Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Todd Kaeser]

Hello all,

We had a wonderful weekend gaming at Bill's house this past weekend - I'm sure
Bill may want to write up the report and I won't steal his thunder, however I
did learn a few things.

It always amazes me how much new info I learn when playing in tournaments. It
doesn't matter how many times I read through the rules there is something I
don't know yet.

I found out that shooting is done differently than I thought. Eligibility is
measured from the front of elements and their neighbor, while actually being in
range is measured by element. For example while an element might be eligible to
shoot its javelins per se - due to being adjacent to an element that is in front
of a target, but it might be beyond 40 paces and therefore it can't shoot. Big
news for me - Thanks Tim Brown!

Chinese armies were very prevalent at Bill's - The new lists were quite
flavorful. Han Chinese with such variety of foot and mounted - some LHI 2HCT,CB
- some LMI Jls,B,Sh - some HCh and even some LCh. A Timurid army with SHC,
elephants, HC, 1HCW,B - very cool. I expect to see many more of them at
Historicon and tournaments in the future.

We were able to play some of the experimental rules for the Macedonians. If
some of these list rules come into effect and I'm sure many will - we will see a
solid representation of pike armies in the future. Alexander surely had an
impact by just being himself. Pike will be MUCH tougher as will hoplites.
There are even some interesting ideas regarding the experimental units of
Pike/Bow/Jls that Alexander cooked up. I very much liked the rules and they
added a good flavor for the time period and the list rules played historically.

I played Aztec for the first time (NWW) in 1600 points and I still need to work
out the spacial aspects of the army. Tim Brown's Nik Byzantine were a solid
opponent and he had some skuts to contend with. Short table 2 1/2 feet by 5
feet. I was able to get a marsh on my left and that's it. Tim had two 6E
bowmen intermixed with two 6E skuts in the middle to their left were two 6E
varangians and a big unit of Slavs. 4E cav units HC L,B,Sh a 2E general HC, and
some LC his far left. I was able to push out the majority of the battle field
arching down on my right to cover the open space against Tim's Cav. The big
fight that altered the game was Tim's Varangians pushing back and then rolling
up 3 vs a 4E Warrior (LTS,D,Sh) unit to break it. Wouldn't ya know that my reg
A knight unit and Irreg A cuachequah unit rolling 1's on their waver test. Big
hole... to say the least. At least Tim was kind enough to charge a unit of LTS
warriors with his cav (happened to be Reg B) and rout -
no on of significance failed their tests sadly. I also was able to catch some
LMI B with a unit of warriors and then routed it with the sub general. A unit
of Ireg A cuachequah finally rolled +1 (+3) to break a unit of skuts. Tim
rolled through the cav flank and was able to roll through the broken command.
Tim killed about 750 and I killed about 530 for a 4-3.

2nd battle was vs. Tom McMillan's Pict. Outstanding looking army. The battle
revolved around a brush in the middle. Tom sent off a LCH unit into a warrior
unit - which then failed its waver. 2 horse LCH doesn't have the same punch and
I won the melee 6 casualties to 5 and threw him off (gave him 1 CPF w/ support
shooting). From there I was able to push my right against the LCH and LC to
shove it off the table and break the command. The rest of the battle was my
regular units surviving the impetuous charges, some regular charges with the
LTS,Jls,Sh Picts and slowly grinding them down.

A night team battle with Robert Turnbull (Alex Imperial) vs. Tim Brown and his
son Zach (Ancient Indian) to refight the battle of the Hypadis (sp?) river.
Zach was rolling up like it was his job vs. me on my right and just as it seemed
they would carry the day Tim rolled a catastrophe and his CinC died. Crazy to
say that Robert actually called for it before the roll.

Bill's house is beautiful and he is incredible gracious and generous. I had a
blast.

Todd K



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.

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

[joncleaves]

There were two rules Qs that came up for me, but I only remember one of
them: when is a router a router? That is, if a unit has broken but not
yet made a rout move, do other units test for seeing it in rout?>>

No, it has to make a rout move. The test is for seeing a unit rout, not
simply become broken.

<< Two things: Warrior rulesbook 2.0 needs to include all list rules,
noted/referenced in the relevant sections,>>

2.0?? If you mean the revised rulebook I am working on now, it will surely
*not* contain any list rule that is specific to an army. It will include any
that were also universal to the type/weapon (eg 1HCW).

<< and I think players need to
announce any list rules they are using at the start of each game,
specifying to which units they apply in at least most cases as they are
deployed.>>


Hmmm, interesting. I have trouble getting players to be up front about what
equipment/armor their basic troops have...lol But I am working on the
section of 14.0 that defines what the player must say to his opponent about his
troops (which is nearly everything). I have no problem adding that he must
declare any list rules for his troops at deployment. I am also pleased to have
an ally in Ewan on this issue - that should be a big help...

<<Oh, and I echo Todd's discovery of the limited impact of JLS shooting .>>

Don't scare the children, Ewan. lol Every game I play requires a missile
weapon to have its target both in arc and in range. I read Todd's post, and
whatever shock he may be feeling on this issue is nothing compared to mine
that someone was shooting JLS beyond 40p just because the target happened to be
in shooting arc and that was somehow considered enough....

I immediately went to my rulebook and found (under 8.6 Shooting Ranges):

"Ranges are measured from the base edge of each shooting element or that of
an element directly to its front if closer, to its
priority target element's base when the shooting is adjudicated."

This is in the rulebook and always has been. This makes it difficult to see
how range could be from something other than the shooter or the element in
front of it...

However, if someone has some recommended rewording, I will look at it as
always.

From seeing issues like this in the past, I think what is actually happening
is players are assuming certain things are a certain way, either an old TOG
memory or incorrect teaching by their mentor. You don't want to hear this, I
know, but in 99.9% of cases, such issues are from old 7th players or those
taught by old 7th players. I never get this type of so-called 'surprise' from
guys who learned Warrior originally....

Jon




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

[Ewan McNay]

Thanks from me to Bill, too. Great to get to play, even if I did have to
rush off early; thanks to both Jacob and Rob for being such indulgent
opponents with regard to scheduling.

There were two rules Qs that came up for me, but I only remember one of
them: when is a router a router? That is, if a unit has broken but not
yet made a rout move, do other units test for seeing it in rout? The
notes on wavers say 'seeing friends in rout and/or destroyed' while the
the notes for being broken say 'units which break may cause friendly units
to take waver tests;' in general the principle is that tests are taken
immediately there is a cause. So..?

Also, one strong note from me on list rules and universal knowledge. For
the second game, I indulged Bill and took Maccabean Jewish at 1200
points, using the new CW draft list. Now, taking 8 units of LC in 25mm on
what turned out to be a 3' deep table was not the world's best start.
However, one of my Reg B 2E JLS, B, Sh LC units faced off against a unit
of Alexandrian 2E LC JLS, and he charged me (after passing a waver for not
recalling from 2 CPF in prep, not that it's relevant). OK, so I
countercharge, thinking this is a good thing - I'm a factor up for the
shield and get support shooting for likely a second factor. Not until
we're in combat do I discover that the opposing LC get to fight 1.5 ranks
- so now it's a die roll which I lose, get caught in the break-off and
broken, causing adjacent peltasts and LC to shake. Exit one flank.
That's the kind of thing which would make a new player give up rapidly,
even if for me it's just carelessness.

Two things: Warrior rulesbook 2.0 needs to include all list rules,
noted/referenced in the relevant sections, and I think players need to
announce any list rules they are using at the start of each game,
specifying to which units they apply in at least most cases as they are
deployed.

Oh, and I echo Todd's discovery of the limited impact of JLS shooting .

E

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
> There were two rules Qs that came up for me, but I only remember one of
> them: when is a router a router? That is, if a unit has broken but not
> yet made a rout move, do other units test for seeing it in rout?>>
>
> No, it has to make a rout move. The test is for seeing a unit rout, not
> simply become broken.

OK. [Sorry, Jacob, not that it mattered ] Suggest that the new
rulesbook - and yes, this is the 2.0 or whatever your preferred name for
the new set is that I referred to - alters the note under broken troops to
clarify that they may cause wavers *upon making a rout move or being
destroyed*.

> << Two things: Warrior rulesbook 2.0 needs to include all list rules,
> noted/referenced in the relevant sections,>>
>
> 2.0?? If you mean the revised rulebook I am working on now, it will surely
> *not* contain any list rule that is specific to an army. It will include any
> that were also universal to the type/weapon (eg 1HCW).

Well, your decision, but I think it's the wrong one. Being able to turn
up, having read the rules, and know what you are going to face from
potential opponents seems extreemely valuable and sensible to me.

On the other hand, I actually agree that JLS shooting is a carryover from
7th. I knew about it previously, just had it re-hit with my first games
since last July.

e

[Todd Kaeser]

Jon,

That's great that you imediately went to your rulebook and found the rule under
8.6 stating the shooting ranges and arch, but... you also have to remember that
us old farts who played under TOG and the halfway 7th/Warrior melding may have
difficulties from time to time discovering ALL the "clarifications" that have
taken place in the past 2-3 years. This is quite an extensive game engine and
to think that we can follow all these changes that have taken place and absorb
it into our mind is silly to say the least. Just like under TOG I'm sure I'll
continue to find new clarifications and be "surprised" each tournament I play
in. And I'm one of the few who read the rules regularly and can usually find
them when needed during a battle.

Todd K

JonCleaves@... wrote:

<<Oh, and I echo Todd's discovery of the limited impact of JLS shooting .>>

Don't scare the children, Ewan. lol Every game I play requires a missile
weapon to have its target both in arc and in range. I read Todd's post, and
whatever shock he may be feeling on this issue is nothing compared to mine
that someone was shooting JLS beyond 40p just because the target happened to be
in shooting arc and that was somehow considered enough....

I immediately went to my rulebook and found (under 8.6 Shooting Ranges):

"Ranges are measured from the base edge of each shooting element or that of
an element directly to its front if closer, to its
priority target element's base when the shooting is adjudicated."

This is in the rulebook and always has been. This makes it difficult to see
how range could be from something other than the shooter or the element in
front of it...

However, if someone has some recommended rewording, I will look at it as
always.

From seeing issues like this in the past, I think what is actually happening
is players are assuming certain things are a certain way, either an old TOG
memory or incorrect teaching by their mentor. You don't want to hear this, I
know, but in 99.9% of cases, such issues are from old 7th players or those
taught by old 7th players. I never get this type of so-called 'surprise' from
guys who learned Warrior originally....

Jon




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



---------------------------------
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.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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

[joncleaves]

That's great that you imediately went to your rulebook and found the rule under
8.6 stating the shooting ranges and arch, but...>>

Todd, please don't misunderstand me - I think you may have 'heard' my 'tone'
wrong. I wasn't saying that I expected you to find the answer simply, I was
saying I am not sure what more can be done on my end on that issue. I take
helping our players VERY seriously and, indeed, personally. When the rules
aren't doing what they need to be doing for the player, *I* need to fix that.
Usually the fix is a clarification - which means me going back and rewording a
secition, typically still containing barkerese, to make my intent clearer. The
intent hasn't changed - just my ability to make the idea come through more
clearly to the reader.

<<you also have to remember that us old farts who played under TOG and the
halfway 7th/Warrior melding may have difficulties from time to time discovering
ALL the "clarifications" that have taken place in the past 2-3 years. This is
quite an extensive game engine and to think that we can follow all these changes
that have taken place and absorb it into our mind is silly to say the least.>>

Amen. Try adding a few dozen drafts/playtest versions and then doing that AGAIN
three years later and trying to keep straight what is right.... BELIEVE ME, I
sympathize. No one wants to get past this and have the cleanest, clearest
possible rulebook more than I.

The continued use of the word 'clarifications' in quotes (by you and Dave, et
al) makes it clear to me you think we might be changing things under your noses.
This could not be further from the truth. I sit here with the clarifications
open on my desktop and what I see is exactly what I meant to say in 1999, but
did not say well in the original rulebook.

<< Just like under TOG I'm sure I'll continue to find new clarifications and be
"surprised" each tournament I play in. And I'm one of the few who read the
rules regularly and can usually find them when needed during a battle.>>

We both have duties there. My job is to continue to struggle to give you the
clearest set of rules possible. I hope to achieve as much of that goal as
possible with the revised rulebook. I am quite sure it won't be 100% perfect,
as there is no such thing. But I do think we can keep any future clarifications
to a strict minimum. My goal would be something like three pages over ten years,
which in game industry terms for a rule set like this one is essentially a grand
slam.

Your job as a player is to keep current on what clarifications have come out. I
know you to be conscientious about this - as much as anyone. The system is not
perfect, but I do think we do a damned good job when compared to other
companies. And we will always be striving to get better.

Jon

[joncleaves]

OK. [Sorry, Jacob, not that it mattered ] Suggest that the new
rulesbook - and yes, this is the 2.0 or whatever your preferred name for
the new set is that I referred to - alters the note under broken troops to
clarify that they may cause wavers *upon making a rout move or being
destroyed*.>>

Good suggestion.

And Ewan, I am not being picky about the 2.0 thing. This isn't 2.0, as in game
industry terms that would imply a new edition where core rules changed. This is
a revised edition meaning things were done to clear up what you are reading, but
it is the same rules. WRG 6th edition was different in a core sense from 7th.
Warhammer 6th edition is a different game altogether from Warhammer 5th edition.
etc. It does indeed matter - to players, to distributors who sell our rules, to
us. I do not understand your continued desire to drive over this distinction as
I can find no positive reason for doing so.

<<re not putting army-only list rules in the rulebook:
Well, your decision, but I think it's the wrong one. Being able to turn
up, having read the rules, and know what you are going to face from
potential opponents seems extreemely valuable and sensible to me.>>

I don't get this. Why do I need to put them in the main rulebook if I offer
them online for free??

J

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
> And Ewan, I am not being picky about the 2.0 thing. This isn't 2.0, as
> in game industry terms that would imply a new edition where core rules
> changed. This is a revised edition meaning things were done to clear
> up what you are reading, but it is the same rules. WRG 6th edition was
> different in a core sense from 7th. Warhammer 6th edition is a
> different game altogether from Warhammer 5th edition. etc. It does
> indeed matter - to players, to distributors who sell our rules, to us.
> I do not understand your continued desire to drive over this
> distinction as I can find no positive reason for doing so.

I think the major point is that I - as well as many others, see the large
number of previous postings on this list for a selection of examples -
note that rules *have* changed from the initial iteration of Warrior, and
are irritated by the continued insistence on your part that this is not
so. I'm pretty sure that none of said posters have a strong objection to
the process of change, but claiming 'it just ain't so' is perceived as
just silly as well as in error.

> <<re not putting army-only list rules in the rulebook: Well, your
> decision, but I think it's the wrong one. Being able to turn up,
> having read the rules, and know what you are going to face from
> potential opponents seems extreemely valuable and sensible to me.>>
>
> I don't get this. Why do I need to put them in the main rulebook if I
> offer them online for free??

Well, aside from the benefit of having them in context, the fact that you
spend most of your life online does not mean that your target market does
so universally. And no-one (Mark, maybe? ) brings a computer to the
table to play.

e

[Kelly Wilkinson]

From seeing issues like this in the past, I think what is actually happening
is players are assuming certain things are a certain way, either an old TOG
memory or incorrect teaching by their mentor. You don't want to hear this, I
know, but in 99.9% of cases, such issues are from old 7th players or those
taught by old 7th players. I never get this type of so-called 'surprise' from
guys who learned Warrior originally....

Jon



***Jon,

In regard to your ruling on overhead shooting where elephants can be shot
at over intervening units, can you explain that to the readership here. I
understand your reasoning and will readily agree with you, but don't want a
similar situation to be over-ruled by Scott (this happened at the NICT as in a
game I had with Rob Turnbull). Basically we had been allowing shooting over
intervening units @ elephants and by them over their fellow units. I just want
to play the game the way it will be ruled in the Nict. And yes, I agree that
much of the problems come from players who have played earlier editions. I
recall when I first learned 7th from Don Carter and then played with all of my
friends from Springfield who were former 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th edition players.
They confused rules from those former sets too. This may be a cross to bear, but
like it or not, you bought the engine and that cross is now yours by
inheritance. To be honest, like Todd says, the rules are extensive and
no matter how much one reads them, there will always be questions.

kw



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.

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

[joncleaves]

I think the major point is that I - as well as many others, see the large
number of previous postings on this list for a selection of examples -
note that rules *have* changed from the initial iteration of Warrior,>>

Ok, I'll bite. Shoot me an example.

<<and
are irritated by the continued insistence on your part that this is not
so.>>

I guess I am sorry about that. I would say i am probably just as irritated at
the continued posts poking not-so-subtly at FHE policy or marketing design or
list work or clarification work or whatever the pet issue of the vocal minority
is that day. Maybe if the dead horses got left dead there'd be less irritation
all around and we could all move on.

<<I'm pretty sure that none of said posters have a strong objection to
the process of change, but claiming 'it just ain't so' is perceived as
just silly as well as in error.>>

I think that is dead wrong. But I make my offer again to agree to disagree.
Care to join me?


<<> I don't get this. Why do I need to put them in the main rulebook if I
> offer them online for free??

Well, aside from the benefit of having them in context, the fact that you
spend most of your life online does not mean that your target market does
so universally. And no-one (Mark, maybe? ) brings a computer to the
table to play.>>

I am bewildered that you would rather forego printing off a copy of a cost-free
list of army-specific list rules and bringing it to the con? I said nothing of
expecting someone to only read them off the internet on their PDA. I expect
folks to print off the clarifications - what's the big deal with printing off
the master list rule list? At this point, more pages to the rulebook is more
cost to the consumer.
Why, when he can have it all for free?

I ran a quick check of other games with list rules by nationality/race/army and
found none where the main book had them in it. But found many where the company
had gone back and made them available to their customers at no cost.
What am I missing?

J

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
> I think the major point is that I - as well as many others, see the
> large number of previous postings on this list for a selection of
> examples - note that rules *have* changed from the initial iteration of
> Warrior,>>
>
> Ok, I'll bite. Shoot me an example.

Really? OK, I'll restrain myself and give only one - the first which
jumps to mind is the existence of columns with kinks, in the midle of
wheels, due to the prohibition on 'whipping around'. Thankfully now gone.

> I think that is dead wrong. But I make my offer again to agree to
> disagree. Care to join me?

Sure . Isn't that what we have now? Feel free to ignore the word usage
we pick, and we'll continue to feel free to ignore your irritation ...

> I am bewildered that you would rather forego printing off a copy of a
> cost-free list of army-specific list rules and bringing it to the con?
> I said nothing of expecting someone to only read them off the internet
> on their PDA. I expect folks to print off the clarifications - what's
> the big deal with printing off the master list rule list? At this
> point, more pages to the rulebook is more cost to the consumer. Why,
> when he can have it all for free?

Well, see again my comment on the utility of having intercalated rules
versus multiple separate bodies of such; but my comment on being online is
not about at the table, as much as it is about lifestyle - sure, I get
several thousand emails each day, but most folk still don't (hard though
it can be to believe sometimes). There *are* people without email
addresses .

[And yes, I know you expect folk to be online, print off clarifications,
etc. I think that's wrong, too. Hence my support for getting to a point
where the rules are no longer changing, then printing it and being done.]

[joncleaves]

There were two ways that came to mind to handle your last mail. As I disagreed
with everything you said, I could choose to continue to refute point by point.
Which has been proven pointless.

I'll choose the other course of action. We don't agree on several issues
related to this game. I am willing to let those drop and move on.

J

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Jon,
Are you addressing me or Ewan? If you are addressing me, I agree with your
interpretation. I just want to make sure it is the same interpretation that
Scott will have at Cold Wars and the NICT. Somehow I can't think this can be
addressed to me b/c I agreed with your interp of how this is played.

kelly w

JonCleaves@... wrote:
There were two ways that came to mind to handle your last mail. As I disagreed
with everything you said, I could choose to continue to refute point by point.
Which has been proven pointless.

I'll choose the other course of action. We don't agree on several issues
related to this game. I am willing to let those drop and move on.

J


---------------------------------
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.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.

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

[Todd Kaeser]

Jon,

I think that too much gets misinterpreted over email - there's nothing like
talking in person, it certainly clears up the fog much easier.

I'm fine with the clarifications or changes or whatever the word is that
describes what differences there have been between Warrior and TOG. I know that
2HCT didn't fight a rank and a half, there was no 1HCW, or list rules, or loose
pikemen - or irregular pikemen, or LTS fighting 2 full ranks, lances now a rank
and a half, etc... obviously there have been alterations with the game - it's
not that I'm unhappy with them. In fact, I think the clarifications have helped
make it a better game.

Even though you provide the clarifications online for free is something I'm
quite thankful for, but I can't wait to purchase a rulebook that has all (or
most) of the clarifications in them. I was quite distraught when I thought I
had lost my rulebook in our house fire, but it turned up at a friend's house who
I had loaned it to. The thought of having to write in the clarifications again
made my go bonkers. I will not buy a rulebook for a friend I am teaching to
play until it has been reprinted with the clarification in them.

I had tried to hand write in the changes to the book lists, but it was
overwhelming. I will take Bill Low's suggestion and put a red mark next to the
line that has to be changed and print out the multiple pages of changes to the
lists and somehow organize a notebook with them in it to reference when I make
lists. It is great that you provide them at no cost, but it is still work on
our part to remedy the situation.

I am quite happy with the rules and lists - I know that you and the other 4
horsemen have worked very hard to make a better system. Thank you.

Todd K

JonCleaves@... wrote:
I think the major point is that I - as well as many others, see the large
number of previous postings on this list for a selection of examples -
note that rules *have* changed from the initial iteration of Warrior,>>

Ok, I'll bite. Shoot me an example.

<<and
are irritated by the continued insistence on your part that this is not
so.>>

I guess I am sorry about that. I would say i am probably just as irritated at
the continued posts poking not-so-subtly at FHE policy or marketing design or
list work or clarification work or whatever the pet issue of the vocal minority
is that day. Maybe if the dead horses got left dead there'd be less irritation
all around and we could all move on.

<<I'm pretty sure that none of said posters have a strong objection to
the process of change, but claiming 'it just ain't so' is perceived as
just silly as well as in error.>>

I think that is dead wrong. But I make my offer again to agree to disagree.
Care to join me?


<<> I don't get this. Why do I need to put them in the main rulebook if I
> offer them online for free??

Well, aside from the benefit of having them in context, the fact that you
spend most of your life online does not mean that your target market does
so universally. And no-one (Mark, maybe? ) brings a computer to the
table to play.>>

I am bewildered that you would rather forego printing off a copy of a cost-free
list of army-specific list rules and bringing it to the con? I said nothing of
expecting someone to only read them off the internet on their PDA. I expect
folks to print off the clarifications - what's the big deal with printing off
the master list rule list? At this point, more pages to the rulebook is more
cost to the consumer.
Why, when he can have it all for free?

I ran a quick check of other games with list rules by nationality/race/army and
found none where the main book had them in it. But found many where the company
had gone back and made them available to their customers at no cost.
What am I missing?

J


---------------------------------
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.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.

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

[joncleaves]

<<Jon,

I think that too much gets misinterpreted over email - there's nothing like
talking in person, it certainly clears up the fog much easier.>>

Amen to *that*, brother.

In my case, people should read passion for the game into my mails as opposed to
some kind of anger. I'm pretty thick-skinned about myself, but I do indeed put
a crapload of effort into this and sometimes it leaks through when we are
second-guessed. I am only human, after all, despite rumors to the contrary....

<<I'm fine with the clarifications or changes or whatever the word is that
describes what differences there have been between Warrior and TOG.>>

I am *not* trying to make any sort of statement here, but you do realize that we
do not, nor will we ever, clarify the differences between Warrior and 7th. The
only clarifications I have written or will ever write are designed to better
explain what Warrior is trying to say. I suppose some folks somewhere are
playing 7th, but FHE has nothing to do with that. To me, its a different game
and stands alone. I am quite aware some do not understand that I make that
distinction nor why.

<< I know that 2HCT didn't fight a rank and a half, there was no 1HCW, or list
rules, or loose pikemen - or irregular pikemen, or LTS fighting 2 full ranks,
lances now a rank and a half, etc... obviously there have been alterations
with the game - it's not that I'm unhappy with them. In fact, I think the
clarifications have helped make it a better game.>>

Those are not clarifications. The fact that they were not in 7th (although 1.5
rank lance and 2-rank LTS were in 7.6...) means nothing to me. Those are
Warrior rules. Some apply universally, some apply to certain lists only and in
the case of 2HCT and things like it, we *suspected* we had a universal rule on
our hands and used list rules to be sure before we went final.

In 1999 I obtained a copy of WRG 7.6 and the NASAMW 93 Interp book and used that
as a starting point. It has been Warrior ever since. Sure they are a lot
alike. I thought 7th was the best ancients game of its time and felt privileged
to be part of purchasing it. But after the spring of 1999, I have done nothing
for nor with 7th, nor will I (except to mock those who bring 7th books or charts
to a Warrior event..lol).

<<Even though you provide the clarifications online for free is something I'm
quite thankful for, but I can't wait to purchase a rulebook that has all (or
most) of the clarifications in them. >>

Lordy, Todd, me too. Me too. That effort consumes my 'free time'.

<< I will not buy a rulebook for a friend I am teaching to play until it has
been reprinted with the clarification in them. >>

I think that is extreme, but you are your own person.

<<I had tried to hand write in the changes to the book lists, but it was
overwhelming. I will take Bill Low's suggestion and put a red mark next to the
line that has to be changed and print out the multiple pages of changes to the
lists and somehow organize a notebook with them in it to reference when I make
lists. It is great that you provide them at no cost, but it is still work on
our part to remedy the situation.>>

As it is with every like game. The difference with us is that we are as active
as we can be in fixing the situation. More active than any other game company I
know of (and I am on a first name basis with a couple dozen game company
presidents). This is especially amazing considering the size of our FHE
salaries and the tone of some emails we have to read...lol

<<I am quite happy with the rules and lists - I know that you and the other 4
horsemen have worked very hard to make a better system. Thank you.>>

And who said this job was thankless!?! lol

Thanks, Todd. Just makes me want to get section 6.0 done this weekend that much
more....

J