Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Greg Preston]

Jon,

First a word of congratulation to the four horsemen for the Warrior
initiative. As a long time player of TOG (we still have WRG 7.5 comps down
here in Australia) it is good to be working with a set of rules that are
"alive" again. We have about 15 die-hard 7th Edition players in our local
club in Newcastle, and there are about 60 players who have 7th Edition
competition ratings on the Eastern seaboard. The big factors which are
driving our transition to Warrior are the general clarity and level of
cross referencing in the rule set, the ability to access lists which are
base on more recent research, and the opportunity to actually get answers
to our questions :)

A few rules questions. I apologise in advance if any have been covered
before or if they are RTFM questions.- but I couldn't find them in the FAQ
or Rule book. (or if I could I wasn't 100% sure of what they meant- or
someone down here is trying to claim that they mean something different :)

Question 1. Questions re 6.14 Counter- Specifically, the bullet point.
"Turn to face enemy in contact with its flank or rear if it is not also in
contact with enemy to its front"

part a).
A column of 6E of close foot is contacted on its flank (and only its flank)
in bound 3. It suffers no "bad things" due to H-T-H in that bound and
successfully counters in bound 4. It is allowed to turn to face. My
reading of 6.121 (90-Degree Turns) implies that it can now END UP 3
elements wide.
Is this the case ?
If so, do the elements prolonging the front now fight in bound 4 (as per 9.2)

part b).
A 3E column of Chariots is contacted on its flank (and only its flank) in
bound 3. As in the example above, it survives the initial contact and
successfully dices to counter in bound 4. The Chariots have a second body
of known enemy troops 160paces away, directly to their flank, on the side
that was NOT charged. As each element is deeper than it is wide, a "turn to
face" will have the chariots end a counter closer to known enemy.
Can the chariots turn to face ?

Question 2.

I am finding it hard to come to terms with
6.166 Charge responses. (Counter-charge bullet point 1)which says that -
A counter-charge differs from a charge in that it:
(bullet point 1) cannot be impetuous
and 9.42 (Hand to Hand tactical factors) which says
"The tactical factor modifiers for being impetuous count only when charging
or COUNTER CHARGING".
Is there something I am missing here ?

Question 3

A game played on the weekend was Mithridatic against 100 Years War English.
On the approach of the Scythed Chariots- the English archers who were in
the open deployed their stakes. (fairly sensibly)
The Archers were themselves still IN terrain that was passable to the
Chariots but beyond terrain impassable to the expendable. We sorted out
that the expendables didn't have to approach the archers- as they were
(p92) "beyond terrain that was impassable to the expendable" but they
didn't seem to be able to be legally "turned away"- "An expendable that
faces an enemy body, in terrain passable to the expendable...." and the
archers themselves were in such terrain.

We resolved this saying that the troops who were not a legal charge target
could also be "turned away" from.

part a) Is this correct ?

The whole English front line now deployed stakes. This left the scythed
chariots with no known enemy that wasn't beyond impassable terrain.
part b) Who, if anyone, do they have to approach ? What options do the
chariots have ?

Question 3.
6.35 Break-through Moves.
A unit which has broken through an enemy body "may turn 180 degrees to face
a known enemy at the end of approach moves"
Can a body which makes this 180 degree turn still dice for a counter (if
otherwise entitled) ?


Any help on these would be greatly appreciated.

Greg Preston

[joncleaves]

Jon,

First a word of congratulation to the four horsemen for the Warrior
initiative.....

On behalf of all of us, you are very welcome.

>
> Question 1. Questions re 6.14 Counter- Specifically, the bullet point.
> "Turn to face enemy in contact with its flank or rear if it is not also in
> contact with enemy to its front"
>
> part a).
> A column of 6E of close foot is contacted on its flank (and only its flank)
> in bound 3. It suffers no "bad things" due to H-T-H in that bound and
> successfully counters in bound 4. It is allowed to turn to face. My
> reading of 6.121 (90-Degree Turns) implies that it can now END UP 3
> elements wide.
> Is this the case ?
> If so, do the elements prolonging the front now fight in bound 4 (as per
> 9.2)
>

Yes. Yes.

> part b).
> A 3E column of Chariots is contacted on its flank (and only its flank) in
> bound 3. As in the example above, it survives the initial contact and
> successfully dices to counter in bound 4. The Chariots have a second body
> of known enemy troops 160paces away, directly to their flank, on the side
> that was NOT charged. As each element is deeper than it is wide, a "turn to
> face" will have the chariots end a counter closer to known enemy.
> Can the chariots turn to face ?
>

No.

> Question 2.
>
> I am finding it hard to come to terms with
> 6.166 Charge responses. (Counter-charge bullet point 1)which says that -
> A counter-charge differs from a charge in that it:
> (bullet point 1) cannot be impetuous
> and 9.42 (Hand to Hand tactical factors) which says
> "The tactical factor modifiers for being impetuous count only when charging
> or COUNTER CHARGING".
> Is there something I am missing here ?
>

Nope, 9.42 is in error. I'll fix it in the next clarifications.

> Question 3
>
> A game played on the weekend was Mithridatic against 100 Years War English.
> On the approach of the Scythed Chariots- the English archers who were in
> the open deployed their stakes. (fairly sensibly)
> The Archers were themselves still IN terrain that was passable to the
> Chariots but beyond terrain impassable to the expendable. We sorted out
> that the expendables didn't have to approach the archers- as they were
> (p92) "beyond terrain that was impassable to the expendable" but they
> didn't seem to be able to be legally "turned away"- "An expendable that
> faces an enemy body, in terrain passable to the expendable...." and the
> archers themselves were in such terrain.
>
> We resolved this saying that the troops who were not a legal charge target
> could also be "turned away" from.
>
> part a) Is this correct ?
>

Yes. We are working on a simple, clear definition of 'in terrain' -
something I should have done originally.

> The whole English front line now deployed stakes. This left the scythed
> chariots with no known enemy that wasn't beyond impassable terrain.
> part b) Who, if anyone, do they have to approach ? What options do the
> chariots have ?
>

That is not a rules question. I don't mind answering tactics questions, but
I don't think I have the entire situation here and such an answer is going to
always be a judegment call. The chariot can continue to ignore as 'closest
known' the bodies behind stakes and can use approaches to find an unstaked
body or the unstaked flank of a body with stake to its front.

> Question 3.
> 6.35 Break-through Moves.
> A unit which has broken through an enemy body "may turn 180 degrees to face
> a known enemy at the end of approach moves"
> Can a body which makes this 180 degree turn still dice for a counter (if
> otherwise entitled) ?
>

Yes.

Jon



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

[Greg Preston]

Dear Jon,

Below you will find a list of questions which originated from the
recent comp down here in Oz. I hope I am not asking things which have
been clarified before. Suffice to say that in many cases I think I
know what the answer will be. Hey I ruled on them in the comp -but
“thinking” and “knowing” are often worlds apart. Please accept my
apologies if I am covering old ground here -there may be the odd post
that I missed. Sorry -there are a few questions here.

Q1. When is an element “uphill” of another element ?

Q2. ( I think we covered this before but I can’t find it)
A unit consists of 6E MI all armed with LTS, JLS, Sh.
They are in two 3E ranks.
They are frontally charging enemy foot.
According to 9.22 Ranks After the First – A second rank of foot using
LTS fights at full effect.
OK so far ?

Then when we look at 9.3 to find out what line of the H-T-H combat
table we look up, we find “(JLS+) the weapon factor bonus for a figure
armed with JLS always applies at first contact.”
Does this mean that the figures entitled to fight (in this case 24) all
get the LTS and the JLS+ at first contact ?

Q3. (a) A command includes a unit which is flank marching. The command
becomes demoralised before the flank march successfully dices to
arrive. Does the unit still dice ? If it does dice and come on does it
immediately go off again because the command has retreat orders ? If
it doesn’t dice does it “resume dicing” if the command recovers ?

Q4. Can a charging body otherwise able to support shoot (eg rear rank
of bow) “support shoot” a body that is not the target of their charge?

Q5.How does deployment of a ditch/wagon lager etc in the forward zone
work if the forced march is opposed- (ie both guys want to put
something on the “centerline” and the thing one guy wants to put there
is a ditch forward deployed ) ?

Q6. (I am sorry to do this after the recent combat disorder Q’s but
unless I have specifically asked about this situation I know there will
be still be issues
A skirmishing body is currently disordered and is prep shot for 3CPF.
It cannot recall. Does it take two waver tests ? one for (SECOND
DISORDER 5.52) and one for “at least 2CPF from Prep shooting” and not
following the listed actions ?

Q7. Does a C-in-C do a (LOSS of LEADER) test given that he is (as per
4.1) IN the Line of Command. (all be it “higher up”) ?

Q8. Can a unit charged only directly from its rear choose to evade to
its rear ? (ie shorten the distance between it and the body charging
it). The rules seem to say yes but logic and the general statement on
p44 under 6.166 “An evade move(...) is an attempt to avoid contact...”
gives us some doubt :)

Q9. A player deploys a ditch in the forward zone. For troops to
qualify as “with” that item in terms of deployment, must they be
“behind” the ditch or can they deploy “beside” it ?

Q10. A unit is positioned next to the table edge in such a way that it
will not allow a unit charging it (frontally) to have room to pivot,
fit, line-up etc. Do we treat a table edge as “other bodies or terrain
features” in this case ?

Q11. I am seeking clarification on the requirement for an Army standard
to be “advancing” . The definition of an “approach” 4.52 referred to in
5.11 eager bodies speaks only of a minimum approach move.
Are any of the following classified as an advance:
a) the AS is with a unit which has charged
b) the AS is with a staff element which made a move of 40paces+ towards
enemy
c) the AS is with a unit which is Following up
d)the AS is with a unit which has broken through enemy

Additionally, what is the specific time frame with the advance eg this
bound or the last.

Q12. If you destroy a camp do you follow-up into the space the camp
occupied to loot it or do you remain were you were when you destroyed
it ?

Q13. A body 4E wide is in H-T-H combat with an enemy unit along its
entire 4E frontage. A player wishes to replace the unit in combat with
a unit which is 2E wide. Is the entire body moved out of contact or
only the elements which are actually replaced ?

Q14. Can you replace routers in combat ?

Q15. Can you “breakthrough” an “orb” ?


Hope all your remote groups aren’t as problematic as us :)

Regards,


Greg Preston




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

[joncleaves]

Man, Greg, and I was just about to go to bed, too....lol

> Q1. When is an element “uphill� of another element ?

I am working on 'in terrain' for the next clarification sheet, but for now -
when it is higher on the same slope
when it on the crest and the 'downhill' element is on the slope.

NOT when it is on the 'flat' of a hill feature and the other element is part
on the 'flat' and part on the slope

>
> Q2. ( I think we covered this before but I can’t find it)
> A unit consists of 6E MI all armed with LTS, JLS, Sh.
> They are in two 3E ranks.
> They are frontally charging enemy foot.
> According to 9.22 Ranks After the First – A second rank of foot using
> LTS fights at full effect.
> OK so far ?

Yep.

>
> Then when we look at 9.3 to find out what line of the H-T-H combat
> table we look up, we find “(JLS+) the weapon factor bonus for a figure
> armed with JLS always applies at first contact.�
> Does this mean that the figures entitled to fight (in this case 24) all
> get the LTS and the JLS+ at first contact ?

Yep.

>
> Q3. (a) A command includes a unit which is flank marching. The command
> becomes demoralised before the flank march successfully dices to
> arrive. Does the unit still dice ?

4.6 first sentence. It doesn't dice again until the retreat order changes.
If it never does or can't the flanker never comes in.

>
>
> Q4. Can a charging body otherwise able to support shoot (eg rear rank
> of bow) “support shoot� a body that is not the target of their charge?

Technically yes. This is 'almost' impossible and I have yet to see it.
Extra credit for an example...

>
> Q5.How does deployment of a ditch/wagon lager etc in the forward zone
> work if the forced march is opposed- (ie both guys want to put
> something on the “centerline� and the thing one guy wants to put there
> is a ditch forward deployed ) ?

Hmmm, that is a list rule - I will defer to Scott.

>
> Q6. (I am sorry to do this after the recent combat disorder Q’s but
> unless I have specifically asked about this situation I know there will
> be still be issues
> A skirmishing body is currently disordered and is prep shot for 3CPF.
> It cannot recall. Does it take two waver tests ? one for (SECOND
> DISORDER 5.52) and one for “at least 2CPF from Prep shooting� and not
> following the listed actions ?

Yep.

>
> Q7. Does a C-in-C do a (LOSS of LEADER) test given that he is (as per
> 4.1) IN the Line of Command. (all be it “higher up�) ?

No. 4.11 Line of Command makes it clear that in Warrior line of command is
unidirectional.

>
> Q8. Can a unit charged only directly from its rear choose to evade to
> its rear ? (ie shorten the distance between it and the body charging
> it). The rules seem to say yes but logic and the general statement on
> p44 under 6.166 “An evade move(...) is an attempt to avoid contact...�
> gives us some doubt :)

No, but I can see where that is a hole in the words (not the sprirt). I'll
fix.

>
> Q9. A player deploys a ditch in the forward zone. For troops to
> qualify as “with� that item in terms of deployment, must they be
> “behind� the ditch or can they deploy “beside� it ?

Scott?

>
> Q10. A unit is positioned next to the table edge in such a way that it
> will not allow a unit charging it (frontally) to have room to pivot,
> fit, line-up etc. Do we treat a table edge as “other bodies or terrain
> features� in this case ?

Hmmm, how about a diagram? I'd have to see what is on the other side of the
body that is preventing the line up.

>
> Q11. I am seeking clarification on the requirement for an Army standard
> to be “advancing� . The definition of an “approach� 4.52 referred to
in
> 5.11 eager bodies speaks only of a minimum approach move.
> Are any of the following classified as an advance:
> a) the AS is with a unit which has charged
> b) the AS is with a staff element which made a move of 40paces+ towards
> enemy
> c) the AS is with a unit which is Following up
> d)the AS is with a unit which has broken through enemy>>


Great catch. Not staff move, but charges and forward combat results moves.
I'll fix.

>
> Additionally, what is the specific time frame with the advance eg this
> bound or the last.

This bound.

>
> Q12. If you destroy a camp do you follow-up into the space the camp
> occupied to loot it or do you remain were you were when you destroyed
> it ?

Remain. You never follow up when you destroy something.

>
> Q13. A body 4E wide is in H-T-H combat with an enemy unit along its
> entire 4E frontage. A player wishes to replace the unit in combat with
> a unit which is 2E wide. Is the entire body moved out of contact or
> only the elements which are actually replaced ?

Only the elements replaced.

>
> Q14. Can you replace routers in combat ?

Yep.

>
> Q15. Can you “breakthrough� an “orb� ?

Yes.

>
>
> Hope all your remote groups aren’t as problematic as us :)

Heck you guys are saints compared to some. And your questions are very well
presented and worded.

Jon



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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/9/2003 07:07:04 Central Daylight Time,
jjendon@... writes:

> I will take that extra credit. 1X2 body of HC REG C L,B,Sh charges a 1X2
> unit of LC REC C JLS, SH. The LC is at a 45 degree angle to the HC and
> chooses to evade directly to its own rear. The HC does not catch it, but
> in
> the act of charging winds up closer than 160p and in arc with another enemy
> body. This enemy (at the end of the charge move) is actually closer to the
> HC than the final position of the evading LC. To further solidify it as
> the
> support shooting target it is also missile armed. Now if the HC chooses to
> support shoot with its back rank, its only legal target is this new body,
> not the LC.
>

You know, I will give you the credit, BUT, since you have to go after the
target/stay in the charge path and LC can't interpenetrate much of anything
it is VERY difficult to do this. More likely (and still damned rare) is when
you charge eavding LI that uncover something.

In both cases, 2 or 3 figs shooting typically isn't worth the shooting
fatigue.

But heck, IF you end up this way and IF there is a target worth shooting with
a couple figs and IF you remember this one - go for it....

Probably happens in every game in texas....lol

Jon


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

[Greg Regets]

Jon ...

Oh gawd ... I hate to even post this on a Friday, but are you sure about the
answer you gave below? It seems to contradict 5.52.

Greg

**********

Q6.  (I am sorry to do this after the recent combat disorder but unless I have
specifically asked about this situation I know there will be still be issues ;)

A skirmishing body is currently disordered and is prep shot for 3CPF. It cannot
recall. Does it take two waver tests ? one for (SECOND DISORDER 5.52) and one
for at least 2CPF from Prep shooting and not following the listed actions?

Yep.

**********

[Don Coon]

> Q4. Can a charging body otherwise able to support shoot (eg rear rank
> of bow) “support shoot� a body that is not the target of their charge?

Technically yes. This is 'almost' impossible and I have yet to see it.
Extra credit for an example...

I will take that extra credit. 1X2 body of HC REG C L,B,Sh charges a 1X2
unit of LC REC C JLS, SH. The LC is at a 45 degree angle to the HC and
chooses to evade directly to its own rear. The HC does not catch it, but in
the act of charging winds up closer than 160p and in arc with another enemy
body. This enemy (at the end of the charge move) is actually closer to the
HC than the final position of the evading LC. To further solidify it as the
support shooting target it is also missile armed. Now if the HC chooses to
support shoot with its back rank, its only legal target is this new body,
not the LC.

Don

>
> Q5.How does deployment of a ditch/wagon lager etc in the forward zone
> work if the forced march is opposed- (ie both guys want to put
> something on the “centerline� and the thing one guy wants to put there
> is a ditch forward deployed ) ?

Hmmm, that is a list rule - I will defer to Scott.

>
> Q6. (I am sorry to do this after the recent combat disorder Q’s but
> unless I have specifically asked about this situation I know there will
> be still be issues
> A skirmishing body is currently disordered and is prep shot for 3CPF.
> It cannot recall. Does it take two waver tests ? one for (SECOND
> DISORDER 5.52) and one for “at least 2CPF from Prep shooting� and not
> following the listed actions ?

Yep.

>
> Q7. Does a C-in-C do a (LOSS of LEADER) test given that he is (as per
> 4.1) IN the Line of Command. (all be it “higher up�) ?

No. 4.11 Line of Command makes it clear that in Warrior line of command is
unidirectional.

>
> Q8. Can a unit charged only directly from its rear choose to evade to
> its rear ? (ie shorten the distance between it and the body charging
> it). The rules seem to say yes but logic and the general statement on
> p44 under 6.166 “An evade move(...) is an attempt to avoid contact...�
> gives us some doubt :)

No, but I can see where that is a hole in the words (not the sprirt). I'll
fix.

>
> Q9. A player deploys a ditch in the forward zone. For troops to
> qualify as “with� that item in terms of deployment, must they be
> “behind� the ditch or can they deploy “beside� it ?

Scott?

>
> Q10. A unit is positioned next to the table edge in such a way that it
> will not allow a unit charging it (frontally) to have room to pivot,
> fit, line-up etc. Do we treat a table edge as “other bodies or terrain
> features� in this case ?

Hmmm, how about a diagram? I'd have to see what is on the other side of the
body that is preventing the line up.

>
> Q11. I am seeking clarification on the requirement for an Army standard
> to be “advancing� . The definition of an “approach� 4.52 referred to
in
> 5.11 eager bodies speaks only of a minimum approach move.
> Are any of the following classified as an advance:
> a) the AS is with a unit which has charged
> b) the AS is with a staff element which made a move of 40paces+ towards
> enemy
> c) the AS is with a unit which is Following up
> d)the AS is with a unit which has broken through enemy>>


Great catch. Not staff move, but charges and forward combat results moves.
I'll fix.

>
> Additionally, what is the specific time frame with the advance eg this
> bound or the last.

This bound.

>
> Q12. If you destroy a camp do you follow-up into the space the camp
> occupied to loot it or do you remain were you were when you destroyed
> it ?

Remain. You never follow up when you destroy something.

>
> Q13. A body 4E wide is in H-T-H combat with an enemy unit along its
> entire 4E frontage. A player wishes to replace the unit in combat with
> a unit which is 2E wide. Is the entire body moved out of contact or
> only the elements which are actually replaced ?

Only the elements replaced.

>
> Q14. Can you replace routers in combat ?

Yep.

>
> Q15. Can you “breakthrough� an “orb� ?

Yes.

>
>
> Hope all your remote groups aren’t as problematic as us :)

Heck you guys are saints compared to some. And your questions are very well
presented and worded.

Jon



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



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Don Coon]

> You know, I will give you the credit, BUT, since you have to go after the
> target/stay in the charge path and LC can't interpenetrate much of
anything
> it is VERY difficult to do this. More likely (and still damned rare) is
when
> you charge eavding LI that uncover something.
>
> In both cases, 2 or 3 figs shooting typically isn't worth the shooting
> fatigue.
>
> But heck, IF you end up this way and IF there is a target worth shooting
with
> a couple figs and IF you remember this one - go for it....
>
> Probably happens in every game in texas....lol
> Jon

I agree with all of your points of course. I only wanted the extra credit
you were offering. I had to engineer a situation that is so rare to be
beneath notice, but there none the less.

Don

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/9/2003 9:43:30 AM Eastern Standard Time,
jjendon@... writes:

> I agree with all of your points of course. I only wanted the extra credit
> you were offering. I had to engineer a situation that is
> so rare to be
> beneath notice, but there none the less.
>
> Don>>

It's your credit, man. I'd recommend spending it on learning about zones v.
sectors...lol

[Patrick Byrne]

I know that extra credit may already have been given, but I have an example
that mayb be closer the the original Oz one.

A unit of MI B, SH 4x2 has (2) units of LI B 1x2 to its front and they are
staggered (1 is 40p futher closer than the other). It charges one LI B 1x2
unit which evades, however the other LI B 1x2 buddy next to it is out of
charge range. Can the MI B, SH rear rank shoot the LI which was just
outside it's charge range?

8.81 says the MI B,SH rear rank can shoot, but what paragraph says the LI,
the one not charged, can not be a target?
-PB

> From: <jjendon@...>
> Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 07:11:40 -0500
> To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Some rules questions
>
>> Q4. Can a charging body otherwise able to support shoot (eg rear rank
>> of bow) ³support shoot² a body that is not the target of their charge?
>
> Technically yes. This is 'almost' impossible and I have yet to see it.
> Extra credit for an example...

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/9/2003 9:52:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, cuan@...
writes:

> Can the MI B, SH rear rank shoot the LI which was just
> outside it's charge range?>>

You texas guys....

Yes.

[Patrick Byrne]

Texas, Oz, what's the difference. BTW I thought that post of questions and
the reply was awesome. Well put together questions with good replies.

Also, Harlan, are you seeing this. Those big LTS / B Crusader blocks can
roll right over that LI. Don't know how to help you with the other
problems.

-PB

> From: JonCleaves@...
> Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 10:56:42 -0400
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Some rules questions
>
> In a message dated 5/9/2003 9:52:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, cuan@...
> writes:
>
>> Can the MI B, SH rear rank shoot the LI which was just
>> outside it's charge range?>>
>
> You texas guys....
>
> Yes.
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/9/2003 10:36:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, cuan@...
writes:

> Those big LTS / B Crusader blocks can
> roll right over that LI.>>

Careful. Support shooting does require a shooting FP and may give some FP out,
but it ISN'T the same as prep - the results are different. Without any hth
casualties, all you can give out if you are lucky is FP and *maybe* disorder.
But you are still rallying yourself and taking a shooting FP. There's no
forcing an LI recall from support shooting, for example.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/9/2003 10:36:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, cuan@...
writes:

> Texas, Oz, what's the difference.>>

Questions I understand after the first reading...lol

[scott holder]

Also, Harlan, are you seeing this. Those big LTS / B Crusader blocks can
roll right over that LI. Don't know how to help you with the other
problems.

>Antibiotics? A good defense attorney? Offshore bank accounts?

>Sorry, when fed a straight line such as this, I just couldn't resist:):)

scott