Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:
> Hey Asif -
>
> shahadet_99 wrote:
> > 1.) Umpiring and Rules Intent: Hey Ewan? I'm sorry, but I have
to
> > disagree with you in part.
>
> - I hate it when that happens .

Yeah, join the club. ;)

> Well, no. There are systems in place for good reason. To use even
your
> extreme example, I'd rather that the accused go free than that
there not
> be protection from police abuse. But on a scale of off-topicness,
we're
> prety high now.

I was merely analogizing. Although I must admit, similar feelings
do crop up for me at least when someone tries to pull a fast one....

>
> > "Try harder next time", is the ultimate refuge of rules lawyers
and
> > uber-competitive weasels, EXACTLY the kind of people that
populate GW
> > tourneys and who I was looking to escape from when I tried
Warrior a
> > few months ago.
>
> I've never understood why 'rules lawyer' is such an insult.

From my experiences, the definition of rules lawyer is:

1.) A person who attempts to fixate upon a few words within a rule,
sometimes taking said words OUT of context with the rest of the
sentence or paragraph it was originally contained in, and trying to
force them to stand on their own so as to make said rule say
something that was never intended, either by the writer of said
rules, or EVEN when such words are put back INTO context with the
rest of the rulebook.

Just as one example: I spent literally a WEEK arguing online with
Mike Bard (that Greek Hoplite guy) as to the function of a weapon in
one of Games Workshop's army books. All of the classes of this
weapon had the effect that they tripled a user's strength against
vehicles when trying to hurt it. Unfortunately, this particular
weapon's rules (a spear) were worded in such a way that it was
possible to read that the 3x effect only happened when the spear was
THROWN at a vehicle.

It was a poorly written rule, and it was corrected in the faq,
but it was precisely the type of situation where a player whose army
uses such a weapon would send his mighty hero hurtling forward to
attack, and AFTER having committed himself to a glorious charge,
would find his opponent calling for an ump and arguing vociferously
that your hero should get ground under his tank tracks like the fool
he is.

And the rule was written poorly enough, that a hyper competitive
rules lawyer could brow-beat an ump into agreeing with him.

And THAT I think would be terrible.

> If the rules
> say A, and I expect you to rule A, why is that an issue.

Ahhhh...but if the rules say A, and everyone expects A, then
there IS no issue.

It's when the rules intent is such that X1 was to be the result,
and when read, SOME people see X1 and others see X3, that problems
crop up.

> But then, I probably fall into your grouping of weasels.
Distinguishable
> from stoats by the absence of black spots on the tail.

(LOL) I have to admit, I don't think I would have been as eager
to write this if I didn't know that you have a good sense of humor
are a genuinely affable guy. ;>

And yes, you and Mr. Dave "Silent Assassin" Markowitz probably
DO fall under my grouping of weasels. But at least you guys are FUN
weasels. ;>

> > In my opinion on this subset of the issue, IF you can get the
> > ruling RIGHT, then you SHOULD.
>
> Well, yeah. But are you arguing that 'right' means 'what someone
tells
> you was supposed to be written' instead of 'what is written'? If
so, we
> indeed disagree.

Without going into all the higgly-piggly of "authors playing in
tourneys", yes, we disagree.

I think if Jon is there, and Scott was genuinely unsure of how a
ruling should work, he SHOULD ask Jon what should happen. Better
that the game be played RIGHT, than have someone win because they
used a ruling to cause a strategem that has NO BUSINESS working, to
work.

> > Will this cover everything? NO. Players (especially American
> > ones) are horribly inventive at reading rules and finding some
new
> > and creative way to do something that NEVER crossed the author's
> > mind. It's probably our independent streak - we all have a bit
of
> > the born rebel in us. <lol>
>
> Naah. Tim aside, the UK 7th scene was far, far, far more inventive
than
> the US one. I doubt that's changed with Warrior.

Really? All the GW designers, when they came over for Games Day
tourneys, inevitably moaned that they got 10x more rules problems
and "questionable strategems" from American players than they did
from Brits, who THEY claimed were more "laid back". Their words, not
mine.

Regards,
Asif