Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[John Garlic]

Hey Jon,

This may be a Scott question. I like the Mongol list rule concerning
terrain. I realize the desire to have a decisive affect on the battlefield,
particularly in tournaments, and opening up the battlefield will do that. When,
no
hurry, you go back to look at older lists for the final listbooks, will you be
looking at terrain rules for those armies that tended to fight on more
cluttered battlefields?

John Garlic

In a message dated 2/21/2005 8:01:34 PM Central Standard Time,
JonCleaves@... writes:
There were many ways to overcome the constraints of a single rules set to
cover 4400 years. We chose list rules: state of the art, 'colorful' and
individualized.


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

[joncleaves]

When, no
hurry, you go back to look at older lists for the final listbooks, will you be
looking at terrain rules for those armies that tended to fight on more
cluttered battlefields?>>

I guess that is possible. Do you have someone in mind?

J

[John Garlic]

Hi Jon,

I really didn't have any one army in mind when mentioning the idea of terrain
list 'type' rules. I realize that right now the terrain rules seem
structured to allow for a quick, decisive conclusion which is important in a
tournament
environment.

I recently read Chaim Herzog's "Battles of the Bible" and was noting the
importance and frequency of the early Hebrews (in this case) fighting in broken
terrain. Even the list notes (BW #22) mention the use of "surprise attacks, and
careful use of difficult terrain." I am far from an expert on ancient
battlefields worldwide, but was just contemplating terrain list rules as a way
to
shape the battlefield since that's really what the Mongols have as an option
now. I realize the breadth of the Mongols experience, but in their own way,
most
armies were organized a certain way to fight in their home terrain.

Not looking to stir up a hornet's nest on the topic, just curious what other
options are out there. I haven't noticed as much discussion of terrain on the
list compared to army list construction and tactics like splitting fire,
etc.; but I think it is just as critical to success. I don't know what impact
terrain 'list' type rules would have on armies played, but since the option has
occurred, was just curious what other armies might be considered and what the
parameters would be.

Just to toss an idea out, perhaps a variable number of terrain choices for
selected armies or a bonus for certain types of terrain, might be a way to
modify terrain since we're talking terrain and list rules. Once again I realize
there is no way to please everyone, since any option gives someone something
they may not have had before. I am very happy with the system as it is, and
have
a long way to go on the learning curve; but, I am always pondering on it in
some way or the other. Every game I've played has been a fresh experience.

BTW, I really like OW. Great job all-around to FHE. Looking forward to CW.

John Garlic

In a message dated 2/22/2005 9:42:49 AM Central Standard Time,
JonCleaves@... writes:
When, no
hurry, you go back to look at older lists for the final listbooks, will you
be
looking at terrain rules for those armies that tended to fight on more
cluttered battlefields?>>

I guess that is possible. Do you have someone in mind?


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

[Greg Regets]

It would seem obvious that many armies should get some of the list
rules that appear in OW.

It would be hard to argue that Persians, Parthians, Palmyran,
Turks ... etc ... should not get the "Mongol Terrain Rule."

When creating these rules, it might have been a far better play to
have waited until all the list books were done, and then apply the
rules to all applicable armies in one fell swoop.

That said, it might be worthwhile asking for volunteers to head a
panel that would take existing list rules and present evidence on
what should apply to previous armies.

Thanks ... g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> When, no
> hurry, you go back to look at older lists for the final listbooks,
will you be
> looking at terrain rules for those armies that tended to fight on
more
> cluttered battlefields?>>
>
> I guess that is possible. Do you have someone in mind?
>
> J

[joncleaves]

It would be hard to argue that Persians, Parthians, Palmyran,
Turks ... etc ... should not get the "Mongol Terrain Rule.">>

The Mongol rule isn't about where they fought (they fought on every kind of
terrain). It is about their ability to operationally better choose where they
fought than their enemies could. It isn't at all hard to argue. This rule
isn't about fighting on open terrain in your homeland.

<<When creating these rules, it might have been a far better play to
have waited until all the list books were done, and then apply the
rules to all applicable armies in one fell swoop.>>

I suppose that makes sense if you buy the idea that the books are 'better' the
later you go because we got smarter about list rules or applied them more
liberally.

You may continue to ignore the fact that it may be that we chose the lists with
the best performances or the greatest difference between how they fought and how
standard Warrior mechanics represent them and did those books last because of
their difficulty and popularity. You may continue to ignore this.
But it is true.

<<That said, it might be worthwhile asking for volunteers to head a
panel that would take existing list rules and present evidence on
what should apply to previous armies.>>

No need. We accept such suggestions 24-7, always have and always will. Please
feel free to send us yours.

Jon

[Greg Regets]

Jon ... I'm not ignoring anything ... I have no idea the rational on
what order the books were written ... and really don't care for that
matter.

But ... from a players point of view, it does seem more than a bit
curious when something like 1HCW first appears in Feudal Warrior, and
that not A SINGLE ARMY ... not even one ... written prior to that,
seems to have passed the test to get this classification, and yet a
very high and ever growing percentage of armies written after, seems
to have passed this test.

I don't expect you to agree that this is curious, but you are the
author, not just another player. :-)

Happy Gaming ... g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> It would be hard to argue that Persians, Parthians, Palmyran,
> Turks ... etc ... should not get the "Mongol Terrain Rule.">>
>
> The Mongol rule isn't about where they fought (they fought on every
kind of terrain). It is about their ability to operationally better
choose where they fought than their enemies could. It isn't at all
hard to argue. This rule isn't about fighting on open terrain in
your homeland.
>
> <<When creating these rules, it might have been a far better play
to
> have waited until all the list books were done, and then apply the
> rules to all applicable armies in one fell swoop.>>
>
> I suppose that makes sense if you buy the idea that the books
are 'better' the later you go because we got smarter about list rules
or applied them more liberally.
>
> You may continue to ignore the fact that it may be that we chose
the lists with the best performances or the greatest difference
between how they fought and how standard Warrior mechanics represent
them and did those books last because of their difficulty and
popularity. You may continue to ignore this.
> But it is true.
>
> <<That said, it might be worthwhile asking for volunteers to head a
> panel that would take existing list rules and present evidence on
> what should apply to previous armies.>>
>
> No need. We accept such suggestions 24-7, always have and always
will. Please feel free to send us yours.
>
> Jon

[joncleaves]

<<I don't expect you to agree that this is curious, but you are the
author, not just another player. >>

It may be curious to you, but it was a very deliberate act by us. We were
pretty sure who we wanted to have list rules and 1HCW and etc, back in 1999.
It's just that we:

a) wanted to give ourselves more time to playtest

b) wanted, from a marketing standpoint, to have an ever increasing 'excitement
level' to the list books. NOT in terms of making each list book better, but in
terms of which lists were in them. The lists are making each book better by
themselves - it is the nature of who is in them and why we picked doing them in
the order we did. Can you imagine trying, in 2001 while we were preparing the
rulebook, trying also to get OW right? <shiver>
It just isn't a good idea. I'm sorry you don't understand this.

Hey, I'd love New Kingdom Egyptian to be a better tourney list. But it performs
as we believe it should against its historical opponents. As we mapped out
strategy, we deliberately did BW and DAW first because we knew this would be
true to a large extent for the armies involved.

No, I don't think any of the DAW lists should have 1HCW, for example. All the
candidates for that weapon have been identified and published.

J

[Todd Schneider]

I thought 1HCW was introduced with New World Warrior,
which was "published" about the same time Feudal was.

Todd


--- Greg Regets <greg.regets@...> wrote:


---------------------------------

Jon ... I'm not ignoring anything ... I have no idea
the rational on
what order the books were written ... and really don't
care for that
matter.

But ... from a players point of view, it does seem
more than a bit
curious when something like 1HCW first appears in
Feudal Warrior, and
that not A SINGLE ARMY ... not even one ... written
prior to that,
seems to have passed the test to get this
classification, and yet a
very high and ever growing percentage of armies
written after, seems
to have passed this test.

I don't expect you to agree that this is curious, but
you are the
author, not just another player. :-)

Happy Gaming ... g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a...
wrote:
> It would be hard to argue that Persians, Parthians,
Palmyran,
> Turks ... etc ... should not get the "Mongol Terrain
Rule.">>
>
> The Mongol rule isn't about where they fought (they
fought on every
kind of terrain). It is about their ability to
operationally better
choose where they fought than their enemies could. It
isn't at all
hard to argue. This rule isn't about fighting on open
terrain in
your homeland.
>
> <<When creating these rules, it might have been a
far better play
to
> have waited until all the list books were done, and
then apply the
> rules to all applicable armies in one fell swoop.>>
>
> I suppose that makes sense if you buy the idea that
the books
are 'better' the later you go because we got smarter
about list rules
or applied them more liberally.
>
> You may continue to ignore the fact that it may be
that we chose
the lists with the best performances or the greatest
difference
between how they fought and how standard Warrior
mechanics represent
them and did those books last because of their
difficulty and
popularity. You may continue to ignore this.
> But it is true.
>
> <<That said, it might be worthwhile asking for
volunteers to head a
> panel that would take existing list rules and
present evidence on
> what should apply to previous armies.>>
>
> No need. We accept such suggestions 24-7, always
have and always
will. Please feel free to send us yours.
>
> Jon





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I certainly do. I think certain armies trump the Mongols. These being folks in
Southeast Asia especially. As was noted by Marco Polo at the Battle of Vocna
(spelling not sure), it was the heavy woods that the Mongols (who were
retreating from the Burmese whithering fire) retreated into that disordered and
ultimately helped to dismounted (Yuan Mongol) troops to rout them. Although the
generalship in the Mongol armies are perhaps considered better, they still had
to dig their Southeast Asian opponents out of their jungle homes. I certainly
have no problems with Mongols trumping central Asian or even Middle Eastern or
European armies. But SE Asia should still be a special case.

k

JonCleaves@... wrote:
When, no
hurry, you go back to look at older lists for the final listbooks, will you be
looking at terrain rules for those armies that tended to fight on more
cluttered battlefields?>>

I guess that is possible. Do you have someone in mind?

J



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.

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

[Todd Kaeser]

So Kelly, you want the tropical armies of SE Asia to get MORE than homefield
advantage on every terrain role they will ever make??? Don't they already have
an advantage?

I understand that they kept the Mongols out of their jungles by forcing the
Mongols to enter their domain, but to give them more in this type of system in
unfair. Yes, they may have been master of their domain, but beyond that what
empire did they establish?

Todd K

kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@...> wrote:
I certainly do. I think certain armies trump the Mongols. These being folks in
Southeast Asia especially. As was noted by Marco Polo at the Battle of Vocna
(spelling not sure), it was the heavy woods that the Mongols (who were
retreating from the Burmese whithering fire) retreated into that disordered and
ultimately helped to dismounted (Yuan Mongol) troops to rout them. Although the
generalship in the Mongol armies are perhaps considered better, they still had
to dig their Southeast Asian opponents out of their jungle homes. I certainly
have no problems with Mongols trumping central Asian or even Middle Eastern or
European armies. But SE Asia should still be a special case.

k

JonCleaves@... wrote:
When, no
hurry, you go back to look at older lists for the final listbooks, will you be
looking at terrain rules for those armies that tended to fight on more
cluttered battlefields?>>

I guess that is possible. Do you have someone in mind?

J



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.

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



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I was thinking the same thing, but still understand Gregs point. I find it
strange that my Burmese crossbowmen can get 1HCW while many trained and more
worthy armies in DAW/Imperial Warrior and Feudal Warrior do not. . . There are a
few other inconsistencies as to Burmese as a list and Burmese as taken as allies
as well. I have asked some list questions a while back and am still awaiting a
response.

kelly

Todd Schneider <thresh1642@...> wrote:
I thought 1HCW was introduced with New World Warrior,
which was "published" about the same time Feudal was.

Todd


--- Greg Regets <greg.regets@...> wrote:


---------------------------------

Jon ... I'm not ignoring anything ... I have no idea
the rational on
what order the books were written ... and really don't
care for that
matter.

But ... from a players point of view, it does seem
more than a bit
curious when something like 1HCW first appears in
Feudal Warrior, and
that not A SINGLE ARMY ... not even one ... written
prior to that,
seems to have passed the test to get this
classification, and yet a
very high and ever growing percentage of armies
written after, seems
to have passed this test.

I don't expect you to agree that this is curious, but
you are the
author, not just another player. :-)

Happy Gaming ... g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a...
wrote:
> It would be hard to argue that Persians, Parthians,
Palmyran,
> Turks ... etc ... should not get the "Mongol Terrain
Rule.">>
>
> The Mongol rule isn't about where they fought (they
fought on every
kind of terrain). It is about their ability to
operationally better
choose where they fought than their enemies could. It
isn't at all
hard to argue. This rule isn't about fighting on open
terrain in
your homeland.
>
> <<When creating these rules, it might have been a
far better play
to
> have waited until all the list books were done, and
then apply the
> rules to all applicable armies in one fell swoop.>>
>
> I suppose that makes sense if you buy the idea that
the books
are 'better' the later you go because we got smarter
about list rules
or applied them more liberally.
>
> You may continue to ignore the fact that it may be
that we chose
the lists with the best performances or the greatest
difference
between how they fought and how standard Warrior
mechanics represent
them and did those books last because of their
difficulty and
popularity. You may continue to ignore this.
> But it is true.
>
> <<That said, it might be worthwhile asking for
volunteers to head a
> panel that would take existing list rules and
present evidence on
> what should apply to previous armies.>>
>
> No need. We accept such suggestions 24-7, always
have and always
will. Please feel free to send us yours.
>
> Jon





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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




---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball.

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

jmgarlic@... wrote:

Just to toss an idea out, perhaps a variable number of terrain choices for
selected armies or a bonus for certain types of terrain, might be a way to
modify terrain since we're talking terrain and list rules. Once again I realize
there is no way to please everyone, since any option gives someone something
they may not have had before. I am very happy with the system as it is, and
have
a long way to go on the learning curve; but, I am always pondering on it in
some way or the other. Every game I've played has been a fresh experience.


John Garlic

***** Just a note, this is a great idea and I'm surprised it hasn't been thought
of before. Kudos to you Johnny for thinking of it! :)



kw



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.

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

[Greg Regets]

Your comment about Burmese swordsmen, took the words right out of my
mouth Kelly. :-)

At least they have to pay for the weapon.

Thanks ... g




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> I was thinking the same thing, but still understand Gregs point. I
find it strange that my Burmese crossbowmen can get 1HCW while many
trained and more worthy armies in DAW/Imperial Warrior and Feudal
Warrior do not. . . There are a few other inconsistencies as to
Burmese as a list and Burmese as taken as allies as well. I have
asked some list questions a while back and am still awaiting a
response.
>
>
kelly
>
> Todd Schneider <thresh1642@s...> wrote:
> I thought 1HCW was introduced with New World Warrior,
> which was "published" about the same time Feudal was.
>
> Todd
>
>
> --- Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...> wrote:
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
> Jon ... I'm not ignoring anything ... I have no idea
> the rational on
> what order the books were written ... and really don't
> care for that
> matter.
>
> But ... from a players point of view, it does seem
> more than a bit
> curious when something like 1HCW first appears in
> Feudal Warrior, and
> that not A SINGLE ARMY ... not even one ... written
> prior to that,
> seems to have passed the test to get this
> classification, and yet a
> very high and ever growing percentage of armies
> written after, seems
> to have passed this test.
>
> I don't expect you to agree that this is curious, but
> you are the
> author, not just another player.
>
> Happy Gaming ... g
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a...
> wrote:
> > It would be hard to argue that Persians, Parthians,
> Palmyran,
> > Turks ... etc ... should not get the "Mongol Terrain
> Rule.">>
> >
> > The Mongol rule isn't about where they fought (they
> fought on every
> kind of terrain). It is about their ability to
> operationally better
> choose where they fought than their enemies could. It
> isn't at all
> hard to argue. This rule isn't about fighting on open
> terrain in
> your homeland.
> >
> > <<When creating these rules, it might have been a
> far better play
> to
> > have waited until all the list books were done, and
> then apply the
> > rules to all applicable armies in one fell swoop.>>
> >
> > I suppose that makes sense if you buy the idea that
> the books
> are 'better' the later you go because we got smarter
> about list rules
> or applied them more liberally.
> >
> > You may continue to ignore the fact that it may be
> that we chose
> the lists with the best performances or the greatest
> difference
> between how they fought and how standard Warrior
> mechanics represent
> them and did those books last because of their
> difficulty and
> popularity. You may continue to ignore this.
> > But it is true.
> >
> > <<That said, it might be worthwhile asking for
> volunteers to head a
> > panel that would take existing list rules and
> present evidence on
> > what should apply to previous armies.>>
> >
> > No need. We accept such suggestions 24-7, always
> have and always
> will. Please feel free to send us yours.
> >
> > Jon
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
>
>
> jmgarlic@a... wrote:
>
> Just to toss an idea out, perhaps a variable number of terrain
choices for
> selected armies or a bonus for certain types of terrain, might be
a way to
> modify terrain since we're talking terrain and list rules. Once
again I realize
> there is no way to please everyone, since any option gives someone
something
> they may not have had before. I am very happy with the system as
it is, and have
> a long way to go on the learning curve; but, I am always pondering
on it in
> some way or the other. Every game I've played has been a fresh
experience.
>
>
> John Garlic
>
> ***** Just a note, this is a great idea and I'm surprised it
hasn't been thought of before. Kudos to you Johnny for thinking of
it!
>
>
>
> kw>>

Actually, this appears in Fantasy Warrior. It was considered for a
number of armies in Warrior, but only the Mongols made the grade.

J

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Todd,

Thank you for making my point for me. They didn't really establish empires
outside of their own areas and that is why they should be able to trump the
Mongols ability to take away their features. Additionally, when one takes a
breath and notices that tropical armies always are home, you will recognize that
the original writer of these rules must have felt as I do.

kw

Todd Kaeser <hailkaeser@...> wrote:
So Kelly, you want the tropical armies of SE Asia to get MORE than homefield
advantage on every terrain role they will ever make??? Don't they already have
an advantage?

I understand that they kept the Mongols out of their jungles by forcing the
Mongols to enter their domain, but to give them more in this type of system in
unfair. Yes, they may have been master of their domain, but beyond that what
empire did they establish?

Todd K

kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@...> wrote:
I certainly do. I think certain armies trump the Mongols. These being folks in
Southeast Asia especially. As was noted by Marco Polo at the Battle of Vocna
(spelling not sure), it was the heavy woods that the Mongols (who were
retreating from the Burmese whithering fire) retreated into that disordered and
ultimately helped to dismounted (Yuan Mongol) troops to rout them. Although the
generalship in the Mongol armies are perhaps considered better, they still had
to dig their Southeast Asian opponents out of their jungle homes. I certainly
have no problems with Mongols trumping central Asian or even Middle Eastern or
European armies. But SE Asia should still be a special case.

k

JonCleaves@... wrote:
When, no
hurry, you go back to look at older lists for the final listbooks, will you be
looking at terrain rules for those armies that tended to fight on more
cluttered battlefields?>>

I guess that is possible. Do you have someone in mind?

J



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.

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



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.

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



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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