Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Peace. Got it. Thanks for the long and detailed explanation. I'll be more
careful in the
future.

Jonathan
(My response is short because I assume you want this thread to end)


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> Jonathan, the last thing I want is for anyone to have hard feelings here.
> While I can certainly see why Scott and others got annoyed at your posts, I
am
> also well aware that sometimes our 'internet voice' does not match what we
> intended the listener to hear.
>
> So, in the vein of bridging the gap, let's look at your first mail.
>
> <<List rules allow Mongol light cav and many other special troops of specific
> nationalities to
> fight in 1.5 ranks. Is this meant to simulate some tactical or formational
> innovation like
> some special way these troops fought that allowed them to put more fighting
> power on
> each section of their front line or is just meant to make these troops
> "better"
> in a generic
> but balancing way.>>
> .
> It would have been best to end the mail right here. If you had, the only
> problems would be, first, that you were asking a question that has been asked
> and answered many times and, second, the way your question ends in an option
> we would never take and have stated we would never take.
> I am aware that some folks join the group after a discussion and ask a
> question not realizing it has been discussed to death and I try to be
sensitive to
> that. But I am pretty sure you were a member at the time of Oriental
> Warrior's release. Then you fall prey to our policy of not answering why
questions
> except on a case by case basis. All too often a why question is asked by
> someone who knows our answer already but is looking for a venue to reopen a
> closed issue and beat it to death. Also, if we answer "why is X this way?"
with
> "because we believe Y to be true" we often get "but I think Z is true and I
> think you're wrong and want to debate the point." We don't have time for
> such a debate. If the person has some primary material and references it as
an
> objection to something we've done, we jump on it as a hard look if it is
> something we have not seen before. But also all too often we have seen it
and we
> interpret it differently - as a part of a whole body of information - than
> the objector.
>
> Secondly, and I do not really want to EVER have to say this again, we will
> never develop a rule or list rule solely for the purposes of generic or
> tournament balance. Yes, we actually do find the continued discussion of
such an
> option insulting. Now, I for one do not have feelings to hurt, so insult
> away. But if you choose to, do not also expect me to get right on that
answer
> for you...lol I am also aware that, as our fan base grows, we pick up more
and
> more people from game systems that DO use rules to balance lists for tourney
> play and so this issue may continue with players who join the group after
> today. But for those of you here, all Warrior rules, list or book (not
> counting 14 and 17) are for simulation purposes and not list to list balance
> purposes.
>
> The answer is, our research shows that Mongol cavalry formations and tactics
> at the high resolution level produced combat power at the point of fighting
> more efficiently than many of their historical opponents.
>
> Your mail is also not read in isolation. It may be the only mail you ever
> posted on the subject. To one of us, it may seem like yet again another mail
> on uncosted list rules.
>
> <<Also, I should make clear, this is not a gripe about uncosted list rules.>>
>
> See? Even you realized this might be the reaction...lol Unfortunately for
> your timing, we had already had to deal with a couple of long threads that
> were couched as being not about that subject yet that is exactly what they
were
> about.
>
> << My
> problem is that
> when new players come and say, "How come your Mongol LC get to fight in 1.5
> ranks and
> mine don't?!" I want to have a better answer than, 'Ah . . . 'cause they're
> like
> ah . . . better.">>
>
> Well actually that's a good answer. Its certainly true. And a new player
> needs to know more than that initially because....? lol In any case, what
we
> need to do is find the message numbers for the threads where subjects like
> this have already been discussed and have them available when we get asked
> questions - so we can respond with, please see thread beginning with message
> number X. We just don't have the time and yahoo is NOT the right software to
> support us long term. At some point we will have a forum of our own and
someone
> to track such things. Give us about a year....
>
> <<Finally, this is not just a question for Jon Cleaves but for anyone who
> knows
> the answer or
> has any insight into it.>>
>
> Bill the Greek did fine work on our behalf. Scott was burned out. Please
> be patient with us just before through just after major cons...lol
>
> And from a later mail, you said...
>
>
> <<But I guess I sort of have an answer - Mongols can fight in 1.5 ranks to
> make
> them better.>>
>
> The problem with what happened is that you asked for an answer and said it
> did not have to come from us as far as you were concerned and then made the
> above statement as though it were the official answer. That really made
> something that was a no big deal thread into a that pisses me off thread. If
you
> don't want to, can't wait or can't make a look through the archive for the
> answer from us, please don't state it on our behalf. I *think* if that
hadn't
> happened, we would have come back from Cold Wars and eventually gotten to
> answering when we had time. Instead your statement came off other than you
> probably intended it at the worst time under the worst circumstances for
> understanding.
>
> Peace?
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>