Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 10/22/2002 07:05:51 Central Daylight Time, gar@...
writes:

> I would like to thank Ewan for his fine article. I enjoyed reading it quite
> a bit.
>

I agree! It was a great contribution to debate.

> I have no idea why peoples opinions are so roundly criticised on this board.
> >>


Because that is what it is for. We are hardly asking for anything said here
by anyone, FHE or gamer, to be just accepted as gospel. Even answers to
rules questions....sigh.... ;)

<<I somehow doubt that there are waves of 13 year olds reading this forum, >>

Probably true. But it is a fact that new players read this forum. And it is
a fact that I get more offline questions about such postings than shows up
here and it is a fact that those questions could be headed off if we all did
a better job of couching opinion in opinion terms. New players, in every
game system, are very susceptible to latching on to what veterans say and
often question their own perfectly good choices when a vet declares such and
such troop type or tactic to be worthless. A little bit of 'in my gaming
style, that troop does not work' would do wonders. Ewan's article does do
that, quite often in fact. But there are still several declarative
statements that I feel should be addressed by an opposing viewpoint.

He even publicly asked for feedback. Sometimes feedback isn't simply 'hey,
great article, man' - sometimes people disagree. That's what feedback is
for.

> ...require protection from the 'evil' opinions of those open enough to share
> them.>>

They deserve to hear all sides of an issue, not have some veteran declare
their chosen troop type(s) worthless without dissent. Also, rules errors
must be addressed when made, especially by a 'veteran'. Ewan's article
should be a reminder to us all that there really aren't any Warrior veterans
yet as it has only been out since Feb and there ARE things in Warrior that
are not there or different in TOG.

I am not moderating this list so we can all just kumbayah every statement
made and march along blithely. Open discussion is invigorating to any
pursuit.

It is clear that 'banter' is a bad methodology here, however, and I will
strive to use another in my posts, despite my philosophy on grown men and
thick skins.

Another method I could have used in my feedback to Ewan would have been a
point-by-point counter to each claim that certain things are not cost
effective or worthless, but I personally despise 'kibbitzing' where one
player makes a claim that one thing works and then another counters and the
first counter-counters - all hypothetical until the table is played upon.

I think it would be more useful if we just stated, objectively, why we chose
to take what we did and not make any other subjective statements about the
choice. Really don't think that is too much to ask. That way I could have
just pointed out the rules error and let the rest go.

> <<I Wish You Well, Ewan ... Greg>>
>
>

Me too!!!! Hope you get to Cold Wars or HCon this year! ;)

Jon






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

[Greg Regets]

I would like to thank Ewan for his fine article. I enjoyed reading it quite a
bit.

I have no idea why peoples opinions are so roundly criticised on this board. I
somehow doubt that there are waves of 13 year olds reading this forum, that
require protection from the 'evil' opinions of those open enough to share them.

I Wish You Well, Ewan ... Greg


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

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
> They deserve to hear all sides of an issue, not have some veteran declare
> their chosen troop type(s) worthless without dissent. Also, rules errors
> must be addressed when made, especially by a 'veteran'. Ewan's article
> should be a reminder to us all that there really aren't any Warrior veterans
> yet as it has only been out since Feb and there ARE things in Warrior that
> are not there or different in TOG.

This I strongly agree with, and am grateful for. Of the two that Jon
noted, one (that the CinC does not have to be given a command) I knew
about, but would submit that it's in the same league as shieldless
Thorakitoi: possible in theory but I've never seen it done and would
think it silly. [Even when I ran Imperialists with 6 generals, the CinC
had a command]. The second (that one can alter one's order of march
after seeing terrain) I did _not_ know, and it's definitely a new
twist. It seems sensible to me in historical terms - if faced with a
given mass of woods on my left, would I-as-general not put my woods
troops all over there? - but I worry that it will lead to (i) increased
game time and (ii) increased potential for error in list construction.

Scott, do comps such as the NICT no longer require a list in order of
march?

> It is clear that 'banter' is a bad methodology here, however, and I will
> strive to use another in my posts, despite my philosophy on grown men and
> thick skins.

Banter is fine, Jon; it seems clear from the balance of feedback that
you are getting, however, that my own reaction to your response (that it
was overly defensive and aggressive) is shared by many, to the detriment
of your content and your aim of welcoming/encouraging players. I'll be
interested to see how whatever new writing style you adopt comes across
.

> I think it would be more useful if we just stated, objectively, why we chose
> to take what we did and not make any other subjective statements about the
> choice. Really don't think that is too much to ask. That way I could have
> just pointed out the rules error and let the rest go.

I guess - to go back to the shieldless LHI that are causing so much
rancour - that I could have said something like "removing the shields
would give you a troop type that is more expensive than shielded LMI but
less effective in every relevant situation, because the bonus for troops
firing or fighting against shieldless LHI is greater than the reduction
in the factor for LHI vs. LMI" or some such long-windedness. But I
think that would be daft; characterising the choice as dumb is concise
and accurate. If the reader is experience, s/he will know why; if not,
they may take it as fact and learn why later.

> Me too!!!! Hope you get to Cold Wars or HCon this year! ;)

H'con might happen. Then I'll have to campaign for an NICT wildcard :)

[joncleaves]

I take CINCs out of commands all the time. Depends on the army, opponent and
terrain and where I want each command's break point to be and whether it is a
fighting CINC or a recovering CINC. I am not alone here, certainly.

It would be against the rules for NASAMW to require commands before play. They
do not do that, nor would I or Scott support it.

I do take preprinted army lists, but I have a column to mark what command each
body is in after I see the terrain. Many TOG players have not read that part of
the rulebook yet, making bad assumptions about what of the old engine carried
over.

> Banter is fine, Jon; it seems clear from the balance of feedback that
> you are getting, however, that my own reaction to your response (that it
> was overly defensive and aggressive) is shared by many,>>

Not even close. But not all feedback is on the group..... Specifically,
your comments on my Spearpoint article have caused quite a few mails to show up
in my box....lol. You do know I picked NKE because you wouldn't be caught dead
playing them, right? ;)

<< to the detriment of your content and your aim of welcoming/encouraging
players.>>

That is an issue and I will not be letting it go anytime soon. And the vocal
minority here certainly will not dissuade me. I'll do anything to keep the new
players getting a balanced view of army selection and tactical choices.

<<I'll be interested to see how whatever new writing style you adopt comes
across .>>

You do know I was kidding, yes? ;)

J

[scott holder]

It would be against the rules for NASAMW to require commands before play. The
y do not do that, nor would I or Scott support it.

>Um, in TOG and in the NICT ever since I began running it, pre-done commands l
isted in order or march *were* required. Obviously that will be modified for
next year.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 10/22/2002 10:20:36 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Scott.Holder@... writes:

> >Um, in TOG and in the NICT ever since I began running it, pre-done commands l
> isted in order or march *were* required. Obviously that
> will be modified for
> next year>>

Of course, you did not run this year's NICT or the other tourneys at HCon and it
was done right...lol

But you did run Cold Wars, which was the first Warrior Con, and we did talk
about this and we did not require players have predone commands, although some
came that way anyway who had not read the Warrior rulebook all the way yet.
Hmmm, maybe this is why you had such screwed up commands in the team tourney
game we played...... :)

Warrior isn't TOG. My Australian friends have made a nice document of the
'differences' that is a few pages long, which points to part of the issue. We
even had players come to this year's Warrior tournaments with TOG rulebooks, and
they had some surprises in store...which is the reason for us checking for the
right rulebook at tourneys now, as silly as that might seem.
They aren't the same game, despite the similarities.

Yes, TOG made you determine your command structure without knowing your opponent
or the terrain. Warrior does not, which is in line with historical reality (in
fact, some army commanders aligned units under generals after seeing the enemy
DISPOSITIONS, but damn hard to simulate that...)

Read the pregame sequence of play, 3.1.

Jon

[Mark Mallard]

i second that

well done ewan

i do not agree with everything in the article - but so what. That is what
makes us different players.

mark mallard


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