Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

I'm sorry, Greg. I am clearly not being clear. I send out an email and the
responses seem to have no connection to (what I thought) I wrote.

<< In my opinion, the rules set would be better served if these simple "common
sense" issues were addressed with some sort of simple fix>>

That is clearly your opinion. It is our opinion, and the opinion of our
research and the opinion of the majority of our audience that, in the basic
rules, flank marches should only be rolled for if they exist. I do NOT agree
that the other approach is the 'common sense' approach, I did not agree in
1990 and I do not agree now. I feel no need whatsoever to get into a
discussion of why again. You guys are taking disagreement with your points
to mean one of the following:

-we haven't read your whole mail
-we don't understand the history of flank marches
-we think every general knew everything about his battlefield
-we don't have a clue what we are doing

and now,
-we are not choosing the 'common sense' approach

When in fact what is really happening is:

-we have read your mails on the issue
-we have not found anything to change the highly considered opinion we formed
reviewing this issue the other times (7.2, 7.3, 93 interp book, 7.4, 7.5,
7.6) that it has been reviewed
-we have decided to keep the rule as it is in the basic rules for a wide
variety of reasons related to history and game mechanics and introdcuing new
players and tournament dynamics

I have, I assure you, applied 'common sense' in every decision I have made as
one of the Four Horsemen and rather resent implications otherwise.

Because we disagree does not mean I lack common sense or did not hear and
consider your point of view. Quite the opposite.

If you were being ignored, I would not stop what I was doing to write a mail
like this.

The bottom line is, if you think that when we make a decision counter to your
wishes it is because we are deaf or stupid you are wrong.

And as far as 'being lectured on military history is concerned, well you
asked for it:

IF someone had presented HARD DATA that in the majority of battles that had
things like flank marches affecting a battle line 1800 paces long the
commander NEVER never had any clue that enemy forces were to his flanks, that
would be something new.

But to say words to the effect that, 'you know, Jon, that generals don't
always have a clear picture of the battlefield' is insulting. Plain and
simple.

Scott, maybe we should relook who is the 'bad cop'. :)

Guys, I have to get back to writing. Play with
both-sides-make-double-flank-march-rolls-every-turn all you like. It is not
a basic rule. I am done with this discussion, not because I hate any of you
or want to ignore you, but because I have a rule book that is NOT getting
written while I deal with issues that were decided months (years) ago that
have had no new information added to them.

It is going to have to be good enough when one of us says: sorry, been
decided, your proposal is not new and comes with no new info. That is what
game companies do. I know, I work for three of them and have been told it
enough myself.

Peace
Jon

[Greg Regets]

I fail to see what sort of supporting data you need to show that a
historical commander did not know in advance if the army he was facing had
troops devoted to a flanking movement, or that troops were hidden based on
the exact amount of LC, LCm, MC, MCm, HC, HCm, EHC, EHCm, LI and mounted
infantry the other side had.

Lets try this ... "They always didn't know this information."

In my opinion, the rules set would be better served if these simple "common
sense" issues were addressed with some sort of simple fix, rather than
insisting that page after page of historical backup be given, only to have a
response that lecturing about history will never work.

Greg ~The Other Father Flanagan~

>I fail to see what sort of supporting data you need to show that a
>historical commander did not know in advance if the army he was facing had
>troops devoted to a flanking movement, or that troops were hidden based on
>the exact amount of LC, LCm, MC, MCm, HC, HCm, EHC, EHCm, LI and mounted
>infantry the other side had.
>
>Lets try this ... "They always didn't know this information."
>
>In my opinion, the rules set would be better served if these simple "common
>sense" issues were addressed with some sort of simple fix, rather than
>insisting that page after page of historical backup be given, only to have a
>response that lecturing about history will never work.

I totally agree. Historically, effective scouting, for the purpose of
scouting the enemy location, intention, and screening your own
forces, did not occur as we think about these thing in a modern, or
post-modern context. Up until the mid 18th century real scouting did
not occur.

A lot of the scouting in the ancient world was actually closer to
looting, and gathering supplies.

If you think that organized scouting wasn't unusual, then consider
this. The most organized army of the ancient world, routinely got
itself ambushed, often in large scale ambushes, and never really did
anything about it. The army? Roman.

Scott