Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Hello folks.
I've been reading some past-messages today.
Is it okay to ask game design/concept questions?

Many such questions (that I have read) have been treated with contempt
or left unanswered. Is this a taboo subject?

I like to ask these design/concept questions so I can understand what
I'm playing, what my troops are supposed to represent/simulate, and
why some rules are the way they are. It helps people like me get a
better picture of the game as a whole. Who better to ask than the
designers?

I have also noticed that some people just like to complain. Some like
to prove how smart they are. Some people try too hard to be funny and
insult others accidentally, and sometimes Email gets misread/mistyped.
These problems are all over internet message-things -- a fact of human
nature (a million different moods at any given time).

The above-mentioned difficulties can easily deter a answer to a
question. Heck, I'd get tired of it too. But I hope we (the gamers)
can still post questions about design concepts without feeling bad
about it. Like "what is 1.5 ranks for Cav all about?" "Why do flaming
arrows get artillery factors?" "Why is such a troop type allowed this
special rule?" etc.... These questions will be asked over and over by
new players, returning veterans, and people who missed the first post.

I think that if some of these (perhaps inane) questions are answered,
there will be fewer of them. I'm sure most of them have very good
historical reasons, or are used to simplify a game, or are there to
make it more fun. There will be times when people disagree with the
choices made, but at least they'll know why and might be more quiet
about it (if we are lucky).

Some of us like to do our own thing, change rules for the "house" or
for specific period tournaments or campaigns (this is mostly me here).
And knowing why lets us have our own creative fun, by playing it
differntly at home if we want. I've made up a few house rules for our
group here in Toronto, and so have many others. We use them to satisfy
our frustrations, add new tactical options, and adjust the game into
our own perspectives if we disagree with any choices made by the
designers.

The thought has crossed my mind that maybe the designers don't want to
share their reasons. I doubt this is the case. They seem like pretty
reasonable guys to me. Most people love to talk about their hobby when
they can (because wives and others aren't often that interested)and
most people like to explain their hard work and research results.

Well, I hope nobody is mad.
I really enjoy this game...and I have some questions.

Noel White.

[joncleaves]

Noel, you ask good questions.

It is our policy to answer 'why' and design questions on a case by case
basis. Usually - for me anyway - what causes me to choose to answer is
something
like the following.
1. the subject is not one we have beat to death here already
2. the questioner is someone new or someone who is not known for repeatedly
poking us in the eye
3. I have time


For #1, sometimes I guess wrong as to whether the questioner knows about
previous conversations on this subject. What's interesting about your mail is
that your three examples all fall smack into this category - and answers to
questions in those areas (1.5 ranks, flaming arrows, list rules) inevitably
bring to the surface those who want to reopen the wounds of their old
complaints
and gripes. Such discussions seriously degrade our motivation to work on
the game..lol Its tiresome.
Unfortunately, Yahoo SUCKS at permitting archival searches. In about a
year, we will have a full time forum capability supporting Warrior - but until
then it will just have to wait until I can get a chance to search the forum for
message numbers that start threads on answered design subjects so that we can
reference those message numbers when folks ask about them.
For #3, I am crashing on the revised rulebook and have been struggling with
it for a couple years now. Its a part time job and one of many for me. We
are going to put this baby on the shelf May 15 and when we do, I will be able
to get to a whole galaxy of undone Warrior tasks - one of which is a set of
free online designer's notes.

Can I ask your patience and support until we get these things fixed?

Jon




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

[Bill Chriss]

> Hello folks.
> I've been reading some past-messages today.
> Is it okay to ask game design/concept questions?
>
> Many such questions (that I have read) have been treated with contempt
> or left unanswered. Is this a taboo subject?
>
> I like to ask these design/concept questions so I can understand what
> I'm playing, what my troops are supposed to represent/simulate, and
> why some rules are the way they are. It helps people like me get a
> better picture of the game as a whole. Who better to ask than the
> designers?
>
> I have also noticed that some people just like to complain. Some like
> to prove how smart they are. Some people try too hard to be funny and
> insult others accidentally, and sometimes Email gets misread/mistyped.
> These problems are all over internet message-things -- a fact of human
> nature (a million different moods at any given time).

I am not a game designer. As an academic, I do confess to trying to prove
how smart I am more than most people, but I try to be careful about it
since I fear embarrassment more than I crave respect .

In that only half-serious light, I can express one man's relatively
objective opinion. I can say that I have not seen 'game design' questions
rebuffed when offered in the truly inquisitive and non-judgmental tone you
employ here. It is only to be expected that somewhat more judgmental tones
will provoke more exasperated responses from the designers, even though I
accept that such judgmentalism is more often than not innocent in the
sense of being unperceived or unintended from the questioner's
perspective. It is nonetheless often there, and as the designers have said
many, many times, it offends through the implication that the designers
somehow either didn't do their homework or are downright arbitrary in
their judgments.

As you say, much of this is just human nature and the nature of this
imperfect medium of communication. However, I (personally, just me) would
never think to ask Parker Brothers why the Monopoly guy wears a monacle or
why BOTH Community Chest and Chance have board spaces. Just as I would
never write Avalon Hill to ask why they use a hex-grid map rather than a
checkerboard or why the counters are square instead of round, or why the
Herman Goering division in Anzio has an attack factor of 7 instead of 5.
If you think of the matter in this perspective, perhaps the attitude of a
game designer will become more clear.

It is not the case that 'game design' questions are off limits here. We
ask them and they are answered (often repeatedly). However, it is the case
(as best I can tell) that a creator/proprietor of a very sophisticated and
well researched game system, while wishing to be helpful to its customers,
is not interested in debating either the system's fundamental soundness or
the multitude of subsidiary decisions made to create and maintain it, even
when that debate is well couched in terms of an essentially rhetorical
question or in some other guise. And even when no offense is intended,
which I assume to be the case almost all the time.

I hope this response from someone with no vested interest is helpful. I
also apologize if any of my previous posts on the subject were dismissive
or offensive. You are right that e-mail allows buttons to be pushed
prematurely and sometimes we are all embarrassed when a list comment is
mistakenly sent by private e-mail or vice-versa. Really, all I
(personally) am interested in here is playing the game and seeing it
thrive. And I actually do enjoy the discussions on this list, when they
relate to history or game format or strategy or something other than 'how
come your army is so good?' Perhaps that is because I take great pleasure
in playing 'bad' armies and not complaining about it, and always have! I
do perceive that one thing that really hamstrings this hobby (and always
has) is the sense that everyone has their own idea of what the game itself
is or should be. At some point if we don't all agree that a touchdown is
worth six points or that only the goalkeeper may use his hands, we will
never have a real Super Bowl or World Cup. Again, that is just me and my
personal perspective. FHE can speak for themselves (and often have on this
subject).

-Greek

Thank you, Jon

I know you guys are busy.
I am often suprised when responses come as quickly as they do.
(This one was a few hours!)
A special thank you to Bill Low, who has always helped me out, even
going as far to look-up old lists, and offering some research.

I have a few questions. Some are rules related, some are list related.
Some, I'm sure, have been answered before. (I hate that search thing,
I don't know how to use it properly). Some questions might be sore
spots. If I ask, it is because I don't understand. I'd be looking for
answers that explained the design choices even if they are sometimes
arbitrary.

Shall I post them?

You (or the others) can answer them whenever you get time. I can wait
weeks even months! Patience and support are things I can always afford
to give.

Noel.






--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> Noel, you ask good questions.
>
> It is our policy to answer 'why' and design questions on a case by
case
> basis. Usually - for me anyway - what causes me to choose to answer
is something
> like the following.
> 1. the subject is not one we have beat to death here already
> 2. the questioner is someone new or someone who is not known for
repeatedly
> poking us in the eye
> 3. I have time
>
>
> For #1, sometimes I guess wrong as to whether the questioner knows
about
> previous conversations on this subject. What's interesting about
your mail is
> that your three examples all fall smack into this category - and
answers to
> questions in those areas (1.5 ranks, flaming arrows, list rules)
inevitably
> bring to the surface those who want to reopen the wounds of their
old complaints
> and gripes. Such discussions seriously degrade our motivation to
work on
> the game..lol Its tiresome.
> Unfortunately, Yahoo SUCKS at permitting archival searches. In
about a
> year, we will have a full time forum capability supporting Warrior -
but until
> then it will just have to wait until I can get a chance to search
the forum for
> message numbers that start threads on answered design subjects so
that we can
> reference those message numbers when folks ask about them.
> For #3, I am crashing on the revised rulebook and have been
struggling with
> it for a couple years now. Its a part time job and one of many for
me. We
> are going to put this baby on the shelf May 15 and when we do, I
will be able
> to get to a whole galaxy of undone Warrior tasks - one of which is
a set of
> free online designer's notes.
>
> Can I ask your patience and support until we get these things fixed?
>
> Jon
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Hello Mr "Greek".

I've found your comments helpful.
I thought your 1.5 ranks cav answer (a while back) was a good example.
The gentleman was asking a legitimate question, seemed polite enough
to me. He just wanted to know why some cav get the "wedge" bonus and
some don't. It was nice of you to help him. I think that is the idea
behind this eGroup.

There will always be questions. Some of this stuff is rather arbitrary
by nature -- especially the lists. This usually winds people up the
most. But by asking questions (and I mean politely) you can determine
if the choices made by the designers work for you. You might learn
something you didn't know and change your mind. If they don't work for
you, you can change them to suit your own ideas and play with others
who agree with you in the comfort of your own basement. After all, to
fit your Superbowl analogy there is a CFL as well as an NFL... and
subtle differences in house-rules can appear.
When it comes to tournaments, swallow your pride and follow the
organizer's rules (which might be different from the designers' yet
again).

Asuming we can behave properly, I hope the design questions will be
answered. It reduces frustration. If you go away thinking a game
doesn't work -- for no good reason at all -- you might not come back.
He he, I used to play Warhammer!

This reply wasn't really for your benefit, Greek. You seem to know
what I'm talking about.

May I face one of your 'bad' armies across a table someday!

Noel.




> I am not a game designer. As an academic, I do confess to trying to
prove
> how smart I am more than most people, but I try to be careful about it
> since I fear embarrassment more than I crave respect .
>
> In that only half-serious light, I can express one man's relatively
> objective opinion. I can say that I have not seen 'game design'
questions
> rebuffed when offered in the truly inquisitive and non-judgmental
tone you
> employ here. It is only to be expected that somewhat more judgmental
tones
> will provoke more exasperated responses from the designers, even
though I
> accept that such judgmentalism is more often than not innocent in the
> sense of being unperceived or unintended from the questioner's
> perspective. It is nonetheless often there, and as the designers
have said
> many, many times, it offends through the implication that the designers
> somehow either didn't do their homework or are downright arbitrary in
> their judgments.
>
> As you say, much of this is just human nature and the nature of this
> imperfect medium of communication. However, I (personally, just me)
would
> never think to ask Parker Brothers why the Monopoly guy wears a
monacle or
> why BOTH Community Chest and Chance have board spaces. Just as I would
> never write Avalon Hill to ask why they use a hex-grid map rather than a
> checkerboard or why the counters are square instead of round, or why the
> Herman Goering division in Anzio has an attack factor of 7 instead of 5.
> If you think of the matter in this perspective, perhaps the attitude
of a
> game designer will become more clear.
>
> It is not the case that 'game design' questions are off limits here. We
> ask them and they are answered (often repeatedly). However, it is
the case
> (as best I can tell) that a creator/proprietor of a very
sophisticated and
> well researched game system, while wishing to be helpful to its
customers,
> is not interested in debating either the system's fundamental
soundness or
> the multitude of subsidiary decisions made to create and maintain
it, even
> when that debate is well couched in terms of an essentially rhetorical
> question or in some other guise. And even when no offense is intended,
> which I assume to be the case almost all the time.
>
> I hope this response from someone with no vested interest is helpful. I
> also apologize if any of my previous posts on the subject were
dismissive
> or offensive. You are right that e-mail allows buttons to be pushed
> prematurely and sometimes we are all embarrassed when a list comment is
> mistakenly sent by private e-mail or vice-versa. Really, all I
> (personally) am interested in here is playing the game and seeing it
> thrive. And I actually do enjoy the discussions on this list, when they
> relate to history or game format or strategy or something other than
'how
> come your army is so good?' Perhaps that is because I take great
pleasure
> in playing 'bad' armies and not complaining about it, and always have! I
> do perceive that one thing that really hamstrings this hobby (and always
> has) is the sense that everyone has their own idea of what the game
itself
> is or should be. At some point if we don't all agree that a touchdown is
> worth six points or that only the goalkeeper may use his hands, we will
> never have a real Super Bowl or World Cup. Again, that is just me and my
> personal perspective. FHE can speak for themselves (and often have
on this
> subject).
>
> -Greek
>

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/25/2006 16:00:41 Central Standard Time,
agrianian@... writes:

I have a few questions. Some are rules related, some are list related.
Some, I'm sure, have been answered before. (I hate that search thing,
I don't know how to use it properly). Some questions might be sore
spots. If I ask, it is because I don't understand. I'd be looking for
answers that explained the design choices even if they are sometimes
arbitrary.

Shall I post them?>>
Sure. Please label the rules questions as such and separate them out from
other types.

Jon




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

[Ewan McNay]

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 hrisikos@... wrote:
> I am not a game designer. As an academic, I do confess to trying to prove
> how smart I am more than most people, but I try to be careful about it
> since I fear embarrassment more than I crave respect .

Ah, what a lesser University can do...

> As you say, much of this is just human nature and the nature of this
> imperfect medium of communication. However, I (personally, just me) would
> never think to ask Parker Brothers why the Monopoly guy wears a monacle or
> why BOTH Community Chest and Chance have board spaces. Just as I would
> never write Avalon Hill to ask why they use a hex-grid map rather than a
> checkerboard or why the counters are square instead of round, or why the
> Herman Goering division in Anzio has an attack factor of 7 instead of 5.

That latter - well, check out talk.consimworld.com sometime . More like
"why doesn't goering start at 7 in '39, fall to 3 during the period in '41
when he was sick, then come back to 5 as eastern front veterans were added
but lower to 4 or 3.5 when they lost the tea-fields of India that he
favoured?"

:)

> is or should be. At some point if we don't all agree that a touchdown is
> worth six points or that only the goalkeeper may use his hands, we will
> never have a real Super Bowl or World Cup. Again, that is just me and my

A 'real' Super Bowl. Hmm. Now there's a concept. OK, OK, I'm a little
bored here. But England managed to square the India series - pretty
impressive.

***

OK, OK, on topic. Scott/Bill's notes on the lists are remarkable, even to
a schmuck like me with negative historical knowledge. Something similar
for the rules would be great, but it's a different environment, and I
suspect that such notes would probably cause more annoyance than they
would assuage in terms of provoking disagreement on philosophy and/or
conclusions. Personally, I honestly only care whether the Roman foot
fights one or six ranks as far as it affects the range of viable armies
and tactics; any resemblence to reality is purely a bonus .

[Greg Regets]

I will admit to having run afoul of the FHE guys on several topics.

I think part of the problem (and to their credit, FHE admitted as
much in Scott's original post on this topic), it's sometimes hard to
express any opinion at all, especially on lists ... without it coming
across as judgemental towards FHE.

From a player's point of view (at least this player), it's difficult
to live with the "default" opinion on list related posts, being that
of a guy looking for an advantage. When I was a list reviewer, I cut
back on some of the capability of my very favorite army, Knights of
St. John, when we eliminated the ability to mix handgunners with the
Militia crossbow, and removed the ability to give Milita guys, 2HCT,
and eliminated Sergeants as back rankers. These were not historical,
but would obviously be a nice game advantage. To even hear someone
even suggest that I may have been looking for a play advantage with
other suggestions, is just as offensive to me, as some of my posts
have been to FHE. Maybe we are even. ;-)

Water under the bridge though ... I for one am taking Scott's post as
a vehicle to move forward.

My question to FHE would be ... what method would you prefer, when
you see a list, and can find historical backing for things that are
not included in the list? I think (and I may be completely wrong
about this) that the mantra of FHE is that when there is more than
one historically backed opinion for a troop type, the list should
present all options, and give players the choice to play the army as
they see fit. Is this correct thinking, or am I way off base here?
Would you guys rather get this stuff offline, or here on the board?

Opinion: Sometimes I think when these things get posted on the board,
they get way out of hand, when that was never the original poster's
intent.

Anyway, thanks ... and if nobody has said this lately, please know
that Warrior is the best rules set, with the most responsive back
office (FHE), and by far the best army lists. No doubt on that one,
period!

[joncleaves]

I believe Scott has stated he wants list errata suggestions offline.

As far as list discussions - I personally prefer them here on the group. I know
I don't want them offline to me.

Someone wants to say something like:

"I was reading a translation of the Green Sea Scrolls and they seemed to
indicate Hebrew militia carried machine guns. What do you guys have on this?"

I am cool with that.

Someone says something like:

"I can't understand why Hebrew militia don't get machine guns. All the most
basic ancients popular histories have them armed that way. I can't see how you
guys could intepret this any other way - everyone but you has this right".

Deaf ears.

Is this a little clearer?

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Regets <greg.regets@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 15:49:00 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Asking Questions


I will admit to having run afoul of the FHE guys on several topics.

I think part of the problem (and to their credit, FHE admitted as
much in Scott's original post on this topic), it's sometimes hard to
express any opinion at all, especially on lists ... without it coming
across as judgemental towards FHE.

From a player's point of view (at least this player), it's difficult
to live with the "default" opinion on list related posts, being that
of a guy looking for an advantage. When I was a list reviewer, I cut
back on some of the capability of my very favorite army, Knights of
St. John, when we eliminated the ability to mix handgunners with the
Militia crossbow, and removed the ability to give Milita guys, 2HCT,
and eliminated Sergeants as back rankers. These were not historical,
but would obviously be a nice game advantage. To even hear someone
even suggest that I may have been looking for a play advantage with
other suggestions, is just as offensive to me, as some of my posts
have been to FHE. Maybe we are even. ;-)

Water under the bridge though ... I for one am taking Scott's post as
a vehicle to move forward.

My question to FHE would be ... what method would you prefer, when
you see a list, and can find historical backing for things that are
not included in the list? I think (and I may be completely wrong
about this) that the mantra of FHE is that when there is more than
one historically backed opinion for a troop type, the list should
present all options, and give players the choice to play the army as
they see fit. Is this correct thinking, or am I way off base here?
Would you guys rather get this stuff offline, or here on the board?

Opinion: Sometimes I think when these things get posted on the board,
they get way out of hand, when that was never the original poster's
intent.

Anyway, thanks ... and if nobody has said this lately, please know
that Warrior is the best rules set, with the most responsive back
office (FHE), and by far the best army lists. No doubt on that one,
period!







Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Greg Regets]

Very ...

Like I said, moving forward. I'm used to communicating in the
marketing/advertising/political world, where a high premium is placed
on in-your-face sarcasm when making a point. I will keep mine off
this board (which will be refreshing actually).

Thanks ... g


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> I believe Scott has stated he wants list errata suggestions offline.
>
> As far as list discussions - I personally prefer them here on the
group. I know I don't want them offline to me.
>
> Someone wants to say something like:
>
> "I was reading a translation of the Green Sea Scrolls and they
seemed to indicate Hebrew militia carried machine guns. What do you
guys have on this?"
>
> I am cool with that.
>
> Someone says something like:
>
> "I can't understand why Hebrew militia don't get machine guns. All
the most basic ancients popular histories have them armed that way.
I can't see how you guys could intepret this any other way - everyone
but you has this right".
>
> Deaf ears.
>
> Is this a little clearer?
>
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Regets <greg.regets@...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 15:49:00 -0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Asking Questions
>
>
> I will admit to having run afoul of the FHE guys on several topics.
>
> I think part of the problem (and to their credit, FHE admitted as
> much in Scott's original post on this topic), it's sometimes hard
to
> express any opinion at all, especially on lists ... without it
coming
> across as judgemental towards FHE.
>
> From a player's point of view (at least this player), it's
difficult
> to live with the "default" opinion on list related posts, being
that
> of a guy looking for an advantage. When I was a list reviewer, I
cut
> back on some of the capability of my very favorite army, Knights of
> St. John, when we eliminated the ability to mix handgunners with
the
> Militia crossbow, and removed the ability to give Milita guys,
2HCT,
> and eliminated Sergeants as back rankers. These were not
historical,
> but would obviously be a nice game advantage. To even hear someone
> even suggest that I may have been looking for a play advantage with
> other suggestions, is just as offensive to me, as some of my posts
> have been to FHE. Maybe we are even.
>
> Water under the bridge though ... I for one am taking Scott's post
as
> a vehicle to move forward.
>
> My question to FHE would be ... what method would you prefer, when
> you see a list, and can find historical backing for things that are
> not included in the list? I think (and I may be completely wrong
> about this) that the mantra of FHE is that when there is more than
> one historically backed opinion for a troop type, the list should
> present all options, and give players the choice to play the army
as
> they see fit. Is this correct thinking, or am I way off base here?
> Would you guys rather get this stuff offline, or here on the board?
>
> Opinion: Sometimes I think when these things get posted on the
board,
> they get way out of hand, when that was never the original poster's
> intent.
>
> Anyway, thanks ... and if nobody has said this lately, please know
> that Warrior is the best rules set, with the most responsive back
> office (FHE), and by far the best army lists. No doubt on that one,
> period!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>