Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Everyone:

Please remember that only a very select group of players has or will ever
playtest our (FHE) army lists.

No one was asked to directly test any WRG or Society list, ever. You may have
used a WRG or Society list to playtest Warrior rules, but FHE makes no guarantee
that any particular troop type in any particular list by another author will be
represented in our list in exactly the same manner. If any of you think we have
a contract to make sure our lists represent their troops the exact same way as
any list published by someone else, please disabuse yourself of that notion now.
The fact you have WRG/Society lists to use while you wait for the FHE lists
should be seen as a boon, not a precise prediction of the future.

And we will NEVER represent a troop type (JLS LC come to mind) in an ahistorical
fashion (only half a unit has JLS for example) SOLELY because the game mechanics
don't let you fight the way you want to with that weapon/type all the time while
you would have to pay the point cost. It won't happen, don't ask us to do it.

Jon, the friendly horse

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 02/12/2002 8:05:42 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jmeunier@... writes:

<< And we will NEVER represent a troop type (JLS LC come to mind) in
an ahistorical fashion (only half a unit has JLS for example) SOLELY
because the game mechanics don't let you fight the way you want to
with that weapon/type all the time while you would have to pay the
point cost. It won't happen, don't ask us to do it.
>
> Jon, the friendly horse
>>
Jon,

Couldn't agree more. I have always hated the LC with more weapons in the
front than the back because they had a cafateria style of building units.
Point was made because, a> it has been legal until you just told us it
wouldn't be; b>it has been commonly done in those armies that allow it;
c>(not knowing that was going to be changed) such units would have a distinct
advanatage over their non-w_d_e_ng counterparts. I am sure no one was asking
for or espousing the use of such troops.

Chris

[joncleaves]

<< And we will NEVER represent a troop type (JLS LC come to mind) in an
ahistorical fashion (only half a unit has JLS for example) SOLELY because the
game mechanics don't let you fight the way you want to
with that weapon/type all the time while you would have to pay the point cost.
It won't happen, don't ask us to do it.>>

<<For the uninformed among us ... what was the particular abuse in WRG
7.x that you are refering to here? Could you please elaborate?>>

Well, I want to get out of the habit of referring to that other game (lol) but
the issue is this:

We have been asked to do some of the following:

1. Change how troops were armed historically because in Warrior they sometimes
find themselves in a rank in which they cannot employ their weapons (like JLS LC
in a second rank). Since the player has no intent of using such units in a
single rank, he wants us to rewrite the list so it only makes him pay for half a
unit's worth of the weapon.

2. Add points to the cost of troops who have a benficial list rule.

We are not doing either and have said so, but occasionally the issue surfaces as
it did today.

Jon

[joncleaves]

I think it is counterproductive to talk about WRG/NASAMW lists as though they
were Warrior lists.

I would expect questions on the FW and BibW lists and we will look at the issues
raised, but not from the standpoint of 'playtesting with this list' but from the
standpoint of possible oversight.

As far as non-superceded WRG/NASAMW lists, it is ok to show research to Scott
concerining how they might turn out in our list book, but a discussion of what
we 'did to' such a list seems counterproductive. Each FHE list should stand on
historical merit and not be seen as something we 'changed'.

--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Everyone:
>
> >
> And we will NEVER represent a troop type (JLS LC come to mind) in
an ahistorical fashion (only half a unit has JLS for example) SOLELY
because the game mechanics don't let you fight the way you want to
with that weapon/type all the time while you would have to pay the
point cost. It won't happen, don't ask us to do it.
>
> Jon, the friendly horse


For the uninformed among us ... what was the particular abuse in WRG
7.x that you are refering to here? Could you please elaborate?

John Meunier
(waiting for my copy in the mail.)

[joncleaves]

<< This is why email sucks. If we were face to face, this would have been
discussed, understood and settled in 10 minutes.>>

Amen, brother.

<< We never asked you to do this. This whole discussion is/was/has been blown
out of proportion. I
> started this thread. I personally never asked for any change.>>

The email that suggested changing all JLS LC so that you did not have to pay for
the second ranks' weapons was not yours, true. But it did happen.

<<We feel it was fair to ask you if the options
> (testudo, 1.5 ranks etc) were omitted purposefully or accidentally.>>

And it is fair. Testudo = deliberately not in FW. It is supposed to be Fast
and therefore very smashmouth and with as few rules that slow things down as
possible. It is supposed to intro new players as one of its main features.
Testudo is not in keeping with that philosophy.
"Wedge" list rules = don't know yet for Hun LC and Vikings whether an omission
in FW lists or not. We have not decided.

<< We have learned that options not seen in the FW lists do not neccessarily
reflect those that will be in the main lists. Cool, thanks for the info.>>

Roger.

<< However it still is being discussed. That does not seem fair. You get to
continue to make your point while we can not.>>

I admit I should be more disciplined, but I hate it when a game designer ignores
his players' hard issues and I keep getting sucked back in because I do not
want to ignore anything a Warrior player feels important. I will get better.

<< Maybe I have lost sight of the purpose of this
> list, but it seems that it is for the discussion of Warrior. In this light,
it would seem that when a player does "I think there is a problem" and you
> do "no there is not, thats just the way we want it" Discussion could still be
allowed to continue.>>

I am so cool with that - discuss on! But once we have said an issue is closed a
discussion seemingly directed at getting it changed would involve FHE,
especially when linked to demands that we *rule* on something so as to have a
standard across gaming groups. Cake or eat. If you are having a discussion
amongst Warrior players about four-rank hand guns, fine. But if you *speak* in
your email like you are talking to the company, or include language about a
worldwide standard, you have left the solely-amongst-player tracks.

<<You have made you proclamation, it will not change.
> However players may still want to discuss it. Is this not the forum for
that?>>

Sure. It would be better if such a thread started with "hey, FHE has ruled but
I would like to talk about this amongst players" or some such, so I know to
ignore it and move on.

<< Can I not start a topic that firearms should fire 4 ranks deep (just a
sitution, not something I believe), have you say no way it aint going to happen,
and then have a 40 email thread on the subject anyway? >>

Sure.

<< Members of the list could chime in, pound the idea or defend it? Maybe
someone even has a photo of a 15th century battle (wouldnt that be cool) in
their attic>>

Sure.

<<> and posts it on the web>>

Sure.

<< changing even your mind? >>

No. :)

Jon

[Don Coon]

> We have been asked to do some of the following:
>
> 1. Change how troops were armed historically because in Warrior they
sometimes find themselves in a rank in which they cannot employ their
weapons (like JLS LC in a second rank). Since the player has no intent of
using such units in a single rank, he wants us to rewrite the list so it
only makes him pay for half a unit's worth of the weapon.

This is why email sucks. If we were face to face, this would have been
discussed, understood and settled in 10 minutes. We never asked you to do
this. This whole discussion is/was/has been blown out of proportion. I
started this thread. I personally never asked for any change. I only asked
WHY. Chris only asked WHY? We are not asking for a change. We do not
care. We only asked for clarification on a set of troops who had faught a
certain way until last week. We feel it was fair to ask you if the options
(testudo, 1.5 ranks etc) were omitted purposefully or accidentally. We have
learned that options not seen in the FW lists do not neccessarily reflect
those that will be in the main lists. Cool, thanks for the info. We
learned that you removed 1.5 ranks from some troops due to some research or
playtest. Ok fine. We will not counterpoint your position further (as you
are list moderator and have told us not to). You asked me to let it go. I
have. However it still is being discussed. That does not seem fair. You
get to continue to make your point while we can not.

> 2. Add points to the cost of troops who have a benficial list rule.
>
> We are not doing either and have said so, but occasionally the issue
surfaces as it did today.

As for me, while my position on this issue is fairly well known, I have not
discussed this on the list in many months (I know it is not me who you are
refering to Jon).

Jon, you moderate the list and as such get to set the tone. I respect that.
I have always tried to back off a subject when you asked me to. I try to
respect the list ettiquette. Maybe I have lost sight of the purpose of this
list, but it seems that it is for the discussion of Warrior. In this light,
it would seem that when a player does "I think there is a problem" and you
do "no there is not, thats just the way we want it" Discussion could still
be allowed to continue. You have made you proclamation, it will not change.
However players may still want to discuss it. Is this not the forum for
that? Can I not start a topic that firearms should fire 4 ranks deep (just
a sitution, not something I believe), have you say no way it aint going to
happen, and then have a 40 email thread on the subject anyway? Members of
the list could chime in, pound the idea or defend it? Maybe someone even
has a photo of a 15th century battle (wouldnt that be cool) in their attic
and posts it on the web changing even your mind? Just my thoughts.

Don

[Don Coon]

Each FHE list should stand on historical merit and not be seen as something
we 'changed'.

An extremely fair statement.

Don