Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Terry Dix]

Jon I agree that games should be completed much faster than 4 hours. That time block is a huge commitment for a fun pickup game. I have no desire to play 3 4 hour games in one day, nor do anyone I have shown how to play.
I don't think anyone wants slow play, and its clear that simple measures will only go so far. Short of having a clock for aproaches, and anything you can't get to in 5 min doesn't get moved( though that would be an interesting fog of war simulation) I don't see a way to penalize some one for slow play. There is a reward system that could be done, add a point to the final scores, caped at 5, if they finish in under 3 hours. The winner gets a better multiplier as well so it behoves both players to move things along. I'm hoping to run a tournament at the upcoming Strategicon in sept. I will give it a try then.

[joncleaves]

Ewan, one thing this business has taught me definitively and repeatedly:

Not all one's customers (potential or current) are on a forum and not all who are on it post publicly.

If I got a couple of guys standing firm on the forum over 4 hour rounds and eight new players all telling me its why they don't play more than they do, easy answer to me...

Even if I had all 30 qualifiers unanimous on 4 hours, if i had five guys who were thinking about playing but were totally turned off by the idea, I'd want to switch it up from year to year. But it is by far the other way around...

[Adrian Williams]

The terrain bag approach is not a bad variation

Adrian

[Bill Chriss]

FWIIW, I like 4 hour games and steel myself to play 2 or 3 a day in competition. To me, the toll taken on one's energy level, cognitive skills, and personal morale is part of the competition. However, it REALLY bugs me to play against slow players...not deliberate players, but dreadfully slow players. This particularly disadvatanges players who, like me, don't have "run and shoot" or knight/cav armies, and who thus need a good 6 to 8 bounds to force a decisive result. It really hurts when a slow cav player draws the game out while positioning his strike force of knights or elephants for the one turn kill move on bound four or five (with 30 minutes left in the game), leaving my other 12 high morale units no opportunity for counterpunching or flank attacks.

I vote for chess clocks. I see absolutely no reason not to have them in tournament play. Chess players don't apologize for them or consider them a stigma, why should we? It would add an air of of professionalism and level the playing field. I can't imagine not being able to explain their use in a non-pejorative fashion to a new player. After all, we are not talking about friendly games...We are talking about a serious competitive venue.

[Bill Chriss]

The above comments relate primarily to 1600 point open or theme events, but the logic would apply with equal force to other competitive environs. Again, I'm not talkimng about a game in my garage on the ping pong table. I'm talking tournaments where people come from miles around and drop big dough just to get a fair, competitive, and yes even an umpired, game. Scott does a great job, but he can't be everywhere, and most of us ain't gonna whine to him about a slow opponent.

[Frank Gilson]

So, why no chess clocks?

I work for Wizards of the Coast. We have organized play events (tournaments) with 10s of thousands of dollars in prizes. We thought about using chess clocks to keep players from stalling for advantage, or from simple slow play. We rejected them.

It's a flow of gameplay issue. When is it really your turn to do something, and thus time should be running away on your half of the clock, and when is it really my turn?

In chess, you hit the clock once, at the end of your turn, after you've moved one piece. The clock is running for you while you sit and think. I can do nothing during your turn (except sit and think myself, but I can't move anything.)

In Warrior, a game turn is a blended affair with each of us sharing efforts and moments when it is not clearly "my turn" or "your turn". How many times, and exactly when would we need to hit the button on the clock in Warrior?

Is it my turn when I'm deciding whether a unit evades or stands and then is it your turn when you roll your charge move and and and?

So, no chess clocks please...

Frank

[Ewan McNay]

Bill can make some of these points with more strength than I can: after all, I *play* rapid armies, fast-hitting, that can probably do OK under a shorter time limit much of the time. Greeks... can't. A slow opponent, while anaethema to me, is that much worse to anyone taking a large infantry force.

So - and Mark alluded to this, while Jon took the opportunity for a snide shot about 'doubting ability to win under different conditions' - reducing game time really places big limits on the group of armies that are playable.

After such great work getting more armies to be competitive, this strikes me as a bizarre direction to take.

See you all tomorrow, snow willing...

[p.s. Yes, Jon, I'm used to the 'vast anonymous support' ploy by now. You'll forgive me if I prefer, given my scientific training, to rely on actual data available to me ]

[Siward]

Just because we always use preset terrain in Australia, doesn't mean everybody likes it.


Cheers............Geoff

[joncleaves]

Scott and I agonized over chess clocks for a very long time. Frank states well the basic issues. But there is also the "appearance" issue of having to use them to correct behavior that should not be a problem and having people watching the games see that we as a group need this "correction".

Chess clocks also do not change the fact that four hours is too long in an absolute sense.

Ewan, just as an example, there are ten regular players of the game here in KC, none of whom like the four hour game or find it somehow necessary. Kelly has recently recruited six new players and none of them are attracted to the idea of such games. Then there are six other area guys who play other ancient games who have looked into Warrior but have chosen not to play because of the slowness of the pace and the length of the games. That's 22 just in one city. If I compared ONLY the vocal members of this forum and that group and no one else, Scott has enough info to change it on that basis alone. But that is only representative of our experience, the actuality is more decisive. Where the majority *likes* 4 hour games is among long time players of Both TOG and Warrior who routinely get qualified for the NICT - every other demographic combo is all the other way.
Having played against the qualified-routinely group, I can't think of anyone - and this is most DEFINITELY one man's opinion - that was originally a TOG guy that is not generally a slow player (some slower than others) except Alex Vaeth. Now, this seems to me because TOG nationally set a standard of requiring meticulous moves to win. But the real effect is to make it a grind. Sure, Bill, I can handle a two day grinding endurance test, but more and more as I watch newer players turned off, I have to ask myself *why* we choose to do that.

[joncleaves]

More importantly - good luck to all of you at Cold Wars! I miss being there with you and hope you all roll tons of up fours - yes, you too, Ewan...
Have a milk stout on me!

[joncleaves]

I have asked one of the folks who PM'd me about this issue for permission to use the text of his message as an example of the kind of mail I get - both PM using the forum and my regular email.

I chose this one because the player is relatively new, is well spoken, is part of a group that would make a fine addition to the Warrior fold and because he let me.

"As a newish player, I'd like to tell you that I support everything you are saying about Warrior. I love the game, love the complexity, but 4 hours is just too much. I actually don't mind it that much for tournaments, even though it is tiring, but given my personal schedule, I'm lucky to get a 2 hour gaming block on a Sunday club night - so Warrior just isn't the game that I can fit in that regularly.

I've been trying to get some of the [local group] into Ancients gaming of any kind. When they saw my games last year at Historicon, they would look in every few hours and say how surprised they were that it looked like nothing was happening. I can't get these guys to even look at the rule book. I have convinced a group of them to give Warhammer Ancient Battles and try, and if that takes off, I hope to eventually introduce them to Warrior Battles (when it's released).

I will keep playing Warrior, because I love the game, but as it stands now, I can only play it on a semi-regular basis. I just find it too difficult to recruit new players (who are also turned off by the math of the combat resolution and the significant amount of roster record keeping, btw), and I can't get that big a block of gaming time on anything more than a monthly or bi-monthly basis.

Thanks for looking for ways to make Warrior more player friendly. Just want to let you know that there are players on your side."

To the sender - and others with the same issues - WB has no record keeping and no math beyond adding up a few modifiers to the combat roll. No multiplication or division, no CPF mechanic. That said, the combat system is modular in that it can be dropped into a game of Warrior and replace the basic Warrior combat system wholesale.

Jon

[Bill Chriss]

Well, comments like these certainly give one pause, particularly the guys at FHE. So, it helps me understand where Jon is coming from. However, I still don't see why some kind of timing mechanism won't work in tournament settings. Frank's points have little traction for me. The big problems in my experience have been approaches, counters, and retirements. These are by definition not simultaneous moves and are easily timed. Likewise, it is easy enough to time total setup.

Getting back to the comments Jon posted, they really support, in a way, my own point: that for some of us, in some games, it is very difficult to get a decisive result, or rather a chance at a decisive favorable result, under current tournament conditions. I wouldn't mind a three hour game at all (more time in the dealer area ) but would almost never have a chance of bringing pikes or hoplites to bear within such a format.

How about moving the rear deployment zone 240-480p closer to table center and/or reducing the forced march penalty to 1 FP for regular units? That might help both with sluggish players and with speeding up the game. And I still say that in the NICT, e.g., time clocks should be used on terrain placement, deployment, approaches, counters, and retirements.

Didn't real generals have to make snap decisions in battle, and wouldn't this duplicate fog of war? One more thing: does anyone else see the connection between this problem and the other major complaint heard on this forum-the "defensive player" who won't come out and fight? If my opponent is going to artificially limit the game to four or five bounds with no penalty to him, perhaps I should begin considering a strategy I have never employed and often criticized-sit in the rear with my flanks anchored on wooded hills. Tit for tat. In reality, I suspect what I will now do instead is compile scouting reports on slow players and resolve to forced march my whole army against such opponents, disregarding the usual reasons for not doing so.

[Noel.]

I have to pipe in here. I'm a new player.
I think my "demographic" is being misrepresented.

I have only one completed army, and am working on a second. I've been playing this game for 2-3 years on and off. I play 25mm exclusively, mostly for the figures -- my primary passion. I've picked my armies with historical interest as the driving factor.

I play Warrior for the simulation, for the large batttles and for the tactics. Warhammer in my mind is just silly and doesn't make much sense. DBA/DBM is too boring. Warrior gives me the best of both worlds. It rewards a good player with a good plan, lets you play big epic battles, gives a pretty decent simulation of ancient combat -- especially with the list rules (in period).

As a new player I struggle to complete a game in 4hrs. When I say "complete", I mean resolve a battle to the state of an obvious winner and loser -- not just a few dead light troops. I'm a clever fellow, I know most of the rules, but I am constantly checking and rechecking certain sections because they are unclear or scattered throughout the book. This takes me some time. (I don't want to rely on a charge that will get cancelled in a tricky rule I don't remember or fully comprehend). I take a long time to set-up, since I have to consider my positions more carefully. I do not have the experience to do so quickly without making horrendous errors. (I still make horrendous errors, just fewer of them when I think about it). Thus, I am slow.

I am worried that reducing game time will not only limit my chance of success, but also remove a degree of interest. I would like to have the chance to get my core troops into the fight -- the close foot. I would like a number of different strategies to be viable game-winning options, both offensive and deffensive. I don't want to kill some light troops and go home. I'll play a skirmish level game for that.

It is also true that tournaments are hard to take. I don't go to many for that reason. It is a long day. But if I am hurried through a game, I will perform poorly, come in last place (again) and really start to dislike playing. I'll be discouraged with the ahistorical tournament-optimized armies and you'll be stuck with your top 30 who play to win.
Can we not stretch-out a tournament over a few days if the games take too long? Alter deployment rules, terrain placement or something?

__________________________________________________________

On a side note, the reason I believe, in the lack of new players comes from the rules. It is hard to learn. I don't know anyone who has picked up the book, read it and started playing (correctly). There are too many things to remember in 2-3 readings, which is generally more than you can expect from most people. I have some friends who have bought the book, read it and haven't done anything.

If I may make a suggestion... perhaps a rewording or reorganization of the rulebook would help a little (the black book is an improvement, but still insufficient). I was looking up scythed chariots the other day, to see how to use them properly (not well, just within the legal limits of the game) and it took me a long time. I consider myself an clever fellow, but I had a hard time with this. The rules scattered within the book. I had to look up: the Chariot rules, the rules on expendibles, the rules on irregular A's (which are all about), as well as rush orders. I compiled my notes and re-organized them to try to understand how these things work. All of this, to find out that "they move towards and charge the first thing they see impetously that isn't in rough terrain" etc. I also found that the wording in some sections better explain what happens than in others. So if one paragraph is overlooked .... I had to do this for all sorts of things: the implications of reg vs irreg with certain formations and weapons, loose versus close etc. This is what is daunting to new players.

A review of unit-types and their rules, the tactical implications of various rules would all be welcome additions. Some of you might think this is going overboard, but you know the rules. Maybe this is what Warrior battle is all about, but the general rulebook would still benefit.

If no-one can pick-up the book and start playing, no new player nucleai (sp?) will form; you can only split and divide what player groups you already have, or slowly grow wher you already have interest.

Noel.

[jamiepwhite]

Noel,

Are you anywhere near Jacksonville, Florida or intending to move to the capitol of 25mm land any time soon?

Jamie

[Noel White]

Hello Jaime.

I am nowhere near Jacksonville. I'm in the other 25mm capitol, in Toronto Canada. We have quite a few classical period 25mm armies here. Mostly thanks to Chris Cameron et al. Hoplites, Mac's, Skythians, Romans, Persians.

I suppose it's likely in my old age I'll end up in Florida.....

You have the same last name as I do. You're folks from around here?

Noel.