Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Todd Schneider]

Chris,

In doing some list work, and looking through the books, can you point
me to an Army armed with 2HCT that does not have the following "List
Rule", or at least a variation of it:

Steady, Non impetuous foot not armed with 2HCT and no other H-T-H
Weapon fight 1.5 ranks.

Looking through Feudal Warrior, every Army with 2HCT guys has this
rule, the only Army I "Know" od off the top of my head is the Later
Ottoman Turks, who have the option to upgrade to 2HCT but not the
rule. There's the Rule for KoSJ in the erratta, and the Later
Hungarians as well.

Now, the Later Ottoman could be an exception, or a mistake, I don't
know, might be best to ask Scott.

But, giving a cursory look to all the lists I can see with 2HCT (and I
didn't look that hard) Later Ottomans are the only ones I see without
that rule.

Are there others?

Todd



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Bump" <cncbump@v...> wrote:
> If it were the original intent then why the list rules allowing it
in the
> medievel list book, and then only on specific armies?
> Chris
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Stone [mailto:mark@d...]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 10:58 AM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: the Arms Race
>
>
> Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:
>
> >
> > In a message dated 3/1/2005 21:12:25 Central Standard Time,
> Quahog25@a...
> > writes:
> > << As the halberd and the axe are superchargred to keep pace
with the
> > supercharged lancer ( and presumably the LTS is soon to follow),>>
> >
> > The halberd and axe are not 'being supercharged' to 'keep pace' with
> > anything. First, Warrior 2HCT has always been 1.5 ranks if
steady and
> > non-impetuous, so there isn't any change there.
> >
>
> Jon, you bring so many fine qualities to our hobby and the rules,
but this
> is
> one of the few mistakes you consistently make. What you should, of
course,
> being saying is that in _your_ opinion there isn't any change
there. But
> there
> are two valid points of view here, and I submit that your point of
view
> matters
> considerably less.
>
> I know what you are trying to say: in your own mind it has always been
> your
> intention that 2HCT fight 1.5 ranks. But as any of the professional
> writers on
> this list will tell you, author's intent has very little to do
with the
> meaning
> of a text. The ultimate judge of meaning is the reader, not the
author.
>
> We, your readers, can only judge by the text you actually produce. In
> Warrior
> there is no mention of 2HCT fighting in 1.5 ranks, and to many of
us it
> certainly seems like something that has become more pervasive over
time
> via
> list rules until, with the forthcoming reprint, it will indeed be
fully
> part of
> the rules.
>
> To many of your readers that means that the rules have changed. It
seems
> to me
> that you'd be better off spending more effort thinking about why your
> readers
> have those perceptions and how best to address them, and less time
> defending
> the hollow notion that nothing's changed because this was your
intent all
> along.
>
> Of course, that's just my opinion, and I only have 20+ years of
> professional
> experience as a writer, editor, and publisher with which to back
it up.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Chris Bump]

My point was that if the rule were meant to be universal, then there would
be no need for list rules. There are list rules, hence the rule was not
meant to be universal and certainly was not always in place or even always
intent on being in place.

But to satisfy my curiosity:
From Feudal Warrior,
List 2 has no rule for 2HCT and has hussites armed with 2HCT.
List 4 has no rule for 2HCT and has sailors armed with 2HCT
List 5 allows only German infantry armed with 2HCT 1.5 ranks even though
Polish foot are also armed as such.
This took me 5 minutes. I am not inclined to continue the search as I am
confident this trend continues further into the book. Now, there may be
clarifications that have caught these "oversights" and changed them, but
again this all tears at the fabric of the notion that the 1.5 rank rule was
always the intention, much less the case.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: thresh1642 [mailto:thresh1642@...]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 9:21 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: the Arms Race



Chris,

In doing some list work, and looking through the books, can you point
me to an Army armed with 2HCT that does not have the following "List
Rule", or at least a variation of it:

Steady, Non impetuous foot not armed with 2HCT and no other H-T-H
Weapon fight 1.5 ranks.

Looking through Feudal Warrior, every Army with 2HCT guys has this
rule, the only Army I "Know" od off the top of my head is the Later
Ottoman Turks, who have the option to upgrade to 2HCT but not the
rule. There's the Rule for KoSJ in the erratta, and the Later
Hungarians as well.

Now, the Later Ottoman could be an exception, or a mistake, I don't
know, might be best to ask Scott.

But, giving a cursory look to all the lists I can see with 2HCT (and I
didn't look that hard) Later Ottomans are the only ones I see without
that rule.

Are there others?

Todd



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Bump" <cncbump@v...> wrote:
> If it were the original intent then why the list rules allowing it
in the
> medievel list book, and then only on specific armies?
> Chris
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Stone [mailto:mark@d...]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 10:58 AM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: the Arms Race
>
>
> Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:
>
> >
> > In a message dated 3/1/2005 21:12:25 Central Standard Time,
> Quahog25@a...
> > writes:
> > << As the halberd and the axe are superchargred to keep pace
with the
> > supercharged lancer ( and presumably the LTS is soon to follow),>>
> >
> > The halberd and axe are not 'being supercharged' to 'keep pace' with
> > anything. First, Warrior 2HCT has always been 1.5 ranks if
steady and
> > non-impetuous, so there isn't any change there.
> >
>
> Jon, you bring so many fine qualities to our hobby and the rules,
but this
> is
> one of the few mistakes you consistently make. What you should, of
course,
> being saying is that in _your_ opinion there isn't any change
there. But
> there
> are two valid points of view here, and I submit that your point of
view
> matters
> considerably less.
>
> I know what you are trying to say: in your own mind it has always been
> your
> intention that 2HCT fight 1.5 ranks. But as any of the professional
> writers on
> this list will tell you, author's intent has very little to do
with the
> meaning
> of a text. The ultimate judge of meaning is the reader, not the
author.
>
> We, your readers, can only judge by the text you actually produce. In
> Warrior
> there is no mention of 2HCT fighting in 1.5 ranks, and to many of
us it
> certainly seems like something that has become more pervasive over
time
> via
> list rules until, with the forthcoming reprint, it will indeed be
fully
> part of
> the rules.
>
> To many of your readers that means that the rules have changed. It
seems
> to me
> that you'd be better off spending more effort thinking about why your
> readers
> have those perceptions and how best to address them, and less time
> defending
> the hollow notion that nothing's changed because this was your
intent all
> along.
>
> Of course, that's just my opinion, and I only have 20+ years of
> professional
> experience as a writer, editor, and publisher with which to back
it up.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> --
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





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

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

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

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



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

[Todd Schneider]

Chris,

Hussites have the rule that says they fight 1.5 ranks
(List 37). So the Hussitte Infantry in List 2 without
the rule is either an oversight or an excpetion. I've
set it aside for Scott to address.

However, looking at those lists with 2HCT, the
majority have the list rule. The others seem to be
the exceptions, which Scott can address.

Atthe same time though, you're going to have a hard
time convining me no one plays early Poles because the
Late Period 2HCT armed guys don't fight 1.5 ranks. In
fact, at least to my noobish eyes, the rule for the
Poles is upgrade 0-1/2, which means half the unit,
which usually means just the front rank (unless the
powergamer in us takes 8 elements, and makes a 4E unit
with all 2HCT).

Todd



--- Chris Bump <cncbump@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
My point was that if the rule were meant to be
universal, then there would
be no need for list rules. There are list rules,
hence the rule was not
meant to be universal and certainly was not always in
place or even always
intent on being in place.

But to satisfy my curiosity:
From Feudal Warrior,
List 2 has no rule for 2HCT and has hussites armed
with 2HCT.
List 4 has no rule for 2HCT and has sailors armed with
2HCT
List 5 allows only German infantry armed with 2HCT 1.5
ranks even though
Polish foot are also armed as such.
This took me 5 minutes. I am not inclined to continue
the search as I am
confident this trend continues further into the book.
Now, there may be
clarifications that have caught these "oversights" and
changed them, but
again this all tears at the fabric of the notion that
the 1.5 rank rule was
always the intention, much less the case.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: thresh1642 [mailto:thresh1642@...]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 9:21 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: the Arms Race



Chris,

In doing some list work, and looking through the
books, can you point
me to an Army armed with 2HCT that does not have the
following "List
Rule", or at least a variation of it:

Steady, Non impetuous foot not armed with 2HCT and
no other H-T-H
Weapon fight 1.5 ranks.

Looking through Feudal Warrior, every Army with 2HCT
guys has this
rule, the only Army I "Know" od off the top of my
head is the Later
Ottoman Turks, who have the option to upgrade to
2HCT but not the
rule. There's the Rule for KoSJ in the erratta, and
the Later
Hungarians as well.

Now, the Later Ottoman could be an exception, or a
mistake, I don't
know, might be best to ask Scott.

But, giving a cursory look to all the lists I can
see with 2HCT (and I
didn't look that hard) Later Ottomans are the only
ones I see without
that rule.

Are there others?

Todd



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Bump"
<cncbump@v...> wrote:
> If it were the original intent then why the list
rules allowing it
in the
> medievel list book, and then only on specific
armies?
> Chris
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Stone [mailto:mark@d...]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 10:58 AM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: the Arms Race
>
>
> Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com"
<WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:
>
> >
> > In a message dated 3/1/2005 21:12:25 Central
Standard Time,
> Quahog25@a...
> > writes:
> > << As the halberd and the axe are
superchargred to keep pace
with the
> > supercharged lancer ( and presumably the LTS
is soon to follow),>>
> >
> > The halberd and axe are not 'being
supercharged' to 'keep pace' with
> > anything. First, Warrior 2HCT has always been
1.5 ranks if
steady and
> > non-impetuous, so there isn't any change
there.
> >
>
> Jon, you bring so many fine qualities to our
hobby and the rules,
but this
> is
> one of the few mistakes you consistently make.
What you should, of
course,
> being saying is that in _your_ opinion there
isn't any change
there. But
> there
> are two valid points of view here, and I submit
that your point of
view
> matters
> considerably less.
>
> I know what you are trying to say: in your own
mind it has always been
> your
> intention that 2HCT fight 1.5 ranks. But as any
of the professional
> writers on
> this list will tell you, author's intent has
very little to do
with the
> meaning
> of a text. The ultimate judge of meaning is the
reader, not the
author.
>
> We, your readers, can only judge by the text you
actually produce. In
> Warrior
> there is no mention of 2HCT fighting in 1.5
ranks, and to many of
us it
> certainly seems like something that has become
more pervasive over
time
> via
> list rules until, with the forthcoming reprint,
it will indeed be
fully
> part of
> the rules.
>
> To many of your readers that means that the
rules have changed. It
seems
> to me
> that you'd be better off spending more effort
thinking about why your
> readers
> have those perceptions and how best to address
them, and less time
> defending
> the hollow notion that nothing's changed because
this was your
intent all
> along.
>
> Of course, that's just my opinion, and I only
have 20+ years of
> professional
> experience as a writer, editor, and publisher
with which to back
it up.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> --
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an
email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





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

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

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

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



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


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/4/2005 06:24:48 Central Standard Time,
darnd022263@... writes:

For anyone who cares. In Derekcons I have always let 2HCT fight 1 1/2
ranks since 6th edition. There has been no real sweeping advantage of
these units in the 33 tournaments I have held. I think all 2HCT
should fight 1 1/2 ranks.>>

Thanks, Derek. We are aware of that experience and it was one of many
factors in our decision to try that as a fix when we originally encountered the
problem. There's nothing like actually played games as an 'argument' - at
least to this professional playtester...

<< But hey I don't own the rules system.>>


Funny, I find something strangely appropriate and applicable about that
sentence....

Jon




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

For anyone who cares. In Derekcons I have always let 2HCT fight 1 1/2
ranks since 6th edition. There has been no real sweeping advantage of
these units in the 33 tournaments I have held. I think all 2HCT
should fight 1 1/2 ranks. But hey I don't own the rules system.

Derek

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 3/3/2005 21:12:31 Central Standard Time,
> cncbump@v... writes:
>
> If it were the original intent then why the list rules allowing it
in the
> medievel list book, and then only on specific armies?
> Chris>>
>
>
> I assume you mean 1.5 rank steady non-impetuous 2HCT. Ok, I will
explain
> this ONE more time.
>
> In the Warrior playtest (1999-2001) we determined that a single
rank of 2HCT
> did not accurately reflect the capabilities of such formations in a
large
> number of cases. We were not sure at that point what we were going
to do about
> it and we were running out of time in the sense that more
playtesting on
> this formation would have delayed publication. Since there was no
2HCT in
> Biblical Warrior, we decided to hold off on making a final decision
and include
> further playtesting as part of the playtesting for each list
book. As that
> playtesting progressed it *seemed* (although we were not 100%
sure) that the fix
> we derived for Feudal Warrior *might* possibly end up working for
all such
> formations. I told Scott to keep making it a list rule where
appropriate and
> if at the end it did end up as something that applied in all such
cases, we'd
> just make it universal in the revised rulebook and he would not
have to
> repeat it a jillion times in the master army list book.
> That is what turned out to be the case.
>
> In a couple of instances, troops that could be 1/2 or 1/4 2HCT
could in fact
> be taken as a pure 2HCT unit and a whole bunch of other elements of
the
> other weapon (typically JLS) those troops could be armed with. We
didn't catch
> or consider all those cases (the most famous of which is KSJ
Marines). In
> looking back at those cases (mostly at the request of Greg Regets)
we discovered
> that there was no reason from a formation standpoint not to
include those as
> well, in fact it was essentially an oversight on our part not to
have
> included them in the first place.
> Once OW was done and we were sure that all our 2HCT troops should
be
> fighting this way, we made it universal.
>
> Along the way from Feudal til now, essentially all troops with
2HCT have had
> this rule apply to them with the exception of the glitch mentioned
above -
> one we fixed.
>
> Future references to this issue will be simply have this message
number in
> the reply. I can't afford to keep going over this.
>
> J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Chris Bump]

Todd,

What is your point? I don't care if 2HCT fights 1.5 ranks or not. I do not
care if it is a list rule for specific armies or universally applied to all
so armed troops. I really have no skin in the game about which armies have
it and which do not. I cannot imagine how you got the impression from any
of my posts that I am concerned about any of the points you make below. My
point was that John proclaimed that 2HCT had always fought 1.5 ranks and
that it had always been his intention as such. I sneezed bolgna.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Schneider [mailto:thresh1642@...]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 9:44 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] Re: the Arms Race


Chris,

Hussites have the rule that says they fight 1.5 ranks
(List 37). So the Hussitte Infantry in List 2 without
the rule is either an oversight or an excpetion. I've
set it aside for Scott to address.

However, looking at those lists with 2HCT, the
majority have the list rule. The others seem to be
the exceptions, which Scott can address.

Atthe same time though, you're going to have a hard
time convining me no one plays early Poles because the
Late Period 2HCT armed guys don't fight 1.5 ranks. In
fact, at least to my noobish eyes, the rule for the
Poles is upgrade 0-1/2, which means half the unit,
which usually means just the front rank (unless the
powergamer in us takes 8 elements, and makes a 4E unit
with all 2HCT).

Todd



--- Chris Bump <cncbump@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
My point was that if the rule were meant to be
universal, then there would
be no need for list rules. There are list rules,
hence the rule was not
meant to be universal and certainly was not always in
place or even always
intent on being in place.

But to satisfy my curiosity:
From Feudal Warrior,
List 2 has no rule for 2HCT and has hussites armed
with 2HCT.
List 4 has no rule for 2HCT and has sailors armed with
2HCT
List 5 allows only German infantry armed with 2HCT 1.5
ranks even though
Polish foot are also armed as such.
This took me 5 minutes. I am not inclined to continue
the search as I am
confident this trend continues further into the book.
Now, there may be
clarifications that have caught these "oversights" and
changed them, but
again this all tears at the fabric of the notion that
the 1.5 rank rule was
always the intention, much less the case.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: thresh1642 [mailto:thresh1642@...]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 9:21 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: the Arms Race



Chris,

In doing some list work, and looking through the
books, can you point
me to an Army armed with 2HCT that does not have the
following "List
Rule", or at least a variation of it:

Steady, Non impetuous foot not armed with 2HCT and
no other H-T-H
Weapon fight 1.5 ranks.

Looking through Feudal Warrior, every Army with 2HCT
guys has this
rule, the only Army I "Know" od off the top of my
head is the Later
Ottoman Turks, who have the option to upgrade to
2HCT but not the
rule. There's the Rule for KoSJ in the erratta, and
the Later
Hungarians as well.

Now, the Later Ottoman could be an exception, or a
mistake, I don't
know, might be best to ask Scott.

But, giving a cursory look to all the lists I can
see with 2HCT (and I
didn't look that hard) Later Ottomans are the only
ones I see without
that rule.

Are there others?

Todd



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Bump"
<cncbump@v...> wrote:
> If it were the original intent then why the list
rules allowing it
in the
> medievel list book, and then only on specific
armies?
> Chris
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Stone [mailto:mark@d...]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 10:58 AM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: the Arms Race
>
>
> Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com"
<WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:
>
> >
> > In a message dated 3/1/2005 21:12:25 Central
Standard Time,
> Quahog25@a...
> > writes:
> > << As the halberd and the axe are
superchargred to keep pace
with the
> > supercharged lancer ( and presumably the LTS
is soon to follow),>>
> >
> > The halberd and axe are not 'being
supercharged' to 'keep pace' with
> > anything. First, Warrior 2HCT has always been
1.5 ranks if
steady and
> > non-impetuous, so there isn't any change
there.
> >
>
> Jon, you bring so many fine qualities to our
hobby and the rules,
but this
> is
> one of the few mistakes you consistently make.
What you should, of
course,
> being saying is that in _your_ opinion there
isn't any change
there. But
> there
> are two valid points of view here, and I submit
that your point of
view
> matters
> considerably less.
>
> I know what you are trying to say: in your own
mind it has always been
> your
> intention that 2HCT fight 1.5 ranks. But as any
of the professional
> writers on
> this list will tell you, author's intent has
very little to do
with the
> meaning
> of a text. The ultimate judge of meaning is the
reader, not the
author.
>
> We, your readers, can only judge by the text you
actually produce. In
> Warrior
> there is no mention of 2HCT fighting in 1.5
ranks, and to many of
us it
> certainly seems like something that has become
more pervasive over
time
> via
> list rules until, with the forthcoming reprint,
it will indeed be
fully
> part of
> the rules.
>
> To many of your readers that means that the
rules have changed. It
seems
> to me
> that you'd be better off spending more effort
thinking about why your
> readers
> have those perceptions and how best to address
them, and less time
> defending
> the hollow notion that nothing's changed because
this was your
intent all
> along.
>
> Of course, that's just my opinion, and I only
have 20+ years of
> professional
> experience as a writer, editor, and publisher
with which to back
it up.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> --
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an
email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





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

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

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

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



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


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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.



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





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

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

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

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



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