Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[John Murphy]

I am just curious what generally is considered to be the amount of
consistent playing time (number of games over a period of time)
required to become, and remain (maybe seperate questions) proficient
at playing Warrior?

Of course, "proficient" could be interprpeted a number of ways. But
lets just say being comfortable with all (or enough of) the rules
mechanisms to the point of reliably planning multi-move tactics, and
being to the point of seeming to win maybe 50% of your games.

How important is sticking with one (or very similar) army to this?

[Ewan McNay]

Quoting John <jjmurphy@...>:

> I am just curious what generally is considered to be the amount of
> consistent playing time (number of games over a period of time)
> required to become, and remain (maybe seperate questions) proficient
> at playing Warrior?

Definitely separate questions.

Learning 7th, I played 2-3 times per week for maybe 3-4 years, starting from
scratch. That got me to winning UK titles, and I could then maintain that level
playing only in tournaments, basically - say ten weekends per year, forty games.

After coming to the US, my play has gone down to the point where over the past
few years I've played only in Lancaster at one or two tournaments a year,
essentially, and that's caused a marked dropoff, most noticeable to me in the
past say two-three years (and partly because I have not been able to put into
Warrior the level I put into 7th).

I would guess that playing 30-40 games per year is a good level for maintaining
a fair skill level, and will be enough to get better from an average baseline.
Much depends on opponents, of course - playing 30 games against rank novices
with equal armies will likely not teach much.

> How important is sticking with one (or very similar) army to this?

I don't think that it is. Understanding how ifferent troops interrelate both as
allies and as enemies is important. Once you're above that competence level,
then getting in enough practice with an army to be able to play it by feel is
important, and against a wide variety of opponents, but that's really for
mastery rather than competence.

IMO, naturally.

E

[Todd Schneider]

Well,

I play on averagae about 7-10 times a month. When I
first started out it was with Medieval German Leagues,
but I've gravitated to Romans.

I've gotten better, it takes Jon longer to beat me,
and my rules knowledge is pretty good as well. And I
am still learning something every game, which is good.
When Jon comes back from Cold Wars showing our local
gaming group a tactics he hasn't seen before, then I
know my learning prgression is ok.

My own personal definition of "proficient" would be
beating the top players in my area on a somewhat
regular basis, say, 3 times in 10, and then getting
better. I have to admit though, I was a bit spolied,
my first three games of Warrior (At a Fast Warrior
Tournament) were 1 win, 1 loss, and 1 tie, which lead
me to believe Warrior would be easy to pick
up....little did I know :-)

It took me awhile to figure out my style of play, and
finding an army to suit it. I am comfortable with the
choices I've made in that regards, but I've also been
looking at changing my Army in the future. Right now
though, I have Late Imperial Romans, and am also
working on 25mm Romans. Luckily for me, Jon has
enough 15mm lead I can use to let me experiment before
making my decision.

Todd



--- John <jjmurphy@...> wrote:

---------------------------------
I am just curious what generally is considered to be
the amount of
consistent playing time (number of games over a period
of time)
required to become, and remain (maybe seperate
questions) proficient
at playing Warrior?

Of course, "proficient" could be interprpeted a number
of ways. But
lets just say being comfortable with all (or enough
of) the rules
mechanisms to the point of reliably planning
multi-move tactics, and
being to the point of seeming to win maybe 50% of your
games.

How important is sticking with one (or very similar)
army to this?



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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.

[John Murphy]

Todd & Ewan, you both indicated an average of about 2 games per week
(100 games per year) for the learning process and sounds like
perhaps an average of at least 1 game per week (50 games per year)
after.

That seems like a lot. During the years off and on I have played
this sytem I would say I played an average of 1 game per month (call
it 10 games per year). And that is during an "on" year with no games
at all in "off" years. Not really that I do not want to play more,
but it seems just a bit difficult sometimes to find people to play
against more often.

In fact I am certain can actually count the individual games. Let's
see... for instance, my total actual "Warrior" experience can be
summarized as...

3 doubles games CW 2004
3 games Tim's NoVa quarterly tourney (1/month) Fall 2003
3 games H-con 2003 open
1 game H-con 2003 theme (Scott let me take a bye to go shopping)
3 games H-con 2003 mini
3 games ET's "in your face" NoVa tourney 2003
3 doubles games CW 2003

And then a lot of tactics learned off this list but not yet applied
on the table.

But that is 19 games in 15 months, a period of time I have
been 'involved' (heck, have to use the quotes relative to you folks)
in the system like none before (and I first played it in 1986-ish).
You would have to go back to the early days of TOG 7.6 (or maybe
just 1 game while Warrior was in development) to find my last game
prior to these 19. And that kind of gap is probably fairly
representative.

Sounds like I am never going to get anywhere then unless I find a
way to pack more games in. I am amazed, I really do not see how
people manage to do this!

Anyway, thanks for the info.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/3/2004 2:14:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

> Sounds like I am never going to get anywhere then unless I find a
> way to pack more games in. I am amazed, I really do not see
> how
> people manage to do this!
>
> Anyway, thanks for the info.>>

John, don't be discouraged. I am certainly biased, but i do not think you need
2 games a week to get and remain proficient in Warrior. Nor does Todd, at
least, actually accomplish that on any regular basis at the 1600 point
level...lol

It is true that here in KC of late we have been playing on monday nights and it
is possible to get two Fast Warrior or even 1200 point games in, but we are
between other gaming events and have been prepping for two back to back Warrior
events. Once past July and nearer to other such events as the next WW2 tourney,
that will slack off.

Also, let's distinguish between proficiency and being ready for the top end of
the NICT or Team Championship. My guess has always been that the winners of
those are playing Warrior exclusively (unlike yours truly who is involved in a
half dozen game systems at once at any given time, as well as playtesting new
stuff...). Those who concentrate in Warrior will *always* have an edge over
those who don't.

I play games in a group who normally meets to one degree or another twice a week
- one weeknight (here in KC it has been monday) and one weekend day (usually
saturday - if not every week, certainly every other).

My personal guess is that 'proficiency' takes a couple games a month at the 1600
level or more at 1200/FW levels.

Jon

[Todd Schneider]

Well, in a sense I am blessed because Jon and I live
very close to each other, and the KC group is very
active in Warrior, serving as the main "playtest"
group for all the rule sets in progress and coming
out, so theres always a game going on.

I happen to believe when Warrior Battles comes out it
will serve as a gateway to getting younger players
(and possibly DB(X)player ) into the game.

Speaking for myself, I think Fantasy Warrior will
bring alot of people to the game.

I am a lot more involved in Warrior than I had
orginally intended, but's it's all good.


Todd

--- John <jjmurphy@...> wrote:

---------------------------------
Todd & Ewan, you both indicated an average of about 2
games per week
(100 games per year) for the learning process and
sounds like
perhaps an average of at least 1 game per week (50
games per year)
after.

That seems like a lot. During the years off and on I
have played
this sytem I would say I played an average of 1 game
per month (call
it 10 games per year). And that is during an "on" year
with no games
at all in "off" years. Not really that I do not want
to play more,
but it seems just a bit difficult sometimes to find
people to play
against more often.

In fact I am certain can actually count the individual
games. Let's
see... for instance, my total actual "Warrior"
experience can be
summarized as...

3 doubles games CW 2004
3 games Tim's NoVa quarterly tourney (1/month) Fall
2003
3 games H-con 2003 open
1 game H-con 2003 theme (Scott let me take a bye to go
shopping)
3 games H-con 2003 mini
3 games ET's "in your face" NoVa tourney 2003
3 doubles games CW 2003

And then a lot of tactics learned off this list but
not yet applied
on the table.

But that is 19 games in 15 months, a period of time I
have
been 'involved' (heck, have to use the quotes relative
to you folks)
in the system like none before (and I first played it
in 1986-ish).
You would have to go back to the early days of TOG 7.6
(or maybe
just 1 game while Warrior was in development) to find
my last game
prior to these 19. And that kind of gap is probably
fairly
representative.

Sounds like I am never going to get anywhere then
unless I find a
way to pack more games in. I am amazed, I really do
not see how
people manage to do this!

Anyway, thanks for the info.



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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.

[Ewan McNay]

> --- John <jjmurphy@...> wrote:
> Todd & Ewan, you both indicated an average of about 2
> games per week
> (100 games per year) for the learning process and
> sounds like
> perhaps an average of at least 1 game per week (50
> games per year)
> after.
>
> That seems like a lot.

Oh, it is. At least back under 7th, when I was playing in both
countries, I think it was the single biggest factor in putting the UK
average player ahead of the US average: smaller distances, hence more
play.

I could not become a decent player from scratch these days - I have
too much else to do. Warrior's complexity, which I enjoy, prevents
such, I think. Just too much nuance. [Having said that, I'm talking
about total game time, *including* playing out solo games, rolling out
one-ono-one unit interactions, thinking about pods, playing with list
design, and so on. Often just as valuable as play for improvement.
So don't give up hope ]