Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

I am going to stick to the non-rant parts of this mail.

<<However, somehow now the FA were reduced from their normal range
80/240 down to 40.>>

Yes, they are indeed normal range. If Scott ruled otherwise, I will fix it.

<<Camels.>>

No obstacle disorders loose or open foot in Warrior. Never has, from a
rules perspective. 9.5 is written poorly. If you can't see what it would do
to
the game to have portable obstacles disordering attacking loose/open foot, I
am sorry.

<<Yet...it's ruled that my camels are sent back to the rear and don't
effect anything when the rear edge is 90 paces from the front of the
unit.>>

This is not true. Please send me a mail offline telling me who ruled this
way and when.

The *only* thing you and I disagree on is the reading of 9.5, which is about
to be a non-issue. Flaming arrows are normal range. Mounted infantry
camels disorder horses at 80p from anywhere in the unit all the time. If you
have
a problem with the NASAMW umpire's rulings, that is between you and him and
I would prefer you took this up with him on NASAMWList or some other forum.

*Or* you can always email me offline and I will talk to him about these
issues as the rules author for Warrior and get the understanding straight.
I will fix 9.5, flaming arrow range and camel-mounted infantry horse
disorder with Scott. If you have other perceived disconnects between the rules
and
the way they were umpired at Cold Wars, write me offline. Skip the rant.

And yes, that was indeed your last chance to attack someone personally on
this list. Please do not do it again.

J





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

[Tim Brown]

Well, it certainly looks as if my camel Arab conquest army got some
attention this Cold Wars. I've had a day and night to reflect on it,
the rules questions I won, the ones I lost, etc. Tried to chill out.
Failed. Frankly, I'm not very pleased with either of you ( So what,
eh? Read on.) and particularly the fact that neither of you seem to
be on the same sheet of music, and this with a new rulebook coming
out with clarifications. I was VERY careful to read about the wording
for particulars that apply to this army - I enjoy taking a lower tier
army that has possibilities if played correctly ( See Assyrians in
NICT last year, Gupta Indian, Carthaginians, etc) It requires me to
look for unusual ways within the rules to make loser armies
competitive. I'm sorry it causes such angst amongst you. If anything,
you should be encouraging innovation - wider variety of armies is
good for the hobby. I try not to argue subjective points too hard
during a game with the umpire - granted Scott has a tough enough
thankless job already. And I'm not going to run crying to the rules
writer when the umpire doesn't know what the rules writer has spoken
as law. BUT...now that it's over, I'm going to fire a few more
blasts. Blackball me, rule against me. Ban me. Whatever. There was
gaming before Warrior - there will be long afterwards. After 19 years
in this system I am tired of BS to the point I don't fear the
consequences of addressing mistakes. Here we go. And I fully expect
Jon in his usual way to blow me off, reduce my arguments as whining,
sidestepping, or anything else to avoid actually addressing the
issues, including the "that's the way it is - too bad" final stance.
( I've learned his attitude from reading his posts to many others,
BTW,) If the shoe fits, wear it. I don't give a damn if you like me
or not - the Emperor has no clothes in this case. I've been around
the country a bit lately to local tournaments - down in Texas,
Florida, New Jersey - spots I usually don't go to. Wonder what the
attitude is? Ask. You might be surprised at the perception. As a
businessman I would be. And I'm the sorry loyal bastard who supports
you guys to everyone. On to the points:

Flaming Arrows. Wow. I guess the horsemen really would prefer they
just go away except for some Chinese armies. " Silly" is the term you
used in your post to me, right? Such confusion, too. Let's review
what has happened lately. I took Flaming arrows with the Assyrians
last NICT. Then came the Anti-Flaming arrow draft rules, which Jon
later promoted as part of the rules ( I have found that post)...or so
I thought. The gist of the new rules was - an opponent actually had
to take TF, then both sides could adjust their lists. Yet, I
carefully noticed Scott referring in rules ( Warrior clinic, I
believe) to the way the FA worked before - if anyone had the ability
to purchase TF, then you could take FA. Obviously a disconnect #2.
Nevertheless, I played it the way Jon intended, once Frank and Dave
purchased their TF's ( Great opponents, by the way - no complaints).
However, somehow now the FA were reduced from their normal range
80/240 down to 40. That's pitiful. Jon has ruled plenty of times in
the past that they work like normal arrows for range. Want me to find
the posts here in the archives? Disconnect #3. MAJOR impact, by the
way, when you're LMI,JLS / LMI,B facing SHK knights and looking for
ways to ways to even the odds. ( By the way, never use the
argument "historical" in a response - we don't play a historical
game - we use historical figures with historical weapons, but
matchups like HYR English vs Arab Conquest are not historical. What
is great about this system is the idea of what would the Prophet have
done to even up the score if it did happen? That's exactly what I try
to do - not try and find loopholes to exploit)

Camels. The other horsemeat. Jon got all bent out of shape when he
got disordered by the camel obstacles. I can read what the rules say.
And they should STAY that way. I can't imagine trying to charge
through and over camel obstacles wouldn't have a disordering effect
on ANY attacker, not just close order. Since Jon has stated he will
change the rule anyway to reflect his intent ( NOw I'm supposed to
interpet that somehow!?), no doubt that issue will cease to be a
disconnect ( #4). By the way, JOn, you could have simply said "Ya got
me, there." and left it at that instead of making Ambrose and I feel
like we cheated you guys somehow. And then had the discussion
afterwards. It's very hard knowing how competitive you are to think
you're impartial as a rules writer when you're sitting right across
the table trying to rip me apart. It's almost as bad as having the
umpire play in the tournament. Something to think about, maybe.

Arab Conquest. The list. Jon first questions our ability to take the
dummy elephants. Scott replies he removed the restrictions (
disconnect #5). Let's look at the notes section. " Camel mounted
infantry fighting on foot are assumed to have their mounts ON HAND
and these will affect enemy cavalry" Unless I'm mistaken, this list
is the only list with this capability ( portable camel obstacles),
and the only list with this stipulation. Why? Logically, because the
camels are ON HAND ( like in stakes) and NOT at the rear of the
formation like dismounted infantry are normally treated in the rules.
Yet...it's ruled that my camels are sent back to the rear and don't
effect anything when the rear edge is 90 paces from the front of the
unit. Why put such a stipulation in this particular list if they're
treated the same as every other list before and afterwards??!
Obviously a MAJOR impact if the camels aren't considered ON HAND and
don't affect cav out to 80 paces, if at all. Jon played it the way I
see it in our game, Scott ruled otherwise in the finals. Disconnect
#6. I can see it now - Akmed...run back to the rear and bring up the
camels through the formation and tether them up. And be quick about
it - there are strange metal beasts from the future headed our way!

Finally. Since no one likes a complainer who does nothing but
complain I will offer two fixes.

1. Post the damn Flaming Arrow /TF rules once and for all, make them
official, and make sure beforehand everyone understands them and
their use. Even Dave and Frank with decades of experience evidently
had no idea that they were used at artillery factors and this caused
a 15 minute discussion.

2. As a list maker, evidently if there's the slightest doubt for
interpetation I recommend we players write Scott and Jon for any and
everything regarding a list - and warn players that even if it's in
black and white it may not be that way after all. I suggest topics
such as using an item, it's effects, range, factor, cost, disclosure
to opponents, list rule particulars, etc. Leave nothing in doubt. Of
course, Jon will know everything you're doing when you play him, but
at least you too won't be surprised. When you do get your answers,
print them out for the tournament - give both Jon and Scott copies at
the beginning, and even hand some out to your opponents so everyone
can see what the rules are. While you're at it you might as well
advertise how you intend to use everything as well to reduce the
questions down to a minimum.

I realise Warrior is just a game, but let's face reality: this little
trip cost $585 for the opportunity to play just 3 games against the
best Warrior opponents. I have invested more than $1000 in lead for
this army alone. Add in countless hours. And costs for
rulebooks /lists. Entry fees, etc, etc. I have EVERY right to expect
the best from a company. HMGS, 4 HM, whatever. Or else. I have
noticed a large number of notable names missing from the ranks over
the last year. Do you want a name by name list? I wonder if I'm slow
in catching on.

Tim Brown

[joncleaves]

<<So, that's a FHE issue, and essentially a Jon one. It would be better to
give a response of 'not sure yet' or 'need more time' than to answer A
when the truth is Z.>>


Very true. I should not have answered quickly. Unfortunately that means I
would not have answered at all before Cold Wars happened. But in retrospect
I would rather that have happened than what did. I do indeed plan to slow
down most of my answers.


<<> consequences of addressing mistakes. Here we go. And I fully expect
> Jon in his usual way to blow me off, reduce my arguments as whining,
> sidestepping, or anything else to avoid actually addressing the
> issues, including the "that's the way it is - too bad" final stance.
> ( I've learned his attitude from reading his posts to many others,
> BTW,) If the shoe fits, wear it. I don't give a damn if you like me
> or not - the Emperor has no clothes in this case. I've been around
> the country a bit lately to local tournaments - down in Texas,
> Florida, New Jersey - spots I usually don't go to. Wonder what the
> attitude is? Ask. You might be surprised at the perception. As a
> businessman I would be. And I'm the sorry loyal bastard who supports
> you guys to everyone. On to the points:

I *think* this must be the passage Jon took as a personal attack; it's a
little vituperative - this *is* Tim, even the new-and-improved
chilling-out Tim - but hardly an attack on any person.>>

Nope, that wasn't the one, although I found the above completely
unnecessary. I also disagree with what is claimed in it, but that is not
something I
want to get into an argument over....

<<The rules, as I've noted, seemed clear to everyone.>>

Strange then the number of people who came to me with concerns that I might
not fix the lack of clarity to ensure that obstacles do not in fact disorder
LMI/LHI/LI. But it is not about numbers on one side or the other in any case
- it is about not breaking the game.

<<The problem comes when that out-of-whackness is linked to power over the
rules; I expect that Jon would acknowledge his greater burden of behaviour
here. The comments to 'enjoy it while it lasts' and that 'well, I'll fix
that shortly' are bound to give a negative impression when spoken by a
player who is in the midst of coming off on the wrong end of an unexpected
- but nonetheless clear - rules impact. >>

It isn't clear to me...lol I am well aware I could have handled it better -
and I really would prefer not to be talking about this so we could move on.
The root issue isn't the one we are discussing, but the root issue is not
one that should be discussed here - that makes for some frustration I know, but
we will have to live with it.

In any case - just to beat this very unpleasant horse one last time - it has
never, ever been my intent to have LMI/LHI/LI disordered by any obstacle (in
fact they can't be if we are to preserve game balance given the lists'
access to forward zone TFs and PO's). Rule 5 and Rule 6 and Rule 12 do make it
quite clear that obstacles do not disorder loose/open foot. 9.5 is supposed to
list *at what point* disorder occurs for those troops that *are* disordered
by defended obstacles (mounted/close foot). No one is more aware than I that
this passage is troublesome and no one has felt the pain of its lack of
clarity more than I, except Mike. But I am not reading any more mails that
claim
I am changing the rules from X to Y because of that game and its effects on
me. That is simply heinous and in the interest of peace and camaraderie I am
not saying what I really think about such claims - I am chalking them up to
the heat of competition. It's a closed issue to me and the next set of
clarifications will close it rules-wise.

<<Now, now. Yes, - see above - Jon has an extra responsibility to take
*off* the author hat while playing. At that point, he's solely a player
and should not expect any extra impact; I think this is hard to achieve
but he actually tries.>>

Its a bitch. I do know that's my job. But twice I have been subjected to
rulings that are 100% counter to my intent. The fault is mine for not making
every single sentence of every single passage absolutely misread-proof. No
one feels this pain more than I and no one spends more time on fixing it.

J





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

[Ewan McNay]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, browntj007 wrote:
> Well, it certainly looks as if my camel Arab conquest army got some
> attention this Cold Wars. I've had a day and night to reflect on it,
> the rules questions I won, the ones I lost, etc. Tried to chill out.

I'm sorry? "Tim Brown" and "Chill out" in the same mental image? Tough
to achieve .

[But Ambrose is cool enough for both of you... ]

I don't think anyone can challenge your record as either a player of
lesser-used armies or a finder of rules that offer previously unforeseen
twists. And I enjoy it, even if those &^*$ flaming arrows scared the hell
out of me when you introduced them at H'Con ).

I also think it should be greatly encouraged.

> Failed. Frankly, I'm not very pleased with either of you ( So what,
> eh? Read on.) and particularly the fact that neither of you seem to
> be on the same sheet of music, and this with a new rulebook coming
> out with clarifications. I was VERY careful to read about the wording

See, I think that there are two issues here. Co-ordination of answers on
rules is *critical*. See my previous comment on wheels and charges: if
the electronic support is supposed to be official, as Jon has stated, then
it is ridiculous to find that the answers given are (a) wrong and (b)
rapidly changed.

So, that's a FHE issue, and essentially a Jon one. It would be better to
give a response of 'not sure yet' or 'need more time' than to answer A
when the truth is Z.

But then there's an umpiring issue, which is for Scott under whichever
hat: if there are FHE statements being made about how ambiguous rules are
to be played that are *not* in line with the umpire's hat intentions, that
needs to be stated very rapidly and very clearly.

Yes, this is US- and even Lancaster-centric. At the moment, so is Warrior
and so is this group. It's *bad* to get to a national championship and
lose because what was stated by the rules author in the official support
forum turns out to be wrong.

> consequences of addressing mistakes. Here we go. And I fully expect
> Jon in his usual way to blow me off, reduce my arguments as whining,
> sidestepping, or anything else to avoid actually addressing the
> issues, including the "that's the way it is - too bad" final stance.
> ( I've learned his attitude from reading his posts to many others,
> BTW,) If the shoe fits, wear it. I don't give a damn if you like me
> or not - the Emperor has no clothes in this case. I've been around
> the country a bit lately to local tournaments - down in Texas,
> Florida, New Jersey - spots I usually don't go to. Wonder what the
> attitude is? Ask. You might be surprised at the perception. As a
> businessman I would be. And I'm the sorry loyal bastard who supports
> you guys to everyone. On to the points:

I *think* this must be the passage Jon took as a personal attack; it's a
little vituperative - this *is* Tim, even the new-and-improved
chilling-out Tim - but hardly an attack on any person.

> However, somehow now the FA were reduced from their normal range
> 80/240 down to 40. That's pitiful. Jon has ruled plenty of times in

I had the same ruling when I went to ask as opponents (also Frank/dave)
were considering buying a ditch.

> Camels. The other horsemeat. Jon got all bent out of shape when he
> got disordered by the camel obstacles. I can read what the rules say.

The rules, as I've noted, seemed clear to everyone. On the other hand,
I'm pretty sure that I'd have been thrown out of whack if I'd encountered
them for the first time in this way, too.

The problem comes when that out-of-whackness is linked to power over the
rules; I expect that Jon would acknowledge his greater burden of behaviour
here. The comments to 'enjoy it while it lasts' and that 'well, I'll fix
that shortly' are bound to give a negative impression when spoken by a
player who is in the midst of coming off on the wrong end of an unexpected
- but nonetheless clear - rules impact. [Yeah, Tim said this more
forcefully ]

> 2. As a list maker, evidently if there's the slightest doubt for
> interpetation I recommend we players write Scott and Jon for any and
> everything regarding a list - and warn players that even if it's in
> black and white it may not be that way after all. I suggest topics
> such as using an item, it's effects, range, factor, cost, disclosure
> to opponents, list rule particulars, etc. Leave nothing in doubt. Of
> course, Jon will know everything you're doing when you play him, but
> at least you too won't be surprised. When you do get your answers,
> print them out for the tournament - give both Jon and Scott copies at
> the beginning, and even hand some out to your opponents so everyone
> can see what the rules are. While you're at it you might as well
> advertise how you intend to use everything as well to reduce the
> questions down to a minimum.

Now, now. Yes, - see above - Jon has an extra responsibility to take
*off* the author hat while playing. At that point, he's solely a player
and should not expect any extra impact; I think this is hard to achieve
but he actually tries.

But Scott is quite capable of ruling against anyone. And usually seems to
listen and read, even if what emerges is not always in line with the clear
and obvious answer (i.e. whatever *I* think happens to be right) .

> I realise Warrior is just a game, but let's face reality: this little
> trip cost $585 for the opportunity to play just 3 games against the
> best Warrior opponents. I have invested more than $1000 in lead for
> this army alone. Add in countless hours. And costs for
> rulebooks /lists. Entry fees, etc, etc. I have EVERY right to expect
> the best from a company.

Oh, sure. And that would include, I agree, a comprehensive response to
the points herein.

Speaking bluntly to power never *did* come with a guarantee of decent
treatment, though .

[Ewan McNay]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 JonCleaves@... wrote:
> The *only* thing you and I disagree on is the reading of 9.5, which is about
> to be a non-issue. Flaming arrows are normal range. Mounted infantry
> camels disorder horses at 80p from anywhere in the unit all the time. If you
have
> a problem with the NASAMW umpire's rulings, that is between you and him and
> I would prefer you took this up with him on NASAMWList or some other forum.

Oh, come on. See previous comment on current Lancaster-centric nature of
Warrior. This stuff is *important* to *all* of us.

You've acknowledged that - e.g. in relation to section 14 - players want a
clear statement of how things will be ruled. This is still true .

<lurk mode off>

HAH! See Tim?
It works. You get all agressive and I play nice. Then they think
its ok that I roll up 6 and waste their general! "I mean he is a
nice guy and all!" Glad to see you fell for it Ewan. <grin>

Had a great time at CW as has been stated by many. Some bumps
occured in the end that left a stale tast in my mouth but that
hardly shadows the truly excenent games we got to play against our
oponents. We really did have a good time and thanks to everyone we
played.

Issues came up later that have made for th bumps. (Nuf said)

Even the finals represented a very unique challenge to both Tim and
me as well as Mr Styers and Mr Gilson. It a very interesting
excersize to try to rework your battle plan in mid sing when you
realise that the intell you accepted as true turns out completely
wrong. The game took almost an hour to start after deployment was
done because of us all trying to figure out how things would work
and how to modify our plan of attack to fit the new situation. Very
much like old warfare would have been I think.

Any way. Off to bed.

Ambrose
<lurk on>


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, ewan.mcnay@y... wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, browntj007 wrote:
> > Well, it certainly looks as if my camel Arab conquest army got
some
> > attention this Cold Wars. I've had a day and night to reflect on
it,
> > the rules questions I won, the ones I lost, etc. Tried to chill
out.
>
> I'm sorry? "Tim Brown" and "Chill out" in the same mental image?
Tough
> to achieve .
>
> [But Ambrose is cool enough for both of you... ]
>
> I don't think anyone can challenge your record as either a player
of
> lesser-used armies or a finder of rules that offer previously
unforeseen
> twists. And I enjoy it, even if those &^*$ flaming arrows scared
the hell
> out of me when you introduced them at H'Con ).
>
> I also think it should be greatly encouraged.
>
> > Failed. Frankly, I'm not very pleased with either of you ( So
what,
> > eh? Read on.) and particularly the fact that neither of you seem
to
> > be on the same sheet of music, and this with a new rulebook
coming
> > out with clarifications. I was VERY careful to read about the
wording
>
> See, I think that there are two issues here. Co-ordination of
answers on
> rules is *critical*. See my previous comment on wheels and
charges: if
> the electronic support is supposed to be official, as Jon has
stated, then
> it is ridiculous to find that the answers given are (a) wrong and
(b)
> rapidly changed.
>
> So, that's a FHE issue, and essentially a Jon one. It would be
better to
> give a response of 'not sure yet' or 'need more time' than to
answer A
> when the truth is Z.
>
> But then there's an umpiring issue, which is for Scott under
whichever
> hat: if there are FHE statements being made about how ambiguous
rules are
> to be played that are *not* in line with the umpire's hat
intentions, that
> needs to be stated very rapidly and very clearly.
>
> Yes, this is US- and even Lancaster-centric. At the moment, so is
Warrior
> and so is this group. It's *bad* to get to a national
championship and
> lose because what was stated by the rules author in the official
support
> forum turns out to be wrong.
>
> > consequences of addressing mistakes. Here we go. And I fully
expect
> > Jon in his usual way to blow me off, reduce my arguments as
whining,
> > sidestepping, or anything else to avoid actually addressing the
> > issues, including the "that's the way it is - too bad" final
stance.
> > ( I've learned his attitude from reading his posts to many
others,
> > BTW,) If the shoe fits, wear it. I don't give a damn if you like
me
> > or not - the Emperor has no clothes in this case. I've been
around
> > the country a bit lately to local tournaments - down in Texas,
> > Florida, New Jersey - spots I usually don't go to. Wonder what
the
> > attitude is? Ask. You might be surprised at the perception. As a
> > businessman I would be. And I'm the sorry loyal bastard who
supports
> > you guys to everyone. On to the points:
>
> I *think* this must be the passage Jon took as a personal attack;
it's a
> little vituperative - this *is* Tim, even the new-and-improved
> chilling-out Tim - but hardly an attack on any person.
>
> > However, somehow now the FA were reduced from their normal range
> > 80/240 down to 40. That's pitiful. Jon has ruled plenty of times
in
>
> I had the same ruling when I went to ask as opponents (also
Frank/dave)
> were considering buying a ditch.
>
> > Camels. The other horsemeat. Jon got all bent out of shape when
he
> > got disordered by the camel obstacles. I can read what the rules
say.
>
> The rules, as I've noted, seemed clear to everyone. On the other
hand,
> I'm pretty sure that I'd have been thrown out of whack if I'd
encountered
> them for the first time in this way, too.
>
> The problem comes when that out-of-whackness is linked to power
over the
> rules; I expect that Jon would acknowledge his greater burden of
behaviour
> here. The comments to 'enjoy it while it lasts' and that 'well,
I'll fix
> that shortly' are bound to give a negative impression when spoken
by a
> player who is in the midst of coming off on the wrong end of an
unexpected
> - but nonetheless clear - rules impact. [Yeah, Tim said this more
> forcefully ]
>
> > 2. As a list maker, evidently if there's the slightest doubt for
> > interpetation I recommend we players write Scott and Jon for any
and
> > everything regarding a list - and warn players that even if it's
in
> > black and white it may not be that way after all. I suggest
topics
> > such as using an item, it's effects, range, factor, cost,
disclosure
> > to opponents, list rule particulars, etc. Leave nothing in
doubt. Of
> > course, Jon will know everything you're doing when you play him,
but
> > at least you too won't be surprised. When you do get your
answers,
> > print them out for the tournament - give both Jon and Scott
copies at
> > the beginning, and even hand some out to your opponents so
everyone
> > can see what the rules are. While you're at it you might as well
> > advertise how you intend to use everything as well to reduce the
> > questions down to a minimum.
>
> Now, now. Yes, - see above - Jon has an extra responsibility to
take
> *off* the author hat while playing. At that point, he's solely a
player
> and should not expect any extra impact; I think this is hard to
achieve
> but he actually tries.
>
> But Scott is quite capable of ruling against anyone. And usually
seems to
> listen and read, even if what emerges is not always in line with
the clear
> and obvious answer (i.e. whatever *I* think happens to be
right) .
>
> > I realise Warrior is just a game, but let's face reality: this
little
> > trip cost $585 for the opportunity to play just 3 games against
the
> > best Warrior opponents. I have invested more than $1000 in lead
for
> > this army alone. Add in countless hours. And costs for
> > rulebooks /lists. Entry fees, etc, etc. I have EVERY right to
expect
> > the best from a company.
>
> Oh, sure. And that would include, I agree, a comprehensive
response to
> the points herein.
>
> Speaking bluntly to power never *did* come with a guarantee of
decent
> treatment, though .

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Hang in there Jon. I've been a critic of you and very occasionally an advocate
of yours for quite some time. But I feel that I'm man enough to admit that I
appreciate your steadfastness to customer service(heck, you even answer my
questions!). You like the rest of us are only human and being the lead man is a
hard row to hoe. I honestly believe that you are trying to be fair. And to be
fair too Tim, it is tough to play the rules author when intent is different than
the written rules IE: Scythed Chariots. This past weekend, I had to ask Scott to
come to the table to hash this out for Dave Dietrich. He was playing his Scythed
chariots by the way the rule was written and not your intent which is how they
must be played. Scott ruled the intent and did a great job explaining it. Still
the rule needs some attention so that people won't be confused. This is the part
of your job that sucks and is really thankless. To be very honest, I can see how
easy it is to have things happen like this.
The rules are a MASSIVE project(I'm sure Phil Barker is the only other person
who can really relate to this). Hell, I have a tough enough time trying to
remember them and I've been playing this game in several of it's incarnations
since '89. For everyone who plays this game, I think we really need to take a
deep breath and try not to assign bad feelings here. Tim Brown and Jon
Cleaves(yes Jon, I respect you too even though we've had disagreements) are both
very honorable and decent people. Disagreements like this happen when
competitiveness gets too much in the way. Yes, we're there to win. But we're
also attending competitions to be with our friends doing what we're supposed
enjoy as a past time. I know because I'm one of the people that has taken
winning to be too important. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I
believe that all parties involved need to shake hands and try to put asside hard
feelings. This hobby of ours is really very small and there really aren't that
many of us around the world.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, "Boys, go to your rooms and don't come out
until you say your both sorry and shake hands!"



kelly



Jon Cleaves wrote:

Its a bitch. I do know that's my job. But twice I have been subjected to
rulings that are 100% counter to my intent. The fault is mine for not making
every single sentence of every single passage absolutely misread-proof. No
one feels this pain more than I and no one spends more time on fixing it.

J





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





---------------------------------


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! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

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

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
> <<The rules, as I've noted, seemed clear to everyone.>>
>
> Strange then the number of people who came to me with concerns that I might
> not fix the lack of clarity to ensure that obstacles do not in fact disorder
> LMI/LHI/LI. But it is not about numbers on one side or the other in any case
> - it is about not breaking the game.

Those two statements are orthogonal. "The rules say 'A'" is not
inconsistent with "the rules are supposed to say 'Q'," much less with "I
intended the rules to say 'Q'."

> It isn't clear to me...lol I am well aware I could have handled it better -
> and I really would prefer not to be talking about this so we could move on.
> The root issue isn't the one we are discussing, but the root issue is not
> one that should be discussed here - that makes for some frustration I know,
but
> we will have to live with it.

How very mysterious. Just like in rules-reading, though, I have to go by
what's available rather than some alluded-to-but-unguessable factor.

> In any case - just to beat this very unpleasant horse one last time - it has
> never, ever been my intent to have LMI/LHI/LI disordered by any obstacle (in
> fact they can't be if we are to preserve game balance given the lists'
> access to forward zone TFs and PO's). Rule 5 and Rule 6 and Rule 12 do make
it
> quite clear that obstacles do not disorder loose/open foot. 9.5 is supposed
to
> list *at what point* disorder occurs for those troops that *are* disordered
> by defended obstacles (mounted/close foot). No one is more aware than I that
> this passage is troublesome and no one has felt the pain of its lack of
> clarity more than I, except Mike. But I am not reading any more mails that
claim
> I am changing the rules from X to Y because of that game and its effects on

Even after re-reading, I cannot find anyone claiming this. Is this
another offline allusion? If not, I'd appreciate a reference.

Both here and below, though, you seem perhaps to miss the point that in
terms of any game, your intent does not have the slightest relevance to
what should be ruled. Otherwise we're back to the infamous "but I called
Phil, and he said..." situation, except worse because your gaming skill is
greater than Phil's (hardly a great compliment, I admit!)

> Its a bitch. I do know that's my job. But twice I have been subjected to
> rulings that are 100% counter to my intent. The fault is mine for not making
> every single sentence of every single passage absolutely misread-proof. No
> one feels this pain more than I and no one spends more time on fixing it.

Unlike anyone else, you have the power (without debating over the virtue
of such!) to change how future rules read. So, perhaps, you should be
less frustrated and frustratable than anyone else? Again, the fact that a
ruling is against your intent is totally irrelevant to whether the ruling
is correct, agreed?

E

[Steve Hollowell]

I had to bust out the dictionary on "orthogonal." On the bright side, if I use
it 9 more times it will become part of my permanent vocabulary and I can send
others scattering to dictionaries at my leisure.

Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@...> wrote:


JonCleaves@... wrote:
> <>
>
> Strange then the number of people who came to me with concerns that I might
> not fix the lack of clarity to ensure that obstacles do not in fact disorder
> LMI/LHI/LI. But it is not about numbers on one side or the other in any case
> - it is about not breaking the game.

Those two statements are orthogonal. "The rules say 'A'" is not
inconsistent with "the rules are supposed to say 'Q'," much less with "I
intended the rules to say 'Q'."

> It isn't clear to me...lol I am well aware I could have handled it better -
> and I really would prefer not to be talking about this so we could move on.
> The root issue isn't the one we are discussing, but the root issue is not
> one that should be discussed here - that makes for some frustration I know,
but
> we will have to live with it.

How very mysterious. Just like in rules-reading, though, I have to go by
what's available rather than some alluded-to-but-unguessable factor.

> In any case - just to beat this very unpleasant horse one last time - it has
> never, ever been my intent to have LMI/LHI/LI disordered by any obstacle (in
> fact they can't be if we are to preserve game balance given the lists'
> access to forward zone TFs and PO's). Rule 5 and Rule 6 and Rule 12 do make it
> quite clear that obstacles do not disorder loose/open foot. 9.5 is supposed to
> list *at what point* disorder occurs for those troops that *are* disordered
> by defended obstacles (mounted/close foot). No one is more aware than I that
> this passage is troublesome and no one has felt the pain of its lack of
> clarity more than I, except Mike. But I am not reading any more mails that
claim
> I am changing the rules from X to Y because of that game and its effects on

Even after re-reading, I cannot find anyone claiming this. Is this
another offline allusion? If not, I'd appreciate a reference.

Both here and below, though, you seem perhaps to miss the point that in
terms of any game, your intent does not have the slightest relevance to
what should be ruled. Otherwise we're back to the infamous "but I called
Phil, and he said..." situation, except worse because your gaming skill is
greater than Phil's (hardly a great compliment, I admit!)

> Its a bitch. I do know that's my job. But twice I have been subjected to
> rulings that are 100% counter to my intent. The fault is mine for not making
> every single sentence of every single passage absolutely misread-proof. No
> one feels this pain more than I and no one spends more time on fixing it.

Unlike anyone else, you have the power (without debating over the virtue
of such!) to change how future rules read. So, perhaps, you should be
less frustrated and frustratable than anyone else? Again, the fact that a
ruling is against your intent is totally irrelevant to whether the ruling
is correct, agreed?

E




Yahoo! Groups Links










---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

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

[joncleaves]

<<> It isn't clear to me...lol I am well aware I could have handled it better
-
> and I really would prefer not to be talking about this so we could move on.
> The root issue isn't the one we are discussing, but the root issue is not
> one that should be discussed here - that makes for some frustration I know,
but
> we will have to live with it.

How very mysterious. Just like in rules-reading, though, I have to go by
what's available rather than some alluded-to-but-unguessable factor.>>

That's the issue from Saturday, Ewan. If I am present, it isn't unguessable. I
am still puzzled why we can't just have Scott ask me what was intended - he goes
with that and we drive on. If he chooses something other than what I intended,
then the ruling has a half-life of 24-48 hours. I for the life of me have no
idea why that is a good idea.

> But I am not reading any more mails that
claim
> I am changing the rules from X to Y because of that game and its effects on

Even after re-reading, I cannot find anyone claiming this. Is this
another offline allusion? If not, I'd appreciate a reference.>>

Well, I really didn't want to keep going over this, but since you asked:

"It's very hard knowing how competitive you are to think
you're impartial as a rules writer when you're sitting right across
the table trying to rip me apart."

I am impartial. Period. The idea that I would use my position as rules author
to advantage means thinking I could act unethically. Well, its a free country
so people can think that if they like, but a) it is untrue and b) I do indeed
consider it the worst form of insult, for whatever that is worth. I also
consider this matter closed, so nuf said...


<<Both here and below, though, you seem perhaps to miss the point that in
terms of any game, your intent does not have the slightest relevance to
what should be ruled. >>

I think it is 1000% relevant. If an umpire rules counter to my intent, I will
have to issue a clarification to put things back together. The rules are not a
body of umpire rulings - that's chaos - they are a mechanical system that has
to work. If some umpire ruled somewhere that close order foot moved 180p
because his copy of the rules has a smudge in 6.11 before the 80, that does not
mean everyone should start playing that way or that I should change the rules to
match his ruling. Madness....

<< Otherwise we're back to the infamous "but I called
Phil, and he said..." situation, except worse because your gaming skill is
greater than Phil's (hardly a great compliment, I admit!)>>

The whole point of the effort I put into answering rules questions is to avoid
that. Imperfectly, yes. But there I am standing there - all the ump has to do
is ask me and he can get it right every single time. What will be clarified
after the event will be exactly the same as what was ruled. I do indeed not see
why we would not want to do it that way. The other way means you can have
tourneys played differently than the rule book and have rulings 180 degrees out
from imminent clarifications just because ....why? I'm ten feet away...


<<Unlike anyone else, you have the power (without debating over the virtue
of such!) to change how future rules read.>>

I suppose I do. But I have no intent to change the mechanics of the game. What
I will change is poorly written passages that do not convey what should be done
effectively to all people.

<< Again, the fact that a
ruling is against your intent is totally irrelevant to whether the ruling
is correct, agreed?>>

I am sorry, Ewan, but I could not disagree more. Perhaps you should hit me
offline with an answer to these two questions:

"If an umpire rules counter to the what the rules were intended to do (say, for
simplicity, he rules that the range of foot crossbow is 160p because he misreads
the passage on weapons ranges or, because of a typo, the mounted CB range is
pushed down a line), do we change the rules to reflect his ruling, or do we
clarify the passages in question to make them clearer?"

"If the rules author, who might be able to decipher the problem behind the
misreading, is available, why shouldn't he be consulted since he knows what was
meant in the first place?"

Once we work out agreement on these answers, we can bring what we find to the
group.

Jon


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

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:

<snip> OK: I see no offending claim, but will agree not to go over again;
doubtless the spectators are able to read .

> I am impartial. Period. The idea that I would use my position as
> rules author to advantage means thinking I could act unethically.

Irrelevant again. Caesar's wife. [To me; yes, I agree that you can know
your own internal state, just as I can. But if I - for instance - claim
that my *intent* was to make that charge impetuous, even though it isn't
so marked - or to wheel to the right, conveniently, when a
possibly-unexpected carge is coming in on me - or whatever: should it be
judged by the claimed intent or by the evidence available to all? In
tournament bridge, directors (= umpires) are explicitly instructed (i) to
ignore self-serving statements and (ii) to note that they do so not out of
disbelief, but because there is no evidence. To do otherwise - to rely on
players' self-policing - is chaos, proven so.)

> <<Both here and below, though, you seem perhaps to miss the point that
> in terms of any game, your intent does not have the slightest relevance
> to what should be ruled. >>
>
> I think it is 1000% relevant. If an umpire rules counter to my intent,
> I will have to issue a clarification to put things back together.

Or, in an alternate phrasing (yes, deliberately provocative): If the rules
do not say what I wish them to, then I have to change them after the fact
so that they do.

Fine - you can do so in your persona as rules author, regardless of anyone
else. Granted. But as a *player* you must not be allowed to have this
power. In my world, anyway.

As Phil used to state: players are entitled to an impartial umpire. not
an infallible one. It's like sport: even if the video *proves* that
you're not out, too bad - the umpire said that you were. Against the
intent for a strike to be called (see, I can use US analogies!) when the
pitch is outside the zone? Sure. So?

> << Again, the fact that a ruling is against your intent is totally
> irrelevant to whether the ruling is correct, agreed?>>
>
> I am sorry, Ewan, but I could not disagree more. Perhaps you should
> hit me offline with an answer to these two questions:

OK - coming. But your Qs are (again, of course, to me) irrelevant. You
seem to be saying that if an umpire rules that you cannot do X, you (and
only you) should be allowed to ignore those rulings, because while they
might be in line with what you wrote, they're not what you *meant* to write.

I actually don't think you will hold this position on reflection. But
I've been wrong before.

> "If an umpire rules counter to the what the rules were intended to do
> (say, for simplicity, he rules that the range of foot crossbow is 160p
> because he misreads the passage on weapons ranges or, because of a
> typo, the mounted CB range is pushed down a line), do we change the
> rules to reflect his ruling, or do we clarify the passages in question
> to make them clearer?"
>
> "If the rules author, who might be able to decipher the problem behind
> the misreading, is available, why shouldn't he be consulted since he
> knows what was meant in the first place?"
>
> Once we work out agreement on these answers, we can bring what we find
> to the group.

[joncleaves]

<<As Phil used to state: players are entitled to an impartial umpire. not
an infallible one. It's like sport: even if the video *proves* that
you're not out, too bad - the umpire said that you were. Against the
intent for a strike to be called (see, I can use US analogies!) when the
pitch is outside the zone? Sure. So?>>

I would agree. An umpire judging for the players whether or not a certain unit
is behind the flank or upslope or in the woods is making an impartial judgment
call on the game situation - as in a ball in or out of a strike zone.

That, to me, is different than an umpire reading a rule in the book and saying
that his reading is X when X is both counter to the intent of the rule and, in
this case, a mechanics-breaker.

We played that obstacles disordered everyone in that game. Ok, fine. But now I
have to clarify 9.5 to read the way it should so that the game does not break.
I still have not heard you tell me *why* the umpire simply asking me what it is
supposed to say and doing that would not work? No matter what was ruled, 9.5
needs to be clarified. The result of doing it your way is the game being played
incorrectly for a tournament - I have had people coming up to me and writing me
for five straight days asking me why on earth an obstacle would disorder LMI.
Of course it does not, but it was permitted to this weekend. The result of my
way is that 9.5 still gets rewritten to be fully correct, but the games were
also played correctly. What is the downside - I do not see it...

J





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

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:

> <<As Phil used to state: players are entitled to an impartial umpire.
> not an infallible one. It's like sport: even if the video *proves*
> that you're not out, too bad - the umpire said that you were. Against
> the intent for a strike to be called (see, I can use US analogies!)
> when the pitch is outside the zone? Sure. So?>>
>
> I would agree. An umpire judging for the players whether or not a
> certain unit is behind the flank or upslope or in the woods is making
> an impartial judgment call on the game situation - as in a ball in or
> out of a strike zone.
>
> That, to me, is different than an umpire reading a rule in the book and
> saying that his reading is X when X is both counter to the intent of
> the rule and, in this case, a mechanics-breaker.

Jon.

Even if the rule (through divine intervention, for all I care) said
"troops who are camel-mounted get a +10 to both shooting and hand-to-hand
random factors" - something that we would all actually agree was a
mechanics-breaker, as opposed to the current fracas where that is *not*
the case - then the umpire upon having this pointed out should rule that
that is, indeed, what happens. And if Tim (or I) were the only person to
have realised this, and brought the appropriate army, well, then, we get
to win the tournament. End of story. Try harder next time.

Have I stated what I believe to the correct attitude here clearly enough,
or should I invent yet more reductios ad absurdum?

> We played that obstacles disordered everyone in that game. Ok, fine.
> But now I have to clarify 9.5 to read the way it should so that the
> game does not break. I still have not heard you tell me *why* the
> umpire simply asking me what it is supposed to say and doing that would
> not work? No matter what was ruled, 9.5 needs to be clarified. The
> result of doing it your way is the game being played incorrectly for a
> tournament - I have had people coming up to me and writing me for five
> straight days asking me why on earth an obstacle would disorder LMI.
> Of course it does not, but it was permitted to this weekend. The
> result of my way is that 9.5 still gets rewritten to be fully correct,
> but the games were also played correctly. What is the downside - I do
> not see it...

Obviously not! I got into this in the requested offline response also,
but: you are, at CW or any other tourney, at most Joe Q. Randomplayer.
Your opinion as to what the rules should say is worth *at most* the same
as mine or anyone else's. At most. You are *not* and *MUST NOT* be
allowed to be there also in author persona (Phil used to get ruled against
all the time, and enjoyed every instance). If you believe that you should
have ex cathedra powers, you must not be allowed to play in the
tournament. Same reason why when I play bridge, I don't direct, and why
such is not permitted.

And that's even if you're not involved in the game. You're *not* an
umpire. If you *are* in the game, then it's much worse in multiple ways,
and my previous quarter-jesting comment about automatically ruling against
you in cases of ambiguous rules comes into play.

e

[joncleaves]

ok, we've gotten closer - and I think we can dispense with the offline as they
now parallel..lol

<< Even if the rule (through divine intervention, for all I care) said
"troops who are camel-mounted get a +10 to both shooting and hand-to-hand
random factors" - something that we would all actually agree was a
mechanics-breaker, as opposed to the current fracas where that is *not*
the case - then the umpire upon having this pointed out should rule that
that is, indeed, what happens. And if Tim (or I) were the only person to
have realised this, and brought the appropriate army, well, then, we get
to win the tournament. End of story. Try harder next time.>>

Ok, the above makes clear to me why we aren't in agreement. To you, it is
better to play the game broken for an event than to possibly let the rules
author have what you perceive may be undue influence. To me, it is important to
have the game played correctly and not permit game-breakers into the mechanics.
To you, a player finds a rules edge - even if he suspects it is an error - and
better to not bring it up in advance, but instead base your victory plan on it
in the hopes it will go undiscovered or ruled your way by the umpire. Such a
win would be as valid to you as one earned 'normally'.

I got it. I see perfectly why we have been talking past each other.

What I would like other interested parties to do is to let me and Scott know -
either here or offline if that makes you more comfortable - what your thoughts
are on this. I'll collect them while he's in Italy and we'll take them into
account when we discuss it upon his return.

Thanks for bearing with us.

Jon


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

Greetings Jon,
The difference is the perception of partiality. When you are a player in a
tournament you have to take off the author hat for the duration of your
parcipitation. I understand that you want the game played to your intent. When
you involved in the outcome
you must trust the ref and his decission. For you to offer your intent gives
the perception of partiality. If a rule is writen in such a way as to be
different from your intent it is unfair for you to effectively rewrite the rule
ingame. If you were there and were not playing in that competetion (say this had
occured in the 15mm tourney) you could offer your intent, but that ruling only
works because you no dog in the fight. I would still say that you shouldn't go
with your intent until you get a chance to actualy post a change someplace.

TD
-- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> <<As Phil used to state: players are entitled to an impartial umpire. not
> an infallible one. It's like sport: even if the video *proves* that
> you're not out, too bad - the umpire said that you were. Against the
> intent for a strike to be called (see, I can use US analogies!) when the
> pitch is outside the zone? Sure. So?>>
>
> I would agree. An umpire judging for the players whether or not a certain
unit is behind the flank or upslope or in the woods is making an impartial
judgment call on the game situation - as in a ball in or out of a strike zone.
>
> That, to me, is different than an umpire reading a rule in the book and saying
that his reading is X when X is both counter to the intent of the rule and, in
this case, a mechanics-breaker.