Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the
amtgard7 group:

What shoudl the scope of our changes
be?

   o Minor changes and loophole closures.
   o Significant changes that we feel are needed
   o Minor changes for 7.0 and start an 8.0 later with major changes


To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amtgard7/surveys?id=660853

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!

Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the
amtgard7 group:

Which position best fits your skills
and you have time to do the job.

   o Project Leader
   o Publishing Editor
   o Revision Editor
   o Publicist
   o Art Director
   o I am not sure I fit any of these but I want to help in someway
   o I would like to be a Kingdom Representivitie
   o I am just here to see if you are serious


To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amtgard7/surveys?id=660849

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!

I spent some time today thinking about what positions we should have
in this group.  I also listed some of the tasks I think they will
need to accomplish.  We can adjust titles, if anyone cares, and
duties later if necessary.  This is to get us started on forming the
core of the group.  Since we are going to want to do this as fast as
possible, we should have people in these positions that have
experience with that type of work.  I am going to create a pole so
that everyone can express which role they fit in the best.

Project Leader
1) Sets the project timeline and goals.
2) Sets the agenda of what to work on when.
3) Keeps the group motivated as much as possible.
4) Makes Final decisions if needed
5) Be ready to deal with BLBOD

Publishing Editor
1) Responsible for Layout of the rulebook
2) Incorporates Artwork into rulebook
3) Works with Art Director for determining what art is needed

Revision Editor
1) Does all of the rewriting and wordsmiths all of the text.
2) Expect this to take lots of time

Publicist
1) Primary contact between this group and the rest of Amtgard.
2) Answers questions as necessary
3) Solicits ideas from anyone wanting to do them.
4) Assist editors as necessary
5) Be ready to deal with BLBOD

Art Director
1) Responsible for obtaining all the artwork for the rulebook.
2) Makes final decisions on which artwork to use after input
         from rest of the members
3) Assist editors as necessary

Kingdom Representivities
1) Communication link between this group and each of the
         kingdoms.

Blackthorn

I agree that we want the support of the kingdoms to ensure that this
project succeeds.  However, I think the best way to get kingdom
support is to get the support of the general Amtgard populace.  I
think this can be accomplished by making regular use of E-sam and a
publicist.  I believe that support of the populace will be the key
to our success.

It is inevitable that at some point we will not agree on something.
Either it will be solved by a dictator or by voting.  Ultimately I
think voting must be done and we should do it one vote per person
allowed to vote.  As we sort out the roles for everyone we can
determine which positions should get to vote.

Unfortunately I disagree with you about anyone joining this list to
try and help.  If it is open we are going to have to deal with
arbitrary flame wars useless messages to read everyday.  All of this
will just delay all of us and make us crazy.  If there is a way to
give just read access to people then that would be awesome.  If this
is not possible then this list will have to be closed and we need to
communicate with the populace through other methods.

Blackthorn

--- In amtgard7@yahoogroups.com, Luke Wyngarde <sir_wyngarde@y...>
wrote:
> So I know someone out there (SNICKER!) subscribes to
> every kingdom list in creation. After Clan comes and
> goes, and we decide to launch our project "offically"
> ... do you think we ought to just put out a mass
> emailing to every group and ask, up front, for support
> and volunteers from every kingdom?
>
> We can not and should not cloak our efforts in
> secrecy. We should not hide what we are doing and
> should be prepared for the inevitable threats from the
> BLBOD/Arimithris.
>
> I mean, if we can get all the other kingdoms to
> support this project, how can the BLBOD pull the plug
> on ALL of us? They can't and they won't. They'll cry
> and bluster, but really, what can they do? If we start
> off with the proper, honest approach, tell them up
> front that we have lost faith in their leadership and
> ability to finish this project, and then step up to
> the plate and DO IT ... then we've already won the
> war.
>
> Looking through the members section, after only two
> days, we have folks from the Wetlands, Celestial
> Kingdom, Iron Mountains, Neverwinter, Mystic Seas,
> Silver Rains and Dragonspine. That's freaking awesome.
> I know we can get the Emerald Hills to back us, and
> probably Golden Plains as well ... That's the Quorum
> RIGHT THERE!!!! If we can get "official backing" from
> these kingdoms, regardless of the others, then we are
> in serious business.
>
> One thing we need to figure out really quickly, is how
> we plan to hold votes or if we plan to hold votes at
> all. If we *do* decide to have votes, then is it
> "Senate Style" where everyone gets the same number of
> votes, or "House of Representatives Style" where we
> get votes based on populace/participation? I can see
> both sides of this, but would have to recommend one or
> two votes each, maximum, just to keep the numbers
> managable. Of course, anyone who wants can join the
> list and the discussions to try and help us see "their
> way" ... but one kingdom, one vote sounds about right
> to me.
>
> Luke

I will be attending my first PacWar this year.

--- In amtgard7@yahoogroups.com, "Sir Lukor the Lush"
<sirlukor@h...> wrote:
> I would like to see a written set of Court Rules added to the
rulebook..
> personally.
>
> Perhaps we could have an online IRC chat or something to
brainstorm?  Also,
> anyone coming up to PacWar in September, we can talk about it then
too.
>
> -=Lukor
>
>
>
> >From: "Luke" <sir_wyngarde@y...>
> >Reply-To: amtgard7@yahoogroups.com
> >To: amtgard7@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: [amtgard7] In the words of Axel Rose ...
> >Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 16:16:14 -0000
> >
> >Awwww ... where do we go now?
> >
> >Okay gang, yes I can covert the 6.12 Rules into text with relative
> >ease. I've already done the Monsters Section when I was helping
> >with the Dor 8 Project. It was a *little* tricky in parts, but I
could
> >knock it out in short order ... and I'll start on it directly and
post it
> >to the Files section when I'm done.
> >
> >Yes, I think 6.12 is where we should start. It's already been seen
> >and it's not *that* broken to begin with, aside from the obvious
> >cluster-fuck given to verbal spells. Even the AC/SiM hybrid isn't
> >*that bad* when you think about it ...
> >
> >One thing we need to decide upon, as a multi-kingdom group, is
> >the direction we want Amtgard to take under our watch. Do you
> >all *really* want to see the game degenerate into an all-physical
> >sport, or do we want to preserve the magic and wonder of class
> >battles? Do we want to down-play magic in exchange for
> >playing-up archery and melee? I, for one, would just as soon see
> >the magic aspect maintain it's current levels of power and
> >influence in battlegames. Magic is why I joined Amtgard, and why
> >I still take the field today.
> >
> >Another thing we can do is to ADD REAL RULES for
> >Battlegaming. 6.12x begins this process by adding some rules
> >for "water" but falls totally flat after that. Would a section on
how
> >to reeve and run a battlegame hurt the Rulebook? Think about
> >the Dungeon Master's Guide for D&D ... would most new DM's
> >have a chance in hell of being any good without it? By putting in
> >Water, Lava, Darkness, Light Sources and so on, we set the
> >stage for people to run more than just Mutual Annihilation Battles
> >and ditches. Come to think of it, maybe we should put in the
> >"Rules" for Ditching and Militia Battles, too, and maybe a sample
> >battlegame or two? I know this would add a few pages, but it's
> >not like these are actual RULES ADDITIONS, just spelling out
> >how we do things in different types of games ...
> >
> >Anyhow, that all I got for now. Have fun at Clan, be safe, see you
> >all soon.
> >
> >Luke
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

I agree that we need to get some structure to this project.  We
should first focus on the core group.  Once we have the core group
then we can decide how to deal with the Kingdom reps if at all.

At some point we will need to limit who is in the Yahoo group.  The
more people we have working on this project the longer it will take
to complete.  Since we will want to keep communication with the rest
of Amtgard open we should use E-Sam.  We can create polls there with
ideas that we want lots of quick feedback on.  We may even want to
consider using this in place of Kingdom reps.

--- In amtgard7@yahoogroups.com, "Sir Lukor the Lush"
<sirlukor@h...> wrote:
> I would suggest that this project work indipendantly of 6.1
Take a
> straight 6.0 edition rulebook and go from there.  Plagurizing the
work from
> your competition will only cause problems in the end.
>
> On a side, note, I have a BUNCH of info already done, and I know
Luke, and
> others do as well.  With all that pre-work done, I think we could
have a
> first draft done in 1-3 months.
>
> It all depends on how much time the editors put into.
>
> First things first, I think we need to get some structure to this
project, a
> leader, editors, and land reps from just about any land out
there.  (it
> doesnt mean they will get any voting power, etc but they should be
here to
> give feedback, etc)...
>
> Make sense?
>
> -=Lukor
>
> Rulebook Machine
> 6.1 Rep
> Wrote my own damn book too
>
>
>
> >From: "blackthorn134" <blackthorn134@y...>
> >Reply-To: amtgard7@yahoogroups.com
> >To: amtgard7@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: [amtgard7] Re: Plan of attack part II
> >Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 06:24:47 -0000
> >
> >It is good to see that there are others so fed up with the lack of
> >progress on the new rulebook and want to do something.  I am sure
> >most of you have already read my challenge to the current rulebook
> >committee.  Based on things I have read I am not expecting them to
> >rise to this challenge, but who knows.  I am ready to start
working
> >on a new rulebook either in a group or alone if necessary.
However,
> >due to all the work they have done I still believe they should
have
> >a chance to resurrect their project.
> >
> >I chose to give them one month to give me time to develop a
> >schedule.  With this group just forming we should use this month
to
> >determine how we are going to function together and who is going
to
> >lead this project.  After this we can start working on the core of
> >the rulebook.
> >
> >I think a rulebook can be done in 6-12 months depending on the
> >amount of changes we want to do.
> >
> >Blackthorn
> >
> >--- In amtgard7@yahoogroups.com, "medryndrkjstr"
<jprentiss05@l...>
> >wrote:
> > > I figure that we should wait until after clan (read this coming
> >monday) before we get
> > > to heavily started.  events at clan may shed light on what we
> >choose to do, and that
> > > will give the group a chance to get a few more interested
> >members.  From there we
> > > choose how to organize this and then get to work.  Let me know
if
> >you guys have any
> > > ideas over the weekend etc.
> > >
> > > Med
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

Luke,

I have a boatload of processes, etc that I came up with for my earlier
project.  Ill upload everything very soon to this list.  Feel free to use it
as a template, etc..  My project had timelines, letters to Moanrchs, etc..
Even though it wasnt my intention at the time, I got the attention of
Aramithris with my project.   Lets keep brainstorming over Clan weekend, and
we can start getting down to buisness next week.

-=Lukor



>From: Luke Wyngarde <sir_wyngarde@...>
>Reply-To: amtgard7@yahoogroups.com
>To: amtgard7@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [amtgard7] Interkingdom Amtgard 7 Representation
>Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 14:19:34 -0700 (PDT)
>
>So I know someone out there (SNICKER!) subscribes to
>every kingdom list in creation. After Clan comes and
>goes, and we decide to launch our project "offically"
>... do you think we ought to just put out a mass
>emailing to every group and ask, up front, for support
>and volunteers from every kingdom?
>
>We can not and should not cloak our efforts in
>secrecy. We should not hide what we are doing and
>should be prepared for the inevitable threats from the
>BLBOD/Arimithris.
>
>I mean, if we can get all the other kingdoms to
>support this project, how can the BLBOD pull the plug
>on ALL of us? They can't and they won't. They'll cry
>and bluster, but really, what can they do? If we start
>off with the proper, honest approach, tell them up
>front that we have lost faith in their leadership and
>ability to finish this project, and then step up to
>the plate and DO IT ... then we've already won the
>war.
>
>Looking through the members section, after only two
>days, we have folks from the Wetlands, Celestial
>Kingdom, Iron Mountains, Neverwinter, Mystic Seas,
>Silver Rains and Dragonspine. That's freaking awesome.
>I know we can get the Emerald Hills to back us, and
>probably Golden Plains as well ... That's the Quorum
>RIGHT THERE!!!! If we can get "official backing" from
>these kingdoms, regardless of the others, then we are
>in serious business.
>
>One thing we need to figure out really quickly, is how
>we plan to hold votes or if we plan to hold votes at
>all. If we *do* decide to have votes, then is it
>"Senate Style" where everyone gets the same number of
>votes, or "House of Representatives Style" where we
>get votes based on populace/participation? I can see
>both sides of this, but would have to recommend one or
>two votes each, maximum, just to keep the numbers
>managable. Of course, anyone who wants can join the
>list and the discussions to try and help us see "their
>way" ... but one kingdom, one vote sounds about right
>to me.
>
>Luke

_________________________________________________________________
Discover the best of the best at MSN Luxury Living. http://lexus.msn.com/

So I know someone out there (SNICKER!) subscribes to
every kingdom list in creation. After Clan comes and
goes, and we decide to launch our project "offically"
... do you think we ought to just put out a mass
emailing to every group and ask, up front, for support
and volunteers from every kingdom?

We can not and should not cloak our efforts in
secrecy. We should not hide what we are doing and
should be prepared for the inevitable threats from the
BLBOD/Arimithris.

I mean, if we can get all the other kingdoms to
support this project, how can the BLBOD pull the plug
on ALL of us? They can't and they won't. They'll cry
and bluster, but really, what can they do? If we start
off with the proper, honest approach, tell them up
front that we have lost faith in their leadership and
ability to finish this project, and then step up to
the plate and DO IT ... then we've already won the
war.

Looking through the members section, after only two
days, we have folks from the Wetlands, Celestial
Kingdom, Iron Mountains, Neverwinter, Mystic Seas,
Silver Rains and Dragonspine. That's freaking awesome.
I know we can get the Emerald Hills to back us, and
probably Golden Plains as well ... That's the Quorum
RIGHT THERE!!!! If we can get "official backing" from
these kingdoms, regardless of the others, then we are
in serious business.

One thing we need to figure out really quickly, is how
we plan to hold votes or if we plan to hold votes at
all. If we *do* decide to have votes, then is it
"Senate Style" where everyone gets the same number of
votes, or "House of Representatives Style" where we
get votes based on populace/participation? I can see
both sides of this, but would have to recommend one or
two votes each, maximum, just to keep the numbers
managable. Of course, anyone who wants can join the
list and the discussions to try and help us see "their
way" ... but one kingdom, one vote sounds about right
to me.

Luke

Some good points there.. I say we proceed as follows:

1) Setup a structure, and timeline.
2) Upload all Current Projects to the Files Section of this group for
review/inclusion.
3) Get reps out of as many lands as possible to speak about this at their
park.
4) Get as many Kingdoms involved now, so that the Monarchs who have to vote
on the project have an avenue to discuss issues.

Ill upload a boatload of work when I get home today.

-=Lukor



>From: Luke Wyngarde <sir_wyngarde@...>
>Reply-To: amtgard7@yahoogroups.com
>To: amtgard7@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RE: [amtgard7] Re: Plan of attack part II
>Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 12:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
>
>They aren't the "competition" ... if we were competing
>then they already lost about a year ago...
>
>Seriously, we can't get in any more "trouble" by using
>6.12x than we can using 6.0 ... If someone wants to be
>a dickhead and not let us use their words, then we'll
>worry about starting over. Til then, I *really* think
>6.12 is the best Jump Street for this rebellion.
>
>My Reasons:
>
>1. It already has had input from several kingdoms,
>making it a truly IK project even if only three or
>four of us finish it.
>
>2. Everyone has already seen it, thus making them more
>likely to accept it in the future.
>
>3. It's already been playtested to death, thus the
>loopholes are easy to spot.
>
>4. It's not broken, so let's not fix it.
>
>5. Some of it is *really good* stuff and *needs* to be
>in there (Phocion's armor system, the better Bard,
>Schools of Magic, etc.)
>
>Finally, I think we should keep any wholesale
>alterations to an ABSOLUTE MINIMUM. I'm talking mostly
>about things like "all bows do the same damage" and
>shit like that. The less we change, the more likely we
>are to get accepted. I *understand* all the arguments,
>I even agree with some of them ... but for the sake of
>a successful project, let's not go there if we can
>avoid it.
>
>Everyone involved in this project needs to understand,
>up front, we are not doing this to fix our pet
>classes. We are not doing this for popularity,
>notoriety, awards or recognition. We are not doing
>this to snub the 6.1 Committee or the BLBOD or even
>Arimithris.
>
>We are doing this because it NEEDS to be done and
>obviously the officially appointed representatives and
>leaders can't (or won't) do it.
>
>Luke
>
>
>
>--- Sir Lukor the Lush <sirlukor@...> wrote:
>
> > I would suggest that this project work indipendantly
> > of 6.1    Take a
> > straight 6.0 edition rulebook and go from there.
> > Plagurizing the work from
> > your competition will only cause problems in the
> > end.
>

_________________________________________________________________
Planning a family vacation? Check out the MSN Family Travel guide!
http://dollar.msn.com

They aren't the "competition" ... if we were competing
then they already lost about a year ago...

Seriously, we can't get in any more "trouble" by using
6.12x than we can using 6.0 ... If someone wants to be
a dickhead and not let us use their words, then we'll
worry about starting over. Til then, I *really* think
6.12 is the best Jump Street for this rebellion.

My Reasons:

1. It already has had input from several kingdoms,
making it a truly IK project even if only three or
four of us finish it.

2. Everyone has already seen it, thus making them more
likely to accept it in the future.

3. It's already been playtested to death, thus the
loopholes are easy to spot.

4. It's not broken, so let's not fix it.

5. Some of it is *really good* stuff and *needs* to be
in there (Phocion's armor system, the better Bard,
Schools of Magic, etc.)

Finally, I think we should keep any wholesale
alterations to an ABSOLUTE MINIMUM. I'm talking mostly
about things like "all bows do the same damage" and
shit like that. The less we change, the more likely we
are to get accepted. I *understand* all the arguments,
I even agree with some of them ... but for the sake of
a successful project, let's not go there if we can
avoid it.

Everyone involved in this project needs to understand,
up front, we are not doing this to fix our pet
classes. We are not doing this for popularity,
notoriety, awards or recognition. We are not doing
this to snub the 6.1 Committee or the BLBOD or even
Arimithris.

We are doing this because it NEEDS to be done and
obviously the officially appointed representatives and
leaders can't (or won't) do it.

Luke



--- Sir Lukor the Lush <sirlukor@...> wrote:

> I would suggest that this project work indipendantly
> of 6.1    Take a
> straight 6.0 edition rulebook and go from there.
> Plagurizing the work from
> your competition will only cause problems in the
> end.

I would like to see a written set of Court Rules added to the rulebook..
personally.

Perhaps we could have an online IRC chat or something to brainstorm?  Also,
anyone coming up to PacWar in September, we can talk about it then too.

-=Lukor



>From: "Luke" <sir_wyngarde@...>
>Reply-To: amtgard7@yahoogroups.com
>To: amtgard7@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [amtgard7] In the words of Axel Rose ...
>Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 16:16:14 -0000
>
>Awwww ... where do we go now?
>
>Okay gang, yes I can covert the 6.12 Rules into text with relative
>ease. I've already done the Monsters Section when I was helping
>with the Dor 8 Project. It was a *little* tricky in parts, but I could
>knock it out in short order ... and I'll start on it directly and post it
>to the Files section when I'm done.
>
>Yes, I think 6.12 is where we should start. It's already been seen
>and it's not *that* broken to begin with, aside from the obvious
>cluster-fuck given to verbal spells. Even the AC/SiM hybrid isn't
>*that bad* when you think about it ...
>
>One thing we need to decide upon, as a multi-kingdom group, is
>the direction we want Amtgard to take under our watch. Do you
>all *really* want to see the game degenerate into an all-physical
>sport, or do we want to preserve the magic and wonder of class
>battles? Do we want to down-play magic in exchange for
>playing-up archery and melee? I, for one, would just as soon see
>the magic aspect maintain it's current levels of power and
>influence in battlegames. Magic is why I joined Amtgard, and why
>I still take the field today.
>
>Another thing we can do is to ADD REAL RULES for
>Battlegaming. 6.12x begins this process by adding some rules
>for "water" but falls totally flat after that. Would a section on how
>to reeve and run a battlegame hurt the Rulebook? Think about
>the Dungeon Master's Guide for D&D ... would most new DM's
>have a chance in hell of being any good without it? By putting in
>Water, Lava, Darkness, Light Sources and so on, we set the
>stage for people to run more than just Mutual Annihilation Battles
>and ditches. Come to think of it, maybe we should put in the
>"Rules" for Ditching and Militia Battles, too, and maybe a sample
>battlegame or two? I know this would add a few pages, but it's
>not like these are actual RULES ADDITIONS, just spelling out
>how we do things in different types of games ...
>
>Anyhow, that all I got for now. Have fun at Clan, be safe, see you
>all soon.
>
>Luke
>
>
>
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

I would suggest that this project work indipendantly of 6.1    Take a
straight 6.0 edition rulebook and go from there.  Plagurizing the work from
your competition will only cause problems in the end.

On a side, note, I have a BUNCH of info already done, and I know Luke, and
others do as well.  With all that pre-work done, I think we could have a
first draft done in 1-3 months.

It all depends on how much time the editors put into.

First things first, I think we need to get some structure to this project, a
leader, editors, and land reps from just about any land out there.  (it
doesnt mean they will get any voting power, etc but they should be here to
give feedback, etc)...

Make sense?

-=Lukor

Rulebook Machine
6.1 Rep
Wrote my own damn book too



>From: "blackthorn134" <blackthorn134@...>
>Reply-To: amtgard7@yahoogroups.com
>To: amtgard7@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [amtgard7] Re: Plan of attack part II
>Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 06:24:47 -0000
>
>It is good to see that there are others so fed up with the lack of
>progress on the new rulebook and want to do something.  I am sure
>most of you have already read my challenge to the current rulebook
>committee.  Based on things I have read I am not expecting them to
>rise to this challenge, but who knows.  I am ready to start working
>on a new rulebook either in a group or alone if necessary.  However,
>due to all the work they have done I still believe they should have
>a chance to resurrect their project.
>
>I chose to give them one month to give me time to develop a
>schedule.  With this group just forming we should use this month to
>determine how we are going to function together and who is going to
>lead this project.  After this we can start working on the core of
>the rulebook.
>
>I think a rulebook can be done in 6-12 months depending on the
>amount of changes we want to do.
>
>Blackthorn
>
>--- In amtgard7@yahoogroups.com, "medryndrkjstr" <jprentiss05@l...>
>wrote:
> > I figure that we should wait until after clan (read this coming
>monday) before we get
> > to heavily started.  events at clan may shed light on what we
>choose to do, and that
> > will give the group a chance to get a few more interested
>members.  From there we
> > choose how to organize this and then get to work.  Let me know if
>you guys have any
> > ideas over the weekend etc.
> >
> > Med
>

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

Awwww ... where do we go now?

Okay gang, yes I can covert the 6.12 Rules into text with relative
ease. I've already done the Monsters Section when I was helping
with the Dor 8 Project. It was a *little* tricky in parts, but I could
knock it out in short order ... and I'll start on it directly and post it
to the Files section when I'm done.

Yes, I think 6.12 is where we should start. It's already been seen
and it's not *that* broken to begin with, aside from the obvious
cluster-fuck given to verbal spells. Even the AC/SiM hybrid isn't
*that bad* when you think about it ...

One thing we need to decide upon, as a multi-kingdom group, is
the direction we want Amtgard to take under our watch. Do you
all *really* want to see the game degenerate into an all-physical
sport, or do we want to preserve the magic and wonder of class
battles? Do we want to down-play magic in exchange for
playing-up archery and melee? I, for one, would just as soon see
the magic aspect maintain it's current levels of power and
influence in battlegames. Magic is why I joined Amtgard, and why
I still take the field today.

Another thing we can do is to ADD REAL RULES for
Battlegaming. 6.12x begins this process by adding some rules
for "water" but falls totally flat after that. Would a section on how
to reeve and run a battlegame hurt the Rulebook? Think about
the Dungeon Master's Guide for D&D ... would most new DM's
have a chance in hell of being any good without it? By putting in
Water, Lava, Darkness, Light Sources and so on, we set the
stage for people to run more than just Mutual Annihilation Battles
and ditches. Come to think of it, maybe we should put in the
"Rules" for Ditching and Militia Battles, too, and maybe a sample
battlegame or two? I know this would add a few pages, but it's
not like these are actual RULES ADDITIONS, just spelling out
how we do things in different types of games ...

Anyhow, that all I got for now. Have fun at Clan, be safe, see you
all soon.

Luke

Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the
amtgard7 group:

Which version of the rulebook should
we start with?

   o 6.0
   o 6.12
   o Start from Scratch
   o Other (explain)


To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amtgard7/surveys?id=659205

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!

It is good to see that there are others so fed up with the lack of
progress on the new rulebook and want to do something.  I am sure
most of you have already read my challenge to the current rulebook
committee.  Based on things I have read I am not expecting them to
rise to this challenge, but who knows.  I am ready to start working
on a new rulebook either in a group or alone if necessary.  However,
due to all the work they have done I still believe they should have
a chance to resurrect their project.

I chose to give them one month to give me time to develop a
schedule.  With this group just forming we should use this month to
determine how we are going to function together and who is going to
lead this project.  After this we can start working on the core of
the rulebook.

I think a rulebook can be done in 6-12 months depending on the
amount of changes we want to do.

Blackthorn

--- In amtgard7@yahoogroups.com, "medryndrkjstr" <jprentiss05@l...>
wrote:
> I figure that we should wait until after clan (read this coming
monday) before we get
> to heavily started.  events at clan may shed light on what we
choose to do, and that
> will give the group a chance to get a few more interested
members.  From there we
> choose how to organize this and then get to work.  Let me know if
you guys have any
> ideas over the weekend etc.
>
> Med

I figure that we should wait until after clan (read this coming monday) before
we get
to heavily started.  events at clan may shed light on what we choose to do, and
that
will give the group a chance to get a few more interested members.  From there
we
choose how to organize this and then get to work.  Let me know if you guys have
any
ideas over the weekend etc.

Med

actually i don't see that as an issue. that just means that theier legal.

in the system i proposed they wouldn't have a chance of actually becoming
longbows when a longer string is added to em, something that actually
makes em LESS powerful.

so add a longer string all you want in order to reduce draw weight.

however, i think we need to put this discussion on hold.  bring it up when
we get to the point where we are defining bows.  in the mean times lets
set to organization and progressing through from the top.

Rewth

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 fitzcaliston@... wrote:

> I really like that Idea rewth, though I see one problem.
>
> We've got a few 45lb bows here that have been made Amtlegal by purchasing a
string 1 inch longer than it calls for. (When measured in the archery shop each
of the 3 bows in use measure right between 34-34.5lbs at a 28 inch draw, and as
all the arrows on our field are made at or bellow the 28 inch length they've
been allowed).
>
> but that's a whole different ball of wax.
>
> Fitz
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

i agree with avalon and oznog here, there is noshread of evidence and quite
a large amount to the contrary, that states size over structure is of true
importance.  who is really loosing if the 6th level archer on your field
decides to use a 15lbs test plastic short bow and having it deal max points?
he still get the effects and you get to watch arrows casually strike the
ground nowhere near you. it doesn't forse a user to dish out huge quantities
of money nor does it penalize those that do that reap the benefits of having
more accurate and effective equiptment.


i think it is necessary to stick with the currect 6.1 agenda, as it hasn't
proven it self impotent.just the delivery and intensity of the pressent
workers

>Personally, I think bow length should go away completely. This is hold over
>from the idea that the longer, English and Welsh bows were in some way
>superior to the shorter bows used in the middle east. This is, in fact,
>inaccurate. The short, heavily recurved short bows used by the mongols, the
>Magyars, and the Byzantines were actually superior in a lot of ways.
>
>If simplicity is what you are after, make it simple. If you are a
>barbarian,
>assassin or druid, your bow is always a short bow. If you are an archer,
>your bow is always a "longbow". Since sashes are required for each class
>(assuming that you are staying with that idea), it will be really easy to
>figure out. The only exception will be Scouts because you won't know
>whether
>they are sixth level or not.
>
>The other thing this eliminates is the idiots that tell people things like
>-
>"Your bow is over 60". You can't use it to play barbarian."
>
>Avalon

_________________________________________________________________
Overwhelmed by debt? Find out how to ‘Dig Yourself Out of Debt’ from MSN
Money. http://special.msn.com/money/0407debt.armx

I really like that Idea rewth, though I see one problem.

We've got a few 45lb bows here that have been made Amtlegal by purchasing a
string 1 inch longer than it calls for. (When measured in the archery shop each
of the 3 bows in use measure right between 34-34.5lbs at a 28 inch draw, and as
all the arrows on our field are made at or bellow the 28 inch length they've
been allowed).

but that's a whole different ball of wax.

Fitz

A few things.

Adobe Acrobat can edit the current form of 6.1  Adobe In-Design can
import it for full editing with graphics, etc.

Also, I have a boat load of verbiage from my other project that ill
submit for review.  Keep me in the loop.. ive been working on
Rulebook projects for years, and would love to help out with another.

-=Lukor

I tend to agree on taking this one step at a time. If we use the 6.1 rulebook to
start our efforts that makes things easier.  I also think we need to decide how
this process is going to work in terms of reaching a consensus etc.  So it seems
to me we need to start with how we are going to organize ourselves, and then
from there what needs to be fixed with the current proposals organization.  On
e-sam I mentioned leaving lay-out largely to Luke...and I don't think anyone is
gonna have a problem with that...again I also think we need an editor in chief
to manage things, but am open to other ideas, as well as to having someone other
than me do it if that is what we decide to do.  I don't want this to be seen as
a tyranny or dictatorship but some leadership will be necessary so we can set
deadlines etc.  anyone have suggestions?


Med

-----Original Message-----
From: Glenalth [mailto:glenalth@...]
Sent: Wed 7/28/2004 10:17 AM
To: amtgard7@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [amtgard7] Plan of Attack

It would probably be a good idea to tackle one section of the rulebook
at a time. Otherwise the conversation here is going to get very chaotic,
very quickly.

I would suggest that basic organization of the book should come first
(even though that's a bit odd) since there will be a lot of people
submitting input on every detail. Once that's in place we can simply
work through it sequentially until we hit the end of the book.

I'm off to Clan now. Hope to see people there :)

  - Glenalth
glenalth@...
AIM: GlenalthW
Y!M: Glenalth
ICQ: 35338583
MSN: chris.shattuck@...
PHN: 505 474-9107





Yahoo! Groups Links

It would probably be a good idea to tackle one section of the rulebook
at a time. Otherwise the conversation here is going to get very chaotic,
very quickly.

I would suggest that basic organization of the book should come first
(even though that's a bit odd) since there will be a lot of people
submitting input on every detail. Once that's in place we can simply
work through it sequentially until we hit the end of the book.

I'm off to Clan now. Hope to see people there :)

  - Glenalth
glenalth@...
AIM: GlenalthW
Y!M: Glenalth
ICQ: 35338583
MSN: chris.shattuck@...
PHN: 505 474-9107

I have been poking at this for the last few weeks. It's just a basic
outline of a revision I was working on showing where elements from the
6.0 rulebook would fall. When I get back from Clan I can clarify some of
this since a lot of it is notes to myself that don't make sense
otherwise.

The Word version is much easier to read.

- Glenalth

=-=-=-=-=-=--==-=--=-=--==-=-=--=-=-=
Outline of Proposed Rulebook
This is only a simple revision and reorganization to close loopholes and
make the rules easier to understand.

1. Introduction to Amtgard
1.1. What we do
1.1.1. Weekly Meetings
1.1.2. Feasts
1.1.3. Camping Events
1.2. Important Publications
1.2.1. Corpora
1.2.2. Contract
1.2.3. Monster Book
1.2.4. The Internet
2. Rules of Combat
2.1. Combat Introduction
2.1.1. Age requirement
2.1.2. Membership form / waiver
2.2. Restrictions and Safety
2.2.1. Checking equipment
2.2.2. Swinging too Hard and "Baseball" swings
2.2.3. Grappling and Physical Contact
2.2.4. Illegal Shots and Intent to Injure
2.2.5. Groin and other sensitive areas
2.3. Wounds and Death
2.3.1. Legal Shots
2.3.1.1. Shot Description
2.3.1.1.1. Stop or deflect
2.3.1.1.2. Nicks and grazes
2.3.1.1.3. Garb, equipment, sheathed weapons, etc. can not block
shots
2.3.1.1.3.1. In some cases, this equipment is destroyed as well
2.3.1.1.4. Weapons that bend or whip
2.3.1.2. Unarmored
2.3.1.2.1. Arm
2.3.1.2.2. Leg
2.3.1.2.3. Torso
2.3.1.3. Armored Locations
2.3.2. Illegal Shots
2.3.2.1. Hand on melee weapon
2.3.2.1.1. For all purposes, counts as a hit to the weapon
2.3.2.2. Foot on ground
2.3.2.3. Head and neck above collar bone
2.3.2.3.1. Does not count
2.3.3. Shot Diagram
2.4. Armor
2.4.1. Intro
2.4.2. Normal Armor
2.4.2.1. Safety Issues
2.4.2.1.1. Checking equipment with Champion
2.4.2.1.2. No dangerous edges.
2.4.2.2. Rating
2.4.2.2.1. Generally rated by ______
2.4.2.2.2. Averaged per location
2.4.2.2.3. Stacking armor
2.4.2.2.4. Normal maximum of 6 points per location
2.4.2.2.5. Sample ratings
2.4.2.2.5.1. Padded
2.4.2.2.5.2. Quilted
2.4.2.2.5.3. Thin Leather
2.4.2.2.5.4. Thick Leather
2.4.2.2.5.5. Mail
2.4.2.2.5.6. Augmented mail, double mail
2.4.2.2.5.7. Brigandine, lamellar
2.4.2.2.5.8. Ribbed Plate
2.4.2.2.5.9. Modifiers
2.4.2.2.5.9.1. Hardened Leather
2.4.2.2.5.9.2. Studs, Rings
2.4.2.2.5.9.3. Metal Scales
2.4.2.2.5.9.4. non-authentic materials
2.4.2.2.5.9.5. poor workmanship
2.4.2.2.5.9.6. shoddy or artificial appearance
2.4.3. Other Armor
2.4.3.1. Natural Armor
2.4.3.2. Magic Armor
2.4.3.3. Invulnerability
2.5. Weapons
2.5.1. Weapon Padding
2.5.1.1. Blade / Point
2.5.1.1.1. Flatblade and Single Edge Weapons
2.5.1.2. Shaft or Courtesy Padding
2.5.1.3. Pommels
2.5.2. Melee
2.5.2.1. Daggers
2.5.2.2. Short weapons
2.5.2.3. Long Weapons
2.5.2.4. Polearms
2.5.2.4.1. Minimum 1' striking edge
2.5.2.5. Flails
2.5.2.5.1. Chain does not count
2.5.2.6. 2 handed "berserker"
2.5.3. Throwing
2.5.3.1. Daggers, Axes, Darts and other similar weapons
2.5.3.1.1. No melee
2.5.3.2. Barbarian Rocks
2.5.3.2.1. No melee
2.5.3.3. Javelins
2.5.4. Bows
2.5.4.1. Bow Restrictions
2.5.4.1.1. 35# @ 28"
2.5.4.1.2. No compound bows
2.5.4.1.3. Half draw at close range
2.5.4.1.4. Broken or mended arrows can not be used
2.5.4.1.5. Wooden arrows must be taped
2.5.4.1.6. Bows and arrows may never be used as a melee or throwing
weapon
2.5.4.1.7. Bows hit by a weapon are destroyed
2.5.4.2. Short bow
2.5.4.2.1. 2 pts to armor
2.5.4.2.2. bow under 5'
2.5.4.3. Longbow
2.5.4.3.1. 4 pts to armor
2.5.4.3.2. 5' bow length minimum
2.5.4.4. Crossbow
2.5.4.4.1. 4 pts to armor
2.5.5. Magical
2.5.5.1. Enchanted
2.5.5.2. Relics
2.5.6. Siege
2.5.6.1. Siege weapons may be destroyed by 10 hits from a
slashing weapon, 2 flame arrows, 1 hit from another siege weapon, or by
magic.
2.5.6.2. Projectile
2.5.6.3. Melee/Wielded
2.5.7. Shields
2.5.7.1. Shield Padding
2.5.7.1.1. As safe as the weapons
2.5.7.2. Small
2.5.7.2.1. Bucklers
2.5.7.3. Medium
2.5.7.4. Large
2.5.7.5. Madu
3. Creating A Character
3.1. Persona Guidelines
3.1.1. Naming conventions
3.2. Heraldry
3.3. Households
3.4. Companies
4. Normal Character Classes
4.1. Playing a class
4.1.1. Levels
4.1.2. Credits (1 per day)
4.1.3. Garb and "The Peasant Rule"
4.1.4. Class Abilities
4.2. Archer
4.2.1. Intro
4.2.1.1. Archers are specialists in the use of bows and gain the
ability to deal extra damage with their arrows and bolts as they
progress.
4.2.2. Requirements
4.2.2.1. Must carry a bow
4.2.3. Abilities
4.2.3.1. 1st level
4.2.3.1.1. May use any type of bow
4.2.3.1.2. May wear up to 3 points of normal armor
4.2.3.1.3. May use a single non-hinged melee weapon that is under
4ft in length
4.2.3.1.4. Gains the "Repair" spell once per life. Only usable on
the Archers own bow and is considered non-magical.
4.2.3.2. 2nd level
4.2.3.2.1. One reusable "Flame Arrow".
Ignite by saying "flame arrow" five times and tie a red enchantment
ribbon to the arrow. Stays lit for 2 minutes. If a flame arrow hits a
shield, the face of the shield must be tapped on the ground 5 times in 5
seconds or be destroyed.
4.2.3.2.2. One reusable "Stun Arrow".
Tie a grey enchantment ribbon to the arrow. This arrow can only be used
to subdue opponents. (See Taking Prisoners, pg ???)
4.2.3.3. 3rd level
4.2.3.3.1. +1 damage to all arrows fired by the Archer.
4.2.3.4. 4th level
4.2.3.4.1. +1 life
4.2.3.4.2. One reusable "Armor Piercing Arrow".
Tie a blue enchantment ribbon to the arrow. This arrow is now an 8pt
arrow when fired.
4.2.3.5. 5th level
4.2.3.5.1. May use a small shield
4.2.3.6. 6th level
4.2.3.6.1. One reusable "Penetration Arrow".
Tie a white enchantment ribbon to the arrow. This arrow is now an 8pt
arrow and will destroy shields.
4.3. Assassin
4.3.1. Intro
4.3.2. Requirements
4.3.3. Abilities
4.4. Barbarian
4.4.1. Intro
4.4.2. Requirements
4.4.3. Abilities
4.5. Bard
4.5.1. Intro
4.5.2. Requirements
4.5.3. Magic Reference
4.5.3.1. Instrument
4.5.4. Abilities
4.6. Druid
4.6.1. Intro
4.6.2. Requirements
4.6.3. Magic Reference
4.6.3.1. Spell Book
4.6.3.2. Left Handed
4.6.4. Abilities
4.7. Healer
4.7.1. Intro
4.7.2. REquirements
4.7.3. Magic Reference
4.7.3.1. Spell Book
4.7.3.2. The Heal Spell
4.7.4. Abilities
4.8. Monk
4.8.1. Intro
4.8.2. Requirements
4.8.3. Abilities
4.9. Scout
4.9.1. Intro
4.9.2. Requirements
4.9.3. Abilities
4.10. Warrior
4.10.1. Intro
4.10.2. Requirements
4.10.3. Abilities
4.11. Wizard
4.11.1. Intro
4.11.2. Requirements
4.11.3. Magic Reference
4.11.3.1. Spell Book
4.11.3.2. Wand
4.11.3.3. Left Handed
4.11.4. Abilities
5. Special Classes
5.1. Paladin
5.1.1. Intro
5.1.2. Requirements
5.1.3. Abilities
5.2. Anti-Paladin
5.2.1. Intro
5.2.2. Requirements
5.2.3. Abilities
5.3. Raider / Newbie
5.3.1. Intro
5.3.2. Requirements
5.3.3. Abilities
5.4. Reeve
5.4.1. Intro
5.4.2. Requirements
5.4.3. Duties
5.5. Page
5.5.1. Intro
5.6. Monster
5.6.1. Intro
5.6.2. Permissions for playing Monsters
6. Standard Battlegame Rules
6.1. Introduction
6.2. Starting a game
6.2.1. Choosing teams
6.2.1.1. Magic users
6.2.1.2. Bow users
6.2.2. Check your weapons
6.3. Death and Life
6.3.1. Lives
6.3.2. When you die!
6.3.2.1. 2 minute bonuses for good deaths, penalties for bad
behavior
6.3.2.2. No influencing the game while dead
6.3.2.3. Keep your weapons or hands above your head if you are
walking around
6.3.2.4. You may lie on the field as long as you want
6.3.2.4.1. Get out of the way of combat
6.3.2.4.2. not dangerous
6.3.2.4.3. resurrecting
6.3.2.4.4. Do not begin your count
6.3.2.5. 300 seconds (5 minutes) in nirvana
6.3.2.6. Coming alive again
6.3.2.6.1. All enchantments are lost
6.3.2.6.2. All your equipment is "new" again
6.3.2.6.3. Return to your base and yell "alive"
6.4. Game Items
6.4.1. Removing from play
6.5. Game Etiquette
6.5.1. No cheating!
6.5.2. Do not come to life behind another team.
6.5.3. Do not switch teams or classes unless allowed by the scenario or
instructed by a reeve
6.5.4. Using or "stealing" another players weapons or equipment
6.5.5. Returning equipment.
6.5.6. Backstabbing.
6.5.7. Do not hit reeves and other non-combatants
6.5.8. Disputed Blows and rules discussions
6.6. Destroyed Items
6.6.1. What can be destroyed?
6.6.1.1.
6.6.2. Repairing
6.6.3. Retrieving "new" equipment
6.6.3.1. Weapons, shields, spellbooks, etc.
6.6.3.2. Does not apply to armor
6.7. Taking Prisoners
6.7.1. Subduals
6.7.1.1. Stabbing may not be used to subdue
6.7.1.2. 60 seconds of unconsciousness for killing blow
6.7.1.3. limb shots cause 300 seconds of uselessness of the limb
6.7.1.4. Equipment within 10' and can't be destroyed
6.7.2. A prisoner must be freed by his captors or by his team
6.7.3. There is no escape unless directed by a Reeve
6.8. Safety
6.8.1. Holds
6.8.2. Reeves
6.8.3. Removing players from the game
6.8.3.1. Dangerous or cheating players by reeve
7. Amtgard Magic
7.1. Introduction
7.2. General Rules
7.2.1. Conflicts between magics
7.2.1.1. Highest level wins
7.2.1.1.1. if equal, defensive magic wins
7.2.1.2. In case of confusion or contradictions, specific magic
description should be the final source.
7.3. Magic Casting
7.3.1. Your Magic List
7.3.1.1. Losing your magic list
7.3.2. Heard within 50'
7.3.3. Free hand
7.3.4. Standing still
7.3.5. Incomplete/Interrupted magic
7.3.5.1. 2 second break between words or wrong words
7.3.6. Only one magic may be active at a time
7.4. Spells
7.4.1. Judging distances
7.4.1.1. Reeve wins
7.4.2. Victim must be seen and in range at end of spell
7.4.3. When your target is immune
7.5. Magic Balls
7.5.1. No limit on the number carried.
7.5.2. Charged for 2 minutes
7.5.3. May be re-used any number of times
7.5.4. Number purchased is number that may be active at the same time
7.5.5. Shot gunning
7.5.6. Everything except head and throat counts
7.5.7. Hand holding weapon affects weapon
7.6. Enchantments
7.6.1. Enchantment Strips and Markers
7.6.1.1. Placed as soon as possible
7.6.1.2. When extended
7.6.2. Must be visible and announced if asked
7.6.3. 1 enchantment at a time
7.6.4. Enchantments only cover one object (person/armor/weapon)
7.6.5. Enchanting yourself
7.6.6. Enchantments and Death
7.6.6.1. Lose them when you come "alive" again.
7.7. Fixed Enchantments
7.7.1. A spellcaster may only have 1 active fixed enchantment at a time
7.7.2. Fixed enchantments disappear when the caster dies
7.8. Neutrals
7.8.1. Can not be dispelled
7.9. Spell Points
7.9.1. Per level
7.9.1.1. Distribution
7.9.1.2. Dropping to lower levels
7.9.2. Weapon cost chart
7.9.2.1. Per 10 points of magic.
7.10. Spell Lists and Costs
7.10.1. Bard List
7.10.2. Druid List
7.10.3. Healer List
7.10.4. Wizard List
7.11. Spell Index
7.11.1. Advancement
7.11.1.1. N
7.11.1.2. 3pts of 1st level magic
7.11.2. Ambidexterity
7.11.3. Anti-Magic
7.11.4. Banish
7.11.5. Barkskin
7.11.6. Bladesharp
7.11.7. Bless
7.11.8. Bludgeon
7.11.9. Call Lightning
7.11.10. Cancel
7.11.11. Charm
7.11.12. Circle of Protection
7.11.13. Commune
7.11.14. Confusion
7.11.15. Cure Disease
7.11.16. Cure Poison
7.11.17. Curse
7.11.18. Curse Weapon
7.11.19. Defend
7.11.20. Dispel Magic
7.11.21. Doomsday
7.11.22. Emotion Control
7.11.23. Enchant Shield
7.11.24. Enchant Weapon
7.11.25. Enhancement
7.11.25.1. N
7.11.25.2. 3 pts of 1st, 2nd, or 3rd level magic
7.11.26. Entangle
7.11.27. Expertise
7.11.27.1. N
7.11.27.2. 4 pts of 2nd level magic
7.11.28. Extension
7.11.29. Feeblemind
7.11.30. Finger of Death
7.11.31. Fire Trap
7.11.32. Fireball
7.11.33. Flameblade
7.11.34. Flamewall
7.11.35. Flesh To Stone -> Combine with "Petrify"
7.11.36. Flight
7.11.37. Forcewall
7.11.38. Harden
7.11.39. Heal
7.11.40. Heal Extend
7.11.41. Heat Weapon
7.11.42. Hold Person
7.11.43. Honor Duel
7.11.44. Iceball
7.11.45. Imbue
7.11.45.1. N
7.11.45.2. 2 pts of 1st or 2nd level magic
7.11.46. Killing Grounds
7.11.47. Legend
7.11.48. Lend
7.11.49. Lich
7.11.50. Lightning Bolt
7.11.51. Liplock
7.11.52. Lore
7.11.53. Lost
7.11.54. Magic Bolt
7.11.55. Magical Projectile
7.11.56. Mass Sleep
7.11.57. Mend
7.11.58. Messenger
7.11.59. Mimic
7.11.60. Mute
7.11.61. Mutual Destruction
7.11.62. Paralyzation
7.11.63. Passplant
7.11.64. Petrify -> Rename "Petrification Bolt"
7.11.65. Plant Door
7.11.66. Presence
7.11.67. Protect
7.11.68. Protection -> Rename "Shield"
7.11.69. Protection from Death
7.11.70. Protection from Disease
7.11.71. Protection from Flame
7.11.72. Protection from Magic
7.11.73. Protection from Projectiles
7.11.74. Pyrotechnics
7.11.75. Reanimate
7.11.76. Reincarnation
7.11.77. Repair -> Archer and Warrior Fixing ability - 100
seconds
7.11.78. Resurrect
7.11.79. Sever Spirit
7.11.80. Shatter
7.11.81. Shillelagh
7.11.82. Shove
7.11.83. Silence
7.11.84. Sleep
7.11.85. Sphere of Annihilation
7.11.86. Stack
7.11.87. Stone To Flesh
7.11.88. Stoneskin
7.11.89. Stun
7.11.90. Stun Weapon
7.11.91. Summon Dead
7.11.92. Talk to Dead
7.11.93. Teleport
7.11.94. Thornwall
7.11.95. Touch of Death
7.11.96. Transform
7.11.97. Truth
7.11.98. Visit
7.11.99. Vivify
7.11.100. Voice
7.11.101. Warp Wood
7.11.102. Warskill
7.11.103. Wind
7.11.104. Wounding
7.11.105. Yield
8. Relics
8.1. General Rules
8.1.1. Great power, in questions of magic vs. relic, relic generally
wins
8.1.2. Usually held for 6 months, then passed on by quest.
8.2. Creating a Relic
8.3. Sample Relics
8.3.1. DoIP
8.3.2. Homestone
8.3.3. The Mask
8.3.4. Odin's Hammer
8.3.5. Ring of Power
8.3.6. Shield of Reflection
8.3.7. Sword of Flame
9. Appendices
9.1. Appendix Into
9.1.1. These following pages may be modified to suit the needs of your
Kingdom.
9.2. Amtgard Glossary
9.3. Garb
9.3.1. Special Garb
9.3.1.1. Knights: White belts, spurs, chains, and phoenix
9.3.1.2. Squires: Red belts
9.3.1.3. Pages: Yellow belts
9.3.1.4. Men at Arms: Usually a black belt
9.3.1.5. Guildmaster favors
9.3.1.6. Single color favor = Order of the Warrior
9.3.2. Garb Construction
9.3.2.1. T-Tunic
9.3.2.2. Tabard
9.3.2.3. Ring Belt
9.4. Weapon Construction
9.4.1. Round "blade" construction
9.4.2. Flat "blade" construction
9.4.3. Pommel construction
9.4.4. Covers
9.5. Shield Construction
9.5.1. The Sled Method
9.5.2. Covers
9.6. Arrow Construction
9.6.1. Safety Concerns
9.6.2. Round head method
9.6.3. Flat head method

i'm all for this.  hwoever, it may be a drastic enough departure from the
existing rules set to cause consternation.  i'd certainly support it
though.

Rewth

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, Moorcat wrote:

> Personally, I think bow length should go away completely. This is hold over
> from the idea that the longer, English and Welsh bows were in some way
> superior to the shorter bows used in the middle east. This is, in fact,
> inaccurate. The short, heavily recurved short bows used by the mongols, the
> Magyars, and the Byzantines were actually superior in a lot of ways.
>
> If simplicity is what you are after, make it simple. If you are a barbarian,
> assassin or druid, your bow is always a short bow. If you are an archer,
> your bow is always a "longbow". Since sashes are required for each class
> (assuming that you are staying with that idea), it will be really easy to
> figure out. The only exception will be Scouts because you won't know whether
> they are sixth level or not.
>
> The other thing this eliminates is the idiots that tell people things like -
> "Your bow is over 60". You can't use it to play barbarian."
>
> Avalon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rewth303 [mailto:rewth@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 8:25 AM
> To: amtgard7@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [amtgard7] yar...
>
>
> i'm here...  if ye want me to work on anything specific, just lemme know.
>
> my frist proposal fer a rules change would be to make measurement of bows
> be based on the UNSTRUNG length.  thats the standard method of measuring
> a bow and the number normally printed on the bow.  therefor its easier to
> verify on the field, and the easiest to allow purchase of a bow of a certain
> size
> (via ebay, and online store, or a catalog.  hell, even in a physical store).
>
> pro: simplicity.
> con: existing bows might change category. though most all will upgrade
> rather
> than down grade.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Personally, I think bow length should go away completely. This is hold over
from the idea that the longer, English and Welsh bows were in some way
superior to the shorter bows used in the middle east. This is, in fact,
inaccurate. The short, heavily recurved short bows used by the mongols, the
Magyars, and the Byzantines were actually superior in a lot of ways.

If simplicity is what you are after, make it simple. If you are a barbarian,
assassin or druid, your bow is always a short bow. If you are an archer,
your bow is always a "longbow". Since sashes are required for each class
(assuming that you are staying with that idea), it will be really easy to
figure out. The only exception will be Scouts because you won't know whether
they are sixth level or not.

The other thing this eliminates is the idiots that tell people things like -
"Your bow is over 60". You can't use it to play barbarian."

Avalon

-----Original Message-----
From: rewth303 [mailto:rewth@...]
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 8:25 AM
To: amtgard7@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [amtgard7] yar...


i'm here...  if ye want me to work on anything specific, just lemme know.

my frist proposal fer a rules change would be to make measurement of bows
be based on the UNSTRUNG length.  thats the standard method of measuring
a bow and the number normally printed on the bow.  therefor its easier to
verify on the field, and the easiest to allow purchase of a bow of a certain
size
(via ebay, and online store, or a catalog.  hell, even in a physical store).

pro: simplicity.
con: existing bows might change category. though most all will upgrade
rather
than down grade.







Yahoo! Groups Links

Another person here that can do just about anything.

- Glenalth

i'm here...  if ye want me to work on anything specific, just lemme know.

my frist proposal fer a rules change would be to make measurement of bows
be based on the UNSTRUNG length.  thats the standard method of measuring
a bow and the number normally printed on the bow.  therefor its easier to
verify on the field, and the easiest to allow purchase of a bow of a certain
size
(via ebay, and online store, or a catalog.  hell, even in a physical store).

pro: simplicity.
con: existing bows might change category. though most all will upgrade rather
than down grade.

Wonderful, we talked about using 6.1 as a basis. Luke do you have the ability to
get 6.1 in to an editable format, that will save a lot of time.   After that I
think we just need to focus on using the old forum topics to get an idea of what
people think is most broken.  I'd also like to work on removing stuff that
should eb in individual corporas.  Granted we can discuss the agendas as more
people come on board.  thoughts?


Med


-----Original Message-----
From: snicker@... [mailto:snicker@...]
Sent: Wed 7/28/2004 6:34 AM
To: amtgard7@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [amtgard7] Vivat!

And stuff.

Obviously, you can count on the full resources at my disposal.'

Snicker





Yahoo! Groups Links

And stuff.

Obviously, you can count on the full resources at my disposal.'

Snicker

So ...

Come up to the lab and see what's on the slab.

:)

Luke