
they can become Regular LMI when done. They won't look like 2HCW, but
that's what they will be because Foundry are too darned expensive to just
sit in a box and gather Lead Rot.
So you are technically correct, because Doug asked "a lot" and you said
"no."

John the OFM



> -----Original Message-----
> From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 1:00 AM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] incompatabilities with DBM based troops
>
>
>
> > Are a lot of the Warrior lists incompatible with figures based for
> > the DBM list?
> >
>
> No.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>

[joncleaves]

Actually, John, I was more than just technically correct. Doug phrased his
email, and specifically his question, in a subtly negative way. I gave the
point all the answer it needed and deserved.

No ancients game system does more to include and work around ALL currently based
figures in all scales than Warrior. Period. Here I sit working on Warrior 30mm
to help people either readily adapt WAB-based figures (you know, that game that
uses a basing system NO ONE else does) or to assist folks who can't seem to get
SHC or HI on a base despite the help we gave them by allowing flexibility in
base depth for figures which are not in scale themselves. Is any other rules
author doing that for his players? Is any other game system wiling to work with
the differences in interpretation of troop types between their system and the
competition's? Man, I offered to do a 30mm scale for Warrior the SAME DAY the
issue arose and in fact, had a prototype out to my players the next day.

So, pardon me if I meet the next whine about supposed 'incompatibilities' with a
competitor's basing system or troop interpretation with a completely correct
one-word answer to avoid dumping on the group what I *really* think. :)

If someone came to my basement with DBM Reg Bl(F) and wanted to play them as Reg
LMI that would be TOTALLY OK with me. We'd just count them as four figure
elements. So, what is the issue?

And if it were me, given that Warrior is better than DBM and is here to stay and
its authors are a zillion % more responsive to player's concerns, I'd just
rebase the damn Cav(O) to LC or whatever and stick with Warrior. :)

J

[joncleaves]

<<You know Jon, you should really work on expressing your feelings better. All
this repression is going to lead to serious stress issues.>>

Yes.

As me sainted mother would say, "Don't break your arm patting yourself on
the back."
And as the Church Lady would say, "My, we think highly of ourselves, don't
we?"
OK, incompatible-no. Inconvenient-yes. I know that I would forget to count
3 Bd(F) as 4 LMI. It's no big deal, they aren't even painted yet, so they
will end up as LMI, and will work equally well as Bd(F), should I ever play
DBM. That is unlikely, given the makeup of my local gang.
Did you ever think about assertiveness classes? You are just too shy.

John the OFM



> -----Original Message-----
> From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 12:55 PM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: RE: [WarriorRules] incompatabilities with DBM based troops
>
>
> Actually, John, I was more than just technically correct. Doug
> phrased his email, and specifically his question, in a subtly
> negative way. I gave the point all the answer it needed and deserved.
>
> No ancients game system does more to include and work around ALL
> currently based figures in all scales than Warrior. Period.
> Here I sit working on Warrior 30mm to help people either readily
> adapt WAB-based figures (you know, that game that uses a basing
> system NO ONE else does) or to assist folks who can't seem to get
> SHC or HI on a base despite the help we gave them by allowing
> flexibility in base depth for figures which are not in scale
> themselves. Is any other rules author doing that for his
> players? Is any other game system wiling to work with the
> differences in interpretation of troop types between their system
> and the competition's? Man, I offered to do a 30mm scale for
> Warrior the SAME DAY the issue arose and in fact, had a prototype
> out to my players the next day.
>
> So, pardon me if I meet the next whine about supposed
> 'incompatibilities' with a competitor's basing system or troop
> interpretation with a completely correct one-word answer to avoid
> dumping on the group what I *really* think.
>
> If someone came to my basement with DBM Reg Bl(F) and wanted to
> play them as Reg LMI that would be TOTALLY OK with me. We'd just
> count them as four figure elements. So, what is the issue?
>
> And if it were me, given that Warrior is better than DBM and is
> here to stay and its authors are a zillion % more responsive to
> player's concerns, I'd just rebase the damn Cav(O) to LC or
> whatever and stick with Warrior.
>
> J
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I hope your all sitting down when I say this, "I
totally agree with Jon Cleaves!" He and the other Four
Horsemen have been VERY responsive to all questions
and issues relating to facilitating the play of the
Warrior system! I too would become a bit irritated if
I were busting my butt to please my fellow "Warriors"
only to see emails that seem to be in a negative tone
from the same people I'm trying to facilitate. Jon's
answer of a simple "NO" is most appropriate in this
case IMHO! Besides, the basing system that Warrior
uses has been around since the middle '80s. It was
here first. Phil Barker and company chose to change
that with DBM. For that matter it is no sweat for any
of the core of Warrior gamers that I know to allow
something as this to get in the way of a game with a
friend. Pardon me for appearing to come down so hard,
but I feel someone needs to say something, and I've
never had a problem with shyness in that regard. And
for his last comment, Jon is correct. Warrior is by
far a much better system than that of DBM for what we
want to see in an ancients game on this board. I mean
no disrespect to you Doug or anyone else by writing
this but this is my opinion.

Kelly Wilkinson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com

[joncleaves]

Kelly

I have no idea what it is you want. But you can't have it. :)

Just thought I'd make that clear before the tourney tomorrow.

Jon

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Heehee! I didn't want anything, Jon! Well, maybe one
of those Pizza's Theresa is famous for making for
gamers! Seriously, I just felt that I needed to voice
an opinion that most of us "Lurkers" agree with.
Nothing else. I just didn't like the implication that
Warrior is responsible for screwing up basing and the
like. You and the other Four Horsemen have been very
good about allowing alternatives to aid ease in game
play! No BS here (even though I am a BS artist).


Kelly
Old lead Peddler

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com

In a message dated 5/3/02 1:36:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jwilkinson62@... writes:

<< Subj: Re: Re: RE: [WarriorRules] incompatabilities with DBM based
troops
Date: 5/3/02 1:36:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: jwilkinson62@... (kelly wilkinson)
Reply-to: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com


Heehee! I didn't want anything, Jon! Well, maybe one
of those Pizza's Theresa is famous for making for
gamers! Seriously, I just felt that I needed to voice
an opinion that most of us "Lurkers" agree with.
Nothing else. I just didn't like the implication that
Warrior is responsible for screwing up basing and the
like. You and the other Four Horsemen have been very
good about allowing alternatives to aid ease in game
play! No BS here (even though I am a BS artist).


Kelly
Old lead Peddler
>>


I think I am one of those who stand accused of accusing Warrior of screwing
up basing. Such was not my intent. I was asking how Warrior accomodated
other systems, and modern extra-large figures. I had not read every
paragraph when I asked about basing for extra large figures, and was unaware
of the extra depth allowances. We are all still unlearning what we had
learned. I remember DBR was extremely rigid about depths. So, I can make my
Redoubr Mycenaean MI work on deeper elements. I still remain dubious about
SHC, because back in 1986.....well, you know the story.
The bottom line is that it is the nature of compromises that they please no
one 100%. Such is life. I can base for 30mm, but have no reassurance that
anyone else will follow me. If I base for Warrior, my Warhammer games will
have inconvenient moments. If I base for WAB, my Warrior games will have
inconvenient moments. Basing for Warrior will work better for DBM than
basing for DBM will work for Warrior. (I brought up Bd(F). Base as Regular
LMI, problem solved.) After my questions had been answered, some rudely,
most firmly but corteously, I decided to base for Warrior. Another factor is
that 3 of my wargaming buddies play Warrior and show no inclination to dabble
in heresy.

John the OFM

[Doug]

Touchy! Not helped by people bringing up the basing issue, which I
tried hard to keep separate from this issue, because base depth and 3
vs 4 to a base isn't a problem for me.

I just wanted to know if there are a lot of cases where I'll have to
actually paint new figures, like where DBM say Cav but Warrior says
LH.
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at
present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come
in it's turn, but it will be at a remote period." James Madison, 15
March 1798 (_Papers of J.M._ vol 12, p.14; LC call no. JK.111.M24)

[joncleaves]

> Basing for Warrior will work better for DBM than
> basing for DBM will work for Warrior.

And that fact, plus Warrior 30mm, is about the best we can do, I think.

J


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

[Chris Bump]

I just didn't like the implication that
Warrior is responsible for screwing up basing and the
like. You and the other Four Horsemen have been very
good about allowing alternatives to aid ease in game
play! No BS here (even though I am a BS artist).


Kelly
Old lead Peddler

HERE, HERE! I am quite tired of this whole slant. "My figures are'nt based for
your system...My figures are too big for your system...My figures don't
represent the army I want to run..." GEEZ it was DBM that made you rebase in
the first place! I don't run tournaments, and I am sure, thankfully for many of
the whiners out there, because I am a purist! The figures should not be
passable as both Byzantines and Macedonians. The figures should carry the
weapon that they are proclaimed to have or at least one of them, and the figures
should be mounted on bases per the bloody rules. But these things will not be a
problem for any out there because I don't run tournaments and Jon and others who
do are far more forgiving than I.
Chris