Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/9/2004 20:59:02 Central Standard Time, lsu90@...
writes:
I
think everyone here wants this system to continue, and if you want us
to continue to support the game system you owe us answer on stuff
like shields for Moogs and Galloglaiches, Byzantine trapizitoi, and
dailami troops missing in a list. I will support any decision if its
fair and well thought out even if I don't agree, but if you blow my
concerns off, talk down to me, and threaten to ban me I get irritated.

Wes, your concerns are important and need to be addressed.

First, I have threatened to ban exactly three people. In each case I went
wayyyyy beyond what I felt was the call of duty before I actually warned them.
I have only actually banned one person, who has since rejoined us. Fears that
I possess the 'alternate Kirk zap-mirror' and delight in using it are
unfounded.....lol I will say in defense of my moderator policies that I am on a
LOT
of other groups (and moderate four others) and watch them waste a lot of
people's time with poor moderation. By far the response to my type of
moderation
here has been overwhelmingly positive. There is a fine line between total free
speech and letting every tangent and whine drive a list to non-utility and I
am comfortable that we walk it well here despite the imperfections I am
certainly capable of causing.

Second, I feel that:

"if you want us to continue to support the game system you owe us answer on
stuff like shields for Moogs and Galloglaiches, Byzantine trapizitoi, and
dailami troops missing in a list"

reads as somewhat of a threat, but since I am a plain spoken person myself, I
will assume you're just passionate about your history. Surely we don't 'owe'
anyone anything of the kind. Each of those troop types, and several more,
have been discussed here well past what Scott and I feel is necessary. One
issue is that new members join us and were not party to those discussions, but
that is what the archive is for. And if one does not have time to read the
archive on those issues, one will understand that I don't have time to go over
it
with every new player who missed them.
Additionally, FHE has discussed this internally at great length and I think
we are all of the mindset (and I *certainly* am) that it isn't really
productive to get into it over the historical choices made by the company after
the
initial discussion. Here's my reasoning at least -

1. What if we give you a reason and you don't agree? Do you want to discuss
it further? Do you want to try and convince us of our 'error'? Do you want
to get into an endless discussion of source-countersource? I don't. So,
what's the point?

2. Everyone here was invited every time we started a list book to offer up
their readership/historical services. A few have taken us up on it. Where
were all the trapezetoi experts when the book was being written?...lol

3. Our guidelines are these - if the historical record could be read X or Y,
we allow both, that way the player is free to interpret either way. If the
record reads X but old lists allowed Y, we get ourselves an expert and
soul-search. If we find that Y was just wishful thinking or a
misinterpretation, we
don't allow it. IMO a lot of Hutchby and Clark falls into this category.

4. Since 17.0 allows the player to design, cost out and play an army any way
he likes and since nothing about our army lists forces a player to agree with
our interpretation, and since an event organizer can allow any army from any
source he likes, what this often must be really about is the desire of a
tourney player to have us enter, through our books, a specific troop type he
likes
into events we know that use our lists exclusively, namely NASAMW's. That is
not, however, the purpose of our list books.

I spend 100's of hours on this game. I listen to a lot of stuff that, if not
serious about my duties as a designer, I would not choose to listen to. I do
not make any personal money from this endeavor (to this point at least). But
I do not 'owe' anyone anything I am not already doing and I do not feel FHE
does either. I am truly and personally sorry if this displeases you or anyone
else and I hope you stay with us even if you disagree.

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

This ommission on the Sassanid list does seem curious. Are there two
Sassanid lists in two different boooks?

> Jon,
>
> I just read your response to wes (I think that is who you
responded too). I know you read my question. I am just curious why
the Arab Conquest get ex-sassanid Dailami and there are none in the
Sassanid list. I figure it has to be a mistake. could you at least
give me an answer like you are looking into it and will get back with
me later? That's all I ask.It seems that when I do ask a valid
question that I get ignored which kind of gets my gander up and makes
me turn into squeaky wheel mode.
>
> kelly
>
>
>>

I am not the list guy. The list guy is not on here as often as I am.
Patience please.

Jon


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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Jon,

I just read your response to wes (I think that is who you responded too). I
know you read my question. I am just curious why the Arab Conquest get
ex-sassanid Dailami and there are none in the Sassanid list. I figure it has to
be a mistake. could you at least give me an answer like you are looking into it
and will get back with me later? That's all I ask.It seems that when I do ask a
valid question that I get ignored which kind of gets my gander up and makes me
turn into squeaky wheel mode.

kelly


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster.

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

This ommission on the Sassanid list does seem curious. Are there two
Sassanid lists in two different boooks?

Wanax


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> Jon,
>
> I just read your response to wes (I think that is who you
responded too). I know you read my question. I am just curious why
the Arab Conquest get ex-sassanid Dailami and there are none in the
Sassanid list. I figure it has to be a mistake. could you at least
give me an answer like you are looking into it and will get back with
me later? That's all I ask.It seems that when I do ask a valid
question that I get ignored which kind of gets my gander up and makes
me turn into squeaky wheel mode.
>
> kelly
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Search - Find what you're looking for faster.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[scott holder]

Are there two
Sassanid lists in two different boooks?

>One Sassanid list, one book. This is the one list in IW that was drafted
primarily by someone else. I'll talk with him at Cold Wars about it.

scott

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Sorry Jon,
I'll try to follow your advice. By the way, just so you know, I think
Imperial Warrior is the best yet! Although I've become a big fan of Dark Age
Warrior, I still believe that your team has done a fantastic job on this work.
The fact is that you and Scott are so responsive here on this list that
sometimes I forget to be patient as I must be. My appologies for my seeming
petulance.

kelly

JonCleaves@... wrote:


This ommission on the Sassanid list does seem curious. Are there two
Sassanid lists in two different boooks?

> Jon,
>
> I just read your response to wes (I think that is who you
responded too). I know you read my question. I am just curious why
the Arab Conquest get ex-sassanid Dailami and there are none in the
Sassanid list. I figure it has to be a mistake. could you at least
give me an answer like you are looking into it and will get back with
me later? That's all I ask.It seems that when I do ask a valid
question that I get ignored which kind of gets my gander up and makes
me turn into squeaky wheel mode.
>
> kelly
>
>
>>

I am not the list guy. The list guy is not on here as often as I am.
Patience please.

Jon


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


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
Click Here

---------------------------------
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! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster.

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Thank you Scott. That was all I wanted to hear. Now I will drop it until you can
find out what happened to the missing troops. I must reiterate that there had to
be an honest omission as this list has some very awesome close order infantry. I
just find it hard to accept that they never had troops that were designed to
enter rough or difficult areas in the main list without having to use subject
nations. Hence the Dailami who are referenced in another list as being
ex-sassanids. By the way, I hope Chris Bump is reading this as I would like to
thank you for making a list with Ally generals who are made to perform in a
historical way! This really gives flavor to the army and makes one happy to take
an ally general! Thank you again for your continuing support of the best
miniatures game ever!
kelly

"Holder, Scott" <Scott.Holder@...> wrote:
Are there two
Sassanid lists in two different boooks?

>One Sassanid list, one book. This is the one list in IW that was drafted
primarily by someone else. I'll talk with him at Cold Wars about it.

scott

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
Click Here

---------------------------------
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! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster.

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