Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

To All,

I have quietly watched the discussion over the past couple of days
and I think that something important has been overlooked.

Ten years ago we were gaming with WRG 7.XXXXX.XXX.XXX depending on
which group you belonged to and interpretation Guru you bowed down
to. The rules that Barker wrote were great in their time in setting
the stage for an outstanding evolution of the hobby. However, he was
an incredibly inconcise writer and he always kept trying to inject
one more good idea (to increase sales and his bottomline). I would
get a headache trying to read and divine the meaning of some of his
sentences or should I say paragraphs. My highschool English teacher
would have been committed through trying to diagram how the rules
were written. I can not count the number of times that a Rules Shark
at a tournament would through some twist or interpretation in the
middle of a game try to gain an advantage.

The Four Horsemen for love of the hobby, obtained the rights from
Barker to rewrite the rules to meet the needs of the community. Just
4 years ago these gentlemen provided to us a set of rules that was
true to the original Barker design and presented in a concisely
written style. Are there some glitches, yes. Do I agree with all
the assumptions that the rules are based on, no. However, Jon
performed a Herculeian task in doing the job that he did. His logic
and game mechanics are unflawed and what we mostly discuse
is generally picking the fly shit out of the pepper. The Four
Horsemen are correcting weak language and looking to publish an up-
dated copy of the rules. We are head and shoulders above where we
were 10 years ago. Also the greatest complaint of WRG in the
majority of the gaming community was that they were to complicated.
I am not hearing that about Warrior to the degree as WRG.

To having Jon as the ump at conventions, I do not indorse this. I
am a firm believer of the concept of Napoleon's Corporal. No
author is able to edit his own work effectively. By having other
umps from Jon allows for validation of the clarity of the written
rules. Jon can not be at all tournaments, and only through clarity
in the rules will the game be played in a uniform manner across the
community. If the oral interpretations become the rule of the land
then Jon becomes a Guru instead of a gamer, and I am sure that none
of us want that.

Well to get off the soap box and go back to radio listening
silence, Thank you, Four Horsemen for the service to the community
and lets all remember were we where compared to how we are doing now.

Jamie
Outrider 06

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "jamiewgiii" <JamieWGIII@a...>
wrote:
>
> To All,
>
> <snip> Ten years ago we were gaming with WRG 7.XXXXX.XXX.XXX
depending on which group you belonged to and interpretation Guru you
bowed down > to. <snip>
To having Jon as the ump at conventions, I do not indorse this.
I am a firm believer of the concept of Napoleon's Corporal. No
> author is able to edit his own work effectively. By having other
> umps from Jon allows for validation of the clarity of the written
> rules. Jon can not be at all tournaments, and only through clarity
> in the rules will the game be played in a uniform manner across the
> community. If the oral interpretations become the rule of the land
> then Jon becomes a Guru instead of a gamer, and I am sure that none
> of us want that.
>
<snip>
> Jamie
> Outrider 06

Jamie:

Amen to that. Today's controversies are NOTHING like those back in
the late 80's. Then we argued about game mechanics over the game
table itself, constantly halting play; today we argue on the list,
and the games go on (not without the occasional argument, of course!).

Bill Chamis

My thanks, BTW, to Jamie and our opponents at Cold Wars for an
excellent day of gaming.