Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

I'm currently building terrain--my old terrain is just too old and beat
up, and much of it needs to be relegated to the trash.

Naturally, this caused me to read the terrain rules carefully. I'm a
big fan of the terrain rules--one of the things that are most poorly
handled in other rules, and best handled in Warrior, and I have always
felt that good terrain useage can cover a multitude of other sins in an
army.

I've also had the opportunity to visit a bunch of Ancients
battlefield areas in the last couple of years--Greece (repeatedely) and
Scotland (repeatedly) head the list. This does leave me with a few
questions that relate to building terrain.
First, let me say that I like the new look of terrain being
produced in Europe (mostly the UK). What I've been seeing there is
terrain pieces that often resemble a cross between dioramas and the best
of model railroad pieces. These chunks of terrain are produced so that
by owning five or six of them, a player can turn a 6 x 4 battlefield
into a number of different enviroments, all very realistically modeled,
while starting from our traditional "green cloth." As a solution, it
seems to offer the best compromise between modular terrain and "train
set" terrain (single piece giant battlefields lovingly rendered, like
those you see for a GW Games Day.) Coincidentally, such terrain pieces
are pretty much what we have always used in warrior, and offer us some
exciting modeling opportunities.

So, on to my questions.

1) I understand why we have 1 element gaps between terrain, both
for playability and for the look of the battlefield, but I wonder if
there shouldn't be some exceptions. Both of mine involve minor water
features (MiWFs).
A) Most minor water features originate on hillsides. Shouldn't it
be possible to do this in warrior, simply by saying that a minor water
feature may be placed to descend from a single slope on the table as its
start point?
B) Streams (MiWFs) tend to be a major element in the "creation" of
real terrain (like hills)--hence, at least in Greece and Scotland, most
MWFs tend to lie immediately at the base of hills, often creating some
very difficult terrain indeed. Streams also tend to run by or even
through BUAs, by or through woods, brush, olive groves... I think you
can see where I'm going here.

Perhaps I just want to model a waterfall. : )

C) Marshes and bogs frequently occur on hillsides. I recognize
that this makes no sense at all--why doesn't the water run off? In
fact, it is trapped by ridges of rock hidden by the ground cover of the
hillside, as any Adirondack hiker will testify. This same terrain
occurs in Thrace and Scotland--and I'll bet it occurs elsewhere.
D) Fords. The current rule, placing a single bridge or frequented
ford on a length of stream that may cover the full frontage of the
field, is one of the reasons so many players hesitate to take MiWFs.
Seems to me that several ancients accounts (Anabasis leaps to mind) say
that the process of finding and useing other fords than the "known" or
"frequented" ford were essential to battles, movements, flank
marches...you get the idea. I wonder if Warrior shouldn't allow for the
discovery (or even placement) of other fords. If a MiWF had 2 or 3 or 4
fords, it seems to me that people might use them more often--and they
were a feature of the period (well, all periods, really.)


2) Various types of hill

In the rules, we have low ridges, "hills," and knolls. From a
modeling perspective, models produced to represent low riges and knolls
can also be used as "hills" and have better likelyhood of ending up in a
useful place. In fact, I can't remember the last time an opponent used
a knoll against me.
Yet these terrain types a very common--as are major ridges, high
hills, and mountain valleys--and all occur on Greek and Scottish
battlefields--so much so that they might be taken to be the determinent
in the choosing of the battlefield.
Because of that, I have a host of questions, which I'll summarize.

A) Why can't I put a fortified baggage camp on a hill? Even the
most casual survey of ancient battlefields suggests that most ancient
armies that dug in liked to take advantage of the terrain--or am I
missing something in the new terrain rules? (I may be--I have some
weird glitch that prohibits me from downloading them, so I rely on my
friends to tell me what they say).
B) Couldn't the rules be modified to allow the smaller, less
effective varieties of 'hill' (knoll and low ridge) to occur MORE
frequently and thus make an appearance?
C) Would it be possible (I recognize that this may seem
outrageous) to vary some of the results in new ways? My example would
be the low ridge. Low ridges (or even high ones) never seem to exist as
lone objects (at least to my observation--I'm sure someone can find an
example). Often, viewed from an airplane, low ridges look like waves or
ripples in the earth, with parallel crests marching on for miles. Why
not have some of the dice results provide TWO ridges, parallel to one
another--say, one in each deployment zone? (Hey, this is a VERY common
feature of ancients battlefields--two armies drawn up on ridges facing
each other).

3) Some wording has stuck with me and I wonder just what it means. "May
continue off board" is applied to BUAs--does that imply that other
terrain may NOT continue off board? this is primarily a modeling
question, but it has gameplay applications. For instance, it is an
accepted tactic for players who choose a hill and roll the wrong number
to toss a steep hill into the enemy deployment zone. Several of my
opponents over the years have chosen to do this on a flank, to shorten
my deployment area and ease the movement of an "on-table flank march".
Could such a terrain feature be modeled with a flat, 240 pace wide edge
and be considered to continue off board? (I could model such a hill so
that the slope was continuously DOWN from offboard to onboard, so that
my flank march was uphill on arrival.)
The gameplay implication is straightforward--as a number of my
local opponents now charge things from off board, and as these charges
often result in combats fought at the board edge, it is suddenly
important to judge what terrain everyone is actually in, especially if
Cavalry are chargeing loose infantry, for instance. Does the rough
ground continue off board, disordering the cavalry? Or is it all a
green lawn over there beyond the board edge?

Finally--and I realize this proposal is preposterous, but I'm thinking
out loud--shouldn't generals have the opportunity to refuse battle?
There are terrain situations where some armies would just not go--unless
driven by extreme need or tournament conditions. How about, after
terrain placement, allowing a general to forfeit one tournament point to
his opponent in exchange for doing terrain over? (Useable only
once--second battlefield is the final one). I admit this might eat an
extra few minutes, but it would even the terrain results. I admit, I'm
influenced by clawing through Thucydides right now--even the Spartans
refused battle in all kinds of terrain situations.

Sorry--I suspect I'm avoiding work. I'll pipe down now.

Christian


>
>

Greetings Christian,
I like aspects of your ideas on mixed terrain. Certainly many woods in a dry
area is going to be near a MiWF. If you are willing to run a tournament you can
playtest the refusal idea
TD

I was just discussing with our sponsor the idea of trying the terrain
refusal idea at Pandamonium, where we run a 25mm tourny. Not sure one
test will matter--in a 12 person tournament, I expect it could take
several tournaments before someone actually elected to do it...

Like I said, it's probably just an idea born of reading about how often
armies in Thucydides refused combat. It may not even pertain to the
Warrior tournament world. But I thought I'd run it up the flagpole.

Yeah, in dry--I spent years in the US Nav in Africa (long story) and on
the plains, the only trees you ever see are RIGHT on the watercourse.


>
>

[Doug]

The refusal idea is interesting, but could be used by corner-sitters
to get a cheap point.

Both players ought to declare in writing simultaneously, so if both
refuse there's no loss of points but terrain is done over.

[joncleaves]

Chris, the bottom line to your excellent terrain post is that I agree.

The issue is that we have to finally, finally get the base rule book done. At
that point, I can begin to produce options and x-rules and alternate tables and
all sorts of cool stuff. But I have to have a start point that is as solid as
we can make it. *Then* and only then, will I be delving into alternatives.

Jon


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

Thanks, Jon. No rush at all--except I'd like to know the ruling on "off
table terrain." Just to rehash--if, for instance, I place a hill in the
enemy rear zone, sloping from his flank board edge down toward his
center, are troops entering the table "uphill" if they charge vs. an
opponent at the table edge? There's a million riffs on this
theme--that's why I wanted to know whether terrain actually extends off
board.

I put too much stuff in that post--apologies.

Yours,
Christian

>
>

[joncleaves]

There is no off table terrain per se. But a hill may end at a table edge in
such a way as to allow an arriving body to be higher, yes.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: Christian and Sarah <cgc.sjw@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:42:45 -0500
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Some thoughts on terrain


Thanks, Jon. No rush at all--except I'd like to know the ruling on "off
table terrain." Just to rehash--if, for instance, I place a hill in the
enemy rear zone, sloping from his flank board edge down toward his
center, are troops entering the table "uphill" if they charge vs. an
opponent at the table edge? There's a million riffs on this
theme--that's why I wanted to know whether terrain actually extends off
board.

I put too much stuff in that post--apologies.

Yours,
Christian

>
>






Yahoo! Groups Links






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