Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

Tim, man, I am here to help.

>
> 1. I realize the rules are written the way they are, but that hasn't
> always been to the letter exactly the way we've played.

Ok, first things first. While there are similarities between WRG 7th and
Warrior - very many, in fact - they are NOT the same game. I did not write
WRG 7.7, I used the WRG engine as a start point, but what we didn't think was
right we changed, whether Scott had been umpiring a particular point that way
for years - or not.

For instance, >
> in a evade move, the rules basically say directly to their rear or
> away from the charge. In the past, if there was a sufficient gap
> along the way, some reasonable deviation was allowed for the unit to
> wheel on by. Now,no way.

Correct.

Which brings up a sore point. If we're going >
> to play that way, fine. I can play the millimeter game of making sure
> I'm not off a tiny bit so the unit can evade directly to it's rear.
> The other option is where abuse lies. I can clearly see 'clever'
> opponents angling the charge ever so slightly so as to drive the unit
> into another, preventing the full evade move by utilizing a rule
> technique instead of tactics.

Millimeter players will be in every ruleset. The rules cannot - CANNOT - be
the way to prevent millimeter play. Can't make a rulebook that big.

And, yes. You can charge in such a way as to plow an evader into guys that
should not be behind him. If there is no gap for him to escape through, he
can be pinned and caught. That is the way Warrior is, and it is a deliberate
act and I am very comfortable with it.

The underlying philosophy of Warrior is to make not having a clean battleline
very risky. This rule is part of that philosophy.

> How about evading towards an enemy that shot it? It can happen
> unless I'm missing something.

That's a recall not an evade (unless charged also) and we have a
clarification for that one. I did discover that many players have blown off
the clarifications, available at the egroup as always, much to their dismay.

>
> 2. Approach moves. As it's been played in the past, a perfectly legal
> move depended on your final position as to whether or not you got
> closer to the enemy.
Say you had a unit to your front 200 paces away >
> and another off to your right 160 paces away. Used to be, as long as
> you moved closer to the enemy than the nearest was - didn't matter
> which direction, you were okay.
>
>
>

"Used to be." Hmmm. If you mean, was WRG played that way - yes it was.

This is another of those 'underlying philosophy' issues. Warrior is VERY
unforgiving of 'surrounded' units.

>
>
> 3. Very minor issue, but it irks me a bit. Things are written in the
> rules the way they are usually for a historical reason. ( I hope)
> Shieldless LTS doesn't count that way the first round - reason being
> the LTS holds off the opponent, be it horse, man or elephant. Fair
> enough - makes sense. Now, how about those elephant crew? Some
> abstraction allowed, I can't see how the LTS is affecting the crew. I
> would think logically you have a guy or two up on top throwing down
> jav/ arrows, etc. Or a longer pike with better reach. Logically I
> can't see why those LTS aren't counted as shieldless in HTH. That LTS
> isn't keeping the crew at bay.

Ok, this isn't any different in WRG, so not sure what the issue is.

>
> 4. One unit commands. Strictly speaking by the rules, you've just
> sent that unit forward every turn with no hope of a counter/
> retirement, should you give it attack or probe orders. A guided
> missile incapable of getting out of any bad situation.

This is an issue. I have already admitted I screwed up the clarification to
4.52. I will fix it before the middle of May.

>
> 5. The "Does it fit" question. Used to be, if there wasn't room for a
> unit to charge in, it couldn't be done. I'm not so sure that's the
> case anymore. Seems you can pull another unit out and away to line
> up, even if 99% covered. This one was only talked about, but clearly
> has implications.

This 'yanking' IS possible, if I understand what you mean. But the onus is
on the player trying to 'hide' a unit behind another, NOT on the charger.
Warrior is designed to reward the aggressive player and make it difficult to
do 'tricks' with non-clear-cut battle lines.

>
> I'd just like to know what happened to the approach of what
> we did what made sense on the table instead of mindlessly quoting
> from the rulebook.

I do not agree with this characterization. I did not sign up to write
Warrior to match what anyone did on the table with WRG. I didn't change what
we thought worked and did change what was inconsistent with our view of
ancient and medieval warfare. I am a Four Horseman because I believed WRG
was the closest to our view of such warfare at the time and signed on to make
it exactly our view of such warfare.

If I have given anyone the impression all I did was add case numbers to WRG
7.6, I am terribly sorry. I am also confident I did nothing at any time to
give anyone that impression....

Work with me, Tim. It has to be a good start if you and Dave and Chris and
Eric had good games....lol

Jon

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

Tim Brown · Legionary Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 326

Perhaps this is a case of teaching an old dog a new trick or two, but
I found myself less than totally satisfied rules-wise for the first
time in years. After 17 years of steady play, yes, I'm entitled to an
opinion or two. And it probably seems odd that I speak up now. Tough.
What's more odd is that guys who usually drive me up a wall as
opponents I got along with better than ever. Dave Stiers and I had a
well mannered game with little or no heated discussion. Friendly,
even. Weird. And Mr. Turner and I didn't reach for our guns even once
in anger. ALthough I thought about it occasionally facing hundreds of
bow with an elephant army. And, I have to give credit to Damour after
his blowing roll after roll on morale, he personally was rock steady
as Ambrose and I whooped it up, thrilled to do anything successfully.
No, the people were great to play against. Umpiring was fine. No,
this boils down to a few rules observations.

1. I realize the rules are written the way they are, but that hasn't
always been to the letter exactly the way we've played. For instance,
in a evade move, the rules basically say directly to their rear or
away from the charge. In the past, if there was a sufficient gap
along the way, some reasonable deviation was allowed for the unit to
wheel on by. Now,no way. Which brings up a sore point. If we're going
to play that way, fine. I can play the millimeter game of making sure
I'm not off a tiny bit so the unit can evade directly to it's rear.
The other option is where abuse lies. I can clearly see 'clever'
opponents angling the charge ever so slightly so as to drive the unit
into another, preventing the full evade move by utilizing a rule
technique instead of tactics. We're going to have to write into the
sequence that the charger set the wheel angle before the evader even
moves or no one will ever evade away from a charge with other units
around. And what about this situation: LC with enemy to their front
and back and no one else around. They just evade straight back and
forth mindlessly with all that open space in between? Doesn't make
sense. How about evading towards an enemy that shot it? It can happen
unless I'm missing something.

2. Approach moves. As it's been played in the past, a perfectly legal
move depended on your final position as to whether or not you got
closer to the enemy. Say you had a unit to your front 200 paces away
and another off to your right 160 paces away. Used to be, as long as
you moved closer to the enemy than the nearest was - didn't matter
which direction, you were okay. Now, following the rules by the
letter, you can't even think of approaching that unit to your front.
You're getting further away from the nearest enemy. Even if one enemy
unit say were in the woods - neither can see each other, and you've
got a I/A unit with enemy to your front. There are more absurd
examples that come to mind. Scythed Chariots now can be tied down
easily - they have to approach the nearest enemy, but can't enter
woods/rough, etc, so they just sit there mindlessly?

3. Very minor issue, but it irks me a bit. Things are written in the
rules the way they are usually for a historical reason. ( I hope)
Shieldless LTS doesn't count that way the first round - reason being
the LTS holds off the opponent, be it horse, man or elephant. Fair
enough - makes sense. Now, how about those elephant crew? Some
abstraction allowed, I can't see how the LTS is affecting the crew. I
would think logically you have a guy or two up on top throwing down
jav/ arrows, etc. Or a longer pike with better reach. Logically I
can't see why those LTS aren't counted as shieldless in HTH. That LTS
isn't keeping the crew at bay.

4. One unit commands. Strictly speaking by the rules, you've just
sent that unit forward every turn with no hope of a counter/
retirement, should you give it attack or probe orders. A guided
missile incapable of getting out of any bad situation.

5. The "Does it fit" question. Used to be, if there wasn't room for a
unit to charge in, it couldn't be done. I'm not so sure that's the
case anymore. Seems you can pull another unit out and away to line
up, even if 99% covered. This one was only talked about, but clearly
has implications.

I do realize the wording has changed in a number of places in the
rulebook, but I'm less than thrilled about having to throw out years
of 'Holder has spoken and thus it is so' past experience I relied on
heavily just to go back and carefully examine tiny wording changes,
deletions, additions that occurred with the publishing of Warrior
that weren't evidently played that way before. Hell, when Dave S and
I can agree on anything you know something is up. I'm not bashing the
rules - I'd just like to know what happened to the approach of what
we did what made sense on the table instead of mindlessly quoting
from the rulebook.

Tim Brown

Greg Regets · Imperator Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2988

> 1. I realize the rules are written the way they are, but that hasn't 
> always been to the letter exactly the way we've played. For instance, 
> in a evade move, the rules basically say directly to their rear or 
> away from the charge. In the past, if there was a sufficient gap 
> along the way, some reasonable deviation was allowed for the unit to 
> wheel on by. Now,no way. Which brings up a sore point. If we're going 
> to play that way, fine. I can play the millimeter game of making sure 
> I'm not off a tiny bit so the unit can evade directly to it's rear. 
> The other option is where abuse lies. I can clearly see 'clever' 
> opponents angling the charge ever so slightly so as to drive the unit 
> into another, preventing the full evade move by utilizing a rule 
> technique instead of tactics. We're going to have to write into the 
> sequence that the charger set the wheel angle before the evader even 
> moves or no one will ever evade away from a charge with other units 
> around. And what about this situation: LC with enemy to their front 
> and back and no one else around. They just evade straight back and 
> forth mindlessly with all that open space in between? Doesn't make 
> sense. How about evading towards an enemy that shot it? It can happen 
> unless I'm missing something. 

<<<GREG>>> This is a good example of different perspectives or if you will,
regional flavor. A group of us here in the Southwest were playing TOG7, back
when the NASAMW was still playing 6th Edition as the base set, and we have
always played evades exactly as it is written in Warrior. Problems do come up,
but tactics are adjusted and you play on. To present my own point of view, I
like the way Warrior presents (read, 'limits') the evade move, because
skirmishers already get advantages FAR, FAR, FAR, past their historical
representation.

> 2. Approach moves. As it's been played in the past, a perfectly legal 
> move depended on your final position as to whether or not you got 
> closer to the enemy. Say you had a unit to your front 200 paces away 
> and another off to your right 160 paces away. Used to be, as long as 
> you moved closer to the enemy than the nearest was - didn't matter 
> which direction, you were okay. Now, following the rules by the 
> letter, you can't even think of approaching that unit to your front. 
> You're getting further away from the nearest enemy. Even if one enemy 
> unit say were in the woods - neither can see each other, and you've 
> got a I/A unit with enemy to your front. There are more absurd 
> examples that come to mind. Scythed Chariots now can be tied down 
> easily - they have to approach the nearest enemy, but can't enter 
> woods/rough, etc, so they just sit there mindlessly? 

<<<GREG>>> This is a huge player advantage. High unit count armies, that fit in
small spaces can be at great advantage, especially when moving first in
approach. In part, it balances out the advantage of being able to move last. I
actually FAR prefer Warrior's representation of this to the TOG7 system, where
the guy moving last was basically given a capital gain, all based on a single
die roll. Now, it is a double edge sword.

> 4. One unit commands. Strictly speaking by the rules, you've just 
> sent that unit forward every turn with no hope of a counter/ 
> retirement, should you give it attack or probe orders. A guided 
> missile incapable of getting out of any bad situation. 

<<<GREG>>> I see by Jon's post, that he intends to fix this issue. I have to be
honest and say that I still have serious difficulties with the whole
qualification for orders by movement system, especially as it pertains to march
moves. I now understand exactly how the rule is written, (thanks to Don Coon),
but have seen massive violations in our weekly games. We have quite a few new
players, and I am very cautious of even pointing the problems out, as I do not
want to run anyone off. The alternative of course is to let it go, allowing new
players to play incorrectly. I might suggest (and I know this will start a
stir) that the march qualification for orders be changed to 'full available
march move, or moving to within approach distance".

> 5. The "Does it fit" question. Used to be, if there wasn't room for a 
> unit to charge in, it couldn't be done. I'm not so sure that's the 
> case anymore. Seems you can pull another unit out and away to line 
> up, even if 99% covered. This one was only talked about, but clearly 
> has implications. 

<<<GREG>>> I agree with Tim completely on this one. This whole section is a
huge step backwards from TOG7'th in my opinion.

> I do realize the wording has changed in a number of places in the 
> rulebook, but I'm less than thrilled about having to throw out years 
> of 'Holder has spoken and thus it is so' past experience I relied on 
> heavily just to go back and carefully examine tiny wording changes, 
> deletions, additions that occurred with the publishing of Warrior 
> that weren't evidently played that way before. Hell, when Dave S and 
> I can agree on anything you know something is up. I'm not bashing the 
> rules - I'd just like to know what happened to the approach of what 
> we did what made sense on the table instead of mindlessly quoting 
> from the rulebook. 

<<<GREG>>> I feel your pain Tim, but would offer a perhaps useful alternative
viewpoint. Warrior, has some changes that we might not like, but has far more
that we do, in my opinion. The rules are well written in clear English and new
players can actually go home and figure out how to play the thing without a
four year learning curve. If all that is not enough, for me at least, I had to
almost beg and cry to get a TOG7'th game in ... now, we play Warrior every
week, sometimes more than once! I might have liked TOG7th quite a bit, but it
was gathering dust. Warrior on the other hand, is gathering momentum.

Take care ...
Greg

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

> ****That's not entirely fair, Jon. There are plenty of guys without
> access and how fair is it to penalize them?>>

I cannot make the clarifications more accessible than I have.

As far as availability AT the tourney, yes, NASAMW can and will do more in
that area.

Back in the late >
> eighties, we had the same situation, sorta. If you were close to
> Scott and knew how he would rule the latest interp, you were Golden
> come tournament time. I personally got burned by changes between
> major cons many times. I do not want that again if I have to sell off
> every army I own.

No clarification to Warrior burns an army and none ever will. Period.

One suggestion, though, since nobody likes an ass >
> who complains and never offers a fix: include the clarifications when
> you sell the rules, if you aren't already.

Good idea.

>
> >Ok, this isn't any different in WRG, so not sure what the issue is.
>
>
> **** I was on a roll, so I figured I'd throw it in. Just suggesting
> indirectly a change or least make you go "hmmm". Do I make sense?

Nope....lol

By the way, I am not going to change such a rule. Ever.

I may have trouble expressing a rule's intent, but once I get the wording
right for what I intend - that is it.

>
> ****But Jon ( Christ - I'm whining here), the damned tricks occur
> with the chargers! Here I am, keeping solid lines and a reserve, and
> if I leave the tiniest opening I can be pulled out of line. Or worse
> yet. For instance, you have two pike facing off against one another
> 40 paces away. From off at an angle 120 paces away elephants charge
> in, literally pulling my pike sideways to line up since the elephants
> are 80 deep and there's only 40 between the two. And what happens if
> I have units to my side as well. Do they give way also to make this
> happen?

We have been through this one, but I'll take a diagram again if you want to
ask me how a specific situation is handled.

<<We need to re-examine this to see if the old way was better. >>

Nope. :)

Yes, Tim, I do know you're 'with us' - all friendly banter here.

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

Tim Brown · Legionary Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 326

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> The underlying philosophy of Warrior is to make not having a clean
battleline
> very risky. This rule is part of that philosophy.

****One that I don't agree with and may not be even valid
historically past the ancient Greeks, but okay.

I did discover that many players have blown off
> the clarifications, available at the egroup as always, much to
their dismay.

****That's not entirely fair, Jon. There are plenty of guys without
access and how fair is it to penalize them? Back in the late
eighties, we had the same situation, sorta. If you were close to
Scott and knew how he would rule the latest interp, you were Golden
come tournament time. I personally got burned by changes between
major cons many times. I do not want that again if I have to sell off
every army I own. One suggestion, though, since nobody likes an ass
who complains and never offers a fix: include the clarifications when
you sell the rules, if you aren't already. And before major cons,
have em available and point out major changes. Scott did that before
with the whole 2HCW change from shieldless to shielded before the
first round once upon a time, and I remember it fondly because it
wasn't a surprize. Takes all of 5 minutes in a very long weekend of
gaming. And the umpire won't get as many glares, either! : )

> >
> > 2. Approach moves. As it's been played in the past, a perfectly >
> "Used to be." Hmmm. If you mean, was WRG played that way - yes it
was.
>
> This is another of those 'underlying philosophy' issues. Warrior
is VERY
> unforgiving of 'surrounded' units.

****Jon, I'm not talking about a surrounded unit. As written you can
have a unit you can't see nor move towards tying down another.
(chariots) Maybe the rules work - but it doesn't make sense from a
human aspect. Consider this: " The rash commander looked over his
elite cavalry force, preparing them to move forward and engage his
counterpart. Suddenly, there were vague rumors of skirmishers hidden
deep in the woods far off to his right. He only had three choices:
sit there and do nothing, retire his boys, or go play in the woods.
All hope of fighting a visible enemy to his direct front now dashed."

> > > 3. Very minor issue, but it irks me a bit. Things are written
in the
> > rules the way they are usually for a historical reason. ( I hope)
> > Shieldless LTS doesn't count that way the first round - reason
being
> > the LTS holds off the opponent, be it horse, man or elephant.
Fair
> > enough - makes sense. Now, how about those elephant crew? Some
> > abstraction allowed, I can't see how the LTS is affecting the
crew. I
> > would think logically you have a guy or two up on top throwing
down
> > jav/ arrows, etc. Or a longer pike with better reach. Logically I
> > can't see why those LTS aren't counted as shieldless in HTH. That
LTS
> > isn't keeping the crew at bay.
>
> Ok, this isn't any different in WRG, so not sure what the issue is.

**** I was on a roll, so I figured I'd throw it in. Just suggesting
indirectly a change or least make you go "hmmm". Do I make sense?

>> This is an issue. I have already admitted I screwed up the
clarification to
> 4.52. I will fix it before the middle of May.

****No biggee - this I could actually live with if I had to. ;)

> > 5. The "Does it fit" question. Used to be, if there wasn't room
for a
> > unit to charge in, it couldn't be done. I'm not so sure that's
the
> > case anymore. Seems you can pull another unit out and away to
line
> > up, even if 99% covered. This one was only talked about, but
clearly
> > has implications.
>
> This 'yanking' IS possible, if I understand what you mean. But the
onus is
> on the player trying to 'hide' a unit behind another, NOT on the
charger.
> Warrior is designed to reward the aggressive player and make it
difficult to
> do 'tricks' with non-clear-cut battle lines.

****But Jon ( Christ - I'm whining here), the damned tricks occur
with the chargers! Here I am, keeping solid lines and a reserve, and
if I leave the tiniest opening I can be pulled out of line. Or worse
yet. For instance, you have two pike facing off against one another
40 paces away. From off at an angle 120 paces away elephants charge
in, literally pulling my pike sideways to line up since the elephants
are 80 deep and there's only 40 between the two. And what happens if
I have units to my side as well. Do they give way also to make this
happen? We need to re-examine this to see if the old way was better.

>
>> Work with me, Tim.

**** Haven't I always? I may not agree with you all the time but you
know where I stand on this game system. Right there in the foxhole
with my bayonet and a bad attitude towards DBM. LOL!

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

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

In a message dated 3/13/2003 18:03:49 Central Standard Time,
jjendon@... writes:

> Just my .02 ( I hope I did not venture into rules answering Jon).
>

No, Don, in fact, couldn't have said it better.

Pat has some great pics in the files section on this 'yanking' thing. Of
course just keep that space < 2 elements wide and no enemy can 'yank' you
from 'behind' someone...

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

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

HOWEVER...there's
this 'yank' thing that has me wondering if the pike get moved over to
line up, and thus Pike B would have to give way as well.

No. Lining up never moves a body not in contact.

>
> Another thing: I'm losing my mind, but I thought 'once upon a time '
> ( stop that - I know what you're thinking *grin* )a unit routed if it
> recieved 3 CPF from HTH and support shooting combined, and the HTH
> had to be doubled, but that the kicker was the winning side had to
> inflict 1 CPF in HTH for this to happen. In other words, 1 CPF and
> double casualties.Take a 24 man bow unit charged by a 6 man cav unit.
> Bow rolls up - does 3 cpf in support shooting. In HTH, the bow manage
> to do all of 2 casualties, the cav do a measily 1 casualty. Neither
> side does a CPF in hth. However...Reading 11.2, the cav rout???

Yes. There is NO such thing as CPF only from hth. All CPF from combat in
the hand to hand combat phase is always from hth and support shooting
combined. Funny thing is, it is exactly this way in WRG 7 too.

>
> All this "Warrior isn't 7th" talk with regards to rules has me
> feeling like Neo in The Matrix. Whoa.

(In my best Hugo Weaving) - If it was, Tim, why are we having this
conversation.....

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

Don Coon · Imperator Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2742

> ****Jon, I'm not talking about a surrounded unit. As written you can
> have a unit you can't see nor move towards tying down another.
> (chariots) Maybe the rules work - but it doesn't make sense from a
> human aspect. Consider this: " The rash commander looked over his
> elite cavalry force, preparing them to move forward and engage his
> counterpart. Suddenly, there were vague rumors of skirmishers hidden
> deep in the woods far off to his right. He only had three choices:
> sit there and do nothing, retire his boys, or go play in the woods.
> All hope of fighting a visible enemy to his direct front now dashed."

Part of this is mitigated by 6.13 itself. "A body cannot end an approach
move further away from the nearest KNOWN enemy body than it started".

I realize this does not cure every case you can come up with, but just
because a unit is on table (i.e YOU can see it in the wood) does not mean it
is known.

> > > 5. The "Does it fit" question. Used to be, if there wasn't room
> for a
> > > unit to charge in, it couldn't be done.

I have no idea what 'used to be' as I did not play then. I bet there were
charges made when the charger did not fit at declaration. I can show
examples of two friendly units slightly angled to each other (the infamous
V) where an enemy charger would not fit at declaration, but are legal,
should be legal, and have probably always been made. Without allowing the
charged body to adjust to the charger, these would be illegal per the
statement you made. Warrior allows them. I bet TOG did too. If it did not,
then angle cheese would have been available.

> ****But Jon ( Christ - I'm whining here), the damned tricks occur
> with the chargers! Here I am, keeping solid lines and a reserve, and
> if I leave the tiniest opening I can be pulled out of line. Or worse
> yet. For instance, you have two pike facing off against one another
> 40 paces away. From off at an angle 120 paces away elephants charge
> in, literally pulling my pike sideways to line up since the elephants
> are 80 deep and there's only 40 between the two. And what happens if
> I have units to my side as well. Do they give way also to make this
> happen? We need to re-examine this to see if the old way was better.

If you have units to your side, then most likely there is a gap issue
preventing the charge. If you do not and are facing off against an enemy
foot as you described, then for the elephants to get you they must have 1.
either hit your flank, or 2. You were sticking out a bit from the enemy foot
and yes you get yanked. The Elephants see and charge the bit of your unit
sticking out and fight it. The adjustment to conform to the enemy is just a
game mechanic at this point.

Just my .02 ( I hope I did not venture into rules answering Jon).

Don

Tim Brown · Legionary Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 326

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 3/13/2003 18:03:49 Central Standard Time,
> jjendon@c... writes:
>
> > Just my .02 ( I hope I did not venture into rules answering Jon).
> >
>
> No, Don, in fact, couldn't have said it better.
>
> Pat has some great pics in the files section on this 'yanking'
thing. Of
> course just keep that space < 2 elements wide and no enemy
can 'yank' you
> from 'behind' someone...
>

***Okay...we may be talking about different things here:
Pike A Pike B
____________ ____________
____________ ____________
____________ ____________
____________ ____________

---------
---------
---------
---------
pike C

-------------
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
-------------
elephants

Now, given this situation - the elephants are 100 paces from pike A,
and pike C is 40 paces from pike B. Basically, a part of pike A
is 'exposed', but not all. If this picture sucks, Ill draw the silly
thing. Let me know. Anyway. My experience has been that the elephants
don't fit against pike A, as there's not enough room due to pike C.
And if I read 6.163 right, it's still correct. HOWEVER...there's
this 'yank' thing that has me wondering if the pike get moved over to
line up, and thus Pike B would have to give way as well. ( I saw
something similiar happen last weekend, so its not theoritical.

Another thing: I'm losing my mind, but I thought 'once upon a time '
( stop that - I know what you're thinking *grin* )a unit routed if it
recieved 3 CPF from HTH and support shooting combined, and the HTH
had to be doubled, but that the kicker was the winning side had to
inflict 1 CPF in HTH for this to happen. In other words, 1 CPF and
double casualties.Take a 24 man bow unit charged by a 6 man cav unit.
Bow rolls up - does 3 cpf in support shooting. In HTH, the bow manage
to do all of 2 casualties, the cav do a measily 1 casualty. Neither
side does a CPF in hth. However...Reading 11.2, the cav rout???

All this "Warrior isn't 7th" talk with regards to rules has me
feeling like Neo in The Matrix. Whoa.

Tim
(Who asks for a lot more than .02 from anyone willing to give it)
...AND uh...Thanks, Jon.