Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/4/2004 9:57:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
larryessick@... writes:

> I ask because, relevent to the TF questions, if TF is placed as if a
> piece of terrain then it seems that I could superimpose TF
> on allowed
> terrain types.>>

The last bullet of Terrain Feature Size and Positioning on page 85 says:

"Combinations not listed (including the reverse of those listed) are
prohibited."

This means TF can't be superimposed on anything. The clarifications make an
exception for plashing and abatis (which aren't technically superimposed on
woods they are constructed from the woods).

The whole issue here was our desire to provide a few lists with 'color' by
adding the ability for them to place TFs in the forward zone. Because I was not
careful enough, this was written loosely and was immediately subject to a whole
range of abuses that met the letter of the rules the way they were written but
not our intent.

Now that I am in the process of cleaning up all the language of the rulebook for
the 2d printing, I am being extremely explicit about such things. Also I now
have the ability to craft the language of the base rules to take into account
the existence of all the list rules.

This leads to a discussion of 'rules changes'. To me, if I meant A, but wrote
the rule so poorly it reads B, then my fixing it 'back' to read A isn't a change
- although some clearly feel any clarification qualifies as a rules change.

To me, a rules change would be to change the tac move of HI to 120p. I will
never do something like that because it would change the fundamental nature of
the game and the relationship of the lists. My being hard over on changes is to
protect the player from buying a army from an FHE list and then having the rules
change to make that army into something other than he invested in.
For me to fix a rule that reads B, or could be read A or B, back to clearly read
the A it was intended and playtested as is not a change. Fixing typos and other
editing mistakes is also not changing the rules to me. But, there is just no
convincing some of that...lol

List rules are a strange cat. The idea of them is well supported and the
response to them has been overwhelmingly positive. The problem is that they
were initially written without the kind of review from me that I should have
given them (my fault) and that they don't have the pages or depth to cover all
the gyrations players could put them through. We have learned to be more
careful with them and ask our player's patience as we continue to improve how we
do business in our 'night jobs'...lol

J

[Larry Essick]

> The last bullet of Terrain Feature Size and Positioning on page 85
says:
>
> "Combinations not listed (including the reverse of those listed) are
prohibited."
>
> This means TF can't be superimposed on anything. The clarifications
make an exception for plashing and abatis (which aren't technically
superimposed on woods they are constructed from the woods).

Alright, but should they be allowed?

For example, should TF be permitted on bare gentle hills? Did Romans
construct their fortified camps only on clear terrain and stop doing
so when they went into mountainous or wooded terrain?

IMO, the issue of TF placement should be driven by historical example
as well as by concern for game playability. During the revolt of
Spartacus, the Romans built a temporary wall across all of Italy in
order to confine the slaves to the south and prevent their escape
northward. This TF ignored all terrain problems except the most
severe.

While I am not suggesting that this be the model for TF, I am
suggesting that there should be some situations where superimposing TF
on terrain is not only reasonable but also justified by example.

> The whole issue here was our desire to provide a few lists with
'color' by adding the ability for them to place TFs in the forward
zone. Because I was not careful enough, this was written loosely and
was immediately subject to a whole range of abuses that met the letter
of the rules the way they were written but not our intent.
>
> Now that I am in the process of cleaning up all the language of the
rulebook for the 2d printing, I am being extremely explicit about such
things. Also I now have the ability to craft the language of the base
rules to take into account the existence of all the list rules.
>
> This leads to a discussion of 'rules changes'. To me, if I meant A,
but wrote the rule so poorly it reads B, then my fixing it 'back' to
read A isn't a change - although some clearly feel any clarification
qualifies as a rules change.

:-) Well, since I have some experience here, I feel that you should
suffer, as I have, the heaps of abuse. ;-p

OTOH, I agree that rewording to make original intent clear and to
prevent abusive interpretations is not making rules changes.

Like Bush's hunt for WMD, the statement that there would be no rules
changes was probably not the wisest one ever made. Historical
research will result in better knowledge of armies and should result
in changes to army lists. Players will no doubt continue to push the
envelop of rules intent and twist things so that they hardly mean at
all what they were meant to mean. Change and improvement are
inevitable and should be embraced.

What I expect from Warrior is that the basic structure will not
change. And, I believe that this is the real intent -- which I
applaud.

Larry

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/4/2004 12:15:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
larryessick@... writes:

> Alright, but should they be allowed?
>
> For example, should TF be permitted on bare gentle hills? Did Romans
> construct their fortified camps only on clear terrain and stop doing
> so when they went into mountainous or wooded terrain?>>


> IMO, the issue of TF placement should be driven by historical example
> as well as by concern for game playability. During the revolt of
> Spartacus, the Romans built a temporary wall across all of Italy in
> order to confine the slaves to the south and prevent their escape
> northward. This TF ignored all terrain problems except the most
> severe.
>
> While I am not suggesting that this be the model for TF, I am
> suggesting that there should be some situations where superimposing TF
> on terrain is not only reasonable but also justified by example.>>

Larry, one can superimpose TFs on whatever terrain feature one chooses. UNLESS
they are using 14.3 as a guideline for COMPETITION BATTLES (the title of 14.0).
No one is arguing that Romans did not put TFs on gentle hills. The only thing
that is being said is that the basic recommended, playtested competition system
does not allow it.

The issue continues to be one where folks are trying to influence how NASAMW
tourneys are formatted by trying to influence 14.0. It does not matter what
14.0 says or does not say, the format of an event is up to the organizer. You
can have 10 connected TFs in the forward zone in your tourney as far as I am
concerned. But the basic recommended format does not. Discussions about how
much or what of 14.0 should be used in a tourney should be directed at the event
organizer. 14.0 is not a 'rule'.

>
> Like Bush's hunt for WMD, the statement that there would be no rules
> changes was probably not the wisest one ever made. Historical
> research will result in better knowledge of armies and should result
> in changes to army lists. >>

Potentially. But there are two things play in here that are important. One, we
will not knee-jerk react to every doctoral dissertation that pops up. That,
IMO, is a mistake. Too much of today's history is revisionist just to get
published and does not reflect newly discovered primary material that should
alter our view. Two, players pay money and put time into their list. If
tomorrow Aztec crossbows are unearthed in Latin America, we may *add* that
ability as a line in errata to NWW lists. But the standard for changing a list
in a negative sense is so high as to be realistically impossible.

>
> What I expect from Warrior is that the basic structure will not
> change. >>

And that is precisely and only what I mean by my no change promise, of course.

J

[Larry Essick]

> Larry, one can superimpose TFs on whatever terrain feature one
chooses. UNLESS they are using 14.3 as a guideline for COMPETITION
BATTLES (the title of 14.0). No one is arguing that Romans did not
put TFs on gentle hills. The only thing that is being said is that
the basic recommended, playtested competition system does not allow
it.
>
> The issue continues to be one where folks are trying to influence
how NASAMW tourneys are formatted by trying to influence 14.0. It
does not matter what 14.0 says or does not say, the format of an event
is up to the organizer. You can have 10 connected TFs in the forward
zone in your tourney as far as I am concerned. But the basic
recommended format does not. Discussions about how much or what of
14.0 should be used in a tourney should be directed at the event
organizer. 14.0 is not a 'rule'.

(LE) Jon, I think it is in everyone's best interest to play the game
using a universally accepted standard. IMO, 14.0 is a rule and NASAMW
should follow it. Furthermore, IIRC, I have said that I can
understand the logic from a competition perspective.

(LE) I wonder, however, if it can be loosened up a bit to allow the
placement of TF on areas that are otherwise clear (such as bare,
gentle hills). I do understand why TF cannot go into *open space*
terrain, as that is defined by the player as containing *nothing*.
But, the maximum size of terrain features makes it possible to deny
players the ability to place TF in a forward zone -- which I think is
the complaint.

(LE) I am only suggesting that as you work through your intent that
you consider these things. I think that you probably will do so.

> Potentially. But there are two things play in here that are
important. One, we will not knee-jerk react to every doctoral
dissertation that pops up. That, IMO, is a mistake. Too much of
today's history is revisionist just to get published and does not
reflect newly discovered primary material that should alter our view.
Two, players pay money and put time into their list. If tomorrow
Aztec crossbows are unearthed in Latin America, we may *add* that
ability as a line in errata to NWW lists. But the standard for
changing a list in a negative sense is so high as to be realistically
impossible.

(LE) Revisionist history is not necessarily bad history. OTOH, I
appreciate that you would not respond in a knee-jerk fashion.

(LE) IMO, there have been pretty sound historical perspectives put
forth on this list on why some published lists are in error. I would
think that correcting errors would be a right thing to do.

(LE) Some of the more glaring examples are those that impact decisions
on regular and irregular classifications and morale grades. IMO, this
is an area where revisionist history might prove most useful since the
aim is to reevaluate information without the biases of the original
observers. Thus, the ferocity of Gallic warriors might be challenged
based on the prediliction of Ceaser to play up his achievements -- as
an example.

> > What I expect from Warrior is that the basic structure will not
> > change. >>
>
> And that is precisely and only what I mean by my no change promise,
of course.

(LE) And, while not how people understood the hunt for WMD, that is
how we now understand you. ;-)

[Chris Bump]

Let it go. First comment was just a demonstration of poor taste. Second
comment suggests you are trying to get a respose. This is not the site for
political pontificating. Either side. You may be trying to entice argument or
debate. Perhaps based on your apparent predilection for politics. Don't know,
don't care. Take it elsewhere.
Chris


In a message dated 5/4/2004 1:07:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
larryessick@... writes:

> (LE) And, while not how people understood the hunt for WMD,
> that is

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/4/2004 1:07:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
larryessick@... writes:

> (LE) Jon, I think it is in everyone's best interest to play the game
> using a universally accepted standard. IMO, 14.0 is a rule and NASAMW
> should follow it. Furthermore, IIRC, I have said that I can
> understand the logic from a competition perspective.>>

The 'new' 14.0 will contain many tourney formats (Dogs of War, extended rear
zones, preset terrain, wider/shorter tables, different point values, etc.)
There will be a base, however, and if NASAMW chooses to treat that base as the
'universally accepted standard' that is fine. But I can tell you the base will
not permit a closed table unless both players slag it with terrain...lol

>
> (LE) I wonder, however, if it can be loosened up a bit to allow the
> placement of TF on areas that are otherwise clear (such as bare,
> gentle hills). I do understand why TF cannot go into *open space*
> terrain, as that is defined by the player as containing *nothing*.
> But, the maximum size of terrain features makes it possible to deny
> players the ability to place TF in a forward zone -- which I think is
> the complaint.>>

That 'complaint' has been ably disproved by Mark Stone. The other 'complaint'
is that TFs cannot be connected to each other and terrain to form an
unattackable 'wall' and this will not be permitted by the new 14.0's base case
either. :)

>
> (LE) IMO, there have been pretty sound historical perspectives put
> forth on this list on why some published lists are in error. I would
> think that correcting errors would be a right thing to do.>>

I think our list errata proves that we will correct errors. But we will not
change things we do not agree with, however sound they seem to the author.
There are those who put up their opinions on history here that think we don't
listen, believe me we do. We read every mail (except for one person's who i
block, and even then I answer his rules questions..lol) and all history-based
recommended changes to lists are discussed internally among FHE.

Quite often we get requests for changes that have already been considered at
length. The 'quickness' of our 'no' is not meant as a slight or meant to show
that we did not explore it thorougly in the first place, it simply means we have
already reviewed that issue in detail and decided against.

J

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/4/2004 1:07:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
larryessick@... writes:

> (LE) Jon, I think it is in everyone's best interest to play the game
> using a universally accepted standard. IMO, 14.0 is a rule and NASAMW
> should follow it. Furthermore, IIRC, I have said that I can
> understand the logic from a competition perspective.>>

The 'new' 14.0 will contain many tourney formats (Dogs of War, extended rear
zones, preset terrain, wider/shorter tables, different point values, etc.)
There will be a base, however, and if NASAMW chooses to treat that base as the
'universally accepted standard' that is fine. But I can tell you the base will
not permit a closed table unless both players slag it with terrain...lol

>
> (LE) I wonder, however, if it can be loosened up a bit to allow the
> placement of TF on areas that are otherwise clear (such as bare,
> gentle hills). I do understand why TF cannot go into *open space*
> terrain, as that is defined by the player as containing *nothing*.
> But, the maximum size of terrain features makes it possible to deny
> players the ability to place TF in a forward zone -- which I think is
> the complaint.>>

That 'complaint' has been ably disproved by Mark Stone. The other 'complaint'
is that TFs cannot be connected to each other and terrain to form an
unattackable 'wall' and this will not be permitted by the new 14.0's base case
either. :)

>
> (LE) IMO, there have been pretty sound historical perspectives put
> forth on this list on why some published lists are in error. I would
> think that correcting errors would be a right thing to do.>>

I think our list errata proves that we will correct errors. But we will not
change things we do not agree with, however sound they seem to the author.
There are those who put up their opinions on history here that think we don't
listen, believe me we do. We read every mail (except for one person's who i
block, and even then I answer his rules questions..lol) and all history-based
recommended changes to lists are discussed internally among FHE.

Quite often we get requests for changes that have already been considered at
length. The 'quickness' of our 'no' is not meant as a slight or meant to show
that we did not explore it thorougly in the first place, it simply means we have
already reviewed that issue in detail and decided against.

J

[Larry Essick]

> Let it go. First comment was just a demonstration of poor taste.
Second comment suggests you are trying to get a respose. This is not
the site for political pontificating. Either side. You may be trying
to entice argument or debate. Perhaps based on your apparent
predilection for politics. Don't know, don't care. Take it
elsewhere.
> Chris

Chris,

My apologies. I was not trying to be political but funny. Thus the
and ;-p and tossed in.

We all make statements that we regret and I was just twisting Jon's
knickers a bit. I would have thought that I would be allowed to have
fun along with everyone else.

When I'm being political I tend to phrase things as "You F*cking
Idiot!" Much more deliberate and direct.

Loosen up a bit. We all have personalities, but reading into things
generally gets me into trouble. I've found it does the same for
others as well. :-)

Larry