Warrior Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules
A Four Horsemen Enterprises Rules Set
  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups AlbumAlbum   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

You may want to read this, was: 1.5 ranks - what does it rep

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Egroup Archives
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 112

PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:44 am    Post subject: You may want to read this, was: Re: 1.5 ranks - what does it

Peace. Got it. Thanks for the long and detailed explanation. I'll be more
careful in the

(My response is short because I assume you want this thread to end)

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@... wrote:
> Jonathan, the last thing I want is for anyone to have hard feelings here.
> While I can certainly see why Scott and others got annoyed at your posts, I
> also well aware that sometimes our 'internet voice' does not match what we
> intended the listener to hear.
> So, in the vein of bridging the gap, let's look at your first mail.
> <<List rules allow Mongol light cav and many other special troops of specific
> nationalities to
> fight in 1.5 ranks. Is this meant to simulate some tactical or formational
> innovation like
> some special way these troops fought that allowed them to put more fighting
> power on
> each section of their front line or is just meant to make these troops
> "better"
> in a generic
> but balancing way.>>
> .
> It would have been best to end the mail right here. If you had, the only
> problems would be, first, that you were asking a question that has been asked
> and answered many times and, second, the way your question ends in an option
> we would never take and have stated we would never take.
> I am aware that some folks join the group after a discussion and ask a
> question not realizing it has been discussed to death and I try to be
sensitive to
> that. But I am pretty sure you were a member at the time of Oriental
> Warrior's release. Then you fall prey to our policy of not answering why
> except on a case by case basis. All too often a why question is asked by
> someone who knows our answer already but is looking for a venue to reopen a
> closed issue and beat it to death. Also, if we answer "why is X this way?"
> "because we believe Y to be true" we often get "but I think Z is true and I
> think you're wrong and want to debate the point." We don't have time for
> such a debate. If the person has some primary material and references it as
> objection to something we've done, we jump on it as a hard look if it is
> something we have not seen before. But also all too often we have seen it
and we
> interpret it differently - as a part of a whole body of information - than
> the objector.
> Secondly, and I do not really want to EVER have to say this again, we will
> never develop a rule or list rule solely for the purposes of generic or
> tournament balance. Yes, we actually do find the continued discussion of
such an
> option insulting. Now, I for one do not have feelings to hurt, so insult
> away. But if you choose to, do not also expect me to get right on that
> for you...lol I am also aware that, as our fan base grows, we pick up more
> more people from game systems that DO use rules to balance lists for tourney
> play and so this issue may continue with players who join the group after
> today. But for those of you here, all Warrior rules, list or book (not
> counting 14 and 17) are for simulation purposes and not list to list balance
> purposes.
> The answer is, our research shows that Mongol cavalry formations and tactics
> at the high resolution level produced combat power at the point of fighting
> more efficiently than many of their historical opponents.
> Your mail is also not read in isolation. It may be the only mail you ever
> posted on the subject. To one of us, it may seem like yet again another mail
> on uncosted list rules.
> <<Also, I should make clear, this is not a gripe about uncosted list rules.>>
> See? Even you realized this might be the reaction...lol Unfortunately for
> your timing, we had already had to deal with a couple of long threads that
> were couched as being not about that subject yet that is exactly what they
> about.
> << My
> problem is that
> when new players come and say, "How come your Mongol LC get to fight in 1.5
> ranks and
> mine don't?!" I want to have a better answer than, 'Ah . . . 'cause they're
> like
> ah . . . better.">>
> Well actually that's a good answer. Its certainly true. And a new player
> needs to know more than that initially because....? lol In any case, what
> need to do is find the message numbers for the threads where subjects like
> this have already been discussed and have them available when we get asked
> questions - so we can respond with, please see thread beginning with message
> number X. We just don't have the time and yahoo is NOT the right software to
> support us long term. At some point we will have a forum of our own and
> to track such things. Give us about a year....
> <<Finally, this is not just a question for Jon Cleaves but for anyone who
> knows
> the answer or
> has any insight into it.>>
> Bill the Greek did fine work on our behalf. Scott was burned out. Please
> be patient with us just before through just after major cons...lol
> And from a later mail, you said...
> <<But I guess I sort of have an answer - Mongols can fight in 1.5 ranks to
> make
> them better.>>
> The problem with what happened is that you asked for an answer and said it
> did not have to come from us as far as you were concerned and then made the
> above statement as though it were the official answer. That really made
> something that was a no big deal thread into a that pisses me off thread. If
> don't want to, can't wait or can't make a look through the archive for the
> answer from us, please don't state it on our behalf. I *think* if that
> happened, we would have come back from Cold Wars and eventually gotten to
> answering when we had time. Instead your statement came off other than you
> probably intended it at the worst time under the worst circumstances for
> understanding.
> Peace?
> Jon
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Egroup Archives All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group