Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Don Coon sent a bunch of items about the rules to the group. I'd like to review
them in general and then ask you guys a couple questions at the end of this mail
to get your opinion.

I have looked at the stuff Don sent and here is the breakdown:

23 'typos' - minor things that are not precisely right in the rulebook but can
wait for a while. Like the word 'roves' where it should obviously be 'moves'.

9 'no's' - things where Don has suggested a correction to something that is
already just the way we want it in the rulebook.

1 '?' - an item I have not decided what to do with

2 'clarifications' - items that are not rules changes but where it could be
clearer and when we do our first clarification sheet, they will be on it.

2 'clarifications on terrain' - we deliberately left the exact definition of
'in' terrain to the players and umpires

Ok, questions:

1. Do you want us to leave things like the definition of 'in' terrain to the
player/umpire, define such things in our clarifications or make a separate
'umpire's guide sheet'?

2. The things where Don raised an issue like it needed correcting but it was
actually right - do you want me to explain each one why we made no 'fix' based
on his comment? For example, non impetuous pursuers may make a 45 degree wheel
that DOES NOT have to be toward the body it is pursuing like a charge wheel has
to. Don's recommended correction therefore is incorrect. Do I need to explain
why we are ignoring those items or can you guys just accept that if they don't
appear later on the clarification sheet that we already have it the way we want
it?

Jon

[joncleaves]

Thanks, Tony. I am personally disposed toward an umpire's guide.
Non-competitive types can ignore, those that want a standard answer can use.

Hey, I have no problem giving reasoning for things. It is just that every
minute is precious - one spent going over an already made decision is one not
spent on Campaign Warrior. After all, I am an Army lieutenant colonel and we
are at war. Warrior is and always will be a zero sum game - I allocate as
much time as I can to it, but the players will dictate what I spend that time
on.

Great to hear from you.
Jon

[joncleaves]

Well, I see an umpire's guide sheet as a one or two pager available on the web
that helps umpires wuth sticky situations that come up in competitive events but
aren't really rules and can be ignored by non-competitive players.

Twistercon is an unplanned con for me. I need to both find the money and see if
it works time-wise.

Response from a (usually) quiet member of the DFW group:

>1. Do you want us to leave things like the definition of 'in' terrain to
>the player/umpire, define such things in our clarifications or make a
>separate 'umpire's guide sheet'?

Being very new, I like to have things clearly defined. Makes for less
confusion when you get to someone's table if you don't have to define house
rules on something that affects the game so significantly as "in
terrain". Whether that definition occurs in the clarifications or in an
umpire's guide doesn't so much matter to me as long as I have access to the
definition.


>2. The things where Don raised an issue like it needed correcting but it
>was actually right - do you want me to explain each one why we made no
>'fix' based on his comment? For example, non impetuous pursuers may make
>a 45 degree wheel that DOES NOT have to be toward the body it is pursuing
>like a charge wheel has to. Don's recommended correction therefore is
>incorrect. Do I need to explain why we are ignoring those items or can
>you guys just accept that if they don't appear later on the clarification
>sheet that we already have it the way we want it?

My take is this: it's your game, so you don't owe us an explanation of
your decisions. You have been pretty forthcoming with such in the past,
though, which is something we appreciate. As long as you have time and
inclination to explain your reasoning, we can come to understand your
position (even if we disagree).

Tony


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

[Patrick Byrne]

Thanks for the email, here is my response:
1. (For the 2 terrain items) I'd prefer the umpire guide sheet over the
clarification sheet. But since I don't know exactly what an umpire guide
sheet is, my opinion doesn't carry to much weight.

2. (For the 12 issues) My vote is to list the those issues that Don raised,
but do not provide lengthy explain - just say: we intended it to be read
that way, the clarification is (will be)..., no we don't want the X unit to
do that, etc.

What I don't want is to wait and see if the issue gets addressed in the
clarifications or not.

To be honest, I think it is best if you and Scott attended Twistercon so
that we can talk them out with lead on the table. Hell, call it a symposium
and take a tax break on the business expenses. (BTW Don is supreme on what
is tax deductible for business expenses as well). Words are worth as much
as printed; Pictures are worth a thousand words; Lead on the table is
incomparable.
-PB



> Ok, questions:
>
> 1. Do you want us to leave things like the definition of 'in' terrain to the
> player/umpire, define such things in our clarifications or make a separate
> 'umpire's guide sheet'?
>
> 2. The things where Don raised an issue like it needed correcting but it was
> actually right - do you want me to explain each one why we made no 'fix' based
> on his comment? For example, non impetuous pursuers may make a 45 degree
> wheel that DOES NOT have to be toward the body it is pursuing like a charge
> wheel has to. Don's recommended correction therefore is incorrect. Do I need
> to explain why we are ignoring those items or can you guys just accept that if
> they don't appear later on the clarification sheet that we already have it the
> way we want it?
>
> Jon
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

[Don Coon]

> Don Coon sent a bunch of items about the rules to the group. I'd like to
review them in general and then ask you guys a couple questions at the end
of this mail to get your opinion.
>
> I have looked at the stuff Don sent and here is the breakdown:
>
> 23 'typos' - minor things that are not precisely right in the rulebook but
can wait for a while. Like the word 'roves' where it should obviously be
'moves'.

Cool.

> 9 'no's' - things where Don has suggested a correction to something that
is already just the way we want it in the rulebook.

No problem either. Most of my suggestions were of the "did you really mean
to do that" category.

> 1 '?' - an item I have not decided what to do with

Which?

> 2 'clarifications' - items that are not rules changes but where it could
be clearer and when we do our first clarification sheet, they will be on it.

Excellent.

> 2 'clarifications on terrain' - we deliberately left the exact definition
of 'in' terrain to the players and umpires

Hmm. See below.

> Ok, questions:
>
> 1. Do you want us to leave things like the definition of 'in' terrain to
the player/umpire, define such things in our clarifications or make a
separate 'umpire's guide sheet'?

Define in clarifications. The game IMHO has to apeal to isolated game
players who have small groups, and guys who do not tourny play.

> 2. The things where Don raised an issue like it needed correcting but it
was actually right - do you want me to explain each one why we made no 'fix'
based on his comment? For example, non impetuous pursuers may make a 45
degree wheel that DOES NOT have to be toward the body it is pursuing like a
charge wheel has to. Don's recommended correction therefore is incorrect.
Do I need to explain why we are ignoring those items or can you guys just
accept that if they don't appear later on the clarification sheet that we
already have it the way we want it?

I would like that. In the example above, it gives me insight into your
thought process. In the above example, my correction was because this is
what I thought was correct. I will now play with pursuit wheels in any
direction without any problems or further comments.

Don