Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Doug]

I think ya'll need to agree on what constitutes a "correct" ruling by
an umpire on these complicated combinations of rules and unique
tabletop circumstances:

1) Player A's opinion
2) Player B's opinion
3) A third opinion which doesn't match A or B
4) The opinion which the author would have come to if asked

Given the fact that by the best workings of random chance, the
author's opinion will only be reflected 25% of the time, you need to
answer this corollary:

Should the umpire be expected to consult the author in order to
obtain the author's answer, so that when the umpire is confronted
with the same question at the next convention, he gives the author's
answer? Or should he be expected to give the same answer in order to
support the players expectations of consistancy?

"I'm glad I'm not an Alpha gamer; Alpha gamers have to think too hard"