Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Ok, I was wrong. It needs to be cheapest element from your taken list and not
from the main army list.

Sorry for the confusion - I owe Mark, Ed and Ewan a beer.

But, I win in the long term, since the fact that those three support the idea
that it is ok for a 1620 point list to fight a 1600 point list ends this point
system/list rule cost silliness...muhuhahahaha...

Seriously, cheapest element in 14.2 means cheapest of the ones you took.

Jon

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
> But, I win in the long term, since the fact that those three support the idea
that it is ok for a 1620 point list to fight a 1600 point list ends this point
system/list rule cost silliness...muhuhahahaha...

"OK"? Noone stated that (nor even offered an opinion on such): we all
just noted what the rules actually *said* .

Oh, and .

Nice try, but -10 logic points. Do not pass Go...

[joncleaves]

"OK"? Noone stated that (nor even offered an opinion on such): we all
just noted what the rules actually *said* .

Oh, and .

Nice try, but -10 logic points. Do not pass Go...>>

Logic? lol

By this 'logic', if one read the points system and understood it, then silence
would ensue - even if they did not like or support what it said. If one only
brings up the issues that bother one, then the 1620/1600 didn't bother you. If
it did bother you, why didn't you speak up? ;)


J

[Ewan McNay]

Oh, come on (and for the benefit of innocent bystanders, I am pretty sure
that this pedantry is in the spirit of friendly jesuitry).

Commenting on what rules say, currently, logically prevents one from
commenting on what other rules should say? What school did you learn
logic at again?

[As it happens, and as I explicitly noted, the 1620/1600 'problem' has AN
EXPLICIT COST in terms of game victory conditions. This would be a fine
way of adjusting list rules, too: an army which chooses at list submission
to be allowed to use such cedes to opponents some number of points at game
end. My point, methinks..]


JonCleaves@... wrote:

> "OK"? Noone stated that (nor even offered an opinion on such): we all
> just noted what the rules actually *said* .
>
> Oh, and .
>
> Nice try, but -10 logic points. Do not pass Go...>>
>
> Logic? lol
>
> By this 'logic', if one read the points system and understood it, then
> silence would ensue - even if they did not like or support what it
> said. If one only brings up the issues that bother one, then the
> 1620/1600 didn't bother you. If it did bother you, why didn't you
> speak up?
>
>
> J
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[joncleaves]

Commenting on what rules say, currently, logically prevents one from
commenting on what other rules should say?>>

Indeed there is no logic to what gets commented on and what does not...lol

<<[As it happens, and as I explicitly noted, the 1620/1600 'problem' has AN
EXPLICIT COST in terms of game victory conditions. This would be a fine
way of adjusting list rules, too: an army which chooses at list submission
to be allowed to use such cedes to opponents some number of points at game
end. My point, methinks..]>>

I have in fact been pondering the idea of one ceding the overage to one's
opponent.

You do realize, though, that such is not currently the case in 14.5....

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Ewan,

That was the gist of what I was trying to say when I started this whole
discussion, for the most part .

kw

Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@...> wrote:
Oh, come on (and for the benefit of innocent bystanders, I am pretty sure
that this pedantry is in the spirit of friendly jesuitry).

Commenting on what rules say, currently, logically prevents one from
commenting on what other rules should say? What school did you learn
logic at again?

[As it happens, and as I explicitly noted, the 1620/1600 'problem' has AN
EXPLICIT COST in terms of game victory conditions. This would be a fine
way of adjusting list rules, too: an army which chooses at list submission
to be allowed to use such cedes to opponents some number of points at game
end. My point, methinks..]


JonCleaves@... wrote:

> "OK"? Noone stated that (nor even offered an opinion on such): we all
> just noted what the rules actually *said* .
>
> Oh, and .
>
> Nice try, but -10 logic points. Do not pass Go...>>
>
> Logic? lol
>
> By this 'logic', if one read the points system and understood it, then
> silence would ensue - even if they did not like or support what it
> said. If one only brings up the issues that bother one, then the
> 1620/1600 didn't bother you. If it did bother you, why didn't you
> speak up?
>
>
> J
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
document.write('');

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Jon,
See, we agree on something else in addition to the elephant thing in our
game.

kw (new governor of the
Han Province formerly called the Seleucid Kingdom)

JonCleaves@... wrote:
Commenting on what rules say, currently, logically prevents one from
commenting on what other rules should say?>>

Indeed there is no logic to what gets commented on and what does not...lol

<<[As it happens, and as I explicitly noted, the 1620/1600 'problem' has AN
EXPLICIT COST in terms of game victory conditions. This would be a fine
way of adjusting list rules, too: an army which chooses at list submission
to be allowed to use such cedes to opponents some number of points at game
end. My point, methinks..]>>

I have in fact been pondering the idea of one ceding the overage to one's
opponent.

You do realize, though, that such is not currently the case in 14.5....



Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
document.write('');

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

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

[Greg Preston]

Hmmm.... logic- and we are talking about how many point OVER a maximum
limit we can be......
How about we just make the points maximum -a points maximum ?

It makes it much easier for list checkers/ umpires etc.
If the comp points are say 1600 points then it is simple to say that a
list which is 1600 points or less is legal and a list which is 1601+ is
not.

Now I understand that this may disadvantage some armies as opposed to
the current situation which,.. um, er, -may disadvantage some armies :)

Greg Preston


On 17/02/2005, at 8:59, kelly wilkinson wrote:

>
> Ewan,
>
> That was the gist of what I was trying to say when I started this
> whole discussion, for the most part .
>
> kw
>
> Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@...> wrote:
> Oh, come on (and for the benefit of innocent bystanders, I am pretty
> sure
> that this pedantry is in the spirit of friendly jesuitry).
>
> Commenting on what rules say, currently, logically prevents one from
> commenting on what other rules should say? What school did you learn
> logic at again?
>
> [As it happens, and as I explicitly noted, the 1620/1600 'problem' has
> AN
> EXPLICIT COST in terms of game victory conditions. This would be a
> fine
> way of adjusting list rules, too: an army which chooses at list
> submission
> to be allowed to use such cedes to opponents some number of points at
> game
> end. My point, methinks..]
>
>
> JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
>> "OK"? Noone stated that (nor even offered an opinion on such): we all
>> just noted what the rules actually *said* .
>>
>> Oh, and .
>>
>> Nice try, but -10 logic points. Do not pass Go...>>
>>
>> Logic? lol
>>
>> By this 'logic', if one read the points system and understood it, then
>> silence would ensue - even if they did not like or support what it
>> said. If one only brings up the issues that bother one, then the
>> 1620/1600 didn't bother you. If it did bother you, why didn't you
>> speak up?
>>
>>
>> J
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> document.write('');
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[joncleaves]

How about we just make the points maximum -a points maximum ?

It makes it much easier for list checkers/ umpires etc.>>

Greg, this is where I would have it if I went on my opinion alone. But I am
writing 14.0 as lined up on what the majority wants as I can make it.

Again, 14.0 is a start point. It will end up being the most commonly used set
of comp guidelines throughout our playership, but absolutely, each group will
and should decide for itself how to run their own tourney.

[Greg Regets]

Can't you just see Kelly trying to figure out how to make a list
where he can go over, by the cost of an entire Burmese elephant? ;-)

g

[Greg Preston]

>>>>
How about we just make the points maximum -a points maximum ?

It makes it much easier for list checkers/ umpires etc.>>

Greg, this is where I would have it if I went on my opinion alone. 
But I am writing 14.0 as lined up on what the majority wants as I can
make it.

Again, 14.0 is a start point.  It will end up being the most commonly
used set of comp guidelines throughout our playership, but absolutely,
each group will and should decide for itself how to run their own
tourney.
>>>>>

Hey, no problem
just my 2 cents worth -plus or minus the value of my cheapest opinion :)

Greg P.






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

[joncleaves]

Can't you just see Kelly trying to figure out how to make a list
where he can go over, by the cost of an entire Burmese elephant? ;-)

g>>

Yes, I can. Precisely the image that makes me hate this rule....lol

[Todd Schneider]

Yes, and I am positive he wouldn't be theonly person trying to do so!

Todd

Greg Regets wrote:

>
> Can't you just see Kelly trying to figure out how to make a list
> where he can go over, by the cost of an entire Burmese elephant?
>
> g
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *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
> <mailto:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 2/14/2005
>
>



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 2/14/2005

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Hey now,

It aint easy being Cheesey. And for that matter FHE lets me have Irg D's
now so that would never happen. Besides, I kind of like the idea of no army
going over the points limit. I would just like to see the Cinc be free for
everyone since everybody has to pay for him anyway and then pay for standards,
bodyguard, etc. . . But even if this were done, I realize that the problem would
be no better. :(

kelly

JonCleaves@... wrote:
Can't you just see Kelly trying to figure out how to make a list
where he can go over, by the cost of an entire Burmese elephant? ;-)

g>>

Yes, I can. Precisely the image that makes me hate this rule....lol


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
document.write('');

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

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

[Ewan McNay]

I liked this :-)

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Greg Regets wrote:

>
>
> Can't you just see Kelly trying to figure out how to make a list
> where he can go over, by the cost of an entire Burmese elephant?
>
> g
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>