Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Greg Regets]

Thanks Scott, that was the answer I was expecting and hoping for. :-)

Greg


----- Original Message -----
From: Holder, Scott <FHWA>
To: IPM Return requested (Receipt notification requested)
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] RULES Palisade Questions



My big question about palisades, etc, is: Do you have to buy them in the
six element sections required, meaning that each section would have to
be six elements continuously touching? I damn sure hope so. I would hate
to see people be able to buy things like that as six, one element
sections.

You pay for them in 6 element sections *and* these sections must be
continuous, not 1 element here, one element there. Now if said elements
want to turn 90 degrees touching at a corner, no problem, or to follow a
terrain feature, etc. Now if you want one 6 element section in one
place and another 6 element section in another place, no problem, those
don't need to be "touching". But the basic 6 element section must
touch.

scott












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



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



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

[Doug]

>I don't
>think anyone on this list or above the age of 12 would
>even consider dismounting elephants, putting them in
>orb or placing the whole behind a palisade. So, if
>your concern is that new players will be confused, it
>may be out of place.

I disagree. TOG has a bad reputation in many minds because it is
perceived as catering to 'cheesy' shenanigans such as those you
suggest. Non-grognards are perfectly likely to be confused by your
queries, even though you intend them to be tongue in cheek. RPG &
Fantasy gamers consider such stuff. It doesn't serve the interest of
promoting the game, since it is quite complicated.

Maybe FHE can get you a bold graphic with which to label such
posts... I'm thinking of the cover of a certain Rolling Stones
album... :)

You really know the answers to the weirdness you suggest; or are at
least you are experienced enough to read the rules & see if there
actually are any such loopholes. Why waste FHE's time? You could
actually do a service by couching your weirdness in the form of a
Newbie's grand battle plan or game report, which might make for fun
reading; and then explaining how the rules _should_ be used for the
benefit of the less experienced.
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at
present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come
in it's turn, but it will be at a remote period." James Madison, 15
March 1798 (_Papers of J.M._ vol 12, p.14; LC call no. JK.111.M24)

[Kelly Wilkinson]

>
> I disagree. TOG has a bad reputation in many minds
> because it is
> perceived as catering to 'cheesy' shenanigans such
> as those you
> suggest.<SNIP>

****Doug, that was never allowed in 7th edition.





Non-grognards are perfectly likely to be
> confused by your
> queries, even though you intend them to be tongue in
> cheek. RPG &
> Fantasy gamers consider such stuff.<SNIP>

**** Only if they have been smoking crack!

It doesn't
> serve the interest of
> promoting the game, since it is quite complicated.
>
> Maybe FHE can get you a bold graphic with which to
> label such
> posts... I'm thinking of the cover of a certain
> Rolling Stones
> album...
>
> You really know the answers to the weirdness you
> suggest; or are at
> least you are experienced enough to read the rules &
> see if there
> actually are any such loopholes. Why waste FHE's
> time? You could
> actually do a service by couching your weirdness in
> the form of a
> Newbie's grand battle plan or game report, which
> might make for fun
> reading; and then explaining how the rules _should_
> be used for the
> benefit of the less experienced.<SNIP>


****Don't hate man! Boyd is an infantryman and if he's
a bit off of his kilter so be it! I find his humor
quite entertaining and harmless as do most here! Don't
be a humor hater! Peace Baby!


Kelly

The Peace HO
> --
>
> Doug
> The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes
>
> "The tyranny of the legislatures is the most
> formidable dread at
> present, and will be for long years. That of the
> executive will come
> in it's turn, but it will be at a remote period."
> James Madison, 15
> March 1798 (_Papers of J.M._ vol 12, p.14; LC call
> no. JK.111.M24)
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

>
> <<Or I dismount my elephants behind the palisades and
> form orb >>

Well I thought it was funny...

>
> I find this sort of comment, even if made in jest, very
unmotivating and unhelpful. Just so you know.


And this just opens the floodgates!
Adam

> -----Original Message-----
> From: kelly wilkinson [mailto:jwilkinson62@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 1:48 AM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] RULES Palisade Questions
>
>
>
> >
> > I disagree. TOG has a bad reputation in many minds
> > because it is
> > perceived as catering to 'cheesy' shenanigans such
> > as those you
> > suggest.<SNIP>
>
> ****Doug, that was never allowed in 7th edition.
>
>
>

TOG was a direct descendant, in author, players, etc. of a game which
allowed a certain notorious practitioner, who shall go nameless, to dismount
_one_ SHC and place him in the corner of a pike phalanx, to ameliorate wedge
attacks. This was countered by his disciples who would place _one_ Reg A
cavalry at the apex of a wedge of otherwise Reg C figures.
Examples which Boyd brings up are direct descendants of such shenanigans.
FHE is making a commendable attempt to throttle such play.
Boyd is being both an amusing pointer-outer of _possible_ but not probable
examples, and a pain in the ass. He seems to be good at both tasks.

John the OFM
>
>
>

>

I was speaking of 7th's predecessors, 6th and 5th. Read my first sentence.
All your objections vanish.

John the OFM



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greggory A. Regets [mailto:gar@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 9:25 AM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] RULES Palisade Questions
>
>
> I guess I'm missing something. Didn't SHC in old 7th dismount as
> EHI and woouldn't you have to be charging that stand (if it was
> SHI) to be uneasy? Also, isn't buying one upgrade figure just
> illegal? That sounds like poor ref'ing, not loopholes.
>
> Down in our area that would never happen because we check the
> lists pretty good when we send in the tourney money and you have
> to show your list to your opponent after the game while you tally
> up points killed. If you get caught doing anything wrong with
> your list, you are out of the tourney, no pity allowed.
>
> I'm sorry John the OFM, Boyd has, in all his sillyness, uncovered
> something that I think is a problem, that is, an elephant would
> get cover behind a palisade.
>
> There is a difference between illegal tactics and slimmy tactics.
> Slimmy tactics are actually good in the long term, as they allow
> authors to close loopholes. One would imagine the current counter
> rules would have never gotten to where they are if it were not
> for those using the counter to nefarious advantage.
>
> Face facts, four guys writing a game, no matter how hard they
> try, will not think of everything. When someone finds a loophole,
> they should be thanked, it should be closed, and we should move on.
>
> In my opinion, of course ...
>
> Greg
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Carroll
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 7:49 AM
> Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] RULES Palisade Questions
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: kelly wilkinson [mailto:jwilkinson62@...]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 1:48 AM
> > To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] RULES Palisade Questions
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I disagree. TOG has a bad reputation in many minds
> > > because it is
> > > perceived as catering to 'cheesy' shenanigans such
> > > as those you
> > > suggest.<SNIP>
> >
> > ****Doug, that was never allowed in 7th edition.
> >
> >
> >
>
> TOG was a direct descendant, in author, players, etc. of a game which
> allowed a certain notorious practitioner, who shall go
> nameless, to dismount
> _one_ SHC and place him in the corner of a pike phalanx, to
> ameliorate wedge
> attacks. This was countered by his disciples who would place
> _one_ Reg A
> cavalry at the apex of a wedge of otherwise Reg C figures.
> Examples which Boyd brings up are direct descendants of such
> shenanigans.
> FHE is making a commendable attempt to throttle such play.
> Boyd is being both an amusing pointer-outer of _possible_ but
> not probable
> examples, and a pain in the ass. He seems to be good at both tasks.
>
> John the OFM
> >
> >
> >
>
> >
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> 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]

I guess I'm missing something. Didn't SHC in old 7th dismount as EHI and
woouldn't you have to be charging that stand (if it was SHI) to be uneasy? Also,
isn't buying one upgrade figure just illegal? That sounds like poor ref'ing, not
loopholes.

Down in our area that would never happen because we check the lists pretty good
when we send in the tourney money and you have to show your list to your
opponent after the game while you tally up points killed. If you get caught
doing anything wrong with your list, you are out of the tourney, no pity
allowed.

I'm sorry John the OFM, Boyd has, in all his sillyness, uncovered something that
I think is a problem, that is, an elephant would get cover behind a palisade.

There is a difference between illegal tactics and slimmy tactics. Slimmy tactics
are actually good in the long term, as they allow authors to close loopholes.
One would imagine the current counter rules would have never gotten to where
they are if it were not for those using the counter to nefarious advantage.

Face facts, four guys writing a game, no matter how hard they try, will not
think of everything. When someone finds a loophole, they should be thanked, it
should be closed, and we should move on.

In my opinion, of course ... :-)

Greg


----- Original Message -----
From: John Carroll
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 7:49 AM
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] RULES Palisade Questions




> -----Original Message-----
> From: kelly wilkinson [mailto:jwilkinson62@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 1:48 AM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] RULES Palisade Questions
>
>
>
> >
> > I disagree. TOG has a bad reputation in many minds
> > because it is
> > perceived as catering to 'cheesy' shenanigans such
> > as those you
> > suggest.<SNIP>
>
> ****Doug, that was never allowed in 7th edition.
>
>
>

TOG was a direct descendant, in author, players, etc. of a game which
allowed a certain notorious practitioner, who shall go nameless, to dismount
_one_ SHC and place him in the corner of a pike phalanx, to ameliorate wedge
attacks. This was countered by his disciples who would place _one_ Reg A
cavalry at the apex of a wedge of otherwise Reg C figures.
Examples which Boyd brings up are direct descendants of such shenanigans.
FHE is making a commendable attempt to throttle such play.
Boyd is being both an amusing pointer-outer of _possible_ but not probable
examples, and a pain in the ass. He seems to be good at both tasks.

John the OFM
>
>
>

>


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



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



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

> Examples which Boyd brings up are direct descendants
> of such shenanigans.
> FHE is making a commendable attempt to throttle such
> play.

But only because people like me point them out.

> Boyd is being both an amusing pointer-outer of
> _possible_ but not probable
> examples, and a pain in the ass. He seems to be
> good at both tasks.

Thank you John, for it is good to know one's place.
Perhaps it is a pain in the ass exactly because it is
an annoying loophole. Messengers are always
slaughtered...what can one do?

boyd

=====
Wake up and smell the Assyrians

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

[Greg Regets]

Well, those things were legal in 6th, but I don't really see Warrior as a
decendent of 6th Edition. Hard to even consider what anything from 6th has to do
with Warrior.

Good try though!!! :-)

The position still stands. People will find things and that is that! I have been
playing/coaching football for years and even though the NCAA is 118 years old,
people still find loopholes. Last year, Nebraska discovered a rule that allowed
teams to have extra guys out on the field during time-outs and dead ball
situations, as long as they didn't go inside the hash marks and as long as the
extra guys were carrying water. This was put in back in 1926 to allow teams to
give players water in those situations. Back then you had to use second
stringers to carry water. What Nebraska did was send about 20 guys out, all with
water, so that the defense couldn't tell what personnel (punt or go for it,
three receiver or power formation) the offense was going to send out. They
actually went for it five times on fourth down while the other team had the punt
team out on the field. They did it twice in a #1 vs. #2 game with Oklahoma. The
NCAA has now closed that loophole.

Our game will be no different.

Greg


----- Original Message -----
From: John Carroll
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 8:20 AM
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] RULES Palisade Questions


I was speaking of 7th's predecessors, 6th and 5th. Read my first sentence.
All your objections vanish.

John the OFM



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greggory A. Regets [mailto:gar@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 9:25 AM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] RULES Palisade Questions
>
>
> I guess I'm missing something. Didn't SHC in old 7th dismount as
> EHI and woouldn't you have to be charging that stand (if it was
> SHI) to be uneasy? Also, isn't buying one upgrade figure just
> illegal? That sounds like poor ref'ing, not loopholes.
>
> Down in our area that would never happen because we check the
> lists pretty good when we send in the tourney money and you have
> to show your list to your opponent after the game while you tally
> up points killed. If you get caught doing anything wrong with
> your list, you are out of the tourney, no pity allowed.
>
> I'm sorry John the OFM, Boyd has, in all his sillyness, uncovered
> something that I think is a problem, that is, an elephant would
> get cover behind a palisade.
>
> There is a difference between illegal tactics and slimmy tactics.
> Slimmy tactics are actually good in the long term, as they allow
> authors to close loopholes. One would imagine the current counter
> rules would have never gotten to where they are if it were not
> for those using the counter to nefarious advantage.
>
> Face facts, four guys writing a game, no matter how hard they
> try, will not think of everything. When someone finds a loophole,
> they should be thanked, it should be closed, and we should move on.
>
> In my opinion, of course ...
>
> Greg
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Carroll
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 7:49 AM
> Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] RULES Palisade Questions
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: kelly wilkinson [mailto:jwilkinson62@...]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 1:48 AM
> > To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] RULES Palisade Questions
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I disagree. TOG has a bad reputation in many minds
> > > because it is
> > > perceived as catering to 'cheesy' shenanigans such
> > > as those you
> > > suggest.<SNIP>
> >
> > ****Doug, that was never allowed in 7th edition.
> >
> >
> >
>
> TOG was a direct descendant, in author, players, etc. of a game which
> allowed a certain notorious practitioner, who shall go
> nameless, to dismount
> _one_ SHC and place him in the corner of a pike phalanx, to
> ameliorate wedge
> attacks. This was countered by his disciples who would place
> _one_ Reg A
> cavalry at the apex of a wedge of otherwise Reg C figures.
> Examples which Boyd brings up are direct descendants of such
> shenanigans.
> FHE is making a commendable attempt to throttle such play.
> Boyd is being both an amusing pointer-outer of _possible_ but
> not probable
> examples, and a pain in the ass. He seems to be good at both tasks.
>
> John the OFM
> >
> >
> >
>
> >
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>


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



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



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

Warrior is a descendant of 7th. The number 7 comes after the number 6.
Phil Barker wrote 6th and 7th. Many (Note I said "many"; not "most", not
"all"; "many") mechanisms carried through from 6th to 7th. 7th replaced 6th
in tournament play with "many" players.
QED.
MY point was that Boyd was pointing out stupid things possibly permitted in
the rules, and that there is a long history of stupid things allowed in
_all_ rules, whether written by Phil Barker, Jervis Johnson, or FHE.
And Penn State would never try stuff like that, only those evil Bad Guys
like Notre Dame or Nebraska (or Boyd) would even _think_ of pulling stuff
like that. :)

John the OFM



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greggory A. Regets [mailto:gar@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 10:42 AM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] RULES Palisade Questions
>
>
> Well, those things were legal in 6th, but I don't really see
> Warrior as a decendent of 6th Edition. Hard to even consider what
> anything from 6th has to do with Warrior.
>
> Good try though!!!
>
> The position still stands. People will find things and that is
> that! I have been playing/coaching football for years and even
> though the NCAA is 118 years old, people still find loopholes.
> Last year, Nebraska discovered a rule that allowed teams to have
> extra guys out on the field during time-outs and dead ball
> situations, as long as they didn't go inside the hash marks and
> as long as the extra guys were carrying water. This was put in
> back in 1926 to allow teams to give players water in those
> situations. Back then you had to use second stringers to carry
> water. What Nebraska did was send about 20 guys out, all with
> water, so that the defense couldn't tell what personnel (punt or
> go for it, three receiver or power formation) the offense was
> going to send out. They actually went for it five times on fourth
> down while the other team had the punt team out on the field.
> They did it twice in a #1 vs. #2 game with Oklahoma. The NCAA has
> now closed that loophole.
>
> Our game will be no different.
>
> Greg
>
>
>

[Greg Regets]

7 comes after 6? No way?

What we should do is try to find ALL these little slippery things HERE on this
board so as to close them. I have been VERY, VERY, VERY guilty of using them in
the past as anyone on this board that has played against me will tell you. Do I
feel bad about it, not even! Do I hope the authors close my loopholes, you
bet!!!

Greg

P.S. Nebraska will get theirs when they come to Austin this year. The eyes of
Texas and all that!

----- Original Message -----
From: John Carroll
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 9:48 AM
Subject: RE: [WarriorRules] RULES Palisade Questions


Warrior is a descendant of 7th. The number 7 comes after the number 6.
Phil Barker wrote 6th and 7th. Many (Note I said "many"; not "most", not
"all"; "many") mechanisms carried through from 6th to 7th. 7th replaced 6th
in tournament play with "many" players.
QED.
MY point was that Boyd was pointing out stupid things possibly permitted in
the rules, and that there is a long history of stupid things allowed in
_all_ rules, whether written by Phil Barker, Jervis Johnson, or FHE.
And Penn State would never try stuff like that, only those evil Bad Guys
like Notre Dame or Nebraska (or Boyd) would even _think_ of pulling stuff
like that. :)

John the OFM



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greggory A. Regets [mailto:gar@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 10:42 AM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] RULES Palisade Questions
>
>
> Well, those things were legal in 6th, but I don't really see
> Warrior as a decendent of 6th Edition. Hard to even consider what
> anything from 6th has to do with Warrior.
>
> Good try though!!!
>
> The position still stands. People will find things and that is
> that! I have been playing/coaching football for years and even
> though the NCAA is 118 years old, people still find loopholes.
> Last year, Nebraska discovered a rule that allowed teams to have
> extra guys out on the field during time-outs and dead ball
> situations, as long as they didn't go inside the hash marks and
> as long as the extra guys were carrying water. This was put in
> back in 1926 to allow teams to give players water in those
> situations. Back then you had to use second stringers to carry
> water. What Nebraska did was send about 20 guys out, all with
> water, so that the defense couldn't tell what personnel (punt or
> go for it, three receiver or power formation) the offense was
> going to send out. They actually went for it five times on fourth
> down while the other team had the punt team out on the field.
> They did it twice in a #1 vs. #2 game with Oklahoma. The NCAA has
> now closed that loophole.
>
> Our game will be no different.
>
> Greg
>
>
>


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



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



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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I strongly disagree. Boyd is no pain in the ass. To
say so is unkind.

Kelly

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Tisk, Tisk. . . John try not to be unkind to brother
Boyd! He is not evil. I AM EVIL! Try not to be unkind.

Kelly

--- John Carroll <johncarroll453@...> wrote:
> Warrior is a descendant of 7th. The number 7 comes
> after the number 6.
> Phil Barker wrote 6th and 7th. Many (Note I said
> "many"; not "most", not
> "all"; "many") mechanisms carried through from 6th
> to 7th. 7th replaced 6th
> in tournament play with "many" players.
> QED.
> MY point was that Boyd was pointing out stupid
> things possibly permitted in
> the rules, and that there is a long history of
> stupid things allowed in
> _all_ rules, whether written by Phil Barker, Jervis
> Johnson, or FHE.
> And Penn State would never try stuff like that, only
> those evil Bad Guys
> like Notre Dame or Nebraska (or Boyd) would even
> _think_ of pulling stuff
> like that.
>
> John the OFM
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Greggory A. Regets [mailto:gar@...]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 10:42 AM
> > To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] RULES Palisade
> Questions
> >
> >
> > Well, those things were legal in 6th, but I don't
> really see
> > Warrior as a decendent of 6th Edition. Hard to
> even consider what
> > anything from 6th has to do with Warrior.
> >
> > Good try though!!!
> >
> > The position still stands. People will find things
> and that is
> > that! I have been playing/coaching football for
> years and even
> > though the NCAA is 118 years old, people still
> find loopholes.
> > Last year, Nebraska discovered a rule that allowed
> teams to have
> > extra guys out on the field during time-outs and
> dead ball
> > situations, as long as they didn't go inside the
> hash marks and
> > as long as the extra guys were carrying water.
> This was put in
> > back in 1926 to allow teams to give players water
> in those
> > situations. Back then you had to use second
> stringers to carry
> > water. What Nebraska did was send about 20 guys
> out, all with
> > water, so that the defense couldn't tell what
> personnel (punt or
> > go for it, three receiver or power formation) the
> offense was
> > going to send out. They actually went for it five
> times on fourth
> > down while the other team had the punt team out on
> the field.
> > They did it twice in a #1 vs. #2 game with
> Oklahoma. The NCAA has
> > now closed that loophole.
> >
> > Our game will be no different.
> >
> > Greg
> >
> >
> >
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com