Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:

>
> In a message dated 3/1/2005 21:12:25 Central Standard Time, Quahog25@...
> writes:
> << As the halberd and the axe are superchargred to keep pace with the
> supercharged lancer ( and presumably the LTS is soon to follow),>>
>
> The halberd and axe are not 'being supercharged' to 'keep pace' with
> anything. First, Warrior 2HCT has always been 1.5 ranks if steady and
> non-impetuous, so there isn't any change there.
>

Jon, you bring so many fine qualities to our hobby and the rules, but this is
one of the few mistakes you consistently make. What you should, of course,
being saying is that in _your_ opinion there isn't any change there. But there
are two valid points of view here, and I submit that your point of view matters
considerably less.

I know what you are trying to say: in your own mind it has always been your
intention that 2HCT fight 1.5 ranks. But as any of the professional writers on
this list will tell you, author's intent has very little to do with the meaning
of a text. The ultimate judge of meaning is the reader, not the author.

We, your readers, can only judge by the text you actually produce. In Warrior
there is no mention of 2HCT fighting in 1.5 ranks, and to many of us it
certainly seems like something that has become more pervasive over time via
list rules until, with the forthcoming reprint, it will indeed be fully part of
the rules.

To many of your readers that means that the rules have changed. It seems to me
that you'd be better off spending more effort thinking about why your readers
have those perceptions and how best to address them, and less time defending
the hollow notion that nothing's changed because this was your intent all
along.

Of course, that's just my opinion, and I only have 20+ years of professional
experience as a writer, editor, and publisher with which to back it up.


-Mark Stone

[Mike Turner]

Not an old "TOG" player I guess I'm not as confused as some people
and don't carry a lot of old baggage that should be dropped (ease the
load of some of those old backs )

And there are a lot of them out there. At the last few years of Cold
Wars and Historicon I still see people AND OPPONENTS with "TOG" on
their side of the table instead of Warrior.

Unfortunately often times the very vocal minority is the old "TOG"
players. Warrior is growing, a lot of people joining the lists never
knew "TOG", the dinosaurs need to let it go, they hurt rather than
help the hobby.

2HCT when it was first introduced as a multi-ranked weapon (Feudal
Warrior as a printed book) explained that it fought as rank and a
half. Prior books that might have had 2HCT (Holy Warrior and Dark
Warrior) had the weapon fighting as only a front rank, backed up in
the second rank with javelin (which already fought 1/2 of the second
rank).

Not sure where I see the failure to understand the authors intent?
You build an army from the list book, which explains any differences
from the rules, and in every place that 2HCT fights multi-ranked,
that list explains it. Not understanding equates to not reading the
Army list the "builder" should haver been using. A problem that
could be caused by mixing Warrior with non-FHE written lists.

The Rule Book + FHE lists = Warrior

The same way several other game systems work,

Mike


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com"
<WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:
>
> >
> > In a message dated 3/1/2005 21:12:25 Central Standard Time,
Quahog25@a...
> > writes:
> > << As the halberd and the axe are superchargred to keep pace
with the
> > supercharged lancer ( and presumably the LTS is soon to
follow),>>
> >
> > The halberd and axe are not 'being supercharged' to 'keep pace'
with
> > anything. First, Warrior 2HCT has always been 1.5 ranks if
steady and
> > non-impetuous, so there isn't any change there.
> >
>
> Jon, you bring so many fine qualities to our hobby and the rules,
but this is
> one of the few mistakes you consistently make. What you should, of
course,
> being saying is that in _your_ opinion there isn't any change
there. But there
> are two valid points of view here, and I submit that your point of
view matters
> considerably less.
>
> I know what you are trying to say: in your own mind it has always
been your
> intention that 2HCT fight 1.5 ranks. But as any of the professional
writers on
> this list will tell you, author's intent has very little to do with
the meaning
> of a text. The ultimate judge of meaning is the reader, not the
author.
>
> We, your readers, can only judge by the text you actually produce.
In Warrior
> there is no mention of 2HCT fighting in 1.5 ranks, and to many of
us it
> certainly seems like something that has become more pervasive over
time via
> list rules until, with the forthcoming reprint, it will indeed be
fully part of
> the rules.
>
> To many of your readers that means that the rules have changed. It
seems to me
> that you'd be better off spending more effort thinking about why
your readers
> have those perceptions and how best to address them, and less time
defending
> the hollow notion that nothing's changed because this was your
intent all
> along.
>
> Of course, that's just my opinion, and I only have 20+ years of
professional
> experience as a writer, editor, and publisher with which to back it
up.
>
>
> -Mark Stone

[Greg Regets]

Well, clearly Warrior's 2HCT has not always been 1.5 ranks if steady
and non-impetuous. I think Jon might be mistaken in that statement.

This is a topic near and dear to me, as I a)played an army out of
Holy Warrior for quite some time that didn't get this, b)almost got
kicked off the Warrior board for continually pressing this issue, and
asking why we couldn't have released an update to Holy, when Feudal
came out. ;-)

On the flip side, do the majority of players think the "arms race" of
TOG and Warrior has hurt the game or helped the game?

Speaking for myself, I fall squarely on the side of those that think
it had HELPED the game. TOG 7.6 opened a whole range of armies that
were just not playable before. Warrior has taken this a step further
with 1.5 2HCT, 1.5 HCW for some, and 1HCW. These are all great
changes, in my opinion.

Remember the days when naked untrained savages with sharp sticks
could kick the crap out of elite Halbardiers? Is that the elegance we
want to return to?

I sure don't!!!

g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com"
<WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:
>
> >
> > In a message dated 3/1/2005 21:12:25 Central Standard Time,
Quahog25@a...
> > writes:
> > << As the halberd and the axe are superchargred to keep pace
with the
> > supercharged lancer ( and presumably the LTS is soon to
follow),>>
> >
> > The halberd and axe are not 'being supercharged' to 'keep pace'
with
> > anything. First, Warrior 2HCT has always been 1.5 ranks if
steady and
> > non-impetuous, so there isn't any change there.
> >
>
> Jon, you bring so many fine qualities to our hobby and the rules,
but this is
> one of the few mistakes you consistently make. What you should, of
course,
> being saying is that in _your_ opinion there isn't any change
there. But there
> are two valid points of view here, and I submit that your point of
view matters
> considerably less.
>
> I know what you are trying to say: in your own mind it has always
been your
> intention that 2HCT fight 1.5 ranks. But as any of the professional
writers on
> this list will tell you, author's intent has very little to do with
the meaning
> of a text. The ultimate judge of meaning is the reader, not the
author.
>
> We, your readers, can only judge by the text you actually produce.
In Warrior
> there is no mention of 2HCT fighting in 1.5 ranks, and to many of
us it
> certainly seems like something that has become more pervasive over
time via
> list rules until, with the forthcoming reprint, it will indeed be
fully part of
> the rules.
>
> To many of your readers that means that the rules have changed. It
seems to me
> that you'd be better off spending more effort thinking about why
your readers
> have those perceptions and how best to address them, and less time
defending
> the hollow notion that nothing's changed because this was your
intent all
> along.
>
> Of course, that's just my opinion, and I only have 20+ years of
professional
> experience as a writer, editor, and publisher with which to back it
up.
>
>
> -Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Greg Regets"
<greg.regets@g...> wrote:
>
> Well, clearly Warrior's 2HCT has not always been 1.5 ranks if
steady
> and non-impetuous. I think Jon might be mistaken in that
statement.>>

I have admitted that we didn't look closely enough at those troops,
like your KOSJ marines, who were listed as 2HCT/JLS, but could
indeed find a way to be in two ranks of 2HCT. It took us a while to
review these cases and indeed, they met the test for what should be
1.5 rank as well. This issue has long since been fixed.

> This is a topic near and dear to me, as I a)played an army out of
> Holy Warrior for quite some time that didn't get this, b)almost
got
> kicked off the Warrior board for continually pressing this issue,
and
> asking why we couldn't have released an update to Holy, when
Feudal
> came out. >>

That is not why, but that is another story...lol I aware that the
review process took so long it looked like it was 'disconnected'
from Feudal's release. I am sorry about that, but it, like so many
things discussed here of late, is water under the bridge.

J

[Greg Regets]

Definately water under the bridge!

I think the more important point is the thought that whatever arms
race that has been done (assuming people believe there has been one)
has been well planned and at least in my opinion, has been a HUGE
benefit to the game.

I think we can also assume, that since FHE did in fact take the time
to go back to previous books with the 2HCT issue, it's safe to assume
they will do the same with many of the new list rules, etc ...

g


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Jon" <JonCleaves@a...> wrote:
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Greg Regets"
> <greg.regets@g...> wrote:
> >
> > Well, clearly Warrior's 2HCT has not always been 1.5 ranks if
> steady
> > and non-impetuous. I think Jon might be mistaken in that
> statement.>>
>
> I have admitted that we didn't look closely enough at those troops,
> like your KOSJ marines, who were listed as 2HCT/JLS, but could
> indeed find a way to be in two ranks of 2HCT. It took us a while
to
> review these cases and indeed, they met the test for what should be
> 1.5 rank as well. This issue has long since been fixed.
>
> > This is a topic near and dear to me, as I a)played an army out of
> > Holy Warrior for quite some time that didn't get this, b)almost
> got
> > kicked off the Warrior board for continually pressing this issue,
> and
> > asking why we couldn't have released an update to Holy, when
> Feudal
> > came out. >>
>
> That is not why, but that is another story...lol I aware that the
> review process took so long it looked like it was 'disconnected'
> from Feudal's release. I am sorry about that, but it, like so many
> things discussed here of late, is water under the bridge.
>
> J

[joncleaves]

Jon, you bring so many fine qualities to our hobby and the rules>>

Thanks, Mark!

J

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Mike Turner stated:
"Unfortunately often times the very vocal minority is the old "TOG"
players. Warrior is growing, a lot of people joining the lists never
knew "TOG", the dinosaurs need to let it go, they hurt rather than
help the hobby."



Mike,

It is the "TOG Dinosaurs" that propagate this game. I would remind you that
all four members of the Four Horsemen are "TOG Dinosaurs" just as are the
majority of the people that care enough to post on this forum. Without those
"Dinosaurs" Warrior would be in the same category as "A to Z Ancients wargame
rules or for that matter "TACTICA". Ask yourself where those systems are now?
They didn't have a previous fan base of very loyal backers like the Warrior
system does and they are dead systems played occasionally by their creators in
tiny pockets. When I learned to play the game, I gamed with guys who had played
3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th edition. They did some pretty unusual stuff that were not
part of the current system. When I learned Seventh, my mind was uncluttered by
prior systems by WRG and I couldn't understand what these guys problem was, like
you. The game has changed. Much of that change is for the better. But one thing
that has not changed or lessened is the complexity. I
for one enjoy it for the challenges that offers in tactics. But even Jon, the
editor/author has made mistakes. Does this mean he should be called a "TOG
Dinosaur that hurts the Hobby?" The answer is NO. This forum is here for
discussion and clarification of rules. For many this is a sounding board to make
comments and learn what others in the Warrior Community think. If you don't
agree with someone, it is your responsibility to say so. I realize that you want
to support Jon as he's your friend and that is very admirable. I just think you
are wrong when you lump everyone who played previous editions of this rules
engine in a category like "TOG Dinosaurs" and say that they hurt the hobby.
Especially when it was one of those "TOG Dinosaurs" that recruited you.

k


---------------------------------
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web

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

[joncleaves]

Kelly, please don't lump me in any groups or use me or the FH to
support your 'arguments'. I am not a 'tog dinosaur'. I stopped
playing it in 1993 because of work and because the game was no
longer supported by its company. I don't play unsupported games.

There's no doubt we owe a huge debt to the customer base that played
7th from its death until Warrior came out. My statement was that we
don't make any decisions based on what came before, not that those
folks aren't hugely important to us.

J

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Jon,

I personally don't feel that anyone that supports Warrior or prior editions
of the engine should be lumped into a stereotype such as a "TOG Dinosaur." It is
a negative that certainly was something you resent being called and I feel that
persons who use/started such terminology should cease using it. I for one never
stopped playing the game even when the rules author stopped supporting it. As I
recall, my friend Jake Kovel and Mr. Holder continued playing as well (I don't
know Bill that well to know whether he continued playing or not but I suspect he
did as well). The fact that Scott Holder continued to run tournaments
uninterupted at Cold Wars/Historicon and the fact that tournaments were still
being put on across the country is support enough to me.
By the way, my mail was not in answer to your's, rather I was answering
Mike's rebuttal to Mark. Additionally, the internet is the devil. I'm not
flaming here. I just didn't like the tone used when describing people who played
prior editions of the rules engine. I would say that it is actually those people
that have brought most if not all of our new blood into the hobby.

kw
PS Your still the guys with the white hats who saved 7th with the creation of
Warrior. For that I'm eternally grateful. :)

Jon <JonCleaves@...> wrote:

Kelly, please don't lump me in any groups or use me or the FH to
support your 'arguments'. I am not a 'tog dinosaur'. I stopped
playing it in 1993 because of work and because the game was no
longer supported by its company. I don't play unsupported games.

There's no doubt we owe a huge debt to the customer base that played
7th from its death until Warrior came out. My statement was that we
don't make any decisions based on what came before, not that those
folks aren't hugely important to us.

J




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web

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

[joncleaves]

Kelly

If you didn't like Mike's post, take it up with him. Even better,
do it in person since you can.

Don't name-drop us, please.

J

[Mike Turner]

Kelly,

By getting upset, you seem to have accepted the title as belonging to
you.

Why not have the title of Warrior Gamer? Haven't Warrior Gamers
propagated the Warrior game? Not being able to see into the future I
don't know where Warrior would be without that support you reference,
but I certainly wouldn't take the negative attitude that it would be
where you think it would have ended up.

Where my post was aimed (and I guess missed) was that players of "the
other game" often rely on their knowledge of the other game and not
of Warrior, the Warrior List books, or the Warrior errata provided on
the FHE website.

I don't think I specifically need to support Jon, I think he's got
that handled. (not that most MI Officer don't need Infantry Officer
support).

Be a Warrior Player!

Mike

PS-I was recruited in '79 (into the Army that is), a couple years ago
a Wargaming buddy asked me to play his ancients game, and I liked it,
so I've kept playing, don't know about any Dinosaurs






--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
>
>
> Mike Turner stated:
> "Unfortunately often times the very vocal minority is the old "TOG"
> players. Warrior is growing, a lot of people joining the lists
never
> knew "TOG", the dinosaurs need to let it go, they hurt rather than
> help the hobby."
>
>
>
> Mike,
>
> It is the "TOG Dinosaurs" that propagate this game. I would
remind you that all four members of the Four Horsemen are "TOG
Dinosaurs" just as are the majority of the people that care enough to
post on this forum. Without those "Dinosaurs" Warrior would be in the
same category as "A to Z Ancients wargame rules or for that
matter "TACTICA". Ask yourself where those systems are now? They
didn't have a previous fan base of very loyal backers like the
Warrior system does and they are dead systems played occasionally by
their creators in tiny pockets. When I learned to play the game, I
gamed with guys who had played 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th edition. They
did some pretty unusual stuff that were not part of the current
system. When I learned Seventh, my mind was uncluttered by prior
systems by WRG and I couldn't understand what these guys problem was,
like you. The game has changed. Much of that change is for the
better. But one thing that has not changed or lessened is the
complexity. I
> for one enjoy it for the challenges that offers in tactics. But
even Jon, the editor/author has made mistakes. Does this mean he
should be called a "TOG Dinosaur that hurts the Hobby?" The answer is
NO. This forum is here for discussion and clarification of rules. For
many this is a sounding board to make comments and learn what others
in the Warrior Community think. If you don't agree with someone, it
is your responsibility to say so. I realize that you want to support
Jon as he's your friend and that is very admirable. I just think you
are wrong when you lump everyone who played previous editions of this
rules engine in a category like "TOG Dinosaurs" and say that they
hurt the hobby. Especially when it was one of those "TOG Dinosaurs"
that recruited you.
>
> k
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
> Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Jon,

Since you put it that way, okay. Mike's cool, I just didn't dig the
labeling.

k

Jon <JonCleaves@...> wrote:

Kelly

If you didn't like Mike's post, take it up with him. Even better,
do it in person since you can.

Don't name-drop us, please.

J




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Mike,

I really wasn't upset, I just responded in a way that could easily be
taken as angry and appologize for that. By the way, I thought all branches
supported the infantry! Not to marginalize Military Intellegence, but I didn't
realize you were an Infantry officer. My respect for you has certainly gone up
50% as it is the man with a rifle that has made democracy possible.

kelly

turner1118 <Turnerm@...> wrote:

Kelly,

By getting upset, you seem to have accepted the title as belonging to
you.

Why not have the title of Warrior Gamer? Haven't Warrior Gamers
propagated the Warrior game? Not being able to see into the future I
don't know where Warrior would be without that support you reference,
but I certainly wouldn't take the negative attitude that it would be
where you think it would have ended up.

Where my post was aimed (and I guess missed) was that players of "the
other game" often rely on their knowledge of the other game and not
of Warrior, the Warrior List books, or the Warrior errata provided on
the FHE website.

I don't think I specifically need to support Jon, I think he's got
that handled. (not that most MI Officer don't need Infantry Officer
support).

Be a Warrior Player!

Mike

PS-I was recruited in '79 (into the Army that is), a couple years ago
a Wargaming buddy asked me to play his ancients game, and I liked it,
so I've kept playing, don't know about any Dinosaurs






--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
>
>
> Mike Turner stated:
> "Unfortunately often times the very vocal minority is the old "TOG"
> players. Warrior is growing, a lot of people joining the lists
never
> knew "TOG", the dinosaurs need to let it go, they hurt rather than
> help the hobby."
>
>
>
> Mike,
>
> It is the "TOG Dinosaurs" that propagate this game. I would
remind you that all four members of the Four Horsemen are "TOG
Dinosaurs" just as are the majority of the people that care enough to
post on this forum. Without those "Dinosaurs" Warrior would be in the
same category as "A to Z Ancients wargame rules or for that
matter "TACTICA". Ask yourself where those systems are now? They
didn't have a previous fan base of very loyal backers like the
Warrior system does and they are dead systems played occasionally by
their creators in tiny pockets. When I learned to play the game, I
gamed with guys who had played 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th edition. They
did some pretty unusual stuff that were not part of the current
system. When I learned Seventh, my mind was uncluttered by prior
systems by WRG and I couldn't understand what these guys problem was,
like you. The game has changed. Much of that change is for the
better. But one thing that has not changed or lessened is the
complexity. I
> for one enjoy it for the challenges that offers in tactics. But
even Jon, the editor/author has made mistakes. Does this mean he
should be called a "TOG Dinosaur that hurts the Hobby?" The answer is
NO. This forum is here for discussion and clarification of rules. For
many this is a sounding board to make comments and learn what others
in the Warrior Community think. If you don't agree with someone, it
is your responsibility to say so. I realize that you want to support
Jon as he's your friend and that is very admirable. I just think you
are wrong when you lump everyone who played previous editions of this
rules engine in a category like "TOG Dinosaurs" and say that they
hurt the hobby. Especially when it was one of those "TOG Dinosaurs"
that recruited you.
>
> k
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
> Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web

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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/3/2005 21:12:31 Central Standard Time,
cncbump@... writes:

If it were the original intent then why the list rules allowing it in the
medievel list book, and then only on specific armies?
Chris>>


I assume you mean 1.5 rank steady non-impetuous 2HCT. Ok, I will explain
this ONE more time.

In the Warrior playtest (1999-2001) we determined that a single rank of 2HCT
did not accurately reflect the capabilities of such formations in a large
number of cases. We were not sure at that point what we were going to do about
it and we were running out of time in the sense that more playtesting on
this formation would have delayed publication. Since there was no 2HCT in
Biblical Warrior, we decided to hold off on making a final decision and include
further playtesting as part of the playtesting for each list book. As that
playtesting progressed it *seemed* (although we were not 100% sure) that the
fix
we derived for Feudal Warrior *might* possibly end up working for all such
formations. I told Scott to keep making it a list rule where appropriate and
if at the end it did end up as something that applied in all such cases, we'd
just make it universal in the revised rulebook and he would not have to
repeat it a jillion times in the master army list book.
That is what turned out to be the case.

In a couple of instances, troops that could be 1/2 or 1/4 2HCT could in fact
be taken as a pure 2HCT unit and a whole bunch of other elements of the
other weapon (typically JLS) those troops could be armed with. We didn't catch
or consider all those cases (the most famous of which is KSJ Marines). In
looking back at those cases (mostly at the request of Greg Regets) we
discovered
that there was no reason from a formation standpoint not to include those as
well, in fact it was essentially an oversight on our part not to have
included them in the first place.
Once OW was done and we were sure that all our 2HCT troops should be
fighting this way, we made it universal.

Along the way from Feudal til now, essentially all troops with 2HCT have had
this rule apply to them with the exception of the glitch mentioned above -
one we fixed.

Future references to this issue will be simply have this message number in
the reply. I can't afford to keep going over this.

J








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

[Chris Bump]

If it were the original intent then why the list rules allowing it in the
medievel list book, and then only on specific armies?
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stone [mailto:mark@...]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 10:58 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: the Arms Race


Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:

>
> In a message dated 3/1/2005 21:12:25 Central Standard Time,
Quahog25@...
> writes:
> << As the halberd and the axe are superchargred to keep pace with the
> supercharged lancer ( and presumably the LTS is soon to follow),>>
>
> The halberd and axe are not 'being supercharged' to 'keep pace' with
> anything. First, Warrior 2HCT has always been 1.5 ranks if steady and
> non-impetuous, so there isn't any change there.
>

Jon, you bring so many fine qualities to our hobby and the rules, but this
is
one of the few mistakes you consistently make. What you should, of course,
being saying is that in _your_ opinion there isn't any change there. But
there
are two valid points of view here, and I submit that your point of view
matters
considerably less.

I know what you are trying to say: in your own mind it has always been
your
intention that 2HCT fight 1.5 ranks. But as any of the professional
writers on
this list will tell you, author's intent has very little to do with the
meaning
of a text. The ultimate judge of meaning is the reader, not the author.

We, your readers, can only judge by the text you actually produce. In
Warrior
there is no mention of 2HCT fighting in 1.5 ranks, and to many of us it
certainly seems like something that has become more pervasive over time
via
list rules until, with the forthcoming reprint, it will indeed be fully
part of
the rules.

To many of your readers that means that the rules have changed. It seems
to me
that you'd be better off spending more effort thinking about why your
readers
have those perceptions and how best to address them, and less time
defending
the hollow notion that nothing's changed because this was your intent all
along.

Of course, that's just my opinion, and I only have 20+ years of
professional
experience as a writer, editor, and publisher with which to back it up.


-Mark Stone


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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