"Warrior Rules Good/Bad?" Topic

Hi All

I'm looking for a decent set of ancient rules and I was thinking about Warrior. Not interested in the general feel of DBx. I want something that will give some period flavour. I don't mind complexity in a set of rules. I'm actually looking for something a little "meaty". Can anyone give me some idea on the rules , how about their Fast Warrior variant? Is it tough to learn, figure count, etc. etc.

Maybe Warrior isn't the right set for what I want, any other ideas out there?

Thanks

Vidal

Warrior is a terriffic rules set, but the VERY steep learning curve will make opponents hard to find. I like the rules very muck, esp Fast Warrior, but mostly play DBM and WAB because very few people are willing to take the time to learn these very complex rules.

Have you considered Armati - certainly 'meaty' enough and you can learn the basic mechanics in a fairly short space of time..... Figure counts are somewhere between DBA and DBM.

p.

I am not hard core Warrior, like my friends Jim and Mark, but I will play it. It is best to have experienced players to help you through the learning curve, but not impossible to learn.

It covers armor, various weapons, orders, morale, has some command control limitations, etc. It uses DBM basing.

Fast Warrior lists are contained within the main rule book, so no supplements are needed. They are battles with an average of 6 full sized units per player, for an average of 600 points. They represent one command with only one general. Tournament armies are an average size of 1600 points, for a point of reference, but I could be off by a few on that.

Commands, not units, are given orders. They maneuver rather freely, depending on type, until they are "locked" by proximity to the enemy. There are then a complicated, but not incomprehensible series of rules for how you can shoot at and have combat with your opponent.

Most units are good for one good combat. They quickly become tired and useless. In older games, you could have a unit of knights kill off a series of opponents serially, and always be ready for more. Here, you must pick your first fight for a unit carefully, because you will usually not be in any shape for a second one against a fresh opponent. This means that reserves are important.

You can really foul yourself up with a bad deployment. I continue to do this!

Finally, some armies are really bad, and some are really good. Some historical armies you would expect to do well, are just mediocre. Some obscure armies with the magic combination of weapons and troop type are tournament winners.

Like any set of rules which allow anachronistic play, you will get bizarre results. But like most competent ancient rules, historical matchups give historical results, regardless of period. You can play Carthaginians versus Early Moslem Indian of course, but that proves nothing beyond who is most able to manipulate the army lists, and find the nuances in the rules which favor his own army. ALL ancient rules are like that.

I cannot tell you if you will like it. Buy it, and play with the Fast Warrior armies. You will only be out 20 clams, so what the heck.

I love this ruleset. Yes, it is complex, but I love the details of the troop types, weapon types, missile fire at a distance, etc. It feels more like a wargame to me than the other more abstract and simplified rules. I found it difficult to learn on my own, but after a couple a games with already knowledgeable players, I felt I could get my arms around the rules (of course it will probably take years to master the nuances of the tactics). Once you're comfortable with the rules, they're not really as complex as they seem initially.

If you want 'meaty' I would say this is the ruleset for you.

Figure count is probably comparable to DBM with about 150 or so models for a typical 1600 point tournament army. Basing is DBM standard.

Another interesting variant is the rules for Fantasy armies if you're interested. This is projected to be an official product down the road, but in the meantime you can download for free playtest copies of the rules at the Yahoo group site for Warrior Rules.

I heartily recommend this rules.

Essentially it's a re-hashed WRG 7th ed. (which I played extensiely) with allot of the silliness (of 7th) left in. On the other hand, It's popularity has surpassed DBM in this area and it seems to continue to rise. (Which indicates to me that more "substance" is being desired now than quick-play(!?) simplicity.)

The learning curve is only slightly steeper than DBM, But there is allot of stuff to remember compared to DBM.

For "flavor" you might give Might of Arms a try. Take a look here: TMP link

Might of Arms is fairly easy, especially compared to WRG. It looks like WRG at first glance but plays smoother. The rules run about $12, so not a big deal if you don't like 'em. They give a good game, though if you have a bad run of morale dice early on you can pack up them game.

It's more complex than Armati, which is more complex than DBA.

Our group tried switching to Warrior last summer. It took several games of it before we had hashed out many of the nuances of the rules. It is very important to get their terminology down. For example, there are very specific rules pertaining to "Pursuits." However, many occurrances which you might think of as a pursuit (from other game systems) actually are not considered pursuits in this game. Thus you have a difference between "charging after evaders" and "pursuing."

I liked the game a lot, especially once we had built up some proficiency in the rules. Others noted that the ruleset was a bit too complicated to deal with, especially when the armies on the field were at the "Fast Warrior" small scale. This is sort of a catch-22. To learn the rules while trying to manage 1600 points is near impossible. But the rules seem ridiculously complex when applied to a skirmishy 600 point battle.

I would still like to give full blown Warrior a shot someday. For those of you who decide to start with "Fast Warrior," here are a few considerations. A) Barbarian armies are strongly favored in their design in comparison to civilized armies, at this scale. B) The Fast Warrior armies often contain unit sizes and compositions in variance with the suggested parameters given for building full warrior units and/or subsequent troop parameters given in their (excellent) army list books. C) If you're considering playing a list with required ballistae, you will find yourself way under-manned on the rest of the field and practically unable to inflict even a single casualty on large opposing units with these artilery.

In summary: a great game, but maybe not everybody's cup of tea...

Overall, I enjoyed the game

Because it's based on the old WRG 7th edition, the rules should come with a complimentary bottle of aspirin.

Oggie

The authors did extensive rewrites of Barkerese, as well as substantial tweaks/changes, so don't paint it to harshly with the WRG 7th ed. brush. That being said, it definitely is a development from 7th ed., so it retains that game's design philosophy which sent so many people screaming off to play DBM many years ago. Terry Gore's [blank] Warfare rules are in a similar vein, although not near as detailed/complicated/flavored as the Warrior rules, so they may be worth looking at for you.

Well I have played both, WRG 7th, Warrior & Ancient Warrior and I have to say, DBM is still better than any of them. I can at least remember the rules and get a game in on a day finished compared to the others. Funny how everybody now wants complexity back in the ancients arena after yelling about it for years. It reminds me of the Napoleonics crowd out there complaining about the complex rules like Empire, Valmy to Waterloo or whatever, looking for a simpler system like Napoleons Battles and then bashing NB for not being complex enough to feel like Napoleonics, geesh!

I'd also suggest looking at both Might of Arms and Ancient Warfare.

I've been playing Warrior for the better part of two years now, and I like it. I have to agree with whats been said here though, in regards to the rules. They are complex, and have a pretty steep learning curve. It's best if you have a more expierenced player to show you the ropes. I am lucky in that I am now good friends with one of the guys who owns the rule sets, and he's taken the time to thump me on several occasions.

I'd say definately start with Fast Warrior, then work your way upwards pointwise. We tend to play a lot of 1000 to 1200 point game locally.

The game is well supported rules wise, ask a quaetion on the Yahoo group and it's answered within the day.

I did a Sample Battle for the game about a year ago, available in Powerpoint or .pdf. It is a step by step example of a Fast Warrior Battle between Early Imperial Romans and Germans. It's very detailed, and should give most people an idea of what to expect when they start playing. Join the yahoogroup (Warrior Rules) and you can download it no problem. Or email me at Thresh1642 (At) SBCglobal dot net and I can send it to you.