Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Chris Bump]

Worded differently, would you find it easier to teach someone Warrior
Battles using you-go, I-go and then transition to the interactive
bound when you moved on to Warrior, or would it be easier to bring
them into the concept right from the start, potentially making for
more teaching in WB, but less later when they started in on Warrior?

I think it might actually prove to be confusing to a player to teach one
method and then explain that now that you have grasped the basic game we are
going
to change the fundamentals that you learned in the basic game.

Seems to me that the movement sequence might be one of the game mechanics you
might want to teach in Warrior Battles.

FWIW,
Chris


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

[joncleaves]

Fellow Warriors

I am deep into the writing of our intro game, Warrior Battles.

A question for you to consider, seeing it will be you who will be
using this set to introduce new players to the system...

Warrior is unlike many miniature games in that it has an interactive
turn (as opposed to the you-go, I-go approach).

Is this something we want to have in Warrior Battles, or should it be
you-go, I-go because new players will be more familiar with that from
the other games they have played?

Worded differently, would you find it easier to teach someone Warrior
Battles using you-go, I-go and then transition to the interactive
bound when you moved on to Warrior, or would it be easier to bring
them into the concept right from the start, potentially making for
more teaching in WB, but less later when they started in on Warrior?

Jon

[scott holder]

I've never found the Warrior interactive turn to be all that tough to grasp so
I'd leave it in.

-----Original Message-----
From: joncleaves [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 10:03 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Request for Opinions on Warrior Battles Movement


Fellow Warriors

I am deep into the writing of our intro game, Warrior Battles.

A question for you to consider, seeing it will be you who will be
using this set to introduce new players to the system...

Warrior is unlike many miniature games in that it has an interactive
turn (as opposed to the you-go, I-go approach).

Is this something we want to have in Warrior Battles, or should it be
you-go, I-go because new players will be more familiar with that from
the other games they have played?

Worded differently, would you find it easier to teach someone Warrior
Battles using you-go, I-go and then transition to the interactive
bound when you moved on to Warrior, or would it be easier to bring
them into the concept right from the start, potentially making for
more teaching in WB, but less later when they started in on Warrior?

Jon



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/

Jon,

I find this to be a fundamental concept in the rules. You have to
have initiative rolls, approaches, counters, etc. Otherwise new
players will be at a loss.

Chris Tebo

Thanks, Scott. I was going to say, "Why use something
that has worked well for years?"

--- "Holder, Scott" <Scott.Holder@...> wrote:
> I've never found the Warrior interactive turn to be
> all that tough to grasp so I'd leave it in.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: joncleaves [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 10:03 AM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Request for Opinions on
> Warrior Battles Movement
>
>
> Fellow Warriors
>
> I am deep into the writing of our intro game,
> Warrior Battles.
>
> A question for you to consider, seeing it will be
> you who will be
> using this set to introduce new players to the
> system...
>
> Warrior is unlike many miniature games in that it
> has an interactive
> turn (as opposed to the you-go, I-go approach).
>
> Is this something we want to have in Warrior
> Battles, or should it be
> you-go, I-go because new players will be more
> familiar with that from
> the other games they have played?
>
> Worded differently, would you find it easier to
> teach someone Warrior
> Battles using you-go, I-go and then transition to
> the interactive
> bound when you moved on to Warrior, or would it be
> easier to bring
> them into the concept right from the start,
> potentially making for
> more teaching in WB, but less later when they
> started in on Warrior?
>
> Jon
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 9/9/2003 11:49:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
ragingbullmf@... writes:

> Thanks, Scott. I was going to say, "Why use something
> that has worked well for years?">>

This is not about changing something we all like. This is solely about ease of
teaching new players and getting them into Warrior.

[Don Coon]

There is a lot more you go, I go than we talk about anyway. Your foot, my
foot, your mounted my mounted, my counters your counters. Its simultainious
yes, but we still execute it segmented. I say keeep it in.

Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "joncleaves" <JonCleaves@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 10:03 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Request for Opinions on Warrior Battles Movement


> Fellow Warriors
>
> I am deep into the writing of our intro game, Warrior Battles.
>
> A question for you to consider, seeing it will be you who will be
> using this set to introduce new players to the system...
>
> Warrior is unlike many miniature games in that it has an interactive
> turn (as opposed to the you-go, I-go approach).
>
> Is this something we want to have in Warrior Battles, or should it be
> you-go, I-go because new players will be more familiar with that from
> the other games they have played?
>
> Worded differently, would you find it easier to teach someone Warrior
> Battles using you-go, I-go and then transition to the interactive
> bound when you moved on to Warrior, or would it be easier to bring
> them into the concept right from the start, potentially making for
> more teaching in WB, but less later when they started in on Warrior?
>
> Jon
>
>
>
> 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]

As a teacher, I believe that the interactive turn is what sets "Warrior a head
above many other systems and is therefore an integral part of the learning
process. If I want to teach the "you go , I go, I would teach students to play
DBA. To take this piece out of intro warrior would be blasphemy and would not
represent the Warrior system. Last Week, I introduced 14 of my African American
students to convention style Wargaming for the first time at a mini con held at
Lee's Summit High School by a school sponsored wargaming club. My students (and
I might add, their parents when they saw what was going on were very impressed
by the scope of the games!) participated and actually won several prizes for
tactical ingenuity. I've begun teaching Warrior at our after school gaming club
as the sole gaming system and I actually have two young lady's who are showing
aptitude. My secret? I'm using 400 point games with troop types that all move
the same speed and I further have cut the size of the
table to 2'x2'. Further, I wanted to try to keep my club small at first to
train a cadre of 5 students as "teachers" who would aide me in bringing in the
others. Presently we have 12 regulars coming each week and playing "Warrior" in
the Inner City. I plan on expanding this number soon to include more kids as I
increase my number of "teachers." The field at a middle school is very fertile
as the kids still enjoy education and unlike most high schoolers, still can't
drive! lol! Additionally, those of you who are teachers, One of my students,
one Romulus Grigsby (yes, his twin brother's name is Remus!) is ADHD and I
discovered THE activity in which he will sit down and actually become absorbed.
. . Painting. . . Yes, Painting. At the con, his parents showed up a bit ahead
of myself and one of the gamers took it upon himself to show Romulus how to
paint figures. Romulus was absolutely absorbed! I plan on using this as my
hook to pull more of my students into learning history!
Anyway, my vote goes to keeping the individuality of Warrior but cutting
the points down and the troop types used in the initial game adding new units
later. I believe that the number and type of troops is one of the things that
bewilders my kids and many new players. adding new troop types as we go has
helped the learning curve. And made the game manageable.
Kelly Wilkinson
History Teacher, Lee A.
Tolbert Academy HO

joncleaves <JonCleaves@...> wrote:
Fellow Warriors

I am deep into the writing of our intro game, Warrior Battles.

A question for you to consider, seeing it will be you who will be
using this set to introduce new players to the system...

Warrior is unlike many miniature games in that it has an interactive
turn (as opposed to the you-go, I-go approach).

Is this something we want to have in Warrior Battles, or should it be
you-go, I-go because new players will be more familiar with that from
the other games they have played?

Worded differently, would you find it easier to teach someone Warrior
Battles using you-go, I-go and then transition to the interactive
bound when you moved on to Warrior, or would it be easier to bring
them into the concept right from the start, potentially making for
more teaching in WB, but less later when they started in on Warrior?

Jon


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

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

The few times I have taught new players, I have simplified movement by
teaching approaches (getting closer to the enemy) and counters (moving away,
etc.) and nothing else.

With FW size playing surfaces, there isn¹t much need to teach marches. Also,
because of movement order, I have seen new players make mistakes when
marching. They think, ³I¹ll just not approach with this unit and march
instead² but then, the opponent marches and pins you.

Also, I don¹t like to explain retirements, as that involves the whole orders
thing. And counters are used more often anyway.

Now, within the approach or counter movement option, I still go with
initiative (but I ignore pre-empting by mounted).

The games I have played with these simplified rules don¹t seem to lose all
that much from the real thing. And keep in mind that new players are dealing
with a lot of complexity here. Also, when you move on to the real rules, you
are just adding rules and not making fundamental, conceptual changes.

As always, this is just my opinion.

-- Charles


> Fellow Warriors
>
> I am deep into the writing of our intro game, Warrior Battles.
>
> A question for you to consider, seeing it will be you who will be
> using this set to introduce new players to the system...
>
> Warrior is unlike many miniature games in that it has an interactive
> turn (as opposed to the you-go, I-go approach).
>
> Is this something we want to have in Warrior Battles, or should it be
> you-go, I-go because new players will be more familiar with that from
> the other games they have played?
>
> Worded differently, would you find it easier to teach someone Warrior
> Battles using you-go, I-go and then transition to the interactive
> bound when you moved on to Warrior, or would it be easier to bring
> them into the concept right from the start, potentially making for
> more teaching in WB, but less later when they started in on Warrior?
>
> Jon
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=244522.3707890.4968055.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705059080
> :HM/A=1595054/R=0/SIG=124ukap9t/*http://ashnin.com/clk/muryutaitakenattogyo?YH
> =3707890&yhad=1595054>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 9/10/2003 10:31:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time, clr198@...
writes:

> The few times I have taught new players, I have simplified movement by
> teaching approaches (getting closer to the enemy) and counters (moving away,
> etc.) and nothing else.
>
> With FW size playing surfaces, there isn¹t much need to teach marches. Also,
> because of movement order, I have seen new players make mistakes when
> marching. They think, ³I¹ll just not approach with this unit and march
> instead² but then, the opponent marches and pins you.
>
> Also, I don¹t like to explain retirements, as that involves
> the whole orders
> thing. And counters are used more often anyway.>>

Just so you know, right now there are approaches, withdrawals (a simple
combination of counters and retirements without orders/prompts as there are
none) and marches which is just triple movement if you don't end within 240p -
as you noted, there isn't a lot of marching on a FW sized table, which is what
WB will use.

J

[Charles Yaw]

Kelly,

That is great stuff. When my Cross Country season is over in November, I'd
like to get together to talk more about how you set up your club.

Charles


> [Original Message]
> From: kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@...>
> To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: 9/9/2003 10:22:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Request for Opinions on Warrior Battles
Movement
>
> As a teacher, I believe that the interactive turn is what sets "Warrior a
head above many other systems and is therefore an integral part of the
learning process. If I want to teach the "you go , I go, I would teach
students to play DBA. To take this piece out of intro warrior would be
blasphemy and would not represent the Warrior system. Last Week, I
introduced 14 of my African American students to convention style Wargaming
for the first time at a mini con held at Lee's Summit High School by a
school sponsored wargaming club. My students (and I might add, their
parents when they saw what was going on were very impressed by the scope of
the games!) participated and actually won several prizes for tactical
ingenuity. I've begun teaching Warrior at our after school gaming club as
the sole gaming system and I actually have two young lady's who are showing
aptitude. My secret? I'm using 400 point games with troop types that all
move the same speed and I further have cut the size of the
> table to 2'x2'. Further, I wanted to try to keep my club small at first
to train a cadre of 5 students as "teachers" who would aide me in bringing
in the others. Presently we have 12 regulars coming each week and playing
"Warrior" in the Inner City. I plan on expanding this number soon to
include more kids as I increase my number of "teachers." The field at a
middle school is very fertile as the kids still enjoy education and unlike
most high schoolers, still can't drive! lol! Additionally, those of you
who are teachers, One of my students, one Romulus Grigsby (yes, his twin
brother's name is Remus!) is ADHD and I discovered THE activity in which he
will sit down and actually become absorbed. . . Painting. . . Yes,
Painting. At the con, his parents showed up a bit ahead of myself and one
of the gamers took it upon himself to show Romulus how to paint figures.
Romulus was absolutely absorbed! I plan on using this as my hook to pull
more of my students into learning history!
> Anyway, my vote goes to keeping the individuality of Warrior but
cutting the points down and the troop types used in the initial game adding
new units later. I believe that the number and type of troops is one of the
things that bewilders my kids and many new players. adding new troop types
as we go has helped the learning curve. And made the game manageable.
> Kelly
Wilkinson
> History Teacher,
Lee A. Tolbert Academy HO
>
> joncleaves <JonCleaves@...> wrote:
> Fellow Warriors
>
> I am deep into the writing of our intro game, Warrior Battles.
>
> A question for you to consider, seeing it will be you who will be
> using this set to introduce new players to the system...
>
> Warrior is unlike many miniature games in that it has an interactive
> turn (as opposed to the you-go, I-go approach).
>
> Is this something we want to have in Warrior Battles, or should it be
> you-go, I-go because new players will be more familiar with that from
> the other games they have played?
>
> Worded differently, would you find it easier to teach someone Warrior
> Battles using you-go, I-go and then transition to the interactive
> bound when you moved on to Warrior, or would it be easier to bring
> them into the concept right from the start, potentially making for
> more teaching in WB, but less later when they started in on Warrior?
>
> Jon
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
>
> [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/
>