Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[John Garlic]

Hi Tim and Jon,

Let me preface my remarks with the statement that I really like Warrior and
have thoroughly enjoyed all of the games I've played. Except for one FW game
with my son, all of my games have been in a tournament setting and I've enjoyed
meeting all of the guys I've played against.

Currently, I believe the real impetus is towards fair and open slugfests,
which, despite the large selection of armies available, are not the way all
armies fought. I realize that I have a choice as to which army I choose and
personally, I try to keep the game moving. It does seem that there is a lot of
'blame' placement on one player or the other if the game isn't a 5-? victory in
someone's favour. I like a decisive result whether in my favour or against me,
but also realize that indecisive results are also quite common historically.
It does seem that the players who choose their armies more based on personal
interest than tournament viability are often looking to use terrain and
stratagems to maximize the potential of an army that is often outgunned in an
open
stand up fight. If I choose to show up at a tournament with a biblical army
with little other than sort pointy sticks, I'm gonna be pretty hard pressed to
use every tactic and stratagem I can think of to avoid getting overrun by tin
cans with long pointy sticks. If I lose the game and it ends 3-2, I resent the
implication that I stole someone's victory (I was trying to win 5-3). If
someone wants a 5-? win, then they ought to be prepared to earn it.

I don't have a problem if the lateral water feature disappears or is
seriously constrained since I go to tournaments and game days to fight, but I do
think
more fog of war is a good thing. Right now the rock, paper, scissors
argument reminds me of vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry. I'd like to see a
lot
more flavours out there. The more trying, challenging, and foggy the
circumstances, the better.

John Garlic

BTW, I really dislike having to reveal that 4.5 (or whatever) scouting points
are missing. It's not much of an ambush if I hafta tell ya its out there.
If everything has to be that open, why don't we just swap army lists before we
start?


In a message dated 6/27/2005 11:52:25 AM Central Standard Time,
JonCleaves@... writes:
Despite the closeness of my friendship with Tim, I must add in the dissenting
view.

Tim implies that due to his choice of army list and its construction, it is
the other player's responsibility to attack - possible under insane tactical
conditions - a highly defensible position.
It is not, in fact, that player's 'fault' his opponent has chosen to 'sit'
and he bears no responibility to 'make a game of it.'

This creates a situation where a 'spoiler' can choose not to contest a game,
not caring for his own score or overall position in the event, and force the
other player to do something that makes no sense or accept a low score and also
sit.

Just to show that Warrior is for the players and not for its author, if it
were solely up to my personal preference, lateral minor water features would not
be possible in open tourney venues....

Not wanting to open this 'debate' again. We have said as a group that
sitting is ok, mostly by permitting certain terrain combinations. But what is
not
ok is the implication that the other guy choosing to not attack represents
something 'wrong' and that he should be trying to throw his army at the defender
to make it a 'fair fight'. The sitter has quite probably taken both players
out of the game and bears any and all responsibility for the outcome of the
decision to sit.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Grimmett <grimmetttim@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 09:39:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [WarriorRules] When to "Sit"


I've been monitoring this dialogue for quite some time and have enjoyed the
various points of view.

As the player at the other end of the table I thought I'd add my perspective.

I was playing Gauls against a knight and, more important, light cav army.
Outscouted, I threw down the minor water feature and marsh, and didn't get a
major water feature and woods.

Due to the army mismatch I chose to make the knight army earn his points and
set
up my Gauls behind the Minor water feature with hold orders. On an open
battlefield, the knight and light cav I was facing would force me into a
series
of futile charges followed by some thunderous knight charge into tired
warbands
at the 3-hour mark of the game.

John and I discussed the flank march option at the end of the game and I
understood the reasons for his decision not to do so; I may or may not have
done
the same.

Given the same matchup, I'd likely play the same, hoping to force a knight
charge across an obstacle, and role up. If he had more foot and less LC I
might
have played it differently.

"Sitting", in my view, was the only option. (The Mongol ability to "pick up"
terrain is a real show stopper in this regard).

Bottom line--if I've got a scissors against your rock I'm going to use every
ploy in the book to equalize the odds.




ewan.mcnay@... wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005, John wrote:
> But forget it - it was just an off the wall question of not great
> import that has probably stirred the pot more than it was worth.

That last is certainly untrue. Having to face a 'sitter' is not
ridiculously uncommon (although rarer than a few years back, is my guess),
and the increased thought that's going into use of TFs in particular may
make the occurrence a little higher.


__________________________________________________
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]




Yahoo! Groups Links






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




Yahoo! Groups Links





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

[Tim Grimmett]

I've been monitoring this dialogue for quite some time and have enjoyed the
various points of view.

As the player at the other end of the table I thought I'd add my perspective.

I was playing Gauls against a knight and, more important, light cav army.
Outscouted, I threw down the minor water feature and marsh, and didn't get a
major water feature and woods.

Due to the army mismatch I chose to make the knight army earn his points and set
up my Gauls behind the Minor water feature with hold orders. On an open
battlefield, the knight and light cav I was facing would force me into a series
of futile charges followed by some thunderous knight charge into tired warbands
at the 3-hour mark of the game.

John and I discussed the flank march option at the end of the game and I
understood the reasons for his decision not to do so; I may or may not have done
the same.

Given the same matchup, I'd likely play the same, hoping to force a knight
charge across an obstacle, and role up. If he had more foot and less LC I might
have played it differently.

"Sitting", in my view, was the only option. (The Mongol ability to "pick up"
terrain is a real show stopper in this regard).

Bottom line--if I've got a scissors against your rock I'm going to use every
ploy in the book to equalize the odds.




ewan.mcnay@... wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005, John wrote:
> But forget it - it was just an off the wall question of not great
> import that has probably stirred the pot more than it was worth.

That last is certainly untrue. Having to face a 'sitter' is not
ridiculously uncommon (although rarer than a few years back, is my guess),
and the increased thought that's going into use of TFs in particular may
make the occurrence a little higher.


__________________________________________________
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]

[joncleaves]

Despite the closeness of my friendhsip with Tim, I must add in the dissenting
view.

Tim implies that due to his choice of army list and its construction, it is the
other player's responsibility to attack - possible under insane tactical
conditions - a highly defensible position.
It is not, in fact, that player's 'fault' his opponent has chosen to 'sit' and
he bears no responibility to 'make a game of it.'

This creates a situation where a 'spoiler' can choose not to contest a game, not
caring for his own score or overall position in the event, and force the other
player to do something that makes no sense or accept a low score and also sit.

Just to show that Warrior is for the players and not for its author, if it were
solely up to my personal preference, lateral minor water features would not be
possible in open tourney venues....

Not wanting to open this 'debate' again. We have said as a group that sitting
is ok, mostly by permitting certain terrain combinations. But what is not ok is
the implication that the other guy choosing to not attack represents something
'wrong' and that he should be trying to throw his army at the defender to make
it a 'fair fight'. The sitter has quite probably taken both players out of the
game and bears any and all responsibility for the outcome of the decision to
sit.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Grimmett <grimmetttim@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 09:39:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [WarriorRules] When to "Sit"


I've been monitoring this dialogue for quite some time and have enjoyed the
various points of view.

As the player at the other end of the table I thought I'd add my perspective.

I was playing Gauls against a knight and, more important, light cav army.
Outscouted, I threw down the minor water feature and marsh, and didn't get a
major water feature and woods.

Due to the army mismatch I chose to make the knight army earn his points and set
up my Gauls behind the Minor water feature with hold orders. On an open
battlefield, the knight and light cav I was facing would force me into a series
of futile charges followed by some thunderous knight charge into tired warbands
at the 3-hour mark of the game.

John and I discussed the flank march option at the end of the game and I
understood the reasons for his decision not to do so; I may or may not have done
the same.

Given the same matchup, I'd likely play the same, hoping to force a knight
charge across an obstacle, and role up. If he had more foot and less LC I might
have played it differently.

"Sitting", in my view, was the only option. (The Mongol ability to "pick up"
terrain is a real show stopper in this regard).

Bottom line--if I've got a scissors against your rock I'm going to use every
ploy in the book to equalize the odds.




ewan.mcnay@... wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005, John wrote:
> But forget it - it was just an off the wall question of not great
> import that has probably stirred the pot more than it was worth.

That last is certainly untrue. Having to face a 'sitter' is not
ridiculously uncommon (although rarer than a few years back, is my guess),
and the increased thought that's going into use of TFs in particular may
make the occurrence a little higher.


__________________________________________________
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]




Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[John Garlic]

Hi Jon,

As stated earlier, I am happy with current rules, but always pondering other
ideas. I definitely wouldn't want to try anything that would either break or
jeopardize the current system.

On limiting disclosure, I realize I must give the flankers orders. I would
be willing to roll for character in front of ump or just roll it as they
arrive. If I've decided to commit to a flank march, there's not much I can do
on
the interpretation anyways.

I agree that the flank march falls in with tactical and opponent will be
apprised that something is up due to die roll for arrival. I just didn't want
to
be too specific about what is actually in the approaching dust off to the
flank. Is it one big unit, or several smaller?

You might even consider allowing for a 'flank' march that arrives in your own
rear zone, opening a possibility for late arriving commands in the battle
zone. If you wanted to make it fairly easy, it could arrive on a 1-4 with a 1
being right and a 4 being left. Fatigue could be considered or simply dropped.
This would allow a reserve to be committed with a fair degree of certainty
around bound 2 - 3 and would keep the enemy guessing on content.

On the scouting points, perhaps you could allow an option for rounding off to
say the nearest 5 or 10. If it's something real close, as far as
outscouting, I'd be willing to let the umpire or neighboring table check final
numbers.
Another way is to allow the player to declare an amount of scouting points up
to his total. If I have 32 scouting points, but have a 4E LI in ambush I
might declare only 30. This may limit my chance to outscout, but as the
general,
I have to decide what 'resources' to commit to scouting.

An option to fuzz things up for both sides (probably better in a friendly
game than tournament) would be to have morale be slightly dicey. In other words
when I purchase my B class troops, that is how they will perform 'most' of the
time. At a units first waver/HTH roll, you roll a 1d6. On a 1 they perform
as one class lower for the battle and on a 6 they perform one class higher.
That could be change to snakes and boxcars on 2d6 if wanted. Once again, this
is probably not a tournament idea, but it would put more uncertainty into the
game. Even elite units have bad days, and sometimes conscripts come through
in a pinch.

Just thinking aloud,
John Garlic

In a message dated 6/27/2005 1:17:42 PM Central Standard Time,
JonCleaves@... writes:
Well said, John. Would you (and anyone else) care to offer up some fog of
war suggestions that I can put into the options in 14.0? I assume you would
like generals' character to be rolled for once they are on the table>

Note the issue is, that command on the flank needs an order. Therefore you
need to know the general's character in order to interpret. You'd need to do
this before issuing the order, so you have to roll at the outset. in order to
'disguise' the command flank marching, you would have to do this roll in
secret and there are many issues with that in a tourney.

Note also that flank marches in 14.0 are tactical and not operational. They
are not that far off the battlefield and would not necessarily be entirely
unknown to the enemy...


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

[Ewan McNay]

I think that this deserves one of my rare 'me too' posts.

I don't know any current US tournament players who are chronic
corner-sitters. So, I completely agree that if you decide that the best
move in a given situation is to do X, where X is anything within the
rules, that's 100% legit. No blame to apportion regardless of result.
Yes, it may take folk out of the running for a tournament; so does losing .

Second, I echo your feelings on over-disclosure; I think that dicing for
generals could easily be done before the ump, rather than one's opponent,
and that flank marches should be diced for regardless of their existence
until the point where it/they might arrive. Scouting is more debatable; I
like, for instance, having 4E LI units slightly because they match up
against the scouting of a 2E loose cav unit, preserving some possibilities
of deception, and I don't see an easy way to avoid announcing onee's
scouting points*.

But we're not going to win on these points .

E

*Actually, that isn't true either. I see no problem with only announcing
your army's scout strength if you are trying to outscout, and the other
side announcing merely 'successful' (in which case you get to know his
exact scouting strength) or 'not'. But that, too, is not going to happen.

jmgarlic@... wrote:

> Hi Tim and Jon,
>
> Let me preface my remarks with the statement that I really like Warrior and
> have thoroughly enjoyed all of the games I've played. Except for one FW game
> with my son, all of my games have been in a tournament setting and I've
enjoyed
> meeting all of the guys I've played against.
>
> Currently, I believe the real impetus is towards fair and open slugfests,
> which, despite the large selection of armies available, are not the way all
> armies fought. I realize that I have a choice as to which army I choose and
> personally, I try to keep the game moving. It does seem that there is a lot
of
> 'blame' placement on one player or the other if the game isn't a 5-? victory
in
> someone's favour. I like a decisive result whether in my favour or against
me,
> but also realize that indecisive results are also quite common historically.
> It does seem that the players who choose their armies more based on personal
> interest than tournament viability are often looking to use terrain and
> stratagems to maximize the potential of an army that is often outgunned in an
open
> stand up fight. If I choose to show up at a tournament with a biblical army
> with little other than sort pointy sticks, I'm gonna be pretty hard pressed to
> use every tactic and stratagem I can think of to avoid getting overrun by tin
> cans with long pointy sticks. If I lose the game and it ends 3-2, I resent
the
> implication that I stole someone's victory (I was trying to win 5-3). If
> someone wants a 5-? win, then they ought to be prepared to earn it.
>
> I don't have a problem if the lateral water feature disappears or is
> seriously constrained since I go to tournaments and game days to fight, but I
do think
> more fog of war is a good thing. Right now the rock, paper, scissors
> argument reminds me of vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry. I'd like to see a
lot
> more flavours out there. The more trying, challenging, and foggy the
> circumstances, the better.
>
> John Garlic
>
> BTW, I really dislike having to reveal that 4.5 (or whatever) scouting points
> are missing. It's not much of an ambush if I hafta tell ya its out there.
> If everything has to be that open, why don't we just swap army lists before we
> start?
>
>
> In a message dated 6/27/2005 11:52:25 AM Central Standard Time,
> JonCleaves@... writes:
> Despite the closeness of my friendship with Tim, I must add in the dissenting
> view.
>
> Tim implies that due to his choice of army list and its construction, it is
> the other player's responsibility to attack - possible under insane tactical
> conditions - a highly defensible position.
> It is not, in fact, that player's 'fault' his opponent has chosen to 'sit'
> and he bears no responibility to 'make a game of it.'
>
> This creates a situation where a 'spoiler' can choose not to contest a game,
> not caring for his own score or overall position in the event, and force the
> other player to do something that makes no sense or accept a low score and
also
> sit.
>
> Just to show that Warrior is for the players and not for its author, if it
> were solely up to my personal preference, lateral minor water features would
not
> be possible in open tourney venues....
>
> Not wanting to open this 'debate' again. We have said as a group that
> sitting is ok, mostly by permitting certain terrain combinations. But what is
not
> ok is the implication that the other guy choosing to not attack represents
> something 'wrong' and that he should be trying to throw his army at the
defender
> to make it a 'fair fight'. The sitter has quite probably taken both players
> out of the game and bears any and all responsibility for the outcome of the
> decision to sit.
>
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Grimmett <grimmetttim@...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 09:39:34 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: [WarriorRules] When to "Sit"
>
>
> I've been monitoring this dialogue for quite some time and have enjoyed the
> various points of view.
>
> As the player at the other end of the table I thought I'd add my perspective.
>
> I was playing Gauls against a knight and, more important, light cav army.
> Outscouted, I threw down the minor water feature and marsh, and didn't get a
> major water feature and woods.
>
> Due to the army mismatch I chose to make the knight army earn his points and
> set
> up my Gauls behind the Minor water feature with hold orders. On an open
> battlefield, the knight and light cav I was facing would force me into a
> series
> of futile charges followed by some thunderous knight charge into tired
> warbands
> at the 3-hour mark of the game.
>
> John and I discussed the flank march option at the end of the game and I
> understood the reasons for his decision not to do so; I may or may not have
> done
> the same.
>
> Given the same matchup, I'd likely play the same, hoping to force a knight
> charge across an obstacle, and role up. If he had more foot and less LC I
> might
> have played it differently.
>
> "Sitting", in my view, was the only option. (The Mongol ability to "pick up"
> terrain is a real show stopper in this regard).
>
> Bottom line--if I've got a scissors against your rock I'm going to use every
> ploy in the book to equalize the odds.
>
>
>
>
> ewan.mcnay@... wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005, John wrote:
>
>>But forget it - it was just an off the wall question of not great
>>import that has probably stirred the pot more than it was worth.
>
>
> That last is certainly untrue. Having to face a 'sitter' is not
> ridiculously uncommon (although rarer than a few years back, is my guess),
> and the increased thought that's going into use of TFs in particular may
> make the occurrence a little higher.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

[joncleaves]

Well said, John. Would you (and anyone else) care to offer up some fog of war
suggestions that I can put into the options in 14.0? I assume you would like
generals' character to be rolled for once they are on the table>

Note the issue is, that command on the flank needs an order. Therefore you need
to know the general's character in order to interpret. You'd need to do this
before issuing the order, so you have to roll at the outset. in order to
'disguise' the command flank marching, you would have to do this roll in secret
and there are many issues with that in a tourney.

Note also that flank marches in 14.0 are tactical and not operational. They are
not that far off the battlefield and would not necessarily be entirely unknown
to the enemy...

J

-----Original Message-----
From: jmgarlic@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 13:58:21 EDT
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] When to "Sit"


Hi Tim and Jon,

Let me preface my remarks with the statement that I really like Warrior and
have thoroughly enjoyed all of the games I've played. Except for one FW game
with my son, all of my games have been in a tournament setting and I've enjoyed
meeting all of the guys I've played against.

Currently, I believe the real impetus is towards fair and open slugfests,
which, despite the large selection of armies available, are not the way all
armies fought. I realize that I have a choice as to which army I choose and
personally, I try to keep the game moving. It does seem that there is a lot of
'blame' placement on one player or the other if the game isn't a 5-? victory in
someone's favour. I like a decisive result whether in my favour or against me,
but also realize that indecisive results are also quite common historically.
It does seem that the players who choose their armies more based on personal
interest than tournament viability are often looking to use terrain and
stratagems to maximize the potential of an army that is often outgunned in an
open
stand up fight. If I choose to show up at a tournament with a biblical army
with little other than sort pointy sticks, I'm gonna be pretty hard pressed to
use every tactic and stratagem I can think of to avoid getting overrun by tin
cans with long pointy sticks. If I lose the game and it ends 3-2, I resent the
implication that I stole someone's victory (I was trying to win 5-3). If
someone wants a 5-? win, then they ought to be prepared to earn it.

I don't have a problem if the lateral water feature disappears or is
seriously constrained since I go to tournaments and game days to fight, but I do
think
more fog of war is a good thing. Right now the rock, paper, scissors
argument reminds me of vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry. I'd like to see a
lot
more flavours out there. The more trying, challenging, and foggy the
circumstances, the better.

John Garlic

BTW, I really dislike having to reveal that 4.5 (or whatever) scouting points
are missing. It's not much of an ambush if I hafta tell ya its out there.
If everything has to be that open, why don't we just swap army lists before we
start?


In a message dated 6/27/2005 11:52:25 AM Central Standard Time,
JonCleaves@... writes:
Despite the closeness of my friendship with Tim, I must add in the dissenting
view.

Tim implies that due to his choice of army list and its construction, it is
the other player's responsibility to attack - possible under insane tactical
conditions - a highly defensible position.
It is not, in fact, that player's 'fault' his opponent has chosen to 'sit'
and he bears no responibility to 'make a game of it.'

This creates a situation where a 'spoiler' can choose not to contest a game,
not caring for his own score or overall position in the event, and force the
other player to do something that makes no sense or accept a low score and also
sit.

Just to show that Warrior is for the players and not for its author, if it
were solely up to my personal preference, lateral minor water features would not

be possible in open tourney venues....

Not wanting to open this 'debate' again. We have said as a group that
sitting is ok, mostly by permitting certain terrain combinations. But what is
not
ok is the implication that the other guy choosing to not attack represents
something 'wrong' and that he should be trying to throw his army at the defender

to make it a 'fair fight'. The sitter has quite probably taken both players
out of the game and bears any and all responsibility for the outcome of the
decision to sit.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Grimmett <grimmetttim@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 09:39:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [WarriorRules] When to "Sit"


I've been monitoring this dialogue for quite some time and have enjoyed the
various points of view.

As the player at the other end of the table I thought I'd add my perspective.

I was playing Gauls against a knight and, more important, light cav army.
Outscouted, I threw down the minor water feature and marsh, and didn't get a
major water feature and woods.

Due to the army mismatch I chose to make the knight army earn his points and
set
up my Gauls behind the Minor water feature with hold orders. On an open
battlefield, the knight and light cav I was facing would force me into a
series
of futile charges followed by some thunderous knight charge into tired
warbands
at the 3-hour mark of the game.

John and I discussed the flank march option at the end of the game and I
understood the reasons for his decision not to do so; I may or may not have
done
the same.

Given the same matchup, I'd likely play the same, hoping to force a knight
charge across an obstacle, and role up. If he had more foot and less LC I
might
have played it differently.

"Sitting", in my view, was the only option. (The Mongol ability to "pick up"
terrain is a real show stopper in this regard).

Bottom line--if I've got a scissors against your rock I'm going to use every
ploy in the book to equalize the odds.




ewan.mcnay@... wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005, John wrote:
> But forget it - it was just an off the wall question of not great
> import that has probably stirred the pot more than it was worth.

That last is certainly untrue. Having to face a 'sitter' is not
ridiculously uncommon (although rarer than a few years back, is my guess),
and the increased thought that's going into use of TFs in particular may
make the occurrence a little higher.


__________________________________________________
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]




Yahoo! Groups Links






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




Yahoo! Groups Links





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




Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[joncleaves]

Ewan, regardless of how I feel about any of these, I want to be clear on the
issue of 'winning these points'. please don't feel that I would not listen to
such I deas - I surely would. Scott surveys the HCon crew every year and
usually throws in a format question or two. This is the primary way the NICT
format gets determined. We had a question last year about disallowing certain
terrain selections and it was determined the majority did not want to restrict
selections.

I would submit that there are at least two clear courses of action to effecting
change:

1. Get Scott to include questions pertaining to any proposed format changes in
that survey.
2. Propose 14.0 options to me, I include them, some local tourneys try them and
provide feedback on their use to Scott.

I am ready to include just about any option in 14.0 - including those you
mentioned.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 14:10:45 -0400
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] When to "Sit"


I think that this deserves one of my rare 'me too' posts.

I don't know any current US tournament players who are chronic
corner-sitters. So, I completely agree that if you decide that the best
move in a given situation is to do X, where X is anything within the
rules, that's 100% legit. No blame to apportion regardless of result.
Yes, it may take folk out of the running for a tournament; so does losing .

Second, I echo your feelings on over-disclosure; I think that dicing for
generals could easily be done before the ump, rather than one's opponent,
and that flank marches should be diced for regardless of their existence
until the point where it/they might arrive. Scouting is more debatable; I
like, for instance, having 4E LI units slightly because they match up
against the scouting of a 2E loose cav unit, preserving some possibilities
of deception, and I don't see an easy way to avoid announcing onee's
scouting points*.

But we're not going to win on these points .

E

*Actually, that isn't true either. I see no problem with only announcing
your army's scout strength if you are trying to outscout, and the other
side announcing merely 'successful' (in which case you get to know his
exact scouting strength) or 'not'. But that, too, is not going to happen.

jmgarlic@... wrote:

> Hi Tim and Jon,
>
> Let me preface my remarks with the statement that I really like Warrior and
> have thoroughly enjoyed all of the games I've played. Except for one FW game
> with my son, all of my games have been in a tournament setting and I've
enjoyed
> meeting all of the guys I've played against.
>
> Currently, I believe the real impetus is towards fair and open slugfests,
> which, despite the large selection of armies available, are not the way all
> armies fought. I realize that I have a choice as to which army I choose and
> personally, I try to keep the game moving. It does seem that there is a lot
of
> 'blame' placement on one player or the other if the game isn't a 5-? victory
in
> someone's favour. I like a decisive result whether in my favour or against
me,
> but also realize that indecisive results are also quite common historically.
> It does seem that the players who choose their armies more based on personal
> interest than tournament viability are often looking to use terrain and
> stratagems to maximize the potential of an army that is often outgunned in an
open
> stand up fight. If I choose to show up at a tournament with a biblical army
> with little other than sort pointy sticks, I'm gonna be pretty hard pressed to

> use every tactic and stratagem I can think of to avoid getting overrun by tin
> cans with long pointy sticks. If I lose the game and it ends 3-2, I resent
the
> implication that I stole someone's victory (I was trying to win 5-3). If
> someone wants a 5-? win, then they ought to be prepared to earn it.
>
> I don't have a problem if the lateral water feature disappears or is
> seriously constrained since I go to tournaments and game days to fight, but I
do think
> more fog of war is a good thing. Right now the rock, paper, scissors
> argument reminds me of vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry. I'd like to see a
lot
> more flavours out there. The more trying, challenging, and foggy the
> circumstances, the better.
>
> John Garlic
>
> BTW, I really dislike having to reveal that 4.5 (or whatever) scouting points
> are missing. It's not much of an ambush if I hafta tell ya its out there.
> If everything has to be that open, why don't we just swap army lists before we

> start?
>
>
> In a message dated 6/27/2005 11:52:25 AM Central Standard Time,
> JonCleaves@... writes:
> Despite the closeness of my friendship with Tim, I must add in the dissenting
> view.
>
> Tim implies that due to his choice of army list and its construction, it is
> the other player's responsibility to attack - possible under insane tactical
> conditions - a highly defensible position.
> It is not, in fact, that player's 'fault' his opponent has chosen to 'sit'
> and he bears no responibility to 'make a game of it.'
>
> This creates a situation where a 'spoiler' can choose not to contest a game,
> not caring for his own score or overall position in the event, and force the
> other player to do something that makes no sense or accept a low score and
also
> sit.
>
> Just to show that Warrior is for the players and not for its author, if it
> were solely up to my personal preference, lateral minor water features would
not
> be possible in open tourney venues....
>
> Not wanting to open this 'debate' again. We have said as a group that
> sitting is ok, mostly by permitting certain terrain combinations. But what is
not
> ok is the implication that the other guy choosing to not attack represents
> something 'wrong' and that he should be trying to throw his army at the
defender
> to make it a 'fair fight'. The sitter has quite probably taken both players
> out of the game and bears any and all responsibility for the outcome of the
> decision to sit.
>
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Grimmett <grimmetttim@...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 09:39:34 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: [WarriorRules] When to "Sit"
>
>
> I've been monitoring this dialogue for quite some time and have enjoyed the
> various points of view.
>
> As the player at the other end of the table I thought I'd add my perspective.
>
> I was playing Gauls against a knight and, more important, light cav army.
> Outscouted, I threw down the minor water feature and marsh, and didn't get a
> major water feature and woods.
>
> Due to the army mismatch I chose to make the knight army earn his points and
> set
> up my Gauls behind the Minor water feature with hold orders. On an open
> battlefield, the knight and light cav I was facing would force me into a
> series
> of futile charges followed by some thunderous knight charge into tired
> warbands
> at the 3-hour mark of the game.
>
> John and I discussed the flank march option at the end of the game and I
> understood the reasons for his decision not to do so; I may or may not have
> done
> the same.
>
> Given the same matchup, I'd likely play the same, hoping to force a knight
> charge across an obstacle, and role up. If he had more foot and less LC I
> might
> have played it differently.
>
> "Sitting", in my view, was the only option. (The Mongol ability to "pick up"
> terrain is a real show stopper in this regard).
>
> Bottom line--if I've got a scissors against your rock I'm going to use every
> ploy in the book to equalize the odds.
>
>
>
>
> ewan.mcnay@... wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005, John wrote:
>
>>But forget it - it was just an off the wall question of not great
>>import that has probably stirred the pot more than it was worth.
>
>
> That last is certainly untrue. Having to face a 'sitter' is not
> ridiculously uncommon (although rarer than a few years back, is my guess),
> and the increased thought that's going into use of TFs in particular may
> make the occurrence a little higher.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>




Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[John Murphy]

A. Make it an option to claim less scouting points than you have.
And by the way you are not actually telling your opponenent you have
4.5 scouting points missing - you are saving the time of him
counting all the ones you have on the table (you have already
declared troop types) and subtracting from the amount you declare.

B. The general doesn't need to interpret his order until he arrives.
In a nameless Barker rule set you (used to?) roll for generals'
reliability on the bound of arrival. So my soution would be simply
to write the order in secret (as normal) at the outset and roll for
character and interpretation on arrival.

But really I do not see the "secrecy" aspect of flank marching as
any different than troops concealed in ambush which is way under-
used in the response to the rules currently. On the whole though it
just not something that bothers me.

Also - I am sorry to have dragged Tim thru this as he is a great
player and a terrific dude and has plunked his Gauls down with Irreg
A attitute in the open plenty of times. But let's face it, as he
said not everyone is going to put their scissors out against your
rock. And finding a way to defeat a minor water feature is something
every tournament player is likely to need to do. I just let this one
game stick in my mind as a reminder in the catalogue of items that I
still need to find a way to improve in as a player as a whole but
especially with my particular army. And it seems like it should be
do-able, unlike some other matchup challenges which I have pretty
much given up hope on in the near term.

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, jmgarlic@a... wrote:
> On the scouting points, perhaps you could allow an option for
rounding off to
> say the nearest 5 or 10.

I'd say instead just let you declare -any- number of scouting points
_up to and including_ the total in your list. Then you are stuck with
the result of scouting adjudication but when you let your opponent
know that all declared scouting points are on the table (or some
smaller number than the real amount are missing) you have your "fog of
war".

[Tim Grimmett]

John--

Rest assured, I do not feel dragged in the least. I've enjoyed the discussion.
We were both trying to win-- but admit I ceded the initiative to you. It was an
experiment, which was another point of the game.

In games where you had foot I could kill, 100YWE as I recall, I was more than
willing to have a warband suck up a knight while I killed something else, or
tried to.

All told, given the army you fielded, and the way it played out---BTW you have
me scrambling to the rules to see if a unit under attack orders can break off, a
great learning point in itself--I can't see myself playing it any different.

I understand Jon's point, but there are times when a player has to manufacture
better odds than the 100:1 chance I had by fighting in the open--I can hear him
saying " then pick another army, dude". He and I can have several friendly
beers over the particulars at H-con.

Tim

John <jjmurphy@...> wrote:
Also - I am sorry to have dragged Tim thru this as he is a great
player and a terrific dude and has plunked his Gauls down with Irreg
A attitute in the open plenty of times. But let's face it, as he
said not everyone is going to put their scissors out against your
rock. And finding a way to defeat a minor water feature is something
every tournament player is likely to need to do. I just let this one
game stick in my mind as a reminder in the catalogue of items that I
still need to find a way to improve in as a player as a whole but
especially with my particular army. And it seems like it should be
do-able, unlike some other matchup challenges which I have pretty
much given up hope on in the near term.






---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "WarriorRules" on the web.

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]

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Tim Grimmett <grimmetttim@y...>
wrote:
> BTW you have me scrambling to the rules to see if a unit under
attack orders can break off, a great learning point in itself

I hadn't even thought of that. But I am at least pretty sure going by
memory that my Boyars under attack orders, once they did break off,
should have had to turn around (?) and plunge back in again if able.
Perhaps if I didn't turn them around till they were out of charge
reach (reduced by the obstacle) that was legal? Dunno though. On fact,
also possibly an issue with the distance over the minor water versus
the distance I could legally stop most of my units at on attack versus
probe. Have to go back and look.

[Ewan McNay]

jmgarlic@... wrote:
> On limiting disclosure, I realize I must give the flankers orders. I would
> be willing to roll for character in front of ump or just roll it as they
> arrive. If I've decided to commit to a flank march, there's not much I can do
on
> the interpretation anyways.

Right - I think that rolling for flanking generals w/ ump is pretty easy;
then you just call him/her over if/when a flank march is indicated as
arriving to confirm existance and character.

This would obviously (?) want to be in context of permitting/mandating
rolling for phantom flank marches; I probably should know this but [ALERT,
'WHY' Q] why was this decided against?

> On the scouting points, perhaps you could allow an option for rounding off to
> say the nearest 5 or 10. If it's something real close, as far as
> outscouting, I'd be willing to let the umpire or neighboring table check final
numbers.
> Another way is to allow the player to declare an amount of scouting points up
> to his total. If I have 32 scouting points, but have a 4E LI in ambush I
> might declare only 30. This may limit my chance to outscout, but as the
general,
> I have to decide what 'resources' to commit to scouting.

This I like also - kinda in the same vein as my only announcing if
attempting to outscout, but I agree that some ball park figure might be
available (I suppose you could have categories. 'Minimal scouting,' 'Some
scouting,' 'Normal scouting,' 'Heavy scouting' which have to be announced,
for something like 0-5, 5.5-15, 15.5-35, 35.5+ or some such. Then the
higher side could decide whether to attempt to outscout.)

> An option to fuzz things up for both sides (probably better in a friendly
> game than tournament) would be to have morale be slightly dicey. In other
words
> when I purchase my B class troops, that is how they will perform 'most' of the
> time. At a units first waver/HTH roll, you roll a 1d6. On a 1 they perform
> as one class lower for the battle and on a 6 they perform one class higher.
> That could be change to snakes and boxcars on 2d6 if wanted. Once again, this
> is probably not a tournament idea, but it would put more uncertainty into the
> game. Even elite units have bad days, and sometimes conscripts come through
> in a pinch.

I agree with the thought but also the caveat; probably not for tournament
games, but a nice X-rule.

Excellent discussion, btw. :)

Greetings Ewan,
I like the concept of declaring scouting as that does muddy the waters
for weather or not im flank marching them. The idea of variable morale
is interesting and would be fun to try in a for fun game. Though the
morale check is about seeing if those Reg A are feeling surly about
the pay being a bit late this month.

-- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...> wrote:
>
>
> jmgarlic@a... wrote:
> > On limiting disclosure, I realize I must give the flankers orders.
I would
> > be willing to roll for character in front of ump or just roll it
as they
> > arrive. If I've decided to commit to a flank march, there's not
much I can do on
> > the interpretation anyways.
>
> Right - I think that rolling for flanking generals w/ ump is pretty
easy;
> then you just call him/her over if/when a flank march is indicated as
> arriving to confirm existance and character.
>
> This would obviously (?) want to be in context of permitting/mandating
> rolling for phantom flank marches; I probably should know this but
[ALERT,
> 'WHY' Q] why was this decided against?
>
> > On the scouting points, perhaps you could allow an option for
rounding off to
> > say the nearest 5 or 10. If it's something real close, as far as
> > outscouting, I'd be willing to let the umpire or neighboring table
check final numbers.
> > Another way is to allow the player to declare an amount of
scouting points up
> > to his total. If I have 32 scouting points, but have a 4E LI in
ambush I
> > might declare only 30. This may limit my chance to outscout, but
as the general,
> > I have to decide what 'resources' to commit to scouting.
>
> This I like also - kinda in the same vein as my only announcing if
> attempting to outscout, but I agree that some ball park figure might be
> available (I suppose you could have categories. 'Minimal scouting,'
'Some
> scouting,' 'Normal scouting,' 'Heavy scouting' which have to be
announced,
> for something like 0-5, 5.5-15, 15.5-35, 35.5+ or some such. Then the
> higher side could decide whether to attempt to outscout.)
>
> > An option to fuzz things up for both sides (probably better in a
friendly
> > game than tournament) would be to have morale be slightly dicey.
In other words
> > when I purchase my B class troops, that is how they will perform
'most' of the
> > time. At a units first waver/HTH roll, you roll a 1d6. On a 1
they perform
> > as one class lower for the battle and on a 6 they perform one
class higher.
> > That could be change to snakes and boxcars on 2d6 if wanted. Once
again, this
> > is probably not a tournament idea, but it would put more
uncertainty into the
> > game. Even elite units have bad days, and sometimes conscripts
come through
> > in a pinch.
>
> I agree with the thought but also the caveat; probably not for
tournament
> games, but a nice X-rule.
>
> Excellent discussion, btw. :)

[Mark Stone]

Sorry to sit out on this fascinating discussion so long, but it's been a frantic
week or so at work.

I have about three different things I want to comment on.

First: unbalanced matchups. Gauls versus knights was given as an example here,
with the implication that Gauls would need to sit behind a minor water feature
in order to have a chance at success.

I think that first, that's a misunderstanding of the scoring system, and second,
a mischaracterization of the balancing effects of the army list point system. If
you sit behind a minor water feature, you're begging for a 0-0 or 1-1 game,
which isn't going to do you any good in the scoring system. A 1-1 draw is no
better, and perhaps worse, than a 5-1 loss.

Now, the point system definitely has its oddities, and certain troops are a
"better" tournament buy than others, but overall it works pretty well. If I
bring 1600 points that is knight heavy, then I'm going to have fewer figures
and probably fewer units than my opponent who brings 1600 points of Gauls. And
this does matter. There is no way way for a single knight unit to kill a larger
and cheaper body of Gauls without becoming at least tired, and quite possibly
disordered, in the process. Start looking at the "second wave" math, when a
fresh unit of impetuous Gauls charges the tired knights. As the Gauls, you won't
do 3 CPF and twice as many, but you have an excellent chance of driving the
knights to exhaustion. Keep in mind also a range of tactics open to the Gaul
player, such as inserting smaller units in the gaps between bigger units and
threatening flank charges that then peel attackers loose from the bigger units.
There is the judicious use of unease-causing chariots. In short, there are many
options to someone who is using quantity over quality.

I grant that none of these necessarily level the playing field against a
well-commanded knight army, but my point is they offer you much better
prospects of a high score than sitting behind a water feature.

I seem to recall Ewan and Chris DAmour some years ago having quite a bit of
success at Cold Wars running Spanish (like Gauls, only better). That included
success against some knight armies. Ewan might want to share his thoughts on
how this was accomplished.

Second: fighting versus sitting. It is more than possible with the current rules
to set up a reasonably impervious defensive position. A combination of hills,
TFs, water features, gullies, etc. can create a position that is genuinely
unassailable. But why, in a tournament game, would you do this? A foolish
opponent will attack such a position anyway, but foolish opponents should not
require you to resort to such tactics to achieve victory. A wiser, more patient
opponent will simply refuse your invitation to commit tactical suicide. And then
you're stuck with a draw. So you're really penalizing yourself by "sitting".

Now, I know that some people will resort to sitting anyway. Perhaps they don't
care where they finish in the tournament standings, and perhaps not losing is
moral victory enough for them. In fact, I don't think those are invalid
feelings. People play this game, and play tournament games, for all kinds of
reasons. When your opponent _does_ throw down that minor water feature and sit
behind it though, think carefully about your response.

You need to coax him to come out. If it were me, that means that I would keep my
entire army under something like "Wait" or "Hold" orders. Furthermore, I would
hang back far enough on my side of the table that my opponent can clearly see
that he is being given room to cross the minor water feature and deploy on the
other side without being harrassed by my troops. If he _still_ refuses to come
out and fight... well, there's a limit to the problems that rules or tactics
can solve.

Finally: fog of war. Jon made an excellent point the other day, noting that
flank marches are tactical, not operational moves. Remember, we have flank
marches only because we have limited table size. The flank marchers aren't
doing anything different from what the rest of the army is doing, they are
simply doing it far enough out to require a level of abstraction to simulate.
Remember also that a battle is the culmination of a series of operational
maneuvers -- what we call a "campaign" -- in which two armies probe and get to
know each other better and better. To me, that is the fundamental reason why we
know about the composition of an opposing army that, at deployment, we typically
can't see (at least according to Warrior's rules of "visibility").

We've had debates on this list about whether, for example, darts should be
declared since they are hidden behind shields. What that debate misses is that
the same logic applies to much more salient details of an army. Absent force
marchers, I can't see how many units you have, or how many generals, or what
your units are armed with, because you are out of visibility range. I certainly
can't "see" whether your subgeneral is cautious or rash. To me, the logical
conclusion is _not_ that this information should therefore remain secret, but
rather that the disclosure of this information is _not_ based on visibility,
but rather based on pre-battle knowledge of the opponent that comes to light in
the course of operations that led to the battle in the first place.

So:
- Yes, I should know how many scouting points you have.
- Yes, I should know whether or not you have a flank march, and wheter it
includes a general.
- Yes, I should know the state of your generals, and how many generals you have.
- Yes, I should know the particulars of your armament and equipment.

Fog of war is important, but these aren't the areas where it enters in.

That's all for now. I have a separate message on the proper use of minor water
features, but I'm out of time for now. I'll try and send it along later.


-Mark Stone

[Ewan McNay]

Mark Stone wrote:
> I seem to recall Ewan and Chris DAmour some years ago having quite a bit of
> success at Cold Wars running Spanish (like Gauls, only better). That included
> success against some knight armies. Ewan might want to share his thoughts on
> how this was accomplished.

Indeed: we fought three knight armies (the last of which was Frank and
Dave, who were able to take impetuous SHK vs. LMI to a (to-them) logical
conclusion..).

Basic elements: (i) lots of LI, in almost all cases superior to anything
we faced light-wise. This needs care - because a good mounted opponent
will be looking for chances to break through and/or convert charge - but
is key for getting to a situation where you can fight on your terms.
Almost all barbarian foot armies have good JLS, Sh LI, often of decent
morale. Use it.

(ii) A mix of unit sizes and morales; this was the basis of Chris' use of
Vikings for several years. So what if the bondi rout (or evaporate)?
That was planned for, and the twelve small IrrA / IrrB units behind will
be happy to hit your pursuing troops impetuously and ideally in both
flanks. It helps here to have some weapon available other than JLS, which
just doesn't cut it against SHK and their ilk.

(iii) missile fire, if possible - again, Viking archers do it best, but
even loose JLS fire can be very significant if you can get it to happen,
especially against the knights' support troops.

(iv) pressure along the line. Against something like the in-vogue
medieval Spanish, for instance, you want to be sure that even if you lose
a couple of units to the knights, at the same time you are also giving
yourself chances against the LMI longbowmen. With some luck, you can come
out ahead. Espcially if the odd chariot is inducing unease when you *do*
get some wavers.

(v) play to your strengths. If Spanish, use HTW. If Gaul, use chariots -
LCh are great against supporting enemy loose foot. If Viking, use archers
and 2HCW. And so on.

(vi) run the game clock your way. This ties in to number of
units/acceptable losses. Many knight opponents will be looking to only
engage at game-end; use that. The previous year, Chris and I won using
Viking allies and Pre-Feudal Scots. We again faced Frank and Dave (w/
Sicilians) in the key game. We knew that we wanted to be in combat asap;
they wanted the opposite, and left a unit of MI as an intended roadblock.
Well, that was the game-winner for us: burst through that with impetuous
Viking archers, convert into some LI which had evaded behind; because they
had been trying to delay and redeploy, this caught their knights in the
rear zone where we hit three or four units at the halt. Game over.
Rampant aggression is not exactly a *choice* when playing with Chris, but
it has its moments . [There are corollaries: taking brush, for example,
will not stop you losing to SHK but *will* slow down your attack. Be
wary.] That same Pre-Feudal year, we met Todd and Dave using Khmer. One
flank had a bunch of delaying LI units; getting in a *lot* of bounds and
using missile fire effectively allowed us to clear it and get into the
flank of the Khmer attack force. [Incidentally, that game also almost
featured a successful command flank march by the Khmer, of several
elephants on the side where the Scots MI were.]

(vii) Play to command sizes. Yours will be bigger; consider e.g.
attacking in waves at one point to get an enemy command on retreat before
yours are in danger.

Lots of stuff.

> Now, I know that some people will resort to sitting anyway. Perhaps they don't
> care where they finish in the tournament standings, and perhaps not losing is
> moral victory enough for them. In fact, I don't think those are invalid
> feelings. People play this game, and play tournament games, for all kinds of
> reasons. When your opponent _does_ throw down that minor water feature and sit
> behind it though, think carefully about your response.

Right. It is not incumbent on *either* side to be given the win. In last
year's NICT, when I could *not* get my opponent to play more than three
bounds, what did I get? Sympathy? Nope . I think that is many, many
times worse than sitting in a corner. Can't have a game plan to win on
bound two in most cases, regardless of inventiveness.

> We've had debates on this list about whether, for example, darts should be
> declared since they are hidden behind shields. What that debate misses is that
> the same logic applies to much more salient details of an army. Absent force
> marchers, I can't see how many units you have, or how many generals, or what
> your units are armed with, because you are out of visibility range. I
certainly
> can't "see" whether your subgeneral is cautious or rash. To me, the logical
> conclusion is _not_ that this information should therefore remain secret, but
> rather that the disclosure of this information is _not_ based on visibility,
> but rather based on pre-battle knowledge of the opponent that comes to light
in
> the course of operations that led to the battle in the first place.

We come to different conclusions; from different axioms, I think, as mine
is a 'gameplay over all' approach. Hence my comment about limited
knowledge/disclosure - because yes, you are likely to know whether your
Roman opponent brought massed Hun allies or seven legions, but not
*exactly* what, and the added uncertainty is likely (imnsho) to improve
the game. This is another one of the 'more complexity and options are
good things' on which we've agreed previously, so I'm surprised to find
you in disagreement here.