Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/24/2005 22:11:56 Central Standard Time,
greg.regets@... writes:

If I had to pick between FHE lists and the old WRG, NASAMW lists, it
would take me all of two seconds to throw the later in the fireplace.>>


nah, nah - beat you to it...
;)

J








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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I changed the title of this thread as now we are not talking about Elephants.
Greg, you know very well that the Knights of Saint John are top tiered. I
wouldn't be painting one as you know I'm into the power gamer thing! As far
as the Timurids go, under Tamerlane, they seldom lost ("it was a bad idea to
even think of losing with a wicked sovereign like him!" ) but I do share your
concern where some armies get the luxury very small minimums. Don't get me wrong
here, but even the Romans have some pretty hefty minimums and their empire was
no slouch compared to an army like the new Han or Timurid for example. What do
you think? Should there be a minimum number of common troops for each army that
were known to serve these Kingdoms/empires?

kelly

Greg Regets <greg.regets@...> wrote:

Sure ... definately second tier (not second rate, just second tier).

Kn.of.St John has infantry and cavalry, with no overrated elephants,
or ten pages worth of list rules. The majority of the army is average
moral, and there are pretty strong minimums.

Timurid gets Panzer Tank elephants, tons of list rules, moral
upgrades where you can field an entire army that only fails waver on
a roll of 1, and almost no minimums. Clearly a top shelf army.

I'm not saying that is a bad thing that Timurid is that good ... just
saying that it is, what it is ... and at least down here, a player of
your skill shouldn't need an army that good to win.

Thanks ... g :-)



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> lol! Hmm. . . Second Tier. . . like Ks of St. John!!
>
> Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...> wrote:
> Well, if you play an army like Timurids down in South Texas, expect
> to get called Miss Wilkinson. Kelly is already too close to a
girl's
> name. Why take that risk?
>
> Play something second tier and save armies like that for less
> experienced players. More glory to you when you win!!!!
>
> g
>
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
> <jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> > Good points Greg,
> >
> > I'm still slowly working on getting that Knights of Saint
John
> painted. But still considering Timurids. With a Mongol army at
least
> I won't need an MP when the LC evade or recall.
> >
> > kw
> >
> > Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...> wrote:
> >
> > Referees at a tournament are like officials in a sporting event.
> >
> > You have to go in it with the mindset that they will do a perfect
> job
> > at just about the same percentage that players play perfect
games.
> I
> > have been playing since TOG 6.0 and have never once played a
> perfect
> > game.
> >
> > Also consider that the bad thing that happen to you, always looks
> > worse than those that happen to everyone else ... but as there is
a
> > clear understanding that there will probably never be a perfectly
> > refereed tournament, there are in fact bad things happening to
> > everyone.
> >
> > It really all does tend to come out in the wash.
> >
> > What has really helped me the most over the years (not that I'm
the
> > worlds greatest player or anything) is making tactics and army
> lists
> > that don't rely on any single factor, in order to win. That way,
if
> a
> > call or two doesn't go my way, there are still many other clubs
in
> > the bag.
> >
> > Thanks ... g
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > - In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Jon" <JonCleaves@a...> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ***Jon,
> > > > I'm sorry that your annoyed, it's just that when "WE"
here
> > in
> > > Kansas City are told one thing by you, the rules guru, and then
> we
> > > go to the NICT and it's over-ruled by Scott Holder, I am the
one
> > > that is more than annoyed. . .>>
> > >
> > > I do NOT want to get into this, but I also don't like how this
> > issue
> > > has been portrayed and want to set the record straight.
> > >
> > > Scott is the ump at the NICT. His word is law in that venue.
> > There
> > > are even times when I get ruled against - and I should. If I
> > > haven't made my intent clear enough for him to understand as a
> > > fellow member of FHE, then I 'deserve' whatever judgment he
feels
> > is
> > > best. Period. And believe me, I have....lol
> > >
> > > In any case, I am not in charge of what rulings come in anyone
> > > else's tourney and I will not be. I am human - and it is tough
> to
> > > watch an ump rule differently than I intended. But in the end,
I
> > > have no one to blame but myself. The ump is the man, and I
have
> > > plenty of soccer red cards to prove it...
> > >
> > > Therefore, when I answer rules questions I answer them as the
> > author
> > > with the official answer. If someone doesn't like what their
ump
> > > does with that answer, I can't help that. FHE is NOT in the
> > > business of telling folks how to run their events.
> > >
> > > <<more like exasperated b/c I really don't understand how the
> rule
> > > is supposed to work. I still don't understand.>>
> > >
> > > As you know, but fail to point out here, I have explained this
> rule
> > > to you on several occasions in person. You have clearly
> understood
> > > what I have said. I am aware that you tried to play it that you
> > > could shoot your elephants over your own archers to double
> frontage
> > > on missile power. Who wouldn't 'want' this...? lol But don't
> act
> > > like I haven't already been asked this question multiple times
by
> > > you and don't act like you didn't get what I said. In fact, I
> gave
> > > you exactly the same historical reasoning for the rule that I
> gave
> > > here yesterday during our game in the league playoffs not more
> than
> > > ten days ago.
> > >
> > > <<Perhaps it's because I have never encountered such a rule or
my
> > > own ignorance,but I will tell you this, I don't blame my
students
> > > for not comprehending my lesson. I certainly don't ignore their
> > > questions. But then again, you are not a teacher or are you? I
> > plead
> > > the same ignorance as Todd Kaeser. I ask for the same patience
as
> > > him.>>
> > >
> > > I am a teacher, and you know it. Todd doesn't pull this stuff -

> he
> > > can have whatever he wants from me. This isn't about you not
> > > getting what I said and you know it.
> > >
> > > I'm done with this one.
> > >
> > > J
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.

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

[Greg Regets]

Well Kelly ... you will probably never get people to agree on what is
a top tier army.

As far as Kn.ofSt.J, I'm sorry, I just don't see it at a top tier
army. I think it's a solid army that can be very effective if played
well. That can be said of probably 75% of the armies in Warrior, MUCH
to the credit of the list authors. To be quite honest, I rate it no
better than fifth or sixth, just in Holy Warrior ... behing Pal.
Byzantine, Berger, Nikephorian, Ghaznavid, and perhaps Wallachian.

To my way of thinking, ratings might look something like:

Tier One - Killer Army
Tier Two - Solid Army
Tier Three - Average Army
Tier Four - Play It Because You Love It

That of course doesn't mean a tier one will always beat a tier three.
I don't even think that can be said even if the armies are being
playes by players of equal experience ... not unlike last year when
the New England Patriots only lost two games all year, but one loss
was the the lowly Miami Dolphins ... in any given game @#$% happens.

Enough rambling ... and I didn't really answer your question. ;-)

I guess the short answer is that the history in FHE lists is awesome,
and the first four books did a great job of addressing game balance.

The last two books have the best history of all ... but make me
almost long for the good old days when army lists all had some
problems to work through, and you at least had the assurance that
your opponent had some of the same problems you had. Almost! ;-)

If I had to pick between FHE lists and the old WRG, NASAMW lists, it
would take me all of two seconds to throw the later in the fireplace.

g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> I changed the title of this thread as now we are not talking about
Elephants. Greg, you know very well that the Knights of Saint John
are top tiered. I wouldn't be painting one as you know I'm into the
power gamer thing! As far as the Timurids go, under Tamerlane,
they seldom lost ("it was a bad idea to even think of losing with a
wicked sovereign like him!" ) but I do share your concern where
some armies get the luxury very small minimums. Don't get me wrong
here, but even the Romans have some pretty hefty minimums and their
empire was no slouch compared to an army like the new Han or Timurid
for example. What do you think? Should there be a minimum number of
common troops for each army that were known to serve these
Kingdoms/empires?
>
> kelly
>
> Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...> wrote:
>
> Sure ... definately second tier (not second rate, just second tier).
>
> Kn.of.St John has infantry and cavalry, with no overrated
elephants,
> or ten pages worth of list rules. The majority of the army is
average
> moral, and there are pretty strong minimums.
>
> Timurid gets Panzer Tank elephants, tons of list rules, moral
> upgrades where you can field an entire army that only fails waver
on
> a roll of 1, and almost no minimums. Clearly a top shelf army.
>
> I'm not saying that is a bad thing that Timurid is that good ...
just
> saying that it is, what it is ... and at least down here, a player
of
> your skill shouldn't need an army that good to win.
>
> Thanks ... g
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
> <jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> > lol! Hmm. . . Second Tier. . . like Ks of St. John!!
> >
> > Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...> wrote:
> > Well, if you play an army like Timurids down in South Texas,
expect
> > to get called Miss Wilkinson. Kelly is already too close to a
> girl's
> > name. Why take that risk?
> >
> > Play something second tier and save armies like that for less
> > experienced players. More glory to you when you win!!!!
> >
> > g
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
> > <jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> > > Good points Greg,
> > >
> > > I'm still slowly working on getting that Knights of Saint
> John
> > painted. But still considering Timurids. With a Mongol army at
> least
> > I won't need an MP when the LC evade or recall.
> > >
> > > kw
> > >
> > > Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Referees at a tournament are like officials in a sporting event.
> > >
> > > You have to go in it with the mindset that they will do a
perfect
> > job
> > > at just about the same percentage that players play perfect
> games.
> > I
> > > have been playing since TOG 6.0 and have never once played a
> > perfect
> > > game.
> > >
> > > Also consider that the bad thing that happen to you, always
looks
> > > worse than those that happen to everyone else ... but as there
is
> a
> > > clear understanding that there will probably never be a
perfectly
> > > refereed tournament, there are in fact bad things happening to
> > > everyone.
> > >
> > > It really all does tend to come out in the wash.
> > >
> > > What has really helped me the most over the years (not that I'm
> the
> > > worlds greatest player or anything) is making tactics and army
> > lists
> > > that don't rely on any single factor, in order to win. That
way,
> if
> > a
> > > call or two doesn't go my way, there are still many other clubs
> in
> > > the bag.
> > >
> > > Thanks ... g
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > - In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Jon" <JonCleaves@a...>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ***Jon,
> > > > > I'm sorry that your annoyed, it's just that when "WE"
> here
> > > in
> > > > Kansas City are told one thing by you, the rules guru, and
then
> > we
> > > > go to the NICT and it's over-ruled by Scott Holder, I am the
> one
> > > > that is more than annoyed. . .>>
> > > >
> > > > I do NOT want to get into this, but I also don't like how
this
> > > issue
> > > > has been portrayed and want to set the record straight.
> > > >
> > > > Scott is the ump at the NICT. His word is law in that
venue.
> > > There
> > > > are even times when I get ruled against - and I should. If
I
> > > > haven't made my intent clear enough for him to understand as
a
> > > > fellow member of FHE, then I 'deserve' whatever judgment he
> feels
> > > is
> > > > best. Period. And believe me, I have....lol
> > > >
> > > > In any case, I am not in charge of what rulings come in
anyone
> > > > else's tourney and I will not be. I am human - and it is
tough
> > to
> > > > watch an ump rule differently than I intended. But in the
end,
> I
> > > > have no one to blame but myself. The ump is the man, and I
> have
> > > > plenty of soccer red cards to prove it...
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, when I answer rules questions I answer them as the
> > > author
> > > > with the official answer. If someone doesn't like what their
> ump
> > > > does with that answer, I can't help that. FHE is NOT in the
> > > > business of telling folks how to run their events.
> > > >
> > > > <<more like exasperated b/c I really don't understand how the
> > rule
> > > > is supposed to work. I still don't understand.>>
> > > >
> > > > As you know, but fail to point out here, I have explained
this
> > rule
> > > > to you on several occasions in person. You have clearly
> > understood
> > > > what I have said. I am aware that you tried to play it that
you
> > > > could shoot your elephants over your own archers to double
> > frontage
> > > > on missile power. Who wouldn't 'want' this...? lol But
don't
> > act
> > > > like I haven't already been asked this question multiple
times
> by
> > > > you and don't act like you didn't get what I said. In fact,
I
> > gave
> > > > you exactly the same historical reasoning for the rule that I
> > gave
> > > > here yesterday during our game in the league playoffs not
more
> > than
> > > > ten days ago.
> > > >
> > > > <<Perhaps it's because I have never encountered such a rule
or
> my
> > > > own ignorance,but I will tell you this, I don't blame my
> students
> > > > for not comprehending my lesson. I certainly don't ignore
their
> > > > questions. But then again, you are not a teacher or are you?
I
> > > plead
> > > > the same ignorance as Todd Kaeser. I ask for the same
patience
> as
> > > > him.>>
> > > >
> > > > I am a teacher, and you know it. Todd doesn't pull this
stuff -
>
> > he
> > > > can have whatever he wants from me. This isn't about you not
> > > > getting what I said and you know it.
> > > >
> > > > I'm done with this one.
> > > >
> > > > J
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn
more.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I would have to agree with that, I am a proponent of the new lists. They
certainly have brought my interest back for my dusty mongols.

kw
PS When was the last time you lost with your Kn's of St. John to any of the
higher tiered armies you list in Holy Warrior?

Greg Regets <greg.regets@...> wrote:

Well Kelly ... you will probably never get people to agree on what is
a top tier army.

As far as Kn.ofSt.J, I'm sorry, I just don't see it at a top tier
army. I think it's a solid army that can be very effective if played
well. That can be said of probably 75% of the armies in Warrior, MUCH
to the credit of the list authors. To be quite honest, I rate it no
better than fifth or sixth, just in Holy Warrior ... behing Pal.
Byzantine, Berger, Nikephorian, Ghaznavid, and perhaps Wallachian.

To my way of thinking, ratings might look something like:

Tier One - Killer Army
Tier Two - Solid Army
Tier Three - Average Army
Tier Four - Play It Because You Love It

That of course doesn't mean a tier one will always beat a tier three.
I don't even think that can be said even if the armies are being
playes by players of equal experience ... not unlike last year when
the New England Patriots only lost two games all year, but one loss
was the the lowly Miami Dolphins ... in any given game @#$% happens.

Enough rambling ... and I didn't really answer your question. ;-)

I guess the short answer is that the history in FHE lists is awesome,
and the first four books did a great job of addressing game balance.

The last two books have the best history of all ... but make me
almost long for the good old days when army lists all had some
problems to work through, and you at least had the assurance that
your opponent had some of the same problems you had. Almost! ;-)

If I had to pick between FHE lists and the old WRG, NASAMW lists, it
would take me all of two seconds to throw the later in the fireplace.

g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> I changed the title of this thread as now we are not talking about
Elephants. Greg, you know very well that the Knights of Saint John
are top tiered. I wouldn't be painting one as you know I'm into the
power gamer thing! As far as the Timurids go, under Tamerlane,
they seldom lost ("it was a bad idea to even think of losing with a
wicked sovereign like him!" ) but I do share your concern where
some armies get the luxury very small minimums. Don't get me wrong
here, but even the Romans have some pretty hefty minimums and their
empire was no slouch compared to an army like the new Han or Timurid
for example. What do you think? Should there be a minimum number of
common troops for each army that were known to serve these
Kingdoms/empires?
>
> kelly
>
> Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...> wrote:
>
> Sure ... definately second tier (not second rate, just second tier).
>
> Kn.of.St John has infantry and cavalry, with no overrated
elephants,
> or ten pages worth of list rules. The majority of the army is
average
> moral, and there are pretty strong minimums.
>
> Timurid gets Panzer Tank elephants, tons of list rules, moral
> upgrades where you can field an entire army that only fails waver
on
> a roll of 1, and almost no minimums. Clearly a top shelf army.
>
> I'm not saying that is a bad thing that Timurid is that good ...
just
> saying that it is, what it is ... and at least down here, a player
of
> your skill shouldn't need an army that good to win.
>
> Thanks ... g
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
> <jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> > lol! Hmm. . . Second Tier. . . like Ks of St. John!!
> >
> > Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...> wrote:
> > Well, if you play an army like Timurids down in South Texas,
expect
> > to get called Miss Wilkinson. Kelly is already too close to a
> girl's
> > name. Why take that risk?
> >
> > Play something second tier and save armies like that for less
> > experienced players. More glory to you when you win!!!!
> >
> > g
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
> > <jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> > > Good points Greg,
> > >
> > > I'm still slowly working on getting that Knights of Saint
> John
> > painted. But still considering Timurids. With a Mongol army at
> least
> > I won't need an MP when the LC evade or recall.
> > >
> > > kw
> > >
> > > Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Referees at a tournament are like officials in a sporting event.
> > >
> > > You have to go in it with the mindset that they will do a
perfect
> > job
> > > at just about the same percentage that players play perfect
> games.
> > I
> > > have been playing since TOG 6.0 and have never once played a
> > perfect
> > > game.
> > >
> > > Also consider that the bad thing that happen to you, always
looks
> > > worse than those that happen to everyone else ... but as there
is
> a
> > > clear understanding that there will probably never be a
perfectly
> > > refereed tournament, there are in fact bad things happening to
> > > everyone.
> > >
> > > It really all does tend to come out in the wash.
> > >
> > > What has really helped me the most over the years (not that I'm
> the
> > > worlds greatest player or anything) is making tactics and army
> > lists
> > > that don't rely on any single factor, in order to win. That
way,
> if
> > a
> > > call or two doesn't go my way, there are still many other clubs
> in
> > > the bag.
> > >
> > > Thanks ... g
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > - In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Jon" <JonCleaves@a...>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ***Jon,
> > > > > I'm sorry that your annoyed, it's just that when "WE"
> here
> > > in
> > > > Kansas City are told one thing by you, the rules guru, and
then
> > we
> > > > go to the NICT and it's over-ruled by Scott Holder, I am the
> one
> > > > that is more than annoyed. . .>>
> > > >
> > > > I do NOT want to get into this, but I also don't like how
this
> > > issue
> > > > has been portrayed and want to set the record straight.
> > > >
> > > > Scott is the ump at the NICT. His word is law in that
venue.
> > > There
> > > > are even times when I get ruled against - and I should. If
I
> > > > haven't made my intent clear enough for him to understand as
a
> > > > fellow member of FHE, then I 'deserve' whatever judgment he
> feels
> > > is
> > > > best. Period. And believe me, I have....lol
> > > >
> > > > In any case, I am not in charge of what rulings come in
anyone
> > > > else's tourney and I will not be. I am human - and it is
tough
> > to
> > > > watch an ump rule differently than I intended. But in the
end,
> I
> > > > have no one to blame but myself. The ump is the man, and I
> have
> > > > plenty of soccer red cards to prove it...
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, when I answer rules questions I answer them as the
> > > author
> > > > with the official answer. If someone doesn't like what their
> ump
> > > > does with that answer, I can't help that. FHE is NOT in the
> > > > business of telling folks how to run their events.
> > > >
> > > > <<more like exasperated b/c I really don't understand how the
> > rule
> > > > is supposed to work. I still don't understand.>>
> > > >
> > > > As you know, but fail to point out here, I have explained
this
> > rule
> > > > to you on several occasions in person. You have clearly
> > understood
> > > > what I have said. I am aware that you tried to play it that
you
> > > > could shoot your elephants over your own archers to double
> > frontage
> > > > on missile power. Who wouldn't 'want' this...? lol But
don't
> > act
> > > > like I haven't already been asked this question multiple
times
> by
> > > > you and don't act like you didn't get what I said. In fact,
I
> > gave
> > > > you exactly the same historical reasoning for the rule that I
> > gave
> > > > here yesterday during our game in the league playoffs not
more
> > than
> > > > ten days ago.
> > > >
> > > > <<Perhaps it's because I have never encountered such a rule
or
> my
> > > > own ignorance,but I will tell you this, I don't blame my
> students
> > > > for not comprehending my lesson. I certainly don't ignore
their
> > > > questions. But then again, you are not a teacher or are you?
I
> > > plead
> > > > the same ignorance as Todd Kaeser. I ask for the same
patience
> as
> > > > him.>>
> > > >
> > > > I am a teacher, and you know it. Todd doesn't pull this
stuff -
>
> > he
> > > > can have whatever he wants from me. This isn't about you not
> > > > getting what I said and you know it.
> > > >
> > > > I'm done with this one.
> > > >
> > > > J
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn
more.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

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

[Todd Schneider]

The problem you run into IMO is something that
happened with the Berber list. I think Berbers are a
pretty good army, with a lot of options available to
them, buit the high number of minimum troops you were
required to take (before Scott changed them in the
previous errata update) limited what you could do with
them in tournaments. I think its something other
lists (some of the Byzantine ones in particular)
suffer from as well. Sure, they look like nice armies
to run, but at 1600 points they aren't tournament
viable, and thats something the powergamer in all of
us likes to have. :-)

--- kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
I changed the title of this thread as now we are not
talking about Elephants. Greg, you know very well that
the Knights of Saint John are top tiered. I wouldn't
be painting one as you know I'm into the power gamer
thing! As far as the Timurids go, under Tamerlane,
they seldom lost ("it was a bad idea to even think of
losing with a wicked sovereign like him!" ) but I
do share your concern where some armies get the luxury
very small minimums. Don't get me wrong here, but even
the Romans have some pretty hefty minimums and their
empire was no slouch compared to an army like the new
Han or Timurid for example. What do you think? Should
there be a minimum number of common troops for each
army that were known to serve these Kingdoms/empires?


kelly

Greg Regets <greg.regets@...> wrote:

Sure ... definately second tier (not second rate, just
second tier).

Kn.of.St John has infantry and cavalry, with no
overrated elephants,
or ten pages worth of list rules. The majority of the
army is average
moral, and there are pretty strong minimums.

Timurid gets Panzer Tank elephants, tons of list
rules, moral
upgrades where you can field an entire army that only
fails waver on
a roll of 1, and almost no minimums. Clearly a top
shelf army.

I'm not saying that is a bad thing that Timurid is
that good ... just
saying that it is, what it is ... and at least down
here, a player of
your skill shouldn't need an army that good to win.

Thanks ... g :-)



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> lol! Hmm. . . Second Tier. . . like Ks of St. John!!
>
> Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...> wrote:
> Well, if you play an army like Timurids down in
South Texas, expect
> to get called Miss Wilkinson. Kelly is already too
close to a
girl's
> name. Why take that risk?
>
> Play something second tier and save armies like that
for less
> experienced players. More glory to you when you
win!!!!
>
> g
>
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson

> <jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> > Good points Greg,
> >
> > I'm still slowly working on getting that
Knights of Saint
John
> painted. But still considering Timurids. With a
Mongol army at
least
> I won't need an MP when the LC evade or recall.
> >
> >
kw
> >
> > Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...> wrote:
> >
> > Referees at a tournament are like officials in a
sporting event.
> >
> > You have to go in it with the mindset that they
will do a perfect
> job
> > at just about the same percentage that players
play perfect
games.
> I
> > have been playing since TOG 6.0 and have never
once played a
> perfect
> > game.
> >
> > Also consider that the bad thing that happen to
you, always looks
> > worse than those that happen to everyone else ...
but as there is
a
> > clear understanding that there will probably never
be a perfectly
> > refereed tournament, there are in fact bad things
happening to
> > everyone.
> >
> > It really all does tend to come out in the wash.
> >
> > What has really helped me the most over the years
(not that I'm
the
> > worlds greatest player or anything) is making
tactics and army
> lists
> > that don't rely on any single factor, in order to
win. That way,
if
> a
> > call or two doesn't go my way, there are still
many other clubs
in
> > the bag.
> >
> > Thanks ... g
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > - In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Jon"
<JonCleaves@a...> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ***Jon,
> > > > I'm sorry that your annoyed, it's just
that when "WE"
here
> > in
> > > Kansas City are told one thing by you, the rules
guru, and then
> we
> > > go to the NICT and it's over-ruled by Scott
Holder, I am the
one
> > > that is more than annoyed. . .>>
> > >
> > > I do NOT want to get into this, but I also don't
like how this
> > issue
> > > has been portrayed and want to set the record
straight.
> > >
> > > Scott is the ump at the NICT. His word is law
in that venue.
> > There
> > > are even times when I get ruled against - and I
should. If I
> > > haven't made my intent clear enough for him to
understand as a
> > > fellow member of FHE, then I 'deserve' whatever
judgment he
feels
> > is
> > > best. Period. And believe me, I have....lol
> > >
> > > In any case, I am not in charge of what rulings
come in anyone
> > > else's tourney and I will not be. I am human -
and it is tough
> to
> > > watch an ump rule differently than I intended.
But in the end,
I
> > > have no one to blame but myself. The ump is the
man, and I
have
> > > plenty of soccer red cards to prove it...
> > >
> > > Therefore, when I answer rules questions I
answer them as the
> > author
> > > with the official answer. If someone doesn't
like what their
ump
> > > does with that answer, I can't help that. FHE
is NOT in the
> > > business of telling folks how to run their
events.
> > >
> > > <<more like exasperated b/c I really don't
understand how the
> rule
> > > is supposed to work. I still don't understand.>>
> > >
> > > As you know, but fail to point out here, I have
explained this
> rule
> > > to you on several occasions in person. You have
clearly
> understood
> > > what I have said. I am aware that you tried to
play it that you
> > > could shoot your elephants over your own archers
to double
> frontage
> > > on missile power. Who wouldn't 'want' this...?
lol But don't
> act
> > > like I haven't already been asked this question
multiple times
by
> > > you and don't act like you didn't get what I
said. In fact, I
> gave
> > > you exactly the same historical reasoning for
the rule that I
> gave
> > > here yesterday during our game in the league
playoffs not more
> than
> > > ten days ago.
> > >
> > > <<Perhaps it's because I have never encountered
such a rule or
my
> > > own ignorance,but I will tell you this, I don't
blame my
students
> > > for not comprehending my lesson. I certainly
don't ignore their
> > > questions. But then again, you are not a teacher
or are you? I
> > plead
> > > the same ignorance as Todd Kaeser. I ask for the
same patience
as
> > > him.>>
> > >
> > > I am a teacher, and you know it. Todd doesn't
pull this stuff -

> he
> > > can have whatever he wants from me. This isn't
about you not
> > > getting what I said and you know it.
> > >
> > > I'm done with this one.
> > >
> > > J
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
> > WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage
less.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced
search. Learn more.

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


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Todd,
You are absolutely 100% right. It would be nice to see the byzantines, who
outlasted the vaunted Sassanid Persians and many other lists with small
minimums, catch a break.

k

Todd Schneider <thresh1642@...> wrote:
The problem you run into IMO is something that
happened with the Berber list. I think Berbers are a
pretty good army, with a lot of options available to
them, buit the high number of minimum troops you were
required to take (before Scott changed them in the
previous errata update) limited what you could do with
them in tournaments. I think its something other
lists (some of the Byzantine ones in particular)
suffer from as well. Sure, they look like nice armies
to run, but at 1600 points they aren't tournament
viable, and thats something the powergamer in all of
us likes to have. :-)

--- kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
I changed the title of this thread as now we are not
talking about Elephants. Greg, you know very well that
the Knights of Saint John are top tiered. I wouldn't
be painting one as you know I'm into the power gamer
thing! As far as the Timurids go, under Tamerlane,
they seldom lost ("it was a bad idea to even think of
losing with a wicked sovereign like him!" ) but I
do share your concern where some armies get the luxury
very small minimums. Don't get me wrong here, but even
the Romans have some pretty hefty minimums and their
empire was no slouch compared to an army like the new
Han or Timurid for example. What do you think? Should
there be a minimum number of common troops for each
army that were known to serve these Kingdoms/empires?


kelly

Greg Regets <greg.regets@...> wrote:

Sure ... definately second tier (not second rate, just
second tier).

Kn.of.St John has infantry and cavalry, with no
overrated elephants,
or ten pages worth of list rules. The majority of the
army is average
moral, and there are pretty strong minimums.

Timurid gets Panzer Tank elephants, tons of list
rules, moral
upgrades where you can field an entire army that only
fails waver on
a roll of 1, and almost no minimums. Clearly a top
shelf army.

I'm not saying that is a bad thing that Timurid is
that good ... just
saying that it is, what it is ... and at least down
here, a player of
your skill shouldn't need an army that good to win.

Thanks ... g :-)



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> lol! Hmm. . . Second Tier. . . like Ks of St. John!!
>
> Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...> wrote:
> Well, if you play an army like Timurids down in
South Texas, expect
> to get called Miss Wilkinson. Kelly is already too
close to a
girl's
> name. Why take that risk?
>
> Play something second tier and save armies like that
for less
> experienced players. More glory to you when you
win!!!!
>
> g
>
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson

> <jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> > Good points Greg,
> >
> > I'm still slowly working on getting that
Knights of Saint
John
> painted. But still considering Timurids. With a
Mongol army at
least
> I won't need an MP when the LC evade or recall.
> >
> >
kw
> >
> > Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...> wrote:
> >
> > Referees at a tournament are like officials in a
sporting event.
> >
> > You have to go in it with the mindset that they
will do a perfect
> job
> > at just about the same percentage that players
play perfect
games.
> I
> > have been playing since TOG 6.0 and have never
once played a
> perfect
> > game.
> >
> > Also consider that the bad thing that happen to
you, always looks
> > worse than those that happen to everyone else ...
but as there is
a
> > clear understanding that there will probably never
be a perfectly
> > refereed tournament, there are in fact bad things
happening to
> > everyone.
> >
> > It really all does tend to come out in the wash.
> >
> > What has really helped me the most over the years
(not that I'm
the
> > worlds greatest player or anything) is making
tactics and army
> lists
> > that don't rely on any single factor, in order to
win. That way,
if
> a
> > call or two doesn't go my way, there are still
many other clubs
in
> > the bag.
> >
> > Thanks ... g
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > - In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Jon"
<JonCleaves@a...> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ***Jon,
> > > > I'm sorry that your annoyed, it's just
that when "WE"
here
> > in
> > > Kansas City are told one thing by you, the rules
guru, and then
> we
> > > go to the NICT and it's over-ruled by Scott
Holder, I am the
one
> > > that is more than annoyed. . .>>
> > >
> > > I do NOT want to get into this, but I also don't
like how this
> > issue
> > > has been portrayed and want to set the record
straight.
> > >
> > > Scott is the ump at the NICT. His word is law
in that venue.
> > There
> > > are even times when I get ruled against - and I
should. If I
> > > haven't made my intent clear enough for him to
understand as a
> > > fellow member of FHE, then I 'deserve' whatever
judgment he
feels
> > is
> > > best. Period. And believe me, I have....lol
> > >
> > > In any case, I am not in charge of what rulings
come in anyone
> > > else's tourney and I will not be. I am human -
and it is tough
> to
> > > watch an ump rule differently than I intended.
But in the end,
I
> > > have no one to blame but myself. The ump is the
man, and I
have
> > > plenty of soccer red cards to prove it...
> > >
> > > Therefore, when I answer rules questions I
answer them as the
> > author
> > > with the official answer. If someone doesn't
like what their
ump
> > > does with that answer, I can't help that. FHE
is NOT in the
> > > business of telling folks how to run their
events.
> > >
> > > <<more like exasperated b/c I really don't
understand how the
> rule
> > > is supposed to work. I still don't understand.>>
> > >
> > > As you know, but fail to point out here, I have
explained this
> rule
> > > to you on several occasions in person. You have
clearly
> understood
> > > what I have said. I am aware that you tried to
play it that you
> > > could shoot your elephants over your own archers
to double
> frontage
> > > on missile power. Who wouldn't 'want' this...?
lol But don't
> act
> > > like I haven't already been asked this question
multiple times
by
> > > you and don't act like you didn't get what I
said. In fact, I
> gave
> > > you exactly the same historical reasoning for
the rule that I
> gave
> > > here yesterday during our game in the league
playoffs not more
> than
> > > ten days ago.
> > >
> > > <<Perhaps it's because I have never encountered
such a rule or
my
> > > own ignorance,but I will tell you this, I don't
blame my
students
> > > for not comprehending my lesson. I certainly
don't ignore their
> > > questions. But then again, you are not a teacher
or are you? I
> > plead
> > > the same ignorance as Todd Kaeser. I ask for the
same patience
as
> > > him.>>
> > >
> > > I am a teacher, and you know it. Todd doesn't
pull this stuff -

> he
> > > can have whatever he wants from me. This isn't
about you not
> > > getting what I said and you know it.
> > >
> > > I'm done with this one.
> > >
> > > J
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
> > WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage
less.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced
search. Learn more.

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


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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



Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.

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

[Charles Yaw]

Actually the Sassanids have anything but small minimums. And your
precious Byzantines didn't conquer the Sassanids, that fell to the
Arabs inspired by Allah.

> You are absolutely 100% right. It would be nice to see the
byzantines, who outlasted the vaunted Sassanid Persians and many
other lists with small minimums, catch a break.
>
> k
>
> Todd Schneider <thresh1642@s...> wrote:
> The problem you run into IMO is something that
> happened with the Berber list. I think Berbers are a
> pretty good army, with a lot of options available to
> them, buit the high number of minimum troops you were
> required to take (before Scott changed them in the
> previous errata update) limited what you could do with
> them in tournaments. I think its something other
> lists (some of the Byzantine ones in particular)
> suffer from as well. Sure, they look like nice armies
> to run, but at 1600 points they aren't tournament
> viable, and thats something the powergamer in all of
> us likes to have.
>
> --- kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> I changed the title of this thread as now we are not
> talking about Elephants. Greg, you know very well that
> the Knights of Saint John are top tiered. I wouldn't
> be painting one as you know I'm into the power gamer
> thing! As far as the Timurids go, under Tamerlane,
> they seldom lost ("it was a bad idea to even think of
> losing with a wicked sovereign like him!" ) but I
> do share your concern where some armies get the luxury
> very small minimums. Don't get me wrong here, but even
> the Romans have some pretty hefty minimums and their
> empire was no slouch compared to an army like the new
> Han or Timurid for example. What do you think? Should
> there be a minimum number of common troops for each
> army that were known to serve these Kingdoms/empires?
>
>
> kelly
>
> Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...> wrote:
>
> Sure ... definately second tier (not second rate, just
> second tier).
>
> Kn.of.St John has infantry and cavalry, with no
> overrated elephants,
> or ten pages worth of list rules. The majority of the
> army is average
> moral, and there are pretty strong minimums.
>
> Timurid gets Panzer Tank elephants, tons of list
> rules, moral
> upgrades where you can field an entire army that only
> fails waver on
> a roll of 1, and almost no minimums. Clearly a top
> shelf army.
>
> I'm not saying that is a bad thing that Timurid is
> that good ... just
> saying that it is, what it is ... and at least down
> here, a player of
> your skill shouldn't need an army that good to win.
>
> Thanks ... g
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
> <jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> > lol! Hmm. . . Second Tier. . . like Ks of St. John!!
> >
> > Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...> wrote:
> > Well, if you play an army like Timurids down in
> South Texas, expect
> > to get called Miss Wilkinson. Kelly is already too
> close to a
> girl's
> > name. Why take that risk?
> >
> > Play something second tier and save armies like that
> for less
> > experienced players. More glory to you when you
> win!!!!
> >
> > g
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
>
> > <jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> > > Good points Greg,
> > >
> > > I'm still slowly working on getting that
> Knights of Saint
> John
> > painted. But still considering Timurids. With a
> Mongol army at
> least
> > I won't need an MP when the LC evade or recall.
> > >
> > >
> kw
> > >
> > > Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Referees at a tournament are like officials in a
> sporting event.
> > >
> > > You have to go in it with the mindset that they
> will do a perfect
> > job
> > > at just about the same percentage that players
> play perfect
> games.
> > I
> > > have been playing since TOG 6.0 and have never
> once played a
> > perfect
> > > game.
> > >
> > > Also consider that the bad thing that happen to
> you, always looks
> > > worse than those that happen to everyone else ...
> but as there is
> a
> > > clear understanding that there will probably never
> be a perfectly
> > > refereed tournament, there are in fact bad things
> happening to
> > > everyone.
> > >
> > > It really all does tend to come out in the wash.
> > >
> > > What has really helped me the most over the years
> (not that I'm
> the
> > > worlds greatest player or anything) is making
> tactics and army
> > lists
> > > that don't rely on any single factor, in order to
> win. That way,
> if
> > a
> > > call or two doesn't go my way, there are still
> many other clubs
> in
> > > the bag.
> > >
> > > Thanks ... g
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > - In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Jon"
> <JonCleaves@a...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ***Jon,
> > > > > I'm sorry that your annoyed, it's just
> that when "WE"
> here
> > > in
> > > > Kansas City are told one thing by you, the rules
> guru, and then
> > we
> > > > go to the NICT and it's over-ruled by Scott
> Holder, I am the
> one
> > > > that is more than annoyed. . .>>
> > > >
> > > > I do NOT want to get into this, but I also don't
> like how this
> > > issue
> > > > has been portrayed and want to set the record
> straight.
> > > >
> > > > Scott is the ump at the NICT. His word is law
> in that venue.
> > > There
> > > > are even times when I get ruled against - and I
> should. If I
> > > > haven't made my intent clear enough for him to
> understand as a
> > > > fellow member of FHE, then I 'deserve' whatever
> judgment he
> feels
> > > is
> > > > best. Period. And believe me, I have....lol
> > > >
> > > > In any case, I am not in charge of what rulings
> come in anyone
> > > > else's tourney and I will not be. I am human -
> and it is tough
> > to
> > > > watch an ump rule differently than I intended.
> But in the end,
> I
> > > > have no one to blame but myself. The ump is the
> man, and I
> have
> > > > plenty of soccer red cards to prove it...
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, when I answer rules questions I
> answer them as the
> > > author
> > > > with the official answer. If someone doesn't
> like what their
> ump
> > > > does with that answer, I can't help that. FHE
> is NOT in the
> > > > business of telling folks how to run their
> events.
> > > >
> > > > <<more like exasperated b/c I really don't
> understand how the
> > rule
> > > > is supposed to work. I still don't understand.>>
> > > >
> > > > As you know, but fail to point out here, I have
> explained this
> > rule
> > > > to you on several occasions in person. You have
> clearly
> > understood
> > > > what I have said. I am aware that you tried to
> play it that you
> > > > could shoot your elephants over your own archers
> to double
> > frontage
> > > > on missile power. Who wouldn't 'want' this...?
> lol But don't
> > act
> > > > like I haven't already been asked this question
> multiple times
> by
> > > > you and don't act like you didn't get what I
> said. In fact, I
> > gave
> > > > you exactly the same historical reasoning for
> the rule that I
> > gave
> > > > here yesterday during our game in the league
> playoffs not more
> > than
> > > > ten days ago.
> > > >
> > > > <<Perhaps it's because I have never encountered
> such a rule or
> my
> > > > own ignorance,but I will tell you this, I don't
> blame my
> students
> > > > for not comprehending my lesson. I certainly
> don't ignore their
> > > > questions. But then again, you are not a teacher
> or are you? I
> > > plead
> > > > the same ignorance as Todd Kaeser. I ask for the
> same patience
> as
> > > > him.>>
> > > >
> > > > I am a teacher, and you know it. Todd doesn't
> pull this stuff -
>
> > he
> > > > can have whatever he wants from me. This isn't
> about you not
> > > > getting what I said and you know it.
> > > >
> > > > I'm done with this one.
> > > >
> > > > J
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:
> > > WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage
> less.
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced
> search. Learn more.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Actually the Sassanids lost their rear-ends to the Arabs due in part because of
their poor performance verses the Byzantines under Emperor Heracleus. This poor
performance (them losing the war) brought on a dynastic struggle that sapped the
strength of their empire making them ripe for conquest by the Arabs. Although
the Arabs did well against the Byzantines who had their own problems and civil
wars during the period, the Byzantine empire somehow managed to weather the
storm and outlasted the Arabs. Yes, the Sassanids were usually very aggressive
but never were able to take down their Byzantine rivals. On the other hand, the
Byzantines as noted in DAW among other sources restored at least one Sassanid
king to his throne and usually were the spankers as opposed to the spanked. :)

k

riderofrohan2001 <yaw@...> wrote:


Actually the Sassanids have anything but small minimums. And your
precious Byzantines didn't conquer the Sassanids, that fell to the
Arabs inspired by Allah.

> You are absolutely 100% right. It would be nice to see the
byzantines, who outlasted the vaunted Sassanid Persians and many
other lists with small minimums, catch a break.
>
> k
>
> Todd Schneider <thresh1642@s...> wrote:
> The problem you run into IMO is something that
> happened with the Berber list. I think Berbers are a
> pretty good army, with a lot of options available to
> them, buit the high number of minimum troops you were
> required to take (before Scott changed them in the
> previous errata update) limited what you could do with
> them in tournaments. I think its something other
> lists (some of the Byzantine ones in particular)
> suffer from as well. Sure, they look like nice armies
> to run, but at 1600 points they aren't tournament
> viable, and thats something the powergamer in all of
> us likes to have.
>
> --- kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> I changed the title of this thread as now we are not
> talking about Elephants. Greg, you know very well that
> the Knights of Saint John are top tiered. I wouldn't
> be painting one as you know I'm into the power gamer
> thing! As far as the Timurids go, under Tamerlane,
> they seldom lost ("it was a bad idea to even think of
> losing with a wicked sovereign like him!" ) but I
> do share your concern where some armies get the luxury
> very small minimums. Don't get me wrong here, but even
> the Romans have some pretty hefty minimums and their
> empire was no slouch compared to an army like the new
> Han or Timurid for example. What do you think? Should
> there be a minimum number of common troops for each
> army that were known to serve these Kingdoms/empires?
>
>
> kelly
>
> Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...> wrote:
>
> Sure ... definately second tier (not second rate, just
> second tier).
>
> Kn.of.St John has infantry and cavalry, with no
> overrated elephants,
> or ten pages worth of list rules. The majority of the
> army is average
> moral, and there are pretty strong minimums.
>
> Timurid gets Panzer Tank elephants, tons of list
> rules, moral
> upgrades where you can field an entire army that only
> fails waver on
> a roll of 1, and almost no minimums. Clearly a top
> shelf army.
>
> I'm not saying that is a bad thing that Timurid is
> that good ... just
> saying that it is, what it is ... and at least down
> here, a player of
> your skill shouldn't need an army that good to win.
>
> Thanks ... g
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
> <jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> > lol! Hmm. . . Second Tier. . . like Ks of St. John!!
> >
> > Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...> wrote:
> > Well, if you play an army like Timurids down in
> South Texas, expect
> > to get called Miss Wilkinson. Kelly is already too
> close to a
> girl's
> > name. Why take that risk?
> >
> > Play something second tier and save armies like that
> for less
> > experienced players. More glory to you when you
> win!!!!
> >
> > g
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
>
> > <jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> > > Good points Greg,
> > >
> > > I'm still slowly working on getting that
> Knights of Saint
> John
> > painted. But still considering Timurids. With a
> Mongol army at
> least
> > I won't need an MP when the LC evade or recall.
> > >
> > >
> kw
> > >
> > > Greg Regets <greg.regets@g...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Referees at a tournament are like officials in a
> sporting event.
> > >
> > > You have to go in it with the mindset that they
> will do a perfect
> > job
> > > at just about the same percentage that players
> play perfect
> games.
> > I
> > > have been playing since TOG 6.0 and have never
> once played a
> > perfect
> > > game.
> > >
> > > Also consider that the bad thing that happen to
> you, always looks
> > > worse than those that happen to everyone else ...
> but as there is
> a
> > > clear understanding that there will probably never
> be a perfectly
> > > refereed tournament, there are in fact bad things
> happening to
> > > everyone.
> > >
> > > It really all does tend to come out in the wash.
> > >
> > > What has really helped me the most over the years
> (not that I'm
> the
> > > worlds greatest player or anything) is making
> tactics and army
> > lists
> > > that don't rely on any single factor, in order to
> win. That way,
> if
> > a
> > > call or two doesn't go my way, there are still
> many other clubs
> in
> > > the bag.
> > >
> > > Thanks ... g
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > - In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Jon"
> <JonCleaves@a...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ***Jon,
> > > > > I'm sorry that your annoyed, it's just
> that when "WE"
> here
> > > in
> > > > Kansas City are told one thing by you, the rules
> guru, and then
> > we
> > > > go to the NICT and it's over-ruled by Scott
> Holder, I am the
> one
> > > > that is more than annoyed. . .>>
> > > >
> > > > I do NOT want to get into this, but I also don't
> like how this
> > > issue
> > > > has been portrayed and want to set the record
> straight.
> > > >
> > > > Scott is the ump at the NICT. His word is law
> in that venue.
> > > There
> > > > are even times when I get ruled against - and I
> should. If I
> > > > haven't made my intent clear enough for him to
> understand as a
> > > > fellow member of FHE, then I 'deserve' whatever
> judgment he
> feels
> > > is
> > > > best. Period. And believe me, I have....lol
> > > >
> > > > In any case, I am not in charge of what rulings
> come in anyone
> > > > else's tourney and I will not be. I am human -
> and it is tough
> > to
> > > > watch an ump rule differently than I intended.
> But in the end,
> I
> > > > have no one to blame but myself. The ump is the
> man, and I
> have
> > > > plenty of soccer red cards to prove it...
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, when I answer rules questions I
> answer them as the
> > > author
> > > > with the official answer. If someone doesn't
> like what their
> ump
> > > > does with that answer, I can't help that. FHE
> is NOT in the
> > > > business of telling folks how to run their
> events.
> > > >
> > > > <<more like exasperated b/c I really don't
> understand how the
> > rule
> > > > is supposed to work. I still don't understand.>>
> > > >
> > > > As you know, but fail to point out here, I have
> explained this
> > rule
> > > > to you on several occasions in person. You have
> clearly
> > understood
> > > > what I have said. I am aware that you tried to
> play it that you
> > > > could shoot your elephants over your own archers
> to double
> > frontage
> > > > on missile power. Who wouldn't 'want' this...?
> lol But don't
> > act
> > > > like I haven't already been asked this question
> multiple times
> by
> > > > you and don't act like you didn't get what I
> said. In fact, I
> > gave
> > > > you exactly the same historical reasoning for
> the rule that I
> > gave
> > > > here yesterday during our game in the league
> playoffs not more
> > than
> > > > ten days ago.
> > > >
> > > > <<Perhaps it's because I have never encountered
> such a rule or
> my
> > > > own ignorance,but I will tell you this, I don't
> blame my
> students
> > > > for not comprehending my lesson. I certainly
> don't ignore their
> > > > questions. But then again, you are not a teacher
> or are you? I
> > > plead
> > > > the same ignorance as Todd Kaeser. I ask for the
> same patience
> as
> > > > him.>>
> > > >
> > > > I am a teacher, and you know it. Todd doesn't
> pull this stuff -
>
> > he
> > > > can have whatever he wants from me. This isn't
> about you not
> > > > getting what I said and you know it.
> > > >
> > > > I'm done with this one.
> > > >
> > > > J
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:
> > > WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage
> less.
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced
> search. Learn more.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.

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

[Charles Yaw]

Kelly, you can twist your civil wars, who influenced who,etc however
you want. Last time I looked Constantinople is now named Istanbul :)

> the Byzantine empire somehow managed to weather the storm and
outlasted the Arabs.

[Ewan McNay]

[And on an entirely different aspect, the Sassanid minima are indeed quite
high. I can't get a 1200 point list out of it that I like, really. Which
is not even a vestige of a complaint, merely a correction. I'm interested
to see what people would do with the Timurids at 1600 (or, indeed, with
the Sassanids at 1200).]

riderofrohan2001 wrote:

>
>
> Kelly, you can twist your civil wars, who influenced who,etc however
> you want. Last time I looked Constantinople is now named Istanbul
>
>
>>the Byzantine empire somehow managed to weather the storm and
>
> outlasted the Arabs.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Greetings

I think it is fair to say that the fall of Constantinople was not
down to the Arabs but to the Turks who (to generalise massively)
initially moved in to fill the power vacuum left by the collapse of
the Abbasid Caliphate into dynastic successor states. Byzantium
came very close to disaster against the Arabs but it did survive.

While Manzikert was a seminal event in the decline of the Byzantine
power base, the Normans etc did not exactly help and a true
Byzantine Empire more or less disappears with the Fourth Crusade.

Edward

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "riderofrohan2001" <yaw@m...>
wrote:
>
>
> Kelly, you can twist your civil wars, who influenced who,etc
however
> you want. Last time I looked Constantinople is now named
Istanbul
>
> > the Byzantine empire somehow managed to weather the storm and
> outlasted the Arabs.

[Tim Grimmett]

Arabs took Constantinople? ;>)

"Somehow managed" translates to manipulative diplomacy....can't help but believe
somehow there is a lesson for us in this saga.

riderofrohan2001 <yaw@...> wrote:


Kelly, you can twist your civil wars, who influenced who,etc however
you want. Last time I looked Constantinople is now named Istanbul :)

> the Byzantine empire somehow managed to weather the storm and
outlasted the Arabs.




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

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

[Charles Yaw]

Ewan,

As I stated earler, I agree the Sassanid minimums are high. I have
played the list in the 1200 point league we have here with some
success. The list I have used the most follows. I'd appreciate your
comments.

CINC 2e EL + EL 2 crew(42) 157
SG 2e SHC L,B,Sh + EHC L,B 134*
SG 2e SHC L,B,Sh + EHC L,B 134*
SG 2e EHC L,B,Sh + EHC L,B 109*
HC 4e HC L, B 121
El 2e El 4 crew + 2 crew 121
MI 8e MI Reg D (1 C) LTS,JLS,Sh 134
A 6e MI Reg D B 1/2 Sh or Pa 70
LC 4e LC Irr C B 1/2 JLS, Sh 69
LC 4e LC Reg D B 70
LI 4e LI Reg D S, Sh 34
LI 10e LC Irr D (1 Irr C) B 47

Total 1200 points

> [And on an entirely different aspect, the Sassanid minima are
indeed quite
> high. I can't get a 1200 point list out of it that I like,
really. Which
> is not even a vestige of a complaint, merely a correction. I'm
interested
> to see what people would do with the Timurids at 1600 (or, indeed,
with
> the Sassanids at 1200).]
>

[Greg Regets]

Ewan is quite correct here. The Sassanids do have quite a few
minimums.

I think perhaps the intent on the list is to have you pass on SHC and
elephants if you want to buy the Huns in large numbers. I think
making a 1200 point list is no issue, is you pass on some of the
upgrades.

The real question though, at least to me, has never been who has HIGH
minimums as much as who has BAD minimums.

On the Byzantine/Sassanid issue, I think it's a question of list
accuracy. If you only bought the things off the Sassanid list that
were actually used against the Early Byzantines, and you made some
very minor changes to the Early Byzantine list, so that you could
actually make the army described by period writers, the Early
Byzantine comes across as the much better army ... and historically,
it should!

Thanks ... g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:
> [And on an entirely different aspect, the Sassanid minima are
indeed quite
> high. I can't get a 1200 point list out of it that I like,
really. Which
> is not even a vestige of a complaint, merely a correction. I'm
interested
> to see what people would do with the Timurids at 1600 (or, indeed,
with
> the Sassanids at 1200).]
>
> riderofrohan2001 wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Kelly, you can twist your civil wars, who influenced who,etc
however
> > you want. Last time I looked Constantinople is now named
Istanbul
> >
> >
> >>the Byzantine empire somehow managed to weather the storm and
> >
> > outlasted the Arabs.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Charles,
It was the Ottoman Turks that did in the Byzantines in 1453 AD. Not the
Arabs. And for the Record, the Sassanids departed from history as a kingdom in
the 600's while the Byzantines hung in for another 800 or so years. I'm just
agreeing with Todd that it might be neat if something akin to what was done for
the Berbers be done for the Byzantines. :)

kelly

riderofrohan2001 <yaw@...> wrote:


Kelly, you can twist your civil wars, who influenced who,etc however
you want. Last time I looked Constantinople is now named Istanbul :)

> the Byzantine empire somehow managed to weather the storm and
outlasted the Arabs.




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.

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