Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/10/2004 06:13:02 Central Standard Time, lsu90@...
writes:
All I
want are designer notes occasionally where Warrior rules or lists
seem to go in a new direction or against other lists (you never have
to explain any change from a Hutchby list lol).>>
I intend to do a little more with designer's notes in the 2d printing. The
new format gives me 'boxes' set apart from the text which makes it clear they
are notes and not rules. If you or anyone else would like to nominate a couple
areas where you'd like to see designer's notes, please let me know.
As far as more history than is contained in the list text, typically if a
question comes up about a troop type beyond that, Scott answers with a 'why this
is'. It is beyond *that* that I personally see no need to go - once he's
answered the question, what more is to be gained? The time to get involved, if
one has deep historical convictions based on some real evidence, is *while* a
list is being written, not after. For example, he's working on Oriental Warrior
now, so if there's some part of some oriental list or lists that are
important to someone here, now is the time to bring that up.....


I got irritated when the level of play at regional tournaments was
brought up. >>
Yeah, that all got strange. I intended no disparagment. But the fact is, in
a regional tourney of 12 guys, usually 4 or so are solid players, 4 are
middle packers and 4 are new, or something like that. At the NICT, everyone is
a
regional winner. And on top of that, the NICT has been won by a relatively
small group and a couple of guys are multi, multi time winners. It is a simple
fact that the level of play is higher. Nothing more was meant by what I said.
Certainly after my performance last year, *I* was making no claims of
superiority....lol

J


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

I'm not try to pick a fight. I'm Warrior's #1 fan and I'm trying to
get my local group that is locked into to Games Workshop to try it
(thank goodness they are at least starting to play WWII , which means
I'm making slow progress)

I should have know you would not like the word owe. Sorry. If I'm
going to play and try to promote this game I owe you my loyalty and
financial support. I think tournaments owe compliance with the new
lists as soon as possible. This is Warrior after all not TOG. All I
want are designer notes occasionally where Warrior rules or lists
seem to go in a new direction or against other lists (you never have
to explain any change from a Hutchby list lol).

I got irritated when the level of play at regional tournaments was
brought up. I was the guy that Boyd beat in the finals. I hope the
level of play at an NICT is higher. But remember its participants
come from the regions and I hope compititions are getting bigger and
better in each one. I've never played on the East Coast, but I've
had my butt kicked by good players in San Antonio (you guys might not
remember me, I was TDY to Randolph for about 4 months and played a
few times) and all over the South. Hopefully if we advertise
tournaments and game days and promote Warrior so I'll get to play
more!

Wes

[scott holder]

As far as more history than is contained in the list text, typically if a
question comes up about a troop type beyond that, Scott answers with a 'why this
is'. It is beyond *that* that I personally see no need to go - once he's
answered the question, what more is to be gained?

>First, everybody go to www.fourhorsemenenterprises.com and look at all the list
erata. I think somebody is still operating under the assumption that
galloglaichs have shields:) Perusing and entering the erata will clear that
up.

>I guess I should take heart that the only persistent historical list "issues"
come down to two line items that impact about 6 lists, one inconsequential, the
other most certainly not inconsequential.

>It's much harder for me to go back, 18 months after the fact, and attempt to
answer a question about the line of reasoning or how Bill and I interpreted
stuff. It's hard because I don't take notes per se. If I did, we'd still be
waiting for Holy Warrior to be published:) For those items that I think
will cause and uproar, I do try to keep the "why we did this" lodged in my brain
for longer than it normally resides.

>You also might be suprised to know how much time I spend on one or two
particularly nebulous issues in each book. The whole galloglaichs and shields
is a case in point. It's one of those examples of troop types that have a
"historical reputation" that doesn't live up to the nuts and bolts of the rules
mechanics (this is one instance where the abtract game occasionally has a leg
up--that being said, FHE also isn't gonna let the mechanics of getting from
point A to point C lead to something stupid, hence we'll "tweak" outside the
regular confines of the rules in order to obtain a desired end result). So, I
had at least 4 other people (lotsa help from two guys who help develop Medieval
Warfare) working the sources and this and scratching our heads. At one point we
thought we had something on shields, hence why it slipped into one of the drafts
of FeudWar and then when we determined that we had no (even) inference of shield
usage by them, it was dropped but did I change that in the final copy?
Noooooooooo, hence erata. We probably spent a month of email back and forth
just on galloglaichs, their shields and their darts. The Swiss Rules were
easier my comparison.

>And this is where old lists can cause endless headaches. The Trapezitoi being
a case in point and the larger issues of what was done to those particular lists
apparently gets lost in the focus on one troop type. Here's another example,
"dayuan" horses in the NASAMW Xiongnu (or Hsiung Nu for you Wade-Giles luddites)
and Han lists. I've spent around 20 hours now on just the Xiongnu list and
"dayuan" horses. So much so I have a Spearpoint article out of it! The point
here is that older lists sometimes box players in when new sources or fresh
commentary result in justifyable change. Look at New World Warrior for probably
the best example of how we decided that any "old" list just wasn't cutting it
and that an entirely new approach was needed.

>Whew. Please, nobody take any of the above as some slam on you. It just seems
that periodically, based on the threads in here, folks might like to know some
things about how all these lists get put together.

scott

[joncleaves]

Speaking of list errata, please no one be discouraged from bringing up something
they see as a potential list issue - we certainly make mistakes and need to know
about and correct them. This discussion has been focused on continued
discussion of a decision made, not meant to discourage players identifying 'new'
list issues.

jon

[joncleaves]

Speaking of list errata, please no one be discouraged from bringing up something
they see as a potential list issue - we certainly make mistakes and need to know
about and correct them. This discussion has been focused on continued
discussion of a decision made, not meant to discourage players identifying 'new'
list issues.

jon