Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

--- On June 1 Jon Cleaves said: ---

> Oh, NICT/Cold wars/HCon is set by NASAMW - not us. There is nothing whatsoever
> preventing one or more of those tourneys including x-rules except participant
> preference.

Being able to play well at NICT/Cold Wars/HCon is of overriding importance to
me. To the point where I wouldn't want to confuse myself with playing two or
more different variants of Warrior without a very good reason. A very good
reason would be:
- some x-rules might become official rules by an established and publicized
process;
- some x-rules are employed in some Cold Wars/HCon events (I like the suggestion
someone made of using the 1200 point minis as an experimental testground).

Thinking about all this, it seems clear to me that having tourney rules and
formats set by NASAMW rather than FHE is a hindrance rather than a help. So
maybe it's time to change that relationship. Controversial, I know, but I 'd
like to have a better understanding of what the issues are, and how FHE could
have greater control over its own tournament events while maintaining a
positive relationship with NASAMW.


-Mark Stone

[scott holder]

Since I currently wear the hat of NASAMW Warrior Ump, it's somewhat of a
non-starter.

I have no plans on implementing x-rules for the NICT. Theme tourneys, different
story since we've had a long tradition of "theme rules".

No x-rules will be in use at Hcon this year.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stone [mailto:mark@...]
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 1:19 PM
To: warrior
Subject: [WarriorRules] santioned events


--- On June 1 Jon Cleaves said: ---

> Oh, NICT/Cold wars/HCon is set by NASAMW - not us. There is nothing whatsoever
> preventing one or more of those tourneys including x-rules except participant
> preference.

Being able to play well at NICT/Cold Wars/HCon is of overriding importance to
me. To the point where I wouldn't want to confuse myself with playing two or
more different variants of Warrior without a very good reason. A very good
reason would be:
- some x-rules might become official rules by an established and publicized
process;
- some x-rules are employed in some Cold Wars/HCon events (I like the suggestion
someone made of using the 1200 point minis as an experimental testground).

Thinking about all this, it seems clear to me that having tourney rules and
formats set by NASAMW rather than FHE is a hindrance rather than a help. So
maybe it's time to change that relationship. Controversial, I know, but I 'd
like to have a better understanding of what the issues are, and how FHE could
have greater control over its own tournament events while maintaining a
positive relationship with NASAMW.


-Mark Stone






Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:

> Thinking about all this, it seems clear to me that having tourney
rules and
> formats set by NASAMW rather than FHE is a hindrance rather than a
help. So
> maybe it's time to change that relationship. Controversial, I know,
but I 'd
> like to have a better understanding of what the issues are, and how
FHE could
> have greater control over its own tournament events while
maintaining a
> positive relationship with NASAMW.
>
>
> -Mark Stone

Perhaps even more damning is that the number of games required to
maintain a competitive edge in Warrior is very high comparitively, so
any testing games detract from reaching a required number of
variation games/units that is necessary to set a competitive comfort
level.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/1/2004 2:19:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
mark@... writes:

> Being able to play well at NICT/Cold Wars/HCon is of overriding importance to
> me.>>
[
[
Yes, this is a very widespread opinion. I share it myself...lol


<< To the point where I wouldn't want to confuse myself with playing two or
> more different variants of Warrior without a very good reason.>>
[
[
This is also the reason most often given. hey, try playing Fantasy Warrior all
spring and then going to HCon.... where the hell is my heal spell??? lol

<< A very good
> reason would be:
> - some x-rules might become official rules by an established and publicized
> process;>>
[
[
Not only the process, but *must* include the support of the vast majority of our
players before considered. But, given BOTH of those criteria were met, we'd
consider it.


> - some x-rules are employed in some Cold Wars/HCon events (I like the
suggestion
> someone made of using the 1200 point minis as an experimental testground).>>
[
[
I have heard that recommendation and personally support it, fwiw. But, and
Scott can correct me, I *think* the last time the mini players were asked the
majority was against.


>
> Thinking about all this, it seems clear to me that having tourney rules and
> formats set by NASAMW rather than FHE is a hindrance rather than a help. So
> maybe it's time to change that relationship. Controversial, I know, but I 'd
> like to have a better understanding of what the issues are, and how FHE could
> have greater control over its own tournament events while
> maintaining a
> positive relationship with NASAMW.>>
[
[
NASAMW and FHE share the desire to give Warrior players what they want. No
matter who runs the events, the method is still to canvass the participants for
their desires as to format. I recommend that Scott canvass them again, but I
suspect you will find that the majority would *not* want x-rules in the mini or
theme. However, I would love to be proven wrong here.

I don't think it is necessary to separate FHE and NASAMW on this issue as we'd
do the same thing if we were running them instead of sanctioning them. We'd ask
the players if they wanted to use those events to test x-rules.

Jon