Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Those of you who know me know I am the quiet type. So I will relate
some brief observations regarding tournements and let the comments
fly. I have been playing this set of rules since Jacob Kovel and Jon
Cleaves introduced me to them back when 6th Ed. transitioned to 7th
ed. I havn't been in the country much since then so I have never
really gotten into the tournement scene. That is until recently.

First.....it is really fun! I am impressed with the caliber of
players and the general friendliness of the games. I had always
heard so much about the rules lawyers and the arguments associated
with tournement play. I have not experienced either. Did I mention
the caliber of the palyers.....You all are good!! If you have not
participated in a tournement you really should. It is a blast and
more than likely you will learn a thing or two.

Second....I think we need to work a little more on the visual
appearance of our games/tounements. Have you ever watched a really
well put together wargame at a convention? They usually attract a
lot of attention and can serve as a good recruitment tool to get new
people involved. Even though we are not competing against WAB or DBM
I have to say that I have seen some outstanding WAB tournements
recently. I have played WAB several times and do not care for it but
I must confess I have been tempted. First, the players have
outstanding looking armies. Usually uniformally based...I mean that
the basing is "finished" and pretty good looking. I am not sure if
there is some type of WAB tournement rule regarding this but they all
seem to be finished models. Second, the gaming tables are decked
out. I remember one tournement here in Kansas City where all the
tables used a commercial gaming board, and the prize was a gladius
replica. Very attractive to watch and did I mention that the armies
looked great.

I do not propose that we go overboard. I would never suggest that we
prevent people from playing simply because their figures do not meet
a certain standard. However, I think that with a little effort we
can certainly improve the visual appearance of our tournements. For
example...what do you think about having preset terrain. Each table
could already be set up with two or three terrain pieces (perhaps
donated by a gaming company? or provided by the locals) and each
player gets to place one terrain piece. High roll gets to either
choose the side of the table or place their terrain piece first.
This would require more preperation from whomever is running the
tournement and may not be feasible at a big convention like
historicon but is workable at the smaller conventions. All this from
someone who has never run a tournement so I may be totally out to
lunch. But some of you may have some better or more workable
suggestions???

Well enough said. I am a visual guy. I have seen it done before and
I think we can do better. I just cringe when I see beautiful figures
being pushed accross a bare, ugly wooden table. It just doesn't seem
right especially since I think these are the best rules out there for
this period.

Keegan

[Tim Brown]

Personally, I would rather be handicapped by having to play on a beautiful
terrain board that wasn't ideally suited to my army than continuing to play
on the old ugly perfect felt plain when I got lucky and got four opens, or
worse, four rough areas of plain felt. While traveling with 25mm lead,
combined with having to transport terrain pieces , is indeed a lot of work,
surely we gamers have a big enough imagination that we could come up with an
workable idea or two. As for incentives, simply awarding an extra point for
great terrain might do it. I score a 5-1 victory combined with great terrain
equals a 6-1 victory. Both people have great terrain? 6-2, then. The home
army each game has to provide a suitable field to play on. I guarantee
terrain quality would simply skyrocket. Maybe instead add 2 or 3 points to
your overall modified score at the very end. Not as big an impact, but
serves still as an incentive and is a justifiable reward for having added
greatly to the visual aspect ,which can only benefit everyone. I realize
we're starting to get into that wishy washy area that Games Workshop so
dearly loves, but you have to admit their terrain and figs look great. And
THAT attracts new gamers beyond any thing else, period. Besides, nothing
else in 16 years of playing on the tournament has made any difference at all
over these years. Maybe it's time to shake things up a bit.

Tim Brown

( Who will indeed try this at the next PointCon tournament)

-----Original Message-----
From: keegantdad [mailto:jncsmom@...]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 5:00 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Tourney Commentary


Those of you who know me know I am the quiet type. So I will relate
some brief observations regarding tournements and let the comments
fly. I have been playing this set of rules since Jacob Kovel and Jon
Cleaves introduced me to them back when 6th Ed. transitioned to 7th
ed. I havn't been in the country much since then so I have never
really gotten into the tournement scene. That is until recently.

First.....it is really fun! I am impressed with the caliber of
players and the general friendliness of the games. I had always
heard so much about the rules lawyers and the arguments associated
with tournement play. I have not experienced either. Did I mention
the caliber of the palyers.....You all are good!! If you have not
participated in a tournement you really should. It is a blast and
more than likely you will learn a thing or two.

Second....I think we need to work a little more on the visual
appearance of our games/tounements. Have you ever watched a really
well put together wargame at a convention? They usually attract a
lot of attention and can serve as a good recruitment tool to get new
people involved. Even though we are not competing against WAB or DBM
I have to say that I have seen some outstanding WAB tournements
recently. I have played WAB several times and do not care for it but
I must confess I have been tempted. First, the players have
outstanding looking armies. Usually uniformally based...I mean that
the basing is "finished" and pretty good looking. I am not sure if
there is some type of WAB tournement rule regarding this but they all
seem to be finished models. Second, the gaming tables are decked
out. I remember one tournement here in Kansas City where all the
tables used a commercial gaming board, and the prize was a gladius
replica. Very attractive to watch and did I mention that the armies
looked great.

I do not propose that we go overboard. I would never suggest that we
prevent people from playing simply because their figures do not meet
a certain standard. However, I think that with a little effort we
can certainly improve the visual appearance of our tournements. For
example...what do you think about having preset terrain. Each table
could already be set up with two or three terrain pieces (perhaps
donated by a gaming company? or provided by the locals) and each
player gets to place one terrain piece. High roll gets to either
choose the side of the table or place their terrain piece first.
This would require more preperation from whomever is running the
tournement and may not be feasible at a big convention like
historicon but is workable at the smaller conventions. All this from
someone who has never run a tournement so I may be totally out to
lunch. But some of you may have some better or more workable
suggestions???

Well enough said. I am a visual guy. I have seen it done before and
I think we can do better. I just cringe when I see beautiful figures
being pushed accross a bare, ugly wooden table. It just doesn't seem
right especially since I think these are the best rules out there for
this period.

Keegan



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=214508.1858224.3361270.1501205/D=egroupmai
l/S=1705059080:HM/A=949165/rand=958415670>

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]

[Mike Turner]

Tom, Well said. As Jon Cleaves would tell you I'm a painter first. That
explains why my LIR's are taking so long. I'm working on a camp and nice
terrain like that which you brought to NASHCON two years ago.
Mike T.

-----Original Message-----
From: keegantdad [mailto:jncsmom@...]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 4:00 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Tourney Commentary


Those of you who know me know I am the quiet type. So I will relate
some brief observations regarding tournements and let the comments
fly. I have been playing this set of rules since Jacob Kovel and Jon
Cleaves introduced me to them back when 6th Ed. transitioned to 7th
ed. I havn't been in the country much since then so I have never
really gotten into the tournement scene. That is until recently.

First.....it is really fun! I am impressed with the caliber of
players and the general friendliness of the games. I had always
heard so much about the rules lawyers and the arguments associated
with tournement play. I have not experienced either. Did I mention
the caliber of the palyers.....You all are good!! If you have not
participated in a tournement you really should. It is a blast and
more than likely you will learn a thing or two.

Second....I think we need to work a little more on the visual
appearance of our games/tounements. Have you ever watched a really
well put together wargame at a convention? They usually attract a
lot of attention and can serve as a good recruitment tool to get new
people involved. Even though we are not competing against WAB or DBM
I have to say that I have seen some outstanding WAB tournements
recently. I have played WAB several times and do not care for it but
I must confess I have been tempted. First, the players have
outstanding looking armies. Usually uniformally based...I mean that
the basing is "finished" and pretty good looking. I am not sure if
there is some type of WAB tournement rule regarding this but they all
seem to be finished models. Second, the gaming tables are decked
out. I remember one tournement here in Kansas City where all the
tables used a commercial gaming board, and the prize was a gladius
replica. Very attractive to watch and did I mention that the armies
looked great.

I do not propose that we go overboard. I would never suggest that we
prevent people from playing simply because their figures do not meet
a certain standard. However, I think that with a little effort we
can certainly improve the visual appearance of our tournements. For
example...what do you think about having preset terrain. Each table
could already be set up with two or three terrain pieces (perhaps
donated by a gaming company? or provided by the locals) and each
player gets to place one terrain piece. High roll gets to either
choose the side of the table or place their terrain piece first.
This would require more preperation from whomever is running the
tournement and may not be feasible at a big convention like
historicon but is workable at the smaller conventions. All this from
someone who has never run a tournement so I may be totally out to
lunch. But some of you may have some better or more workable
suggestions???

Well enough said. I am a visual guy. I have seen it done before and
I think we can do better. I just cringe when I see beautiful figures
being pushed accross a bare, ugly wooden table. It just doesn't seem
right especially since I think these are the best rules out there for
this period.

Keegan



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/

[Dave Markowitz]

The best way to ensure the quality of terrain is to pre-place it before a
tournament. I know we've discussed this already on this board, but, its worth
mentioning again, a tournament with pre-set terrain is very different from one
where terrain is selected. Generally, barbarian armies that try to limit the
board with terrain are the most impacted. I don't really have a preference, and
in fact enjoy anything that speeds up deployment.

I know Todd has used this in the past in some of his tourneys. It also seems
like mini-warrior would be ideal for pre-set terrain.

Last, alghough I'm all for mimimum standars for both figures and for terrain,
I'm not for incorporating that into the concept of tourney points. Awards for
best painted army, unit and terrain is a better way to go in my opinion. Dave.

[Chris Bump]

Todd,

I couldn't agree with you more. I have always disliked the ability to
control (often times precisely) where terrrain is placed. We have proposed
pre-placed terrain down here in Tejas and gotten much resistance. I equally
dislike the +1 for "home field advantage" on terrain rolls. For every
Waterloo where one side picks the terrain there must be a hundred meeting
engagements or battles where each side simply had to deal with the terrain
given them.

Pre-placed terrain also allows for more effort in presentation. I find that
I greatly dislike the felt hills and square pieces of terrain seen so often
at tournaments. I am firmly in the camp that not only enjoys the painting,
but also likes the aethestic pleasures of a well presented miniature battle.
Way too many points to make. I agree with you whole-heartedly.

Chris

[Dave Smith]

Tom:

I concur 100% with your take on improving the visuals. I sponsored
and hosted the KC WAB tournament you mention. One of the things that
brought me back into this hobby is the visuals that you get from
wargaming (that and the comraderie, and, of course, the painting and
modeling of one's army). People enjoy this hobby for many reasons,
but I think most of us would agree, it provides the visuals that you
just can't get with board or computer games. So, why not put enjoy
the tournament or friendly games by making it visually satisfying.
Who wants to take 6 months to paint a beautiful army, only to put it
on an old army blanket.

Dave
http://www.miniwars.com

--- In WarriorRules@y..., "keegantdad" <jncsmom@g...> wrote:
> Those of you who know me know I am the quiet type. So I will
relate
> some brief observations regarding tournements and let the comments
> fly. I have been playing this set of rules since Jacob Kovel and
Jon
> Cleaves introduced me to them back when 6th Ed. transitioned to 7th
> ed. I havn't been in the country much since then so I have never
> really gotten into the tournement scene. That is until recently.
>
> First.....it is really fun! I am impressed with the caliber of
> players and the general friendliness of the games. I had always
> heard so much about the rules lawyers and the arguments associated
> with tournement play. I have not experienced either. Did I mention
> the caliber of the palyers.....You all are good!! If you have not
> participated in a tournement you really should. It is a blast and
> more than likely you will learn a thing or two.
>
> Second....I think we need to work a little more on the visual
> appearance of our games/tounements. Have you ever watched a really
> well put together wargame at a convention? They usually attract a
> lot of attention and can serve as a good recruitment tool to get
new
> people involved. Even though we are not competing against WAB or
DBM
> I have to say that I have seen some outstanding WAB tournements
> recently. I have played WAB several times and do not care for it
but
> I must confess I have been tempted. First, the players have
> outstanding looking armies. Usually uniformally based...I mean
that
> the basing is "finished" and pretty good looking. I am not sure if
> there is some type of WAB tournement rule regarding this but they
all
> seem to be finished models. Second, the gaming tables are decked
> out. I remember one tournement here in Kansas City where all the
> tables used a commercial gaming board, and the prize was a gladius
> replica. Very attractive to watch and did I mention that the
armies
> looked great.
>
> I do not propose that we go overboard. I would never suggest that
we
> prevent people from playing simply because their figures do not
meet
> a certain standard. However, I think that with a little effort we
> can certainly improve the visual appearance of our tournements.
For
> example...what do you think about having preset terrain. Each
table
> could already be set up with two or three terrain pieces (perhaps
> donated by a gaming company? or provided by the locals) and each
> player gets to place one terrain piece. High roll gets to either
> choose the side of the table or place their terrain piece first.
> This would require more preperation from whomever is running the
> tournement and may not be feasible at a big convention like
> historicon but is workable at the smaller conventions. All this
from
> someone who has never run a tournement so I may be totally out to
> lunch. But some of you may have some better or more workable
> suggestions???
>
> Well enough said. I am a visual guy. I have seen it done before
and
> I think we can do better. I just cringe when I see beautiful
figures
> being pushed accross a bare, ugly wooden table. It just doesn't
seem
> right especially since I think these are the best rules out there
for
> this period.
>
> Keegan

[Todd Kaeser]

I agree with Tim. I see too many armies whose figures
are not even flocked. The prizes for best camp are a
start, but we could go further - especially terrain.
Preset terrain works well, but you have to have a
variety of tables who have 0-6 pieces of terrain on
them. It does require more effort from the
organizers. However, it adds to the time of the
games; too many people take far to long to place
terrain.

Todd


--- "Brown,Tim" <Tim.Brown@...> wrote:
> Personally, I would rather be handicapped by having
> to play on a beautiful
> terrain board that wasn't ideally suited to my army
> than continuing to play
> on the old ugly perfect felt plain when I got lucky
> and got four opens, or
> worse, four rough areas of plain felt. While
> traveling with 25mm lead,
> combined with having to transport terrain pieces ,
> is indeed a lot of work,
> surely we gamers have a big enough imagination that
> we could come up with an
> workable idea or two. As for incentives, simply
> awarding an extra point for
> great terrain might do it. I score a 5-1 victory
> combined with great terrain
> equals a 6-1 victory. Both people have great
> terrain? 6-2, then. The home
> army each game has to provide a suitable field to
> play on. I guarantee
> terrain quality would simply skyrocket. Maybe
> instead add 2 or 3 points to
> your overall modified score at the very end. Not as
> big an impact, but
> serves still as an incentive and is a justifiable
> reward for having added
> greatly to the visual aspect ,which can only benefit
> everyone. I realize
> we're starting to get into that wishy washy area
> that Games Workshop so
> dearly loves, but you have to admit their terrain
> and figs look great. And
> THAT attracts new gamers beyond any thing else,
> period. Besides, nothing
> else in 16 years of playing on the tournament has
> made any difference at all
> over these years. Maybe it's time to shake things up
> a bit.
>
> Tim Brown
>
> ( Who will indeed try this at the next PointCon
> tournament)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: keegantdad [mailto:jncsmom@...]
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 5:00 PM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Tourney Commentary
>
>
> Those of you who know me know I am the quiet type.
> So I will relate
> some brief observations regarding tournements and
> let the comments
> fly. I have been playing this set of rules since
> Jacob Kovel and Jon
> Cleaves introduced me to them back when 6th Ed.
> transitioned to 7th
> ed. I havn't been in the country much since then so
> I have never
> really gotten into the tournement scene. That is
> until recently.
>
> First.....it is really fun! I am impressed with the
> caliber of
> players and the general friendliness of the games.
> I had always
> heard so much about the rules lawyers and the
> arguments associated
> with tournement play. I have not experienced either.
> Did I mention
> the caliber of the palyers.....You all are good!!
> If you have not
> participated in a tournement you really should. It
> is a blast and
> more than likely you will learn a thing or two.
>
> Second....I think we need to work a little more on
> the visual
> appearance of our games/tounements. Have you ever
> watched a really
> well put together wargame at a convention? They
> usually attract a
> lot of attention and can serve as a good recruitment
> tool to get new
> people involved. Even though we are not competing
> against WAB or DBM
> I have to say that I have seen some outstanding WAB
> tournements
> recently. I have played WAB several times and do
> not care for it but
> I must confess I have been tempted. First, the
> players have
> outstanding looking armies. Usually uniformally
> based...I mean that
> the basing is "finished" and pretty good looking. I
> am not sure if
> there is some type of WAB tournement rule regarding
> this but they all
> seem to be finished models. Second, the gaming
> tables are decked
> out. I remember one tournement here in Kansas City
> where all the
> tables used a commercial gaming board, and the prize
> was a gladius
> replica. Very attractive to watch and did I mention
> that the armies
> looked great.
>
> I do not propose that we go overboard. I would
> never suggest that we
> prevent people from playing simply because their
> figures do not meet
> a certain standard. However, I think that with a
> little effort we
> can certainly improve the visual appearance of our
> tournements. For
> example...what do you think about having preset
> terrain. Each table
> could already be set up with two or three terrain
> pieces (perhaps
> donated by a gaming company? or provided by the
> locals) and each
> player gets to place one terrain piece. High roll
> gets to either
> choose the side of the table or place their terrain
> piece first.
> This would require more preperation from whomever is
> running the
> tournement and may not be feasible at a big
> convention like
> historicon but is workable at the smaller
> conventions. All this from
> someone who has never run a tournement so I may be
> totally out to
> lunch. But some of you may have some better or more
> workable
> suggestions???
>
> Well enough said. I am a visual guy. I have seen
> it done before and
> I think we can do better. I just cringe when I see
> beautiful figures
> being pushed accross a bare, ugly wooden table. It
> just doesn't seem
> right especially since I think these are the best
> rules out there for
> this period.
>
> Keegan
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=214508.1858224.3361270.1501205/D=egroupmai
> l/S=1705059080:HM/A=949165/rand=958415670>
>
> 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]
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com

[Don Coon]

> Todd,
>
> I couldn't agree with you more. I have always disliked the ability to
> control (often times precisely) where terrrain is placed. We have
proposed
> pre-placed terrain down here in Tejas and gotten much resistance. I
equally
> dislike the +1 for "home field advantage" on terrain rolls.

I agree with this. +1 is very unfair. A point cost should be assigned to a
"+" on the terrain placement roll. Just like buying field fortifications
you can spend 20 points (this number is pulled out of the air BTW) for each
+1 to terrain rolls (+2 maximum). Of course everyone knows how I feel about
point costs (Reg C MI JLS+Sh, and Reg C LMI JLS+Sh both cost the same, yet
the later moves +1 barker, expands in follow up, and can skirmish - hmm).

> Pre-placed terrain also allows for more effort in presentation. I find
that
> I greatly dislike the felt hills and square pieces of terrain seen so
often
> at tournaments.

I am 100% in favor od preset terrain. I have fences and trees and cool
hills. I have hedges too. I love to put them over a felt terrain base.
However a few points: 1. Cool hills look great on the board, but suck to
work in the game with. That is why most people wing up using geohex shallow
sloped flat topped hills in the game. 2. Non square terrian ALWAYS leads to
disagreements about whether a unit is "in" or "out" of the terrain feature.
My terrain bases are straight not out of laziness, but out of game play
convenience. The rules do not help at all about "in" or "out" of terrain.
That is why we have a house rule for all terrian issues.

Don