Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Chris Damour · Legionary Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 444

Mark,
I want to avoid the pain booth, so I'll let the Colonel answer the
rules questions... <<grin>>
However, I can assure you that you can indeed finish a 1600 point
game in less than 4 hours. It helps if both opponents are experienced
players. At Siege of Augusta we play four rounds of three hours each so
that we have time for everyone to come to my house for supper Saturday
night and we usually have games that are played to a definate
conclusion. I will admit that folks usually pick armies that lend
themselves to a "win or die" style, but Greg always has the Inca, and
there has always (or mostly always) been at least one Late Imperial Roman
army at the tourney.

On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 markmallard77@... wrote:

> A) The rules and reference sheet seem to differ on the following - maybe a
> typo on the reference sheet or in the rules.
>
> regular D class troops
>
> is a net + in melee reduced by one?
>
> B) As scythed chariots are deemed to continue charging after the initial
> charge - do the scythes always count in subsequent bounds? After all they are
> not stopping and restarting.
>
> An example comes to mind where in the second bound of charging contact
> distance is only 40 paces. I argued that in the previous bound the chariot
> had gone 120 paces, so the chariot had the momentum for the scythes to count.
>
> C) A unit two elements wide of say legionaries already fighting against a one
> wide pike unit for two bounds and hence now fighting as other infantry
> against the pikes. In the third round another unit charges in against the
> overlapping element of legionaries, does it get HTW again, or just other
> infantry weapons.
>
> D) I dont know how you guys play 1600 points to a finish in under 4 hours? I
> timed our two moves today at 40 minutes per move (we are in the middle of the
> game having started it last week).

--
Christopher Damour

Greg Regets · Imperator Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2988

I'm of the opinion that the new lists will, over the long term, drastically
improve the flow of the game. What I have mostly seen from the new lists is
armies that have a much greater degree of balance, leading to greater
flexibility on the table.

Some of the changes are very small, but make a large tactical difference. Some
armies that traditionally matched up very poorly against some opponents, now
have enough tools to work through their tactical problems.

Looking at Scott's knight example and what we see out of Holy Warrior, there is
so much variety in supporting cast for the knight 'fist', it is now possible to
play a single army, or even a single list, with enough variety to avoid
tactical familiarity. This is a strong deviation from TOG lists, where most of
the knight armies were one hit wonders, without enough variety in supporting
cast to do anything outside the box.

To nutshell it, I think the traditionally weaker armies are stronger, and the
traditionally strong, while still strong, have lost a bit of strength relative
to the weaker armies.

My hope is that over the long term, more armies will be played and as a result
you will see less of the "Everybody knows how to kill Seleucids and LIR!" (for
example), because these armies are no longer so dominant that you see them at
almost every tournament. This could and should lead to less 'set piece' fights,
where everyone in the free world knows exactly what tactics will be used, and
how each army will play. It will be harder to 'tempo' the fight to an advantage
you have over your opponent - because it will be harder to be sure of this
advantage, given his variety to organize and fight several different ways.

All of this, in my opinion, will lead to quicker, and more active games.

Take care ... G

> <html><body>
>
>
> <tt>
> I will admit that folks usually pick armies that lend 
> themselves to a "win or die" style, but Greg always has the Inca, and 
> there has always (or mostly always) been at least one Late Imperial Roman 
> army at the tourney. 
> 
> >To follow up on a fellow "up tempo" player's comments, absolutelypositively,
tourney format can dictate what armies get brung. 1600pt, 3 hour games really
force
you to develop the game quickly. One thing that might help things along (but
also
have consequences in terms of what armies might "thrive") is to do preset
terrain and have very little of it. I remember playing TOG at the "worlds"
in Derby in 1990, the games were 1600pts, 3.5 hour rounds on preset terrain.
There
was usually one dinky piece of terrain on each table, that was it. Plus, you
were
allowed only 1 list. Did it hamstring armies? Nope. In fact, I've never
seen so many Mongol armies in a tourney (this was 15mm only) in my life.
Actually,
army preference seemed to mirror state representation. The UK folks tended to
play
either LIR or Seleucids, the Belgians and other Low Countries played Mongols.
Everybody else played knight or elephant armies and they seemed to not do
well. I
mean I know I thwapped the hell outta my two opponents running those lists,
fought an ugly
draw against LIR and was beat by Seleucids (I was running Spanish, not
Huckleberry and
Clark Spanish either). And ALL of these games, including the Mongol ones, were
decidely up tempo. With the clock ticking and knowing you needed to score well
in
order to have any chance of winning a 4 round (mandatory) tourney, both sides
usually got
to it. 
> 
> >This is why I think smaller regional events should really "go wild" with
format. If a 1600 pt, 3 hour tourney means suddenly, Irr A barbarian foot
armies
come to the fore, fantastic. I mean that's often the best way to learn some of
the
nuances of the game at large (meaning not FW) without getting terribly hung up
on the
nitnoid mechanics. It's akin to the massive 25mm game I and Scott McD played
against
Jake and Jon waaaay too many years ago, Galatians vs some Dark Age barbarian
trash army of
Jakes. Irr A Galatians rolled up, we hit the bar early. 
> 
> >Tim Brown's "Dogs of War" is another great concept that focuses more on army
"reliability" rather than points and timing. The FW "Roman"
duplicate theme we ran last year in KC is another, even better way, of getting
folks into
the game fairly easy. 
> 
> >It's another reason why I prefer the 1200 pt 3 hour format and I tend to
actually use
late medieval armies in that format because I can punch and not have to worry
about
holding on that extra hour:) Smile

> 
> Scott 
> </tt>
>
> 
>
> 
>
> <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
> <td align=center>Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor</td>
> </tr>
> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
> <td align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0> <tr>
<td
align=center>ADVERTISEMENT <a
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=246920.2960106.4328965.1728375/D=egroupweb/S=1705059
080:HM/A=1513703/R=0/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/300_06F/g22lp?
Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl"
target=_top><img
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ex/expert_city/300x250_yh1.gif"
alt="" width="300" height="250" border="0"></a></td> </tr> </table></td>
> </tr>
> <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
M=246920.2960106.4328965.1728375/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1513703/rand=677389366"></
td></tr>

> </table>
>
> 
>
>
> 
> <tt>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com 
> 
> </tt>
> 
>
> 
> <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.</tt>
> 
>
> </body></html>
>

scott holder · Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2003 12:06 am Post subject: RE: Mark''s Questions...

I will admit that folks usually pick armies that lend
themselves to a "win or die" style, but Greg always has the Inca, and
there has always (or mostly always) been at least one Late Imperial Roman
army at the tourney.

>To follow up on a fellow "up tempo" player's comments, absolutelypositively,
tourney format can dictate what armies get brung. 1600pt, 3 hour games really
force you to develop the game quickly. One thing that might help things along
(but also have consequences in terms of what armies might "thrive") is to do
preset terrain and have very little of it. I remember playing TOG at the
"worlds" in Derby in 1990, the games were 1600pts, 3.5 hour rounds on preset
terrain. There was usually one dinky piece of terrain on each table, that was
it. Plus, you were allowed only 1 list. Did it hamstring armies? Nope. In
fact, I've never seen so many Mongol armies in a tourney (this was 15mm only) in
my life. Actually, army preference seemed to mirror state representation. The
UK folks tended to play either LIR or Seleucids, the Belgians and other Low
Countries played Mongols. Everybody else played knight or elephant armies and
they seemed to not do well. I mean I know I thwapped the hell outta my two
opponents running those lists, fought an ugly draw against LIR and was beat by
Seleucids (I was running Spanish, not Huckleberry and Clark Spanish either).
And ALL of these games, including the Mongol ones, were decidely up tempo. With
the clock ticking and knowing you needed to score well in order to have any
chance of winning a 4 round (mandatory) tourney, both sides usually got to it.

>This is why I think smaller regional events should really "go wild" with
format. If a 1600 pt, 3 hour tourney means suddenly, Irr A barbarian foot
armies come to the fore, fantastic. I mean that's often the best way to learn
some of the nuances of the game at large (meaning not FW) without getting
terribly hung up on the nitnoid mechanics. It's akin to the massive 25mm game I
and Scott McD played against Jake and Jon waaaay too many years ago, Galatians
vs some Dark Age barbarian trash army of Jakes. Irr A Galatians rolled up, we
hit the bar early.

>Tim Brown's "Dogs of War" is another great concept that focuses more on army
"reliability" rather than points and timing. The FW "Roman" duplicate theme we
ran last year in KC is another, even better way, of getting folks into the game
fairly easy.

>It's another reason why I prefer the 1200 pt 3 hour format and I tend to
actually use late medieval armies in that format because I can punch and not
have to worry about holding on that extra hour:) Smile

:)

Scott

Recruit Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 120

Hi, I would suggest the favouring of the "win or die" armies you
discuss probably also has a great deal to do with the warrior game
scoring system. The system we have used in the past in Aus probably
encourages a much less bloodthirsty style of play. In every game the
10 points available are divided between the players. A largely
bloodless draw gives each player 5 points (as opposed to a disastrous
nil all in warrior). Furthermore "game points" are not simply a tally
of what you've managed to kill you subtract your opponents score from
yours. It is the difference between them that determines the result.
This makes your own losses much more significant. I'm not yet sure
which system i consider preferable. As a fairly aggressive player im
inclined towards preferring the warrior system. I do, however have a
few concerns. What of those fairly static armies for whom an all out
offensive is not really an option? presumably you would be hoping the
other guy will give you a chance by having a crack at you. This would
however be putting your chances at a result very much in the hands of
your opponent. In the past i've also enjoyed earning a 5 all draw
when opposed by an army I've got no chance of defeating (ducking
weaving, etc). In warrior the best that could be said of this is that
you stop your opponent from scoring but still get no points yourself.
I would be intersted to hear what your much greater experince of the
warrior system suggests about this
Martin

Legionary Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 594

I agree with Marty, 5/5 is better than 0/0. I've played games where
almost everyone died and after the points tally, it was still 5/5! I
have played Knights of St John (dismounted, behind ditch and palisade
thank you) and as long as my bombards didn't self distruct, my
opponent had to come to me to get points. Toward the end of a
tourny, getting aggressive might be the only way to ensure a win if
5/5 isn't going to cut it. 0/0 would be even worse as you could
not "play the draw". That is, ensure you get some points without
risking too much.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "martin williams"
<martymagnificent@y...> wrote:
> Hi, I would suggest the favouring of the "win or die" armies you
> discuss probably also has a great deal to do with the warrior game
> scoring system. The system we have used in the past in Aus probably
> encourages a much less bloodthirsty style of play. In every game
the
> 10 points available are divided between the players. A largely
> bloodless draw gives each player 5 points (as opposed to a
disastrous
> nil all in warrior). Furthermore "game points" are not simply a
tally
> of what you've managed to kill you subtract your opponents score
from
> yours. It is the difference between them that determines the
result.
> This makes your own losses much more significant. I'm not yet sure
> which system i consider preferable. As a fairly aggressive player
im
> inclined towards preferring the warrior system. I do, however have
a
> few concerns. What of those fairly static armies for whom an all
out
> offensive is not really an option? presumably you would be hoping
the
> other guy will give you a chance by having a crack at you. This
would
> however be putting your chances at a result very much in the hands
of
> your opponent. In the past i've also enjoyed earning a 5 all draw
> when opposed by an army I've got no chance of defeating (ducking
> weaving, etc). In warrior the best that could be said of this is
that
> you stop your opponent from scoring but still get no points
yourself.
> I would be intersted to hear what your much greater experince of
the
> warrior system suggests about this
> Martin