Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

<<> The question is not about the huns in particular. The question
is who else has been, what appears to the casual observer
arbitrarily, changed/ downgraded/ altered from what we play tested.>>

Nothing was done arbitrarily and I must say I resent the hell out of
this entire comment.

You guys can talk about this if you like, but I am moving on from
this issue. We may or may not find that a Hun LC list rule is in the
final list. We may or may not decide a Hun LC list rule was
overlooked for the FW list.

Don, Chris, Pat: with respect to me - let it go.

Jon

[joncleaves]

Thanks, Don. I myself am finding out a great deal off line about the dark
history of the NASAMW lists and other details of list writing I would probably
prefer *not* knowing. lol

Just be patient all, I don't think you'll be disappointed about how all this
turns out.

[scott holder]

<<Why do some troops who used to fight 1.5 ranks no longer do so. Not
"please put it back/change it, just why?>>

I assumed in the case of the Huns it was because the same research that
eliminated wedge in the Society Hun list was the research Scott used for
the FW Hun list. If he made an oversight we will fix. Haven't talked
to him about it yet.

>In most cases, troops that "used the dubya word" still do, namely
because they are lance-armed cav. Those that "did" and now "don't" are
that way for one of two reasons:

1) Subsequent research indicated they didn't, or

2) I overlooked it.

>As I've stated before, if there are honest mistakes (and not differing
interpretations of the available data) on a FW list, we will put those
changes on the web site. Aside from a couple of "opponents" additions
we have for a couple of FW lists, I already have two list items I need
to review. I expected this so please be patient. Please remember that
FW lists, in many cases, were done with less "deep" research than I
would have liked. I'm not making excuses for them since given their
relative size and lack of diversity, there wasn't too much wiggle room
for me to do something that would engage the world in an interprative
debate. However, because of the sheer size of the lists and our
publication deadline(s), I could have missed something.

>I'm much more willing to "listen" to someone's concerns if I don't get
screamed at via email. If you have a specific question about something
on a list, email me off list and resist the temptation to rant in a
larger forum:):)

>To address the Huns in a Warrior-list context per se is waaaaaaaaaaay
too early. I actually have someone lined up to do the Huns but since
they will appear in Imperial Warrior, we're looking at something over a
year off. So, ifns you wanna use whatever Hun list the tourney
organizer allows *and* that Hun list has wedging wagon laagers, go for
it:) As for FW, give it some time and updates will be made as
appropriate.

Scott
List Ho

[Don Coon]

> For the future I would prefer it go like this:
>
> Player: I think this is a problem.
>
> FHE: Either "No it isn't" (end of discussion involving us) or "We will
look at it" (end of discussion involving us until we look at it).
>
> For Hun LC we are at "We will look at it."
>
> Jon

Peace.

Don