Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

I think Chris Damour has hit the nail on the head. Those wonderful
people who volunteer to organize the tournements really are the key.
Any ideas on how we can do the preset terrain or the terrain
beautification project without dumping on the organizers? Maybe
Jon's idea about the regional money is a beginning?

Tom Keegan

Generally, the games in Sydney use pre-set terrain. This has lead to
comments along the lines of;
1. "Gee, you would need 6 "6"'s to get this number of hills onto the
table!" and

2. "the WHOLE left quarter of the table is SEA! Well, THAT flanks'
secure." and

3. "Wonderful! No hills, no woods, no swamps, I'm running <insert
loose foot army here> and HE'S running bloody Palmyran!" etc etc etc

On the whole however, pre-set terrain speeds up the game and ensures
no-one has home ground advantage.





--- In WarriorRules@y..., "keegantdad" <jncsmom@g...> wrote:
> I think Chris Damour has hit the nail on the head. Those wonderful
> people who volunteer to organize the tournements really are the key.
> Any ideas on how we can do the preset terrain or the terrain
> beautification project without dumping on the organizers? Maybe
> Jon's idea about the regional money is a beginning?
>
> Tom Keegan

[Doug]

How hard would it be to have the same terrain layout for all tables,
but change it for each round?

And would publishing the terrain layouts ahead of time (but not their
sequence of use) be a good compromise for those who plan their
tactics around the terrain they want to lay out?

Obviously each table would not be an exact clone of the diagram, but
nobody should be depending on millimeter accuracy anyway.

Maybe include some method of allowing each player to remove a terrain
piece or two. The pieces could be numbered, and if both choose the
same piece then they can each choose a second piece to remove as well.

Huge pieces could be routinely be represented by 2 or 3 or 4 small
ones directly adjacent (ie less than an element width apart). So
effectively its size could be reduced by removal of part.

[Mark Stone]

What I haven't seen from those favoring pre-set terrain is any acknowledgment
that terrain selection forms a vital part of tactics and generalship in
Warrior. If you want to take this away, then please explain to me how I'm going
to get a comparable degree of control over battlefield conditions -- something
which history tells us mattered a great deal, and that different generals
managed with different degrees of skill -- from some alternative using pre-set
terrain.

I spend a great deal of time studying the sizes, movement and combat
restrictions, and odds of placement for various kinds of terrain in our current
system. In the days of TOG I was twice responsible for Phil amending the rules
regarding roads based on "terrain tactics" I had used. I think Phil's
amendments were improvements (and I think Jon should make one further road
amendment, but that's another topic), but I have and will continue to make use
of the absolute limit of what the terrain system allows to gain any tactical
advantage I can.

I can tell you when and why a village would be preferable to a woods, despite
the lower odds of getting it and the greater restrictions on where it goes.

I can tell you why a steep hill is often a better frontage-narrowing pick than a
woods.

I can tell you how to use an open space pick to assure you have a forward
position in which to place your temporary fortifications.

I can tell you how to use a road and open space to maximize clear terrain on the
battlefield.

This isn't meant to sound like bragging. All good tournament players think these
terrain problems through. Frankly, not doing so strikes me as lazy generalship,
akin to not thinking through what kind of orders to assign your commands. I,
for one, would be very dismayed by any change in tournament format that put
lazy generals on a more equal footing with top players.

A side note: if we go to pre-set terrain, I would expect to see a significant
proliferation of temporary fortifications, as no one would be placing "open
space" to block their placement.

I do appreciate the simplicity and visual appeal that comes with pre-set
terrain. What I would hope for in return is some appreciation for the tactical
nuance our terrain system gives us. To say that "other game systems use pre-set
terrain" strikes me as an absolute non-starter. Other game systems do a lot of
stupid things. That's why I don't play them.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

<<I do appreciate the simplicity and visual appeal that comes with pre-set
terrain.>>

Please remember that the idea of pre-set wqas offered for only two reasons

1. to test the waters again and make sure that the majority does indeed prefer
14.3 - this test is something we will be checking over the next six months.
2. to look at a way to avoid having to transport terrain to away games.

<< What I would hope for in return is some appreciation for the tactical
nuance our terrain system gives us. >>

It is quite true that Warrior's terrain selection chart is very popular with its
players and makes us unique. It simulates the pre-battle maneuvering a general
does to end up on terrain of his choosing for the actual enagagement. No one is
saying otherwise that I am aware of. What is being said is that system has
required transporting terrain and allows for some gamey decisions - the former
makes it hard to bring quality terrain and the latter needs work. That's all.

<<To say that "other game systems use pre-set
terrain" strikes me as an absolute non-starter. Other game systems do a lot of
stupid things. That's why I don't play them.>>

That was unnecessary. You made good points in your post and it would have been
much better without insulting other perfectly good games. You don't have to
play them, but the choice of pre-set terrain does not make other games bad.
Just different.

Jon


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

[Bill Chriss]

> What I haven't seen from those favoring pre-set terrain is any
> acknowledgment
> that terrain selection forms a vital part of tactics and generalship in
> Warrior. If you want to take this away, then please explain to me how I'm
> going
> to get a comparable degree of control over battlefield conditions --
> something
> which history tells us mattered a great deal, and that different generals
> managed with different degrees of skill -- from some alternative using
> pre-set
> terrain.


My $.02: I agree with Mark's assessment of the importance of choosing
ground as a general and like the current terrain choosing system. I'm not
saying it can't be improved, but we should have SOME way for generals to
simulate SOME control in choosing their ground. And yes, I will try to
upgrade my terrain, although some of it is pretty nice, and it's getting
better. Basically, I just started breaking down and buying the stuff from
dealers and manufacturers at H'Con and elsewhere. That's my advice to
everyone else who, like me, doesn't have enough time to ever paint all
their toys, much less to make new ones.

Carry 40 pounds of bronze armor, a 3' diameter shield, and 9 foot spear
and win!!


Greek

[Mark Stone]

--- On March 25 Jon Cleaves said: ---

>
> That was unnecessary. You made good points in your post and it would have been
> much better without insulting other perfectly good games.
>

Point taken, Jon, and you're right. Let me try again, a little calmer now:

Lots of good stuff has come from this discussion, and while, as a tourney
player, I'm absolutely committed to the spirit of our feature choosing system,
I think there's a lot of room for compromise and improvement that I have no
problem with.

- Theme tournaments should be fair game for pre-set terrain. These tournaments
serve a fundamentally different purpose, and restricting terrain is really just
an extension of restricting armies. Which,it being a theme event, we already do.

- With the exceptions of open space, minor water feature, and road, I have no
problem with saying that size and shape of a piece of terrain has to be
specified when you write down your picks, not when you place your terrain. In
practice I imagine players writing down their picks, and then each pointing to
the four pieces they are actually going to dice for. I also think this is more
realistic. While I do think generals worked hard to get the battle where they
wanted it, I do think getting the perfect size and shape for just that moment
when it's time to put that piece down stretches the bounds of what we can
credibly say that generals knew about battlefield conditions. "There's a big
woods over here and a small hill over there" is probably about the limit of
what they knew.

- Putting 8 pieces of terrain at each table for players to pick from sounds like
the beginnings of a really good idea. If we go this rout I would urge that "open
space" always be something one can dice for instead of one of the 8 pieces. That
seems easy enough. A harder issue is this: if I have decent looking terrain and
I went to the trouble of bringing it with me, then I want to be able to use it.
Can I substitute my terrain for an equivalent terrain type from the 8? Must it
be roughly the same size as well as the same type? If so, how roughly the same
must it be? Not sure how we'd work all this out in practice.

- If people really do want pre-set terrain, I'd at least like to see some
provision for conditions under which a piece could be moved or removed. We need
something that corresponds to the generalship element of picking where the fight
will occur.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

Great stuff.

Just remember, this thread is not about trying and convince people that pre-set
terrain is good (or bad, for that matter). It is about improving the aethestics
of our games.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stone <mark@...>
To: warrior <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:22:29 +0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: pre set terrain



--- On March 25 Jon Cleaves said: ---

>
> That was unnecessary. You made good points in your post and it would have been
> much better without insulting other perfectly good games.
>

Point taken, Jon, and you're right. Let me try again, a little calmer now:

Lots of good stuff has come from this discussion, and while, as a tourney
player, I'm absolutely committed to the spirit of our feature choosing system,
I think there's a lot of room for compromise and improvement that I have no
problem with.

- Theme tournaments should be fair game for pre-set terrain. These tournaments
serve a fundamentally different purpose, and restricting terrain is really just
an extension of restricting armies. Which,it being a theme event, we already do.

- With the exceptions of open space, minor water feature, and road, I have no
problem with saying that size and shape of a piece of terrain has to be
specified when you write down your picks, not when you place your terrain. In
practice I imagine players writing down their picks, and then each pointing to
the four pieces they are actually going to dice for. I also think this is more
realistic. While I do think generals worked hard to get the battle where they
wanted it, I do think getting the perfect size and shape for just that moment
when it's time to put that piece down stretches the bounds of what we can
credibly say that generals knew about battlefield conditions. "There's a big
woods over here and a small hill over there" is probably about the limit of
what they knew.

- Putting 8 pieces of terrain at each table for players to pick from sounds like
the beginnings of a really good idea. If we go this rout I would urge that "open
space" always be something one can dice for instead of one of the 8 pieces. That
seems easy enough. A harder issue is this: if I have decent looking terrain and
I went to the trouble of bringing it with me, then I want to be able to use it.
Can I substitute my terrain for an equivalent terrain type from the 8? Must it
be roughly the same size as well as the same type? If so, how roughly the same
must it be? Not sure how we'd work all this out in practice.

- If people really do want pre-set terrain, I'd at least like to see some
provision for conditions under which a piece could be moved or removed. We need
something that corresponds to the generalship element of picking where the fight
will occur.


-Mark Stone



Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Mike Turner]

Here is an example:

2/4 players move to their table, check climate of armies and dice,
appropriate team(s) adding one to their die.

The table already has on it:(as an EXAMPLE)
1xMajor Water feature
2xWoods
3xHills
2xBrush

these pieces were provided by the organizer or pooled from the
players or someone from either team substituted a piece they brought
for one of the eight.

The 1st terrain placing side decides on one of the 8 pieces or an
open space, dices and places per the rules, and so on, until 8 pieces
or opens or any combination are placed. All terrain was to an
approved level of appearance, but it is not pre-set, and both sides
still had the opportunity to affect their placement, or deny their
placement (with an open space).

This way you improve the appearance of Warrior terrain, and still
allow "Generals" to influence the battlefield, something I agree is a
strength of Warrior (as long as I don't roll a one!)

Mike

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> --- On March 25 Jon Cleaves said: ---
>
> >
> > That was unnecessary. You made good points in your post and it
would have been
> > much better without insulting other perfectly good games.
> >
>
> Point taken, Jon, and you're right. Let me try again, a little
calmer now:
>
> Lots of good stuff has come from this discussion, and while, as a
tourney
> player, I'm absolutely committed to the spirit of our feature
choosing system,
> I think there's a lot of room for compromise and improvement that I
have no
> problem with.
>
> - Theme tournaments should be fair game for pre-set terrain. These
tournaments
> serve a fundamentally different purpose, and restricting terrain is
really just
> an extension of restricting armies. Which,it being a theme event,
we already do.
>
> - With the exceptions of open space, minor water feature, and road,
I have no
> problem with saying that size and shape of a piece of terrain has
to be
> specified when you write down your picks, not when you place your
terrain. In
> practice I imagine players writing down their picks, and then each
pointing to
> the four pieces they are actually going to dice for. I also think
this is more
> realistic. While I do think generals worked hard to get the battle
where they
> wanted it, I do think getting the perfect size and shape for just
that moment
> when it's time to put that piece down stretches the bounds of what
we can
> credibly say that generals knew about battlefield
conditions. "There's a big
> woods over here and a small hill over there" is probably about the
limit of
> what they knew.
>
> - Putting 8 pieces of terrain at each table for players to pick
from sounds like
> the beginnings of a really good idea. If we go this rout I would
urge that "open
> space" always be something one can dice for instead of one of the 8
pieces. That
> seems easy enough. A harder issue is this: if I have decent looking
terrain and
> I went to the trouble of bringing it with me, then I want to be
able to use it.
> Can I substitute my terrain for an equivalent terrain type from the
8? Must it
> be roughly the same size as well as the same type? If so, how
roughly the same
> must it be? Not sure how we'd work all this out in practice.
>
> - If people really do want pre-set terrain, I'd at least like to
see some
> provision for conditions under which a piece could be moved or
removed. We need
> something that corresponds to the generalship element of picking
where the fight
> will occur.
>
>
> -Mark Stone

[Ewan McNay]

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005, Doug wrote:
> How hard would it be to have the same terrain layout for all tables,
> but change it for each round?
>
> And would publishing the terrain layouts ahead of time (but not their
> sequence of use) be a good compromise for those who plan their
> tactics around the terrain they want to lay out?

Huh. Another *good* idea.

But....


...especially in anvironment where there are list rules tailored to
current terrain placement methods, and people who have bought Mongol
armies to take advantage of such, *and* a clear element of strategy
available in working with the terrain system, *and* no desire to push all
tournament armies toward homogeneity...

...well, I'm fine with trying to improve terrain appearance, but *not*
with hacking the current terrain placement system. Which I think is
essentially the position of the other tournament players we've heard from
also.

>
> Obviously each table would not be an exact clone of the diagram, but
> nobody should be depending on millimeter accuracy anyway.
>
> May be include some method of allowing each player to remove a terrain
> piece or two. The pieces could be numbered, and if both choose the
> same piece then they can each choose a second piece to remove as well.
>
> Huge pieces could be routinely be represented by 2 or 3 or 4 small
> ones directly adjacent (ie less than an element width apart). So
> effectively its size could be reduced by removal of part.
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Just remember, this thread is not about trying and convince people
that pre-set terrain is good (or bad, for that matter). It is about
improving the aethestics of our games.

I will play on any terrain FHE and NASAMW would like to bring. One
less decision to make is good in my book - more time to move army
men around, roll dice, cuss at the results of said rolled dice, and
go shopping to make me feel better about the results of said rolled
dice. However, I remember the days of the midnight madness DBA
tourneys with pre-set terrain and I have to say the "quality" of
such pre-set terrain absolutely sucks - being after midnight nobody
cares but it really does stink to high heaven any time I have played
in it (been a few years - getting too old).

So if you have pre-set terrain for aesthetic reasons I think it is
important to realize you are signing FHE/the_nameless_org up to
create and transport and store about a hundred such pieces, and I
would think it very important that all ~100 are worthy of the
purpose you are after.

[Doug]

>What I haven't seen from those favoring pre-set terrain is any acknowledgment
>that terrain selection forms a vital part of tactics and generalship
>in Warrior.

>All good tournament players think these terrain problems through.
>Frankly, not doing so strikes me as lazy generalship

Its not historic Generalship, its merely terrain-rule based Gamesmanship.

The rules for placing terrain in the game have nothing whatsoever to
do with what a real general does WRT finding the best location to
give battle.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/26/2005 01:00:23 Central Standard Time,
rockd@... writes:

The rules for placing terrain in the game have nothing whatsoever to
do with what a real general does WRT finding the best location to
give battle.>>


I am sorry you feel that way, but that is exactly why those rules are there.

However, there is no requirement whatsoever that a player use all or any of
14.0 in his games.

J








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