Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Greg Regets]

I have a feeling that the email list is making this arguement a bit less
cordial that it in fact is.

To Jon's point of view, he probably hears so much of this, he has adopted a
view of "I gave my answer, and the matter is closed". This is obviously a
time issue with Jon.

Chris on the other hand has an issue that he obviously feels strongly about,
and posts accordingly.

I remember when I had my arguement with Jon about the wrap rule. It amazed
me that we have two issues that have been beaten to death, getting troops to
fight in straight lines, and making battles come to a conclusion in the
alloted time ... and yet we take OUT a rule that basically forces units to
fight in straight lines or else, and removes some of the potential for
lethality of all units. At the time Jon frustrated the hell out of me,
because he seemed completely unwilling to listen to any other point of view,
but in the end, you have to tell yourself that old sports thing, "It doesn't
matter what the rules are, as long as both teams are playing by the same
set."

I think what we need to do is present our arguements to Jon ONE time,
clearly and completely, and then let it go. At some point we have to accept
that Jon and his team will come up with a solution that will work for us
all. I coach a lot of football, and when I meet with my assistant coaches
the first time each season, I take a count of the guys in the room. I always
say, "There are ten of us here, if you get your way 10% of the time, you are
right on average."

Greg ~Go Spurs Go~

[Mike Turner]

I can honestly say (as Jon's usual opponent in several game systems) that
this entire issue was already beaten to death two years ago on this very
same e-group (or was it the old WRG group?). This issue was spoken of for
several e-mails and answered by the 4H the same way as now. Let's quit
wasting time on the same old issues, and get on with business.

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Regets [mailto:greg@...]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 3:44 PM
To: 'WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: [WarriorRules] To Chris & Jon

I have a feeling that the email list is making this arguement a bit less
cordial that it in fact is.

To Jon's point of view, he probably hears so much of this, he has adopted a
view of "I gave my answer, and the matter is closed". This is obviously a
time issue with Jon.

Chris on the other hand has an issue that he obviously feels strongly about,
and posts accordingly.

I remember when I had my arguement with Jon about the wrap rule. It amazed
me that we have two issues that have been beaten to death, getting troops to
fight in straight lines, and making battles come to a conclusion in the
alloted time ... and yet we take OUT a rule that basically forces units to
fight in straight lines or else, and removes some of the potential for
lethality of all units. At the time Jon frustrated the hell out of me,
because he seemed completely unwilling to listen to any other point of view,
but in the end, you have to tell yourself that old sports thing, "It doesn't
matter what the rules are, as long as both teams are playing by the same
set."

I think what we need to do is present our arguements to Jon ONE time,
clearly and completely, and then let it go. At some point we have to accept
that Jon and his team will come up with a solution that will work for us
all. I coach a lot of football, and when I meet with my assistant coaches
the first time each season, I take a count of the guys in the room. I always
say, "There are ten of us here, if you get your way 10% of the time, you are
right on average."

Greg ~Go Spurs Go~

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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[joncleaves]

<<At the time Jon frustrated the hell out of me,
because he seemed completely unwilling to listen to any other point of view>>

I am clearly not conveying my feelings on this and other issues. I listen to
EVERY point of view. I read EVERY word of EVERY mail. Disagreement does not =
not listening, Greg.

I do have to perform 'task triage' here though and cannot afford to completely
rehash reasoning on an issue we have already long since decided upon. I know
some of you suffer from not having been as intimately involved in Warrior as
Scott and I over the last 15 years, and that's ok, but most of these arguments
are only new to you. Points may be "valid" to one person and something we
decided we disagreed with in 1988 or 1993 or whatever.

As an example, the ally as a CINC for eager to his own troops suggestion IS new
to Scott and I and we are exploring it while we form an opinion. The always
roll for flank march even if you don't have one thing is something we heard ALL
the pros and cons of and decided against YEARS ago. The suggestions made here
this week have NOT in any way presented new ideas to us. Not anyone's fault,
just not something we are going to do in the basic rule book.
Since you get to play or run tournaments in Warrior any way you like, I do not
see what the big deal is anyway. If you want to roll for nonexistant flank
marches, go ahead. I'd play in a tourney so constructed.
We just don't want it in the rule book. No offense to anyone's sensibilities is
intended with that decision.

I will say that lectures to me on the military history merits of something do
not go over well. :)

Love to all,
Jon

[joncleaves]

<<I thought that military history or rules history to back any arguments
for points on the rules sent would be required.
What the point of submitting an argument without any supporting data?>>

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear again. I'll take supporting data all day. In
fact I welcome it. On a NEW issue. What I don't need is for a guy bringing up
an old issue for the 50th time trying to imply that we have not studied that
issue's history.

Bring on all the supporting data you want to an issue. But if Scott or I say
we've looked at that one in depth already - save it for the x-rules. Trust us.
We listened, we heard, we made a valid decision looking at the WHOLE picture of
this game and its market.

Jon

[joncleaves]

<,The fact that several people hashed something out years ago, does not mean
that someone does not have a better idea today.>>

Oh, yes, it does, if it is the SAME idea. That is exactly my point. There has
not been ONE new angle to the flank march issue in this whole discussion. Not
ONE. My only point.

Jon

[Ed Forbes]

Hi Jon,

I thought that military history or rules history to back any arguments
for points on the rules sent would be required.
What the point of submitting an argument without any supporting data?

I do not see such posts as "lectures" so much as clarifying a point with
the reasoning behind why the point is supported. The reasoning behind a
point is generally more important than the point . If the reasoning is
shown to be flawed, the point of the argument is many times flawed also.

This is not saying that it is expected that you give any more than a
straight yes or no to any posts that you may wish to respond to, only my
hope that you do not take such posts as a personal slight on you and your
knowledge of the field.

Ed

On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:42:44 EDT JonCleaves@... writes:
>
>
> I will say that lectures to me on the military history merits of
> something do not go over well.
>
> Love to all,
> Jon
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

[Greg Regets]

The fact that several people hashed something out years ago, does not mean
that someone does not have a better idea today.

That's what I get for trying to write a posting asking players to yield a
little for the common good, ~laughs~. I should have put my time into writing
a 200 page hisorical brief to keep someone from sitting there wasting time
counting my scouting points before each game.

Thanks Father Flannigan ... ~wink~


-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 7:43 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] To Chris & Jon


<<At the time Jon frustrated the hell out of me,
because he seemed completely unwilling to listen to any other point of
view>>

I am clearly not conveying my feelings on this and other issues. I listen
to EVERY point of view. I read EVERY word of EVERY mail. Disagreement does
not = not listening, Greg.

I do have to perform 'task triage' here though and cannot afford to
completely rehash reasoning on an issue we have already long since decided
upon. I know some of you suffer from not having been as intimately involved
in Warrior as Scott and I over the last 15 years, and that's ok, but most of
these arguments are only new to you. Points may be "valid" to one person
and something we decided we disagreed with in 1988 or 1993 or whatever.

As an example, the ally as a CINC for eager to his own troops suggestion IS
new to Scott and I and we are exploring it while we form an opinion. The
always roll for flank march even if you don't have one thing is something we
heard ALL the pros and cons of and decided against YEARS ago. The
suggestions made here this week have NOT in any way presented new ideas to
us. Not anyone's fault, just not something we are going to do in the basic
rule book.
Since you get to play or run tournaments in Warrior any way you like, I do
not see what the big deal is anyway. If you want to roll for nonexistant
flank marches, go ahead. I'd play in a tourney so constructed.
We just don't want it in the rule book. No offense to anyone's
sensibilities is intended with that decision.

I will say that lectures to me on the military history merits of something
do not go over well. :)

Love to all,
Jon

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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[scott holder]

I should have put my time into writing
a 200 page hisorical brief to keep someone from sitting there wasting time
counting my scouting points before each game.

>Those people aren't wasting time, they're simply *killing* time so that
there's only one bound of meaningful combat in a 4 hour 1600 point game:):)

Scott "the ole go to the bathroom 4 times an hour is a great time killer ploy"
Holder

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Horse Feathers!

                              Kelly