Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Don Coon]

> I feel that with the changes to flank charge para we are discussing off
> > line, the rules (6.163, and 6.165) are good as written, as we read them.
> > However, this line of posts lead me to the conclussion that is not what
you
> > intend them to be, as FIT is a huge issue for you. I would like to show
> > you
> > how in over 100 play test games, fit has not entered into one single
game
> > (as we read the written rules) and have you be comforatble with that. I
> > doubt that is the solution you are seeking however, so now I must pursue
> > two
> > courses.
>
> Don , the '100 games' does not really help. You had many games with this
> v-thing too, yet none of the top players in the country has ever seen such
a
> thing nor would they ever do it as it is tactical madness. When it all
came
> down to it, we found that you guys were calling things gaps that were
clearly
> NOT the minimum distance between anything. I suspect something similar is
at
> play here for two reasons:

Jon, if you recall our posts of last year you would remember we never played
with the V thing. We played AROUND the rules. The whole V debate was about
what the rules said VS. how people were playing. It is and always has been
about the WRITTEN word vs. the played game.
Same with gaps. The things we were calling gaps in emails were all
what-ifs, based on a post made by Steve (last name forgotten), it spawned a
debate (an email debate, we did NOT change the way we played) that again
returned to WRITTEN word vs. played game.

> 1. Pat's email of this afternoon which demonstrates that at least he
clearly
> does not understand 6.53.

Actually he understands it quite well. His explaination may be a bit
shakey, but the conclusions drawn were correct.

> 2. The fact that fit came up five or six times at Cold Wars and once
Scott
> or I showed the relevant rules to the players involved, everything was
> kosher. It mattered in even more games (couple of mine as I recall), but
the
> players handled the issue without calling an umpire - merely noting to me
or
> Scott later that they had it come up.

Of course it went this way. Thats no different than me saying it came up 6
times at Twistercon and I showed the relevant rules to the players involed
and everything was kosher. If you are pointing out the rules, people are
going to see it your way. If I point out the rules, they will see it my
way. If you can invalidate our 100+ playtest games, it certainly stands to
reason that your 5-6 examples are equally invalid. No one ever calls an
umpire down here either. Everyone I know thinks fit is a non issue.
Everyone you thinks it is. Neither of those two pieces of data make either
one of us more correct than the other. They played it your way, because you
know what you meant by the rule. We have no telepathy to get in your head,
and must read it as written.
>
> > 1. We must adjust our play to the way you want fit to work.
>
> Well, I certainly agree with that course of action.

As do we. A great deal more than you seem to give us credit for.

> > 2. I must propose to you a clarification that is worded so fit,
pivoting,
> > and lining up work as you intend (that will take some thought).
> >
> I really want this from you, as I think it will help us see your issue.

Again, I agree.

> > <<Still the simplest clarification is that you embrace 6.163, and 6.165
as
> > they are written and see how little impact they really have on the
game.>>

> Man, do you do stuff like this on purpose? Of course I embrace 6.163,
6.165
> - I WROTE the damn things. See above for impact on the game. But man,
Don,
> you are making me want to just skip your emails when I read this 'Jon you
> should read (embrace, whatever) the rules' shit.

Already addressed. Should I have said "Still the simplest clarification is
that you embrace 6.163, and 6.165 as we feel they are written and see how
little impact they really have on the game."

Would that be out of line? Or is asking you to try to see something another
way than you do, more shit?

> > <<Yes we have seen little slivers of units get pulled out from behind a
> > friend.>>
>
> That is of course illegal. More evidence that something is fishy in DFW
as I
> saw a couple of players who had not read the rulebook try this and those
that
> had stop it at CW.

Not per the rules its not. Fit does not become an issue until after
pivoting and lining up (6.153 clearly says so), 6.165 says if the charger
can not line up due to terrain or other bodies, line up the charged body
(yanking him out from behind his buddy). Thats it. It is written. Thats
what it says. It may not be what you meant, but its what it says.

> <<It is rare, and we all prepare and deal with it. Your call here>>
>
> Good. My call is for you to offer up a clarification and for me to look
at
> it to see if it offers a clue to what you guys are getting wrong out
there.

I sure wish it were ok for me to say to you "see if it offers me a clue into
what you are getting wrong up there", but that seems forbidden. You are
right and we are wrong. End of discusson. I use quote sof text, yet I am
wrong. You use nothing but anecdotal evidence, yet you are right.

BTW - nice dig with the "top players" remark in your leading para.
Obviously none of us could be in that group eh?

Oh and tactical maddness? I assume this means all of your units are always
nice and parallel?

Its little digs like these that I remember.

Don

[joncleaves]

<<WOW. I am trying to be cordial and you get like this? I have quoted 6.153
directly.>>

I do not need a rule quoted to me. When I work on Warrior emails, the rulebook
is sitting next to me, open. Always.

<<I have asked (and offended you) to read it. I have asked (and offended you)
to embrace it.>>

True. As the author, being asked by a player whether or not I have 'embraced'
my own rulebook is insulting. I am sorry you do not see that. Let's move on.

<< You are getting awful touchy here IMHO.>>

Maybe so. Must come from asking for your recommended rewrite to 6.153 and after
ten emails from you finding myself still waiting for it. :)

<< I have tried every avenue I can to get through to you. >>

Try the one I asked for. I do not need to be 'gotten through to', I need a
solution to be working on. Clearly we disagree on the issue, that is not worth
going over again. Let's start work on what you want me to do. Since I find no
problem with 6.153 as written (or embraced) there must be some rewording of it
that you like better. Give it to me please. Either I will see where I am wrong
and make the clarification, or I will see where you are wrong and show you the
problem. Simply telling me you don't like the current wording of 6.153 over and
over again solves nothing.

Send it to me, Don, please! :)

Jon

[Patrick Byrne]

Jon,
I have posted two examples of units getting pulled out from behind a friend
in charges. See 'Example 1' and 'Example 2' folders under the PB folder.
Please review and indicate why they are illegal. I would appreciate page
and paragraphs be listed among the explanations so I can read and learn.
-PB



Don wrote:
> > <<Yes we have seen little slivers of units get pulled out from behind a
> > friend.>>
>

Jon replied:
> That is of course illegal. More evidence that something is fishy in DFW
as I
> saw a couple of players who had not read the rulebook try this and those
that
> had stop it at CW.
>

[Patrick Byrne]

You know, it is just too bad we didn't win that $300MM powerball the other
day. I would be nice just to fly disagreeing parties to get together to
talk face to face. Because I know that email is not helping this situation
out.
Just my cool headed perspective.

PS. that's why I like my pics
-PB



----- Original Message -----
From: <JonCleaves@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [WarriorRules] Fit (again)


> <<WOW. I am trying to be cordial and you get like this? I have quoted
6.153 directly.>>
>
> I do not need a rule quoted to me. When I work on Warrior emails, the
rulebook is sitting next to me, open. Always.
>
> <<I have asked (and offended you) to read it. I have asked (and offended
you) to embrace it.>>
>
> True. As the author, being asked by a player whether or not I have
'embraced' my own rulebook is insulting. I am sorry you do not see that.
Let's move on.
>
> << You are getting awful touchy here IMHO.>>
>
> Maybe so. Must come from asking for your recommended rewrite to 6.153 and
after ten emails from you finding myself still waiting for it.
>
> << I have tried every avenue I can to get through to you. >>
>
> Try the one I asked for. I do not need to be 'gotten through to', I need
a solution to be working on. Clearly we disagree on the issue, that is not
worth going over again. Let's start work on what you want me to do. Since
I find no problem with 6.153 as written (or embraced) there must be some
rewording of it that you like better. Give it to me please. Either I will
see where I am wrong and make the clarification, or I will see where you are
wrong and show you the problem. Simply telling me you don't like the
current wording of 6.153 over and over again solves nothing.
>
> Send it to me, Don, please!
>
> Jon
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

[joncleaves]

Scott, Scott, Scott

We took this one offline - more to follow. :)


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

[scott holder]

Fit is primarily there for flank charges, true. I will look and see if
I can come up with a non-flank charge case where fit applies.

>What about break throughs that result in a converted charge? Said
c-charge may or may not hit the flank of another enemy body.

Scott

[scott holder]

However, this line of posts lead me to the conclussion that is not what
you
intend them to be, as FIT is a huge issue for you. I would like to show
you
how in over 100 play test games, fit has not entered into one single
game
(as we read the written rules) and have you be comforatble with that.

>Having just umpired close to 100 games just at Cold Wars 2002 alone, I
can say that "fit" came up at least a dozen time where I was called
over. Further discussions with players indicated that "fit" came up at
least another dozen times when I wasn't called over. It would appear
that the players at Cold Wars either weren't reading the rules and
simply playing "fit" as they "saw fit" (hahahahahahahaha) or that we,
collectively, read the rules "as written" significantly differently.
Please don't take this the wrong way, I'm simply providing a factual
accounting of what went on in another geographic area.

Still the simplest clarification is that you embrace 6.163, and 6.165
as
they are written and see how little impact they really have on the game.

>See above. I have seen "fit" as one of the biggest ambiguities from
that other set of rules that we *hopefully* fixed in Warrior. By the
thread here, it would seem we have not, at least not in the eyes of
some. Jon, obviously, will be handling the nuts and bolts of this but I
felt it appropriate to weigh in here in terms of background and the
realities of gaming with Warrior at Cold Wars.

Scott