Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> I answer rules questions because I intend to make Warrior the best
supported
> game system ever. I would prefer not to be used to read the
rulebook for
> someone else. I looked over the questions you sent and saw a
pattern - they
> are either quickly answered by a rule or are theoretical 'in game'
questions
> from someone I don't think has played a game yet.
> Could I ask you to go over
> these again and make absolutely sure that:
> 1. You can't find the answer in the rules or clarification sheet.

Fair request -- done, see other email thread.

> 2. You aren't asking me an in game or tactics question that isn't
really
> about the rules. Save those for later.

Of course. I didn't -- though there is one or two design questions.
Skip them, if you'd like.

> Like I said, I will answer (ALL of) these as soon as I am able, but
if you
> retracted a couple because you found them in the meantime, that
would be ok.

I've already retracted several - you're looking at the shortened
list.

I have to say, I am pretty disappointed by your response, Jon. If I
as a newcomer to Warrior (and who has played lots of wargames through
his 20+ years of gaming, though not the - what, apparently
required?? -- 7th edition) represent a "precious resource," I'd hate
to see how you make your non-precious resources feel ...

I am NOT asking anyone -- you or anybody else -- to "read the
rulebook" for me. Being in the software industry, I'm well aware of
the RTFM reaction from product designers when asked questions they
feel are stupid/obvious/whatever -- but they are ALWAYS wrong to
breathe even a hint of that attitude into helping folks out. Users of
a product become confused because something needs improvement in the
product. Sure, there are lots of different levels of user out there,
but just chalking me up as a "newbie" and asking me to read the
manual is mildly offensive and definitely off-putting.

I mean, this is the "Warrior RULES" list for Pete's sake, right?? You
presumably started the list to answer questions and get feedback on
rule items that aren't clear. I'm giving you feedback, and I feel
like you're discounting it.

Your are correct: I have not played a full game yet, as I stated.
What I have done: I've read the manual three times cover to cover,
with a pencil in hand, writing in questions, and probably burnging 20
or more hours on the endeavor; I've erased more questions than I have
left, based on answering my own questions from finding a rule that
clearly answers the question; I've taken the time to try to be as
articulate and organized as possible in asking the questions
remaining; I've carefully noted answers and made sure they didn't
cascade into answers for other questions. In short: I've been as
thorough as I know how to be, in the vacuum in which I live in which
nobody I know plays -- or has even HEARD of -- Warrior.

What precisely would you have me do differently? Just "play the
game" -- incorrectly, getting frustrated over missing edge-cases,
sytactic ambiguities, or hold-over Barkerisms, and ending up walking
away from Warrior before I've even given it a fair chance, because I
have no WAY of giving it a fair chance?

*sigh*

I'm probably reacting stronger to your response than is warranted, so
apologies in advance ... I just detect this *slight* hint of what a
certain PB radiated in spades -- the believe that rule confusion is
the sign of a dumb player, no sub-optimal rules -- and that I find
instantly so appalling that I will ditch a game system on those
grounds alone.

Anyway ... thanks for answering the questions you've answered so far.
The answers have been useful to me, at least.

-Jeff

[Ewan McNay]

On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, jeffchrisope wrote:
> I'm probably reacting stronger to your response than is warranted, so
> apologies in advance ... I just detect this *slight* hint of what a
> certain PB radiated in spades -- the believe that rule confusion is
> the sign of a dumb player, no sub-optimal rules -- and that I find
> instantly so appalling that I will ditch a game system on those
> grounds alone.

Yeah. PB infamously stated that *all* of 7th could be trivially
understood by 'a dull eight-year-old.'

Right.

And, yes, Jon does the same thing. So, alas, do I - more in neuroscience
than in wargaming, I suspect, but somewhat there also (and thanks to mark
Stone for pointing out one of my many potential errors, btw). Jon, the
criticism is warranted, if you didn't already know that ; you
necessarily have spent more time with the rule book than probably any of
the rest of us.

E

[Mark Mallard]

I think you will find that previous evaders being allowed to evade covers
units such as HC that evaded last bound and is now in block (no longer in
skirmish).

That covers two of your questions.

Not an official answer - but might keep you going for a bit.

mark mallard


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