Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/29/2004 13:36:39 Central Daylight Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

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.>>
That is not true. I seem to remember the LC having B, but in any case the
above statement isn't true.



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.>>
It could, and I am not aware of any contradiction. I don't have time to go
back through that whole set of mails and see what I said right now, and I am
not sure what that would do for us anyway. The important thing is, a body
can always go into or remain in skirmish if an enemy approaching second could
get to the skirmishing body's missile range. This is true and remains true no
matter who countered on this or any other bound.


> 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.>>
You may call it petty if you like. I was making it clear to him that he
can't both claim responsibility for the 93 interp book (which was work done by
others, yours truly included) , which he has repeatedly, *and* also claim to
be ignorant of it.



> 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. >>
Ewan, you are telling me that someone played in NASAMW tourneys in 1993-1999
without knowing the 93 interp book existed. I find that incredible, but not
impossible. I did not use the word 'lying'.



<<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 reexamined 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.>>
I am agreeing to no lack of knowledge, nor is anything you have talked about
something I did not know. I played mainly DBM from 95-97 because that was
being played where I was and 7th was dying. I stayed in close touch with 7th
issues and was a member of the rules committee, searching for a way to keep
7th alive, which I found in 1999. The 94 book is essentially the 93 book put
online (94 was the year we began to employ internet based solutions to
things) and I was involved with it in all years of its development. Your
statement
is typically disingenuous, but misleading.



['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.>>
It is in no way justified. I brook no ad hominems here. I cut slack to
those who attack me personally because I mind less when it is me than when it
is
another Warrior player, but not infinite slack. I am chalking it up to a
bad day on your part and I think you should 'play along'....lol




No. First, in this case Larry was, indeed, asking a rules Q.>>
He did initially, and initially all I did was answer it. It was after he
didn't like the answer that he took it beyond a rules question.

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]>>
I acknowledge a personal anitpathy for those who purport to love the game
but spend lots of effort sniping it. I have no time for it and would hardly
apologize for discouraging such sniping.



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.>>
Quite true. And I have a duty to maintain this forum as a place people want
to go for as many players as possible. I have no duty to a person who seeks
to or actually does make this an unpleasant place - except to guide him or
her towards what is expected here or to, as a last resort, ban them from here.
I am a moderator or member of many, many such fora and I will not allow to
happen here what happens on so many others. My methods may be imperfect and
quite often reflect my personal philosophies. But on WarriorRules, the needs
of the many will *always* outweigh the needs of the whiny few or the
petulant one, no matter how vocal. I am sorry if this is not how you'd handle
it if
it were your rules set and your time...
I am very interested in improvement however, so please look for another post
where I ask some questions of the group in that regard.
Jon



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