Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

But, the intent is not to be patronizing.>>
[
[
Intent is not important - if you continue to actually *be* patronizing no matter
what you say your intentions are, you will be asked to leave the discussion.
 Your arguments continue to include personal attacks and I won't allow anyone to
do that here.
Given what you said to Todd, I combed through his next mail to see if he
attacked you personally in return in case he needed a warning too, but I was
very pleased to see that he was quite restrained.  You could benefit from his
example.


<<Todd is an excellent apologist for you. >>
[
[
I need noone to apologize for me and Todd certainly weasn't doing anything of
the kind.  Stop it now or be gone.


<<But, he lacks the experience for his opinions.  His example of 30 some games
vs your Med. Spanish is the best example.  He needs 300 games with a variety of
armies against a variety of opponents.  Then he'll understand what he is talking
about and his opinion will be more informed. >>
[
[
I think he understands much.  He is a product of a bunch of guys caring enough
to recruit him, help him learn  and create an environment where it is fun and
challenging to play ancients.  300 games are no standard and it is wrong for you
to try and dictate one for us.  His opinion is as valued here as anyone else's.


<<I mention that there are some notable exceptions.  However, Saracen archery
was notably ineffective vs Crusaders.  Reports abound of how the arrows were
unable to penetrate Crusader mail.  It was tactics and not shooting that
mattered.>>
[
[
So, they shot away all the crusader support and left them exposed.  Shooting or
tactics?  Disingenuous....

<<Only the English of the HYW really emphasised shooting,>>
[
[
Really?  Not the Burgundians, who chose to write it into law?  How about the
Koreans or Tang or Yuan or Samurai?  But we digress.  The real issue is the
overreaction to seeing armies chosen in open tourneys that have a high
proportion of missile troops.  Some say that is because missiles are 'dominant'
in Warrior.  I say that is because in an open, the key is flexibility and
missile troops often provide the most flexibility for what you pay in army
points.
But open tourneys are an historical example of pretty much nothing.  If I have
no historical opponents worth a damn, I can make a Viking combat system
dominant.  In the relative fantasy-land of the open tourney - much more
difficult.


<<Your argument is flawed because it is poor history -- romanticised wargamer's
history -- but poor history nonetheless.>>
[
[
My 'argument' on missile power would in no way be based on how many HYW we see
fighting romans.  If I felt the need to get into this argument, I would use no
game-based examples that used ahistorical opponents.  Talk about your flawed
history...lol

<<Try looking at the results pages on the NASAMW site and checking out who the
winners are. >>
[
[
I do.  I see good players listed as Warrior winners.  I see no evidence they
would be worse in the scale they did not play those games in.  The people I
think are good and I would find challenging to win againts would be that way in
any scale.  The question remains...

J