Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/27/2004 23:15:08 Central Daylight Time,
larryessick@... writes:

Well, I'm glad you took time to read the section and to allow the
light to come on. The section is not at all simple and is actually
quite a bit different than 7th.>>
A bit of WRG 7th trivia: In this case., Warrior is precisely the same as the
text of the 93 WRG 7th NASAMW interp book, written by the rules committee
when guess who was president....lol
Just so you know - wouldn't want to overreact or anything...lol
Jon



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

[Ewan McNay]

Having jumped in, I now have to jump out again, somewhat. I think I see
at least one more aspect of the problem.

The problem is the sentence "Once in skirmish, you must do everything
possible to stay within shooting range during your moves," and how exactly
this is limited by the 'counter/retirement exception' - and while I think
I know, I better understand the potential for confusion.

Moreover, Jon's answers are not clear either. For instance, he notes that
a unit of LMI in skirmish which has enemy LC counter away, may remain in
skirmish *so long as* (emphasis critical) the LC could move back to within
the LMI's shooting range. This seems to limit the 'counter exception'
which hence must not be an absolute - and so needs defining.

Further, I would read the existing wording as requiring the LMI to advance
as far as they can - doing everything possible - but being able to remain
in skirmish even if this 'everything possible is insufficient, because of
the 'counter exception.'

But this too is apparently not the case.

So colour me confused also. I thought this was simple, and suspect Jon
feels the same way, but on re-reading in detail it is not so.

E

[Larry Essick]

> So colour me confused also. I thought this was simple, and suspect
Jon
> feels the same way, but on re-reading in detail it is not so.

Well, I'm glad you took time to read the section and to allow the
light to come on. The section is not at all simple and is actually
quite a bit different than 7th.

I don't think it was meant to be -- and that might be why Jon and you
were having trouble thinking that I was asking a serious question
(your comments about poking).

At some point it might dawn on folks that occasionally I ask questions
because I have questions and not because I'm motivated by some hidden
purposes. It might actually turn out that occasional is actually all
of the time and that I turn nasty only because the people on the other
end are being nasty.

And, you might note that I've tried to not be nasty, in spite of the
accusations.

Larry

[Doug]

>In a message dated 5/27/2004 23:15:08 Central Daylight Time,
>larryessick@... writes:
>
>Well, I'm glad you took time to read the section and to allow the
>light to come on. The section is not at all simple and is actually
>quite a bit different than 7th.
> >>
>A bit of WRG 7th trivia: In this case., Warrior is precisely the same as the
>text of the 93 WRG 7th NASAMW interp book, written by the rules committee
>when guess who was president....lol
>Just so you know - wouldn't want to overreact or anything...lol
>Jon

Sometimes I have devilish thoughts---
So who owns the copyright on the 1993 work product?

[Larry Essick]

> A bit of WRG 7th trivia: In this case., Warrior is precisely the
same as the
> text of the 93 WRG 7th NASAMW interp book, written by the rules
committee
> when guess who was president....lol
> Just so you know - wouldn't want to overreact or anything...lol

Jon,

If it is exactly the same then it is Scott Holder's wording and not
mine. More to the point, I have not played 7th or Warrior (except for
3 games at Cold Wars this year) in 8 or 9 years.

I don't even own any of the old 7th material. Still more relevant,
clarifications are not rules. Even still more relevent, if the rule
is exactly the same then I expect royalties from FHE to NASAMW for use
of their original material.

Maybe if you'd quit trying to poke your finger into my eye all the
time and just took things at face value you'd have less problems.

Your attacks are not necessary and have nothing at all to do with the
question -- and I don't appreciate your freedom to make them as
moderator or your promises of banishment to anyone who takes exception
to your unnecessary actions.

It is unnecessary comments like yours above that provoke incidents.
It is unfair and I do not appreciate it.

I happen to be retired now and in the US for an extended time and I
had thought to play Warrior.

I can see now that you are more interested in being mean at my
expense. I hope Nashcon is a success as I won't be going. The people
who were counting on me to be there can thank you for being such an
unnecessary asshole.

Don't waste your time banning me. I'll unsubscribe.

Larry

[Larry Essick]

NASAMW.

And thank Jon for pissing me off enough to see what we can do about
it.

Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug" <rockd@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 1:08 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] More on skirmish


> >In a message dated 5/27/2004 23:15:08 Central Daylight Time,
> >larryessick@... writes:
> >
> >Well, I'm glad you took time to read the section and to allow the
> >light to come on. The section is not at all simple and is
actually
> >quite a bit different than 7th.
> > >>
> >A bit of WRG 7th trivia: In this case., Warrior is precisely the
same as the
> >text of the 93 WRG 7th NASAMW interp book, written by the rules
committee
> >when guess who was president....lol
> >Just so you know - wouldn't want to overreact or anything...lol
> >Jon
>
> Sometimes I have devilish thoughts---
> So who owns the copyright on the 1993 work product?
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor --------------------~-->
> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
> Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/IMSolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>