Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:

> I don't agree with this thread. We cannot control the staying power of the
> armies we choose. Scott does that with the lists and minimums he mandates or
> historical data does. In most sports save golf maybe defense is prized at
> least as much as offense. If we/ any of us runs across a general who takes a
> defensive stance then our generalship is tested. How vanilla is it to
> mandate that during tournaments all must come out swinging. Let the armies
> play to their abilities lest we want to see a return of the killer army
> tournaments.
>

Since, back in the day, I had a fairly direct hand in setting the precedents
that led to our current scoring system and the aggression it encourages, I
couldn't let this pass without weighing and offering some context.

First of all, let's be clear: defense can still be prized in sports that
encourage action. This year's Super Bowl champions are a testament to that. The
NFL has consistently changed the rules in recent years (giving the quarterback
more protection and more freedom, moving back kickoff lines to encourage forward
field position,etc) to favor offense. This does lead to higher scoring, more
offense-oriented games, but does not prevent the best defensive team _within_
those contraints, from becoming overall champion. Football is not alone; lots of
sports encourage action and offense. Why do you think we have a shot clock in
basketball? I'm old enough to remember with some dread the "Four Corners" style
offenses of the pre-shot clock days in college basketball.

Now some background on Warrior and TOG.

The current tournament scoring system has been in placed without major
alteration for something like 10 years. The fact that we've stuck with it so
long is some indication that it's working. Prior to the current system, there
was constant tinkering with the system.

Prior to the current system, a bloodless draw was more valuable than a bloody
loss. Naturally, people played a very skirmishing, low risk style of play. And
we only had one finals game on Sundays. Whoever won on Sunday morning, by
however slim a margin, was the winner.

Which led to this scene at Cold Wars in, I believe, 1991:

Dave Stier and I were playing Tibetans in the team tournament, and had done
quite nicely in the 15mm bracket. 15mm saw an abundance of ligh cav armies,
which didn't really like facing bow-armed SHC. We ran across one elephat army
(Alexandrian Imperial), but handled them nicely with the Nepalese allies (lots
of LI B, and Irr B LMI JLS, Sh).

In 25mm my friends and fellow west coasters, Lenny Hermann and Dave Mara, were
mopping up the opposition with Seleucids, played in a very competent and
traditional style in the days of TOG.

The finals were done in 25mm that year, meaning Dave Stier and I had to borrow
figures to cobble together a Tibetan army. We expected a fight, albeit one where
we were at a disadvantage. Our biggest concern was the Seleucid elephants, and
the fact that though the Nepalese can be effective against elephants, you need
to be careful and you need a little help from the dice.

To our surprise, Lenny and Dave Marra took no elephants. They took four hills,
and they bought the maximum number of pikemen. They then set up their pikemen in
a solid wall on the hills in a corner, and just sat there.

Why not? After all, one shaken unit would be decisive that day. Why take even
the smallest risk?

Dave Stier and I had a furious debate about what to do. The Seleucids had one
pike unit not on a hill, and I wanted to charge it with our Irr A HC. Sure, we
start out losing, indeed likely routing, but an up roll would have disordered
the pike block and made it easier meat for the SHC. And so what if the HC
routed? Irr As are self rallying, and we had enough control of the field to keep
other units from waver testing. I just couldn't see any other way we were going
to draw blood.

Dave Stier refused, and to this day I won't say he was wrong. We were being
challenged to play at a disadvantage in order to try and win, and he just flat
out refused.

After two hours it was clear that neither side was going to engage the other.
The pikemen were not going to move forward, and our shock cavalry were not going
to move forward. Poor Scott Holder tried desperately to find some way to
motivate a battle out of the situation, to no avail. In the end he had no choice
but to call it a draw, and award the championship to both teams.

The current scoring system went into place very quickly after that, as did two
game finals on Sunday.

Great defensive generals can and do win. But you have to be willing to engage
your opponent. We have limited time, and a real need to get to a decisive result
within that time. That's a fact of our tournament game. Scott and Jon have done
a remarkable job of crafting Warrior into something that encourages action,
encourages engagement, in lots of subtle ways. They've done all this while
making _more_ army lists tournament viable.

I, for one, don't want to see field fortifications, stone walls, or any other
strategems undo the great work they've done, and I support any clarifications
they make, or changes to tournament structure, that continue this trend of
encouraging action.

I don't fault Lenny or Dave Marra for their strategy that day; they played the
rules they were given in the way they thought best. But having personally lived
through the low point in defensive tournament play, I don't ever want to return
to anything even remotely like those playing conditions.


-Mark Stone