Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Well, that situation has resolved itself...lol
Now, for the rest of you superb Warrior players, just to answer Doug's
question on 'copyright infringement', it is true that Warrior includes some text
from the 1993 NASAMW WRG 7th Interp Book. <gasp...lol> Said book is an
unlicensed product in support of WRG 7th and using much material from it. FHE
'owns' 7th for all intents and purposes. The 1993 Interp book was written
conceptually by a rules committee containing at least two of the Four Horsemen
and
was physically written solely by one of them.
Please put to rest any fears that we would bring a copyright suit
against.....
...ourselves! lol
Ok, now get back to rolling up 4!
Jon


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

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
> Well, that situation has resolved itself...lol

Ah, Jon, you manage to constantly aim at your own feet.

It turns out that Larry noticed a set of inconsistencies in the
rules; not one that 'could be read some other way' but rather
that is clearly in opposition to the way you wish the rules to be
read. Moreover, apparently, the language under discussion has
been being ignored for years even before Warrior existed.

Instead of being grateful, you have been consistently abrasive,
derogatory, and now toad-like, odiously gloating. Sufficiently
so to drive me to this commentary, even after deliberately
letting it sit for some hours.

Bleagh.

[And on legal wranglings - the physical writing of a thing does
not make it that person's property - otherwise I'd own the rights
to the formulae for many P&G shampoos! - so you may indeed have
created a monster. Moreover, I'd be interested to see what would
happen if you did. in fact, ban someone, given that part of what
is sold as the Warrior rules is a promise of access to the list
for updates. What fun.]

Actual gaming content to come in next message.

> Now, for the rest of you superb Warrior players, just to answer Doug's
> question on 'copyright infringement', it is true that Warrior includes some
text
> from the 1993 NASAMW WRG 7th Interp Book. <gasp...lol> Said book is an
> unlicensed product in support of WRG 7th and using much material from it.
FHE
> 'owns' 7th for all intents and purposes. The 1993 Interp book was written
> conceptually by a rules committee containing at least two of the Four
Horsemen and
> was physically written solely by one of them.
> Please put to rest any fears that we would bring a copyright suit
> against.....
> ...ourselves! lol
> Ok, now get back to rolling up 4!
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

[Greg Regets]

And this surprises you how? lol

Jon has the completely understandable over-protective nature born
from the amount of work he has put into this. It is completely
understandable.

I used to try to find hidden quirks and historical questions in the
rules and lists, but have retired to a life of just playing Warrior
with the local gaming group here in town.

The banality of dealing with the "squash first" mentality takes time
away from my busy schedule of trying to figure out how to fudge my
dice rolls. ;-)

greg




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:
> JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> > Well, that situation has resolved itself...lol
>
> Ah, Jon, you manage to constantly aim at your own feet.
>
> It turns out that Larry noticed a set of inconsistencies in the
> rules; not one that 'could be read some other way' but rather
> that is clearly in opposition to the way you wish the rules to be
> read. Moreover, apparently, the language under discussion has
> been being ignored for years even before Warrior existed.
>
> Instead of being grateful, you have been consistently abrasive,
> derogatory, and now toad-like, odiously gloating. Sufficiently
> so to drive me to this commentary, even after deliberately
> letting it sit for some hours.
>
> Bleagh.
>
> [And on legal wranglings - the physical writing of a thing does
> not make it that person's property - otherwise I'd own the rights
> to the formulae for many P&G shampoos! - so you may indeed have
> created a monster. Moreover, I'd be interested to see what would
> happen if you did. in fact, ban someone, given that part of what
> is sold as the Warrior rules is a promise of access to the list
> for updates. What fun.]
>
> Actual gaming content to come in next message.
>
> > Now, for the rest of you superb Warrior players, just to answer
Doug's
> > question on 'copyright infringement', it is true that Warrior
includes some text
> > from the 1993 NASAMW WRG 7th Interp Book. <gasp...lol> Said
book is an
> > unlicensed product in support of WRG 7th and using much material
from it. FHE
> > 'owns' 7th for all intents and purposes. The 1993 Interp book
was written
> > conceptually by a rules committee containing at least two of the
Four Horsemen and
> > was physically written solely by one of them.
> > Please put to rest any fears that we would bring a copyright
suit
> > against.....
> > ...ourselves! lol
> > Ok, now get back to rolling up 4!
> > Jon
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/28/2004 08:10:37 Central Daylight Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

It turns out that Larry noticed a set of inconsistencies in the
rules; not one that 'could be read some other way' but rather
that is clearly in opposition to the way you wish the rules to be
read. >>
I disagree, of course. It took me quite some time, despite my personal
feelings about how little that time was deserved, to see how Larry was reading
it. And, despite my disagreement, I offered to and still intend to revise the
language to better assist our players.

Moreover, apparently, the language under discussion has
been being ignored for years even before Warrior existed.>>
By some. Apparently including the person who has claimed on NASAMWList to
be responsible for getting those words printed in the first place....lol If
someone was playing 7th in NASAMW tourneys between 1993 and 1999 and ignored
that text, I am not sure how they managed it, but if you say it is possible,
then i guess it must be.



Instead of being grateful, you have been consistently abrasive,
derogatory, and now toad-like, odiously gloating. Sufficiently
so to drive me to this commentary, even after deliberately
letting it sit for some hours.>>
That was special...lol... and quite beneath the person I keep hoping you
really are. I will chalk it up to a bad day on your part.
As you pointed out yourself, Larry poked me. On 'my own' list. Despite
this, I tried to answer his questions, even offering a clarification I myself
find unnecessary. Did I do this without single hint of return sarcasm? No.
This is a labor of love - a labor which produces no material benefit to me and
which takes time away from many other things I could be doing. I choose to
do this because I love the game and I want to help its players. I have no
additional time for complainers and gripers and second-guessers and I am not
about to find any soon. You and I both know he wasn't simply asking a rules
question.....
Jon


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

I didn't pay any attention to the start of this discussion. Can someone
point out the text in question? Maybe I have some recollection of it.

JonCleaves@... wrote:

> be responsible for getting those words printed in the first
> place....lol If
> someone was playing 7th in NASAMW tourneys between 1993 and 1999 and
> ignored
> that text, I am not sure how they managed it, but if you say it is
> possible,
> then i guess it must be.
>

[Ewan McNay]

On Sat, 29 May 2004 JonCleaves@... wrote:
> ewan.mcnay@... writes:
> It turns out that Larry noticed a set of inconsistencies in the
> rules; not one that 'could be read some other way' but rather
> that is clearly in opposition to the way you wish the rules to be
> read. >>
> I disagree, of course. It took me quite some time, despite my personal
> feelings about how little that time was deserved, to see how Larry was
reading
> it. And, despite my disagreement, I offered to and still intend to revise
the
> language to better assist our players.

Well, incidentally perhaps but as you seem to be having difficulty in
understanding alternative viewpoints and/or readings:

The example given, following the passage on skirmish, notes that a LC JLS,
Sh body whose opponent countered away in the previous bound *must*
approach to within 40p this bound.

This, too, directly contradicts the ruling you are now offering, that this
body could remain in skirmish as long as an opponent could approach to
40p.

The example is, of course, consistent with the text that Larry brought to
our attention - and is obviously not something that can claimed to be a
hangover from 7th, even were that relevant.

In any case, something else that will need to be changed to allow the
revised rule to be in line with your apparent intent (and my own
assumption prior to Larry's points).

> Moreover, apparently, the language under discussion has
> been being ignored for years even before Warrior existed.>>
> By some. Apparently including the person who has claimed on NASAMWList to
> be responsible for getting those words printed in the first place....lol If

As you re-read this, Jon, do you understand the pettiness and personal
aggression that you convey? Seemed a minor example that happened to occur
in the current post, so might help in understanding.

> someone was playing 7th in NASAMW tourneys between 1993 and 1999 and ignored
> that text, I am not sure how they managed it, but if you say it is possible,
> then i guess it must be.

Well, thankyou, I suppose, for the willingness to believe that we are not
all randomly lying.

The 1993 booklet I am sure Scott has - I believe I threw my copy away.
However, the 1994 additions are still online -
http://www.theminiaturespage.com/rules/anc/wrg7intr.html - and include
things which were certainly not done, such as treating German SHK as close
order.

It does not surprise me that in the context of 7th, where we all 'knew'
what we were doing, that unclear and self-contradictory text might have
gone ignored until now re-examined in the context of Warrior. Some things
- like the infamous staff moves restriction to not include formation
changes - were similarly only brought to light very late in 7th's history.

I know you have previously said that you played mainly DBM during this
period - so your lack of knowledge may be understandable.

['odious gloating']
> That was special...lol... and quite beneath the person I keep hoping you
> really are. I will chalk it up to a bad day on your part.

You shouldn't. I would not post such were I 'having a bad day' nor in the
absence of a long and consistent history of such behavior on the part of
the addressee. I am amused at your hope that I am someone other than
myself, but it seems unlikely to occur. I do regret that after some 16
years of 'net debate and discussion, I found it merited to resort to such
a description of an opposing conversant, but consider it justified still.

> This is a labor of love - a labor which produces no material benefit to me
and
> which takes time away from many other things I could be doing. I choose to
> do this because I love the game and I want to help its players. I have no
> additional time for complainers and gripers and second-guessers and I am not
> about to find any soon. You and I both know he wasn't simply asking a rules
> question.....

No. First, in this case Larry was, indeed, asking a rules Q. You brought
in your personal antipathy, and viewed the Q through that lens. [I accept
that I applied my knowledge of the antipathy as a lens also, initially]

Second, while you may love it, this is the designated forum of support for
Warrior; you are, for better or worse, the designated public face (voice).
In your products, you promise such; this is thus a service which you have
sold, not just something you do from altruism. As you doubtless know.

Ewan.