Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

>
>But I have seen other rules recently that allow bows and longbows
>firing at long range to operate against the worst armor and shield
>category of the target rather than the front. This contrasts in the
>medieval period to crossbow fire and short range bow and longbow
>fire which continue to operate against the front of the target.
>
>Any possibility to consider something like this?>>

Ok, I think it is time to once again go over the FHE 'policy' on stuff like
this.

While the various 'arguments' placed here recently for changing the skirmish
rules and now looking into changing the shooting rules for B and LB seem quite
reasonable on the surface and we at FHE do not want to seem like we are not
listening, you must realize that either would constitute a 'change' in the rules
in the manner I mean when I use the words rules change. That is, a change that
would cause the very nature of key game mechanics to occur and thereby affecting
key relationships between troops types and the armies that include them.

This is *precisely* what we have said we will *not* do since the very origins of
FHE. To permit, for example, B to shoot at unshielded MI in a back rank is all
by itself a change of horrendous proportions - the playtesting alone would shut
down everything I was doing and would fundamentally alter game play. Note that
we are not taking a position on the issue one way or the other (except to say
that we are quite comfortable with Warrior shooting) because from a practical
standpoint there simply isn't any way such a change *could* take place in the
forseeable future, even if we thought it somehow justified to take a serious
look at it.

I don't want you guys to think that I don't listen or that your comments are not
taken seriously, but you must realize that no change to core Warrior mechanics
is planned. I do file every such suggestion here and I suppose we would
consider a change if we found ourselves faced with indisputable evidence that we
had gotten something 100% wrong, but such is not the case.

I am about to begin the writing of section 6.0 for the new rulebook. It will
take me a month to get rid of the language we don't like and replace it with
language that makes our intent clear and is easier on the reader. The parts
after 6.0 will take most of the remainder of the year, as FHE is not my day job.
Making such changes as have been mentioned here in the last couple of days
would:
a. set that process back 1-2 years
b. alter our most fundamental 'agreement' with our playership

I'm sorry. I am listening. But we aren't making any changes.

All this of course begs the question why folks interested in change do not
create and test an x-rule as well as gather the historical info to support their
'case'....
We have a game the vast majority of the players of which like just the way it
is. A game that supports the specific play of armies people have invested
serious time and money into gathering. A game based on an engine with 19 years
of playing behind it. I would never, ever consider a change on the reading of
one source or based on the way it is done in another rules set.

I do hear you. I do save all these ideas. They just aren't leading to change
on any timeline I can see.

Jon

I thought these discussions might be enough for a X-rule, but surely only
the Four Hoursemen can put out a X-rule.

regards Kingo


> All this of course begs the question why folks interested in change do not
create and test an x-rule as well as gather the historical info to support
their 'case'....
> We have a game the vast majority of the players of which like just the way
it is. A game that supports the specific play of armies people have
invested serious time and money into gathering. A game based on an engine
with 19 years of playing behind it. I would never, ever consider a change
on the reading of one source or based on the way it is done in another rules
set.
>
> I do hear you. I do save all these ideas. They just aren't leading to
change on any timeline I can see.
>
> Jon
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Well based on my earlier post, how's this for an X-Rule;

When troops other than Light Troops are Evading a charge, for what ever
reason no matter how noble or advantageous, this is a cause of Unease and
also requires a waiver check.

Allan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex King" <tors1@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Practical World was Re: Skirmishing


> I thought these discussions might be enough for a X-rule, but surely only
> the Four Hoursemen can put out a X-rule.
>
> regards Kingo
>
>
> > All this of course begs the question why folks interested in change do
not
> create and test an x-rule as well as gather the historical info to support
> their 'case'....
> > We have a game the vast majority of the players of which like just the
way
> it is. A game that supports the specific play of armies people have
> invested serious time and money into gathering. A game based on an engine
> with 19 years of playing behind it. I would never, ever consider a change
> on the reading of one source or based on the way it is done in another
rules
> set.
> >
> > I do hear you. I do save all these ideas. They just aren't leading to
> change on any timeline I can see.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/7/2004 9:27:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Alex King"
<tors1@...> writes:

>I thought these discussions might be enough for a X-rule, but surely only
>the Four Hoursemen can put out a X-rule.>>

anyone can make an x-rule.

Jon

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Excellent idea Allan. One problem. . . how does one account for peltasts? This
now becomes a list problem as it was peltasts that defeated a Spartan army once
by skirmishing and not allowing the most excellent Spartan Hoplites to come into
contact. . . Sadly Scott and Bill are so mired in their work that I doubt that
they would have the time to effect a change in this area. In fact, this would
almost require a team of volunteers to investigate history to determine which
units would have a better chance of going into a skirmish type formation. Are
there any Warrior players that would be willing to help out in this regard, that
is if the already over-worked Four Horsemen agreed to such a task on theirs and
our behest?

Kelly Wilkinson

Allan Lougheed <redcoat24@...> wrote:
Well based on my earlier post, how's this for an X-Rule;

When troops other than Light Troops are Evading a charge, for what ever
reason no matter how noble or advantageous, this is a cause of Unease and
also requires a waiver check.

Allan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex King" <tors1@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Practical World was Re: Skirmishing


> I thought these discussions might be enough for a X-rule, but surely only
> the Four Hoursemen can put out a X-rule.
>
> regards Kingo
>
>
> > All this of course begs the question why folks interested in change do
not
> create and test an x-rule as well as gather the historical info to support
> their 'case'....
> > We have a game the vast majority of the players of which like just the
way
> it is. A game that supports the specific play of armies people have
> invested serious time and money into gathering. A game based on an engine
> with 19 years of playing behind it. I would never, ever consider a change
> on the reading of one source or based on the way it is done in another
rules
> set.
> >
> > I do hear you. I do save all these ideas. They just aren't leading to
> change on any timeline I can see.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

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

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 7/8/04 9:33:39 AM GMT Daylight Time,
fredthebaddy@... writes:

I really like skirmishing as it is. I see the issue primarily as one
of troop classification.

If you think English Longbowmen couldn't skirmish, run them as MI

ANW




Yes. I am in this camp.

mark mallard


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

I really like skirmishing as it is. I see the issue primarily as one
of troop classification.

If you think English Longbowmen couldn't skirmish, run them as MI

ANW

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> Excellent idea Allan. One problem. . . how does one account for
peltasts? This now becomes a list problem as it was peltasts that
defeated a Spartan army once by skirmishing and not allowing the
most excellent Spartan Hoplites to come into contact. . . Sadly
Scott and Bill are so mired in their work that I doubt that they
would have the time to effect a change in this area. In fact, this
would almost require a team of volunteers to investigate history to
determine which units would have a better chance of going into a
skirmish type formation. Are there any Warrior players that would be
willing to help out in this regard, that is if the already over-
worked Four Horsemen agreed to such a task on theirs and our behest?
>
>
Kelly Wilkinson
>
> Allan Lougheed <redcoat24@c...> wrote:
> Well based on my earlier post, how's this for an X-Rule;
>
> When troops other than Light Troops are Evading a charge, for what
ever
> reason no matter how noble or advantageous, this is a cause of
Unease and
> also requires a waiver check.
>
> Allan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alex King" <tors1@o...>
> To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 9:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Practical World was Re: Skirmishing
>
>
> > I thought these discussions might be enough for a X-rule, but
surely only
> > the Four Hoursemen can put out a X-rule.
> >
> > regards Kingo
> >
> >
> > > All this of course begs the question why folks interested in
change do
> not
> > create and test an x-rule as well as gather the historical info
to support
> > their 'case'....
> > > We have a game the vast majority of the players of which like
just the
> way
> > it is. A game that supports the specific play of armies people
have
> > invested serious time and money into gathering. A game based on
an engine
> > with 19 years of playing behind it. I would never, ever
consider a change
> > on the reading of one source or based on the way it is done in
another
> rules
> > set.
> > >
> > > I do hear you. I do save all these ideas. They just aren't
leading to
> > change on any timeline I can see.
> > >
> > > Jon
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I agree with that too

Allan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Williams" <fredthebaddy@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 3:55 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Practical World was Re: Skirmishing


> I really like skirmishing as it is. I see the issue primarily as one
> of troop classification.
>
> If you think English Longbowmen couldn't skirmish, run them as MI
>
> ANW
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
> <jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> > Excellent idea Allan. One problem. . . how does one account for
> peltasts? This now becomes a list problem as it was peltasts that
> defeated a Spartan army once by skirmishing and not allowing the
> most excellent Spartan Hoplites to come into contact. . . Sadly
> Scott and Bill are so mired in their work that I doubt that they
> would have the time to effect a change in this area. In fact, this
> would almost require a team of volunteers to investigate history to
> determine which units would have a better chance of going into a
> skirmish type formation. Are there any Warrior players that would be
> willing to help out in this regard, that is if the already over-
> worked Four Horsemen agreed to such a task on theirs and our behest?
> >
> >
> Kelly Wilkinson
> >
> > Allan Lougheed <redcoat24@c...> wrote:
> > Well based on my earlier post, how's this for an X-Rule;
> >
> > When troops other than Light Troops are Evading a charge, for what
> ever
> > reason no matter how noble or advantageous, this is a cause of
> Unease and
> > also requires a waiver check.
> >
> > Allan
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Alex King" <tors1@o...>
> > To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 9:27 PM
> > Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Practical World was Re: Skirmishing
> >
> >
> > > I thought these discussions might be enough for a X-rule, but
> surely only
> > > the Four Hoursemen can put out a X-rule.
> > >
> > > regards Kingo
> > >
> > >
> > > > All this of course begs the question why folks interested in
> change do
> > not
> > > create and test an x-rule as well as gather the historical info
> to support
> > > their 'case'....
> > > > We have a game the vast majority of the players of which like
> just the
> > way
> > > it is. A game that supports the specific play of armies people
> have
> > > invested serious time and money into gathering. A game based on
> an engine
> > > with 19 years of playing behind it. I would never, ever
> consider a change
> > > on the reading of one source or based on the way it is done in
> another
> > rules
> > > set.
> > > >
> > > > I do hear you. I do save all these ideas. They just aren't
> leading to
> > > change on any timeline I can see.
> > > >
> > > > Jon
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Good point

----- Original Message -----
From: "kelly wilkinson" <jwilkinson62@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 1:39 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Practical World was Re: Skirmishing


> Excellent idea Allan. One problem. . . how does one account for peltasts?
This now becomes a list problem as it was peltasts that defeated a Spartan
army once by skirmishing and not allowing the most excellent Spartan
Hoplites to come into contact. . . Sadly Scott and Bill are so mired in
their work that I doubt that they would have the time to effect a change in
this area. In fact, this would almost require a team of volunteers to
investigate history to determine which units would have a better chance of g
> oing into a skirmish type formation. Are there any Warrior players that
would be willing to help out in this regard, that is if the already
over-worked Four Horsemen agreed to such a task on theirs and our behest?
>
> Kelly
Wilkinson
>
> Allan Lougheed <redcoat24@...> wrote:
> Well based on my earlier post, how's this for an X-Rule;
>
> When troops other than Light Troops are Evading a charge, for what ever
> reason no matter how noble or advantageous, this is a cause of Unease and
> also requires a waiver check.
>
> Allan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alex King" <tors1@...>
> To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 9:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Practical World was Re: Skirmishing
>
>
> > I thought these discussions might be enough for a X-rule, but surely
only
> > the Four Hoursemen can put out a X-rule.
> >
> > regards Kingo
> >
> >
> > > All this of course begs the question why folks interested in change do
> not
> > create and test an x-rule as well as gather the historical info to
support
> > their 'case'....
> > > We have a game the vast majority of the players of which like just the
> way
> > it is. A game that supports the specific play of armies people have
> > invested serious time and money into gathering. A game based on an
engine
> > with 19 years of playing behind it. I would never, ever consider a
change
> > on the reading of one source or based on the way it is done in another
> rules
> > set.
> > >
> > > I do hear you. I do save all these ideas. They just aren't leading
to
> > change on any timeline I can see.
> > >
> > > Jon
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>