Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

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

It is not the Catalan that gets tons of 'Moogs' that is the problem, it is the
army with lots of good stuff that gets a small portion of "Moogs" that is very
dangerous.

After the lists came out, I started reading about these guys. It sure seems to
me, and this is only my opinion, that 'super foot' were made out of guys that
mostly had a reputation for being numerous, dirty, and good at raping and
pillaging.

One can only wonder, given this logic, how Huns and Vandals are not IRR A.

Take care ... Greg

P.S. I would like to make one thing clear though ... Scott is doing a GREAT job
on the lists. Never in the history of alternate movement games have more armies
been playable!!!!!!!

> <tt>
> today's favorite unit in 
> this respect seems to be almughavars, who at any time 
> i expect to see armed with chainsaws. like you, i 
> think things need to be kept in perspective. we have a 
> good set of rules and a good group of people. lets set 
> out the troops and get after it. 
> 
> >Ah yes, the almughavars. As soon as the ink was dry on the paper, I knew
people
would be drooling over these guys:) Smile

That too is the nature of this
game:) Smile

And I actually played against them in my first round game against
John
Murphy and Mark Hissam. Heh heh, the first unit tanked its waver test and they
then
became a non issue. If there were hordes of them, I'd treat them just like
people
usta treat Aztecs. Somebody finds an army that kills them (anything with 4
horse LCh
for example) and brings it with the expectation that he (player running
the "kill the
Aztec" army) can beat most other players and armies based on outright skill but
has
that one list for an expected encounter with what people percieve is the
prevailing army
of the day. Ewan told me several years ago that in the UK during TOG's heyday,
folks
would bring Syracusan armies (or something like that, it had lotsa 4 horse LCh
in it) just
to crack on Aztecs which were sprouting up like weeds. After a year of that,
people
moved onto the newest "rave army of the day". Some folks just love second
guessing the "army field" for any given tourney. That was the one thing
"fun" about what Jon and I did, we showed up with one army per scale knowing
full well neither list was gonna be seen as something ultra competitive. There
were
simply aspects of each list that we liked and wanted to try out (those Irr E
LMI B
Ariere-Ban in the Early Crusader States list are just soooooo kewl at 34 points
a unit) or
have fun with (we wanted to poke my eye out to truly replicate Antigonus but
figured that
would go too far but we did have endless jokes about me not being able to see
one flank or
the other depending on which eye was gone). 
> 
> >What's funny is that at Cold Wars, I discussed the almughavars with various
people and
while the actual Catalan Company has hordes of them, nobody was really going
out to get
them because the list was just too one-dimensional for most tastes. Plus, in a
one-list tourney, a player will no longer have the luxury of having almughavars
designed
to fight infantry (HTW) or to fight cav (LTS although that's a stretch). As in
all
things, shifting player tactics and the never ending paper-scissors-stone
effect in
tournament play will see these guys come and go. One casual Warrior player
(doesn't
play all that much and wasn't playing at CW) came up to me and said "you need
to fix
the Midianites, they're too powerful"). I had a somewhat fruitless 3 minute
discussion with him over why I felt different. And then I looked at the final
standings in the Doubles tourney and sure enough, there were the Midianites
down in the
bottom part of the standings:) Smile

> 
> Scott 
> </tt>
>
> 
>
> 
>
> <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
> <td align=center>Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor</td>
> </tr>
> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
> <td align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0> <tr>
<td
align=center>ADVERTISEMENT <a
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=1705059
080:HM/A=1464858/R=0/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/300_Cquo_1/g22lp?
Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl"><img
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ex/expert_city/300x250_cquo_1.gif"
alt=""
width="300" height="250" border="0"></a></td></tr></table></td>
> </tr>
> <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1464858/rand=769669521"></
td></tr>

> </table>
>
> 
>
>
> 
> <tt>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com 
> 
> </tt>
> 
>
> 
> <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.</tt>
> 
>
> </body></html>
>

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

Actually Jon, you are quite correct. I meant to say NON-alternate move
systems ... lol

This shows what I get for emailing while at a Corona Extra creative meeting.

Greg

> <html><body>
>
>
> <tt>
> In a message dated 3/12/2003 4:53:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, gar@...
writes: 
> 
> > P.S. I would like to make one thing clear though ... Scott is doing a GREAT
job 
> > on the lists. Never in the history of alternate movement 
> > games have more armies 
> > been playable!!!!!!!>> 
> 
> I could not agree more. But this makes me pause... 
> 
> Warrior is the LEAST alternate movement of the ancients games I know. The
retirement, charge and march phases are simultaneous, the approach phase allows
preemption
and mounted and foot moves are interwoven and counters allow still further
integration and
reaction. This character is yet another reason I signed up for this venture. 
> What are the titles of the non-alternate movement ancient/medieval games? I
would
like to add them to my research collection. 
> 
> Jon 
> > 
> </tt>
>
> 
>
> 
>
> <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
> <td align=center>Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor</td>
> </tr>
> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
> <td align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0> <tr>
<td
align=center>ADVERTISEMENT <a
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=1705059
080:HM/A=1481646/R=0/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/300_flake/g22lp?
Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl"><img
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ex/expert_city/300x250_flake.gif"
alt=""
width="300" height="250" border="0"></a></td></tr></table></td>
> </tr>
> <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1481646/rand=830079542"></
td></tr>

> </table>
>
> 
>
>
> 
> <tt>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com 
> 
> </tt>
> 
>
> 
> <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.</tt>
> 
>
> </body></html>
>

Patrick Byrne · Centurion Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1433

I have two short sweet opinions with regard to Semi-new Warrior Rules (when
does Warrior become not 'new'?).

1. Much like 'catching the ball' rules in US football. As the rules change
the play changes. Now-a-days in football if the ball even appears to touch
the ground as you are catching it the pass is incomplete. As a result
Players have modified their play to do mid-air contortions to make the catch
while landing on their back or to get their hands under the ball before
hitting the ground.

Relatively, with the changes in the rules for those that have been playing
17years or so, the play needs to change. The arguments then focuses on what
happened historically which brings up short sweet opinion number 2.

2. Who the hell knows exactly what happened historically. I believe much of
the arguments that had taken place where over opinions of what happened
historically. They may have been about interpretations of the rules, but
the rules where interpretations of history and not written clearly.
In the example below regarding evades. How is it known that they didn't run
directly to the rear, run into their friends, and then the process of
working around the friends occurred.
Thus the Warrior evade move is simulating the discombobulation of the
evaders running away, in an organized but not so directed move, especially
when battle lines are discombobulated themselves. And also simulating then
that this discombobulated evade takes 15-30 battle minutes instead of the 5
minute combat phase (5min combat phase is a geusstimate).

If this isn't good enough, just consider the Warrior Rules the FHM's
official opinion of what happened historically and provide a better
argument. Preferably with direct references or Jon/Scott won't listen
(which was a hard lesson to learn).

Anyways, just my $.02 (and a chance to use discombobulated 3 (now 4) times).
-PB

> From: "browntj007" <browntj007@...>
> Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 01:30:54 -0000
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Cold Wars Warrior rules opinion /useless bitching, etc
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

In a message dated 3/12/2003 9:27:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, cuan@...
writes:

> Preferably with direct references or Jon/Scott won't listen
> (which was a hard lesson to learn).>>

I will always listen. I just make no guarantee that I will agree.....

scott holder

2. Who the hell knows exactly what happened historically.
I believe much of the arguments that had taken place where over opinions of what
happened
historically.

>Exactly. Glad you mentioned this. One thing that we stress is that rules,
*anybody's* rules, are nothing more than an interpretation of the historical
record. One thing I learned in grad school that history isn't the search for
"truth", it's the search for facts. Historians, including those in FHE, do
little more than interpret said facts. And our "facts" in the ancient/medieval
period are, alas, often nothing more than an interpretation by another, albeit,
older historian. Two wonderful examples, Arrian and Froissart. Arrian's
material on Alexander is wonderful mainly because he had access to the then
extent "autobiograhy" of Ptolemy. Nonetheless, Arrian undoubtedly overlayed his
own interpretation of the factual data and wah lah, we in the modern era read
what he did. Froissart is a godsend to medieval military historians but as you
plow through his material (he was mostly contemporary to many of the items he
writes about) he really hits you with little asides and comments that are
totally interpretive. And yet, we as rule and list writers, have little choice
but to depend on that as a point of departure.....and then toss in our own
interprative "skills" on top of that.

If this isn't good enough, just consider the Warrior Rules the FHM's
official opinion of what happened historically and provide a better
argument. Preferably with direct references or Jon/Scott won't listen
(which was a hard lesson to learn).

>I have an interesting story to relate. During the 13.5 hour drive home from
Cold Wars, I'm in the car with one DBM gamer, one mostly DBM gamer (but also a
Warrior player and a member of my unofficial list reviewer group) and one player
who has dabbled in DBM but little else. He was asking about all
ancient/medieval gaming systems and what made them different, "better", etc. So,
Darrell and I started giving a reasonably objective overview of the various
gaming systems. As we were discussing the background to DBM's development, we
put forth the prevailing attitude of the time as it related to "how ancients
games should look". Remember, this was shortly after Tactica came out with its
hamstringing deployment and movement model. However, it did push hard the whole
"colliding battle lines" perception of "how ancients *battles* should look".
And where did that come from? Most likely Hansen's book on hoplite warfare (the
rugby scrum school). DBM took that and ran with it, at least that's the end
result on the table. I bring this up because it shows how a rules set can be
heavily influenced (directly or indirectly) by modern interpretations of the
same historical record.

>Jon is correct in that he listens but doesn't always agree. I listen but very
much less so unless some references are provided. If you look at the
interprative process that goes on just in list writing between Bill and myself,
you'd get a headache. Heh heh, ask Todd.

scott

Recruit Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 167

amen, patrick. the rules is the rules, and if you come
to play (as i do) all this information is like a
weather report-may as well deal with it. yet it is in
the nature of the wargamer to piss and moan, excuse
me, express dismay. my favorites are the old heads who
yearn fondly back to the great years of wrg 5th
edition. there all also those uniquely informed
individuals who explain what a "real" roman auxilia
would actually have done. today's favorite unit in
this respect seems to be almughavars, who at any time
i expect to see armed with chainsaws. like you, i
think things need to be kept in perspective. we have a
good set of rules and a good group of people. lets set
out the troops and get after it.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
http://webhosting.yahoo.com

scott holder

today's favorite unit in
this respect seems to be almughavars, who at any time
i expect to see armed with chainsaws. like you, i
think things need to be kept in perspective. we have a
good set of rules and a good group of people. lets set
out the troops and get after it.

>Ah yes, the almughavars. As soon as the ink was dry on the paper, I knew
people would be drooling over these guys:) Smile

That too is the nature of this
game:) Smile

And I actually played against them in my first round game against
John Murphy and Mark Hissam. Heh heh, the first unit tanked its waver test and
they then became a non issue. If there were hordes of them, I'd treat them just
like people usta treat Aztecs. Somebody finds an army that kills them (anything
with 4 horse LCh for example) and brings it with the expectation that he (player
running the "kill the Aztec" army) can beat most other players and armies based
on outright skill but has that one list for an expected encounter with what
people percieve is the prevailing army of the day. Ewan told me several years
ago that in the UK during TOG's heyday, folks would bring Syracusan armies (or
something like that, it had lotsa 4 horse LCh in it) just to crack on Aztecs
which were sprouting up like weeds. After a year of that, people moved onto the
newest "rave army of the day". Some folks just love second guessing the "army
field" for any given tourney. That was the one thing "fun" about what Jon and I
did, we showed up with one army per scale knowing full well neither list was
gonna be seen as something ultra competitive. There were simply aspects of each
list that we liked and wanted to try out (those Irr E LMI B Ariere-Ban in the
Early Crusader States list are just soooooo kewl at 34 points a unit) or have
fun with (we wanted to poke my eye out to truly replicate Antigonus but figured
that would go too far but we did have endless jokes about me not being able to
see one flank or the other depending on which eye was gone).

>What's funny is that at Cold Wars, I discussed the almughavars with various
people and while the actual Catalan Company has hordes of them, nobody was
really going out to get them because the list was just too one-dimensional for
most tastes. Plus, in a one-list tourney, a player will no longer have the
luxury of having almughavars designed to fight infantry (HTW) or to fight cav
(LTS although that's a stretch). As in all things, shifting player tactics and
the never ending paper-scissors-stone effect in tournament play will see these
guys come and go. One casual Warrior player (doesn't play all that much and
wasn't playing at CW) came up to me and said "you need to fix the Midianites,
they're too powerful"). I had a somewhat fruitless 3 minute discussion with him
over why I felt different. And then I looked at the final standings in the
Doubles tourney and sure enough, there were the Midianites down in the bottom
part of the standings:) Smile

:)

Scott

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

It's not the lead, it's the player.

When I go to play, I am not concerned about Midianites, Burmese, Medieval
Spanish or Late Romans. I am concerned about Stiers, Gilson, Downs, Damour,
Markowitz, etc. With my Midianites, I'd be far less worried about an okay
player with a foot bow army than a top one with all cav.

The funny thing is to watch over time what the supposedly killer troop type/army
is. As Scott observed - 1. It changes and 2. it is never true....lol

We 'recrafted' almughavars so that they could do what we believe they were
capable of doing and for no other reason. Yet it was the routing of an
almughavar unit that paved the way to our first win in doubles. Go figure.

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

In a message dated 3/12/2003 4:53:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, gar@...
writes:

> P.S. I would like to make one thing clear though ... Scott is doing a GREAT
job
> on the lists. Never in the history of alternate movement
> games have more armies
> been playable!!!!!!!>>

I could not agree more. But this makes me pause...

Warrior is the LEAST alternate movement of the ancients games I know. The
retirement, charge and march phases are simultaneous, the approach phase allows
preemption and mounted and foot moves are interwoven and counters allow still
further integration and reaction. This character is yet another reason I signed
up for this venture.
What are the titles of the non-alternate movement ancient/medieval games? I
would like to add them to my research collection.

Jon
>

Recruit Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 167

but you guys are missing the best part: i think we can
agree that documentation on "moogs" is, compared to
many other ancient and medieval troop types, a little
ambiguous. i have no problem with how they are
portrayed in the lists. what absolutely delights me is
the complete assurance i have that some player,
somewhere soon, is going to be running those bad
little boys and will get an unfortunate result. he
will then assume the "pronouncement posture" with
hands on hips, and deliver that great line:"now if
those had been REAL almughavars...."

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
http://webhosting.yahoo.com

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

In a message dated 3/12/2003 11:02:18 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ragingbullmf@... writes:

> what absolutely delights me is
> the complete assurance i have that some player,
> somewhere soon, is going to be running those bad
> little boys and will get an unfortunate result. he
> will then assume the "pronouncement posture" with
> hands on hips, and deliver that great line:"now if
> those had been REAL almughavars....">>

Now, *that* is funny. And sadly true....

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

In a message dated 3/12/2003 5:19:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, gar@...
writes:

> Actually Jon, you are quite correct. I meant to say NON-alternate move
> systems ... lol>>

Whew - you had me going there....
>
> This shows what I get for emailing while at a Corona Extra
> creative meeting.>>

I warn Scott also about the dangers of beer drunk with fruit in it....

John Murphy · Legate Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1625

Mark and I were the team who attempted to throw the Almughavars
against Scott's pikes (and everyone else's too).

Against Scott he managed to sneak a Companion unit between/around
his pikes and sac'd them to wear out the Almughavars. Not only did
the scum of the earth Catalan soldiers of (mis-)fortune get the
big '1' to blow their waver test but when the Companions
subsequently broke them they caused a bunch of our even more scum of
the earth Reg D LB units to unsuprisingly fail their waver checks
for seeing routers. And then - I just have to tell you because it
was so nearly comical - inevitably one of the shaken LB units was
charged from between pike blocks by another well placed Companion
unit and when _this_ LB routed it did so over and through the three
unsuspecting knight units bunched up sitting behind them. End of
command. So with some help from less than the best play on my part
Scott made sure that he had the needed counters in the right place
at the right time. Even if we had passed the waver the Almughavars
were neutralized as a threat by the charging Companions. A clear
case of okay troop matchup and greater skill/experience beating the
supposed super troops run by a less enlightened player.

In our second game the Almughavars made up for it, and then some, by
one unit rolling up 3 to break an expensive-looking 6E pike &
halberd block, and just to top that the second Almughavar unit
rolled up 4 to do likewise to another identical enemy. As if that
weren't enough I think this second unit maybe got into another
charge later in the game and broke some other worn down unit in
conjuction with some other guys.

But for all that in the final round they were back to their original
antics and one unit broke in a last-bound against Slav axemen, with
the result of course that they took one or maybe two Reg D LB with
them again.

So my observation, if I may be permitted, is that even
supposedly "killer troops" can take some skill to maneuver into
position and often the opposition is able to neutralize them. That
said, I am glad we had them because in the case of our army there
really did not appear to be any other good offensive infantry to
deal with enemy close foot.

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

In a message dated 3/13/2003 07:31:38 Central Standard Time,
ragingbullmf@... writes:

> nothing works
> quite like rolling up!
>

unless it is companions shooting through gaps in the pike line to kill
barbarian foot....

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

scott holder

In our second game the Almughavars made up for it, and then some, by
one unit rolling up 3 to break an expensive-looking 6E pike &
halberd block, and just to top that the second Almughavar unit
rolled up 4 to do likewise to another identical enemy. As if that
weren't enough I think this second unit maybe got into another
charge later in the game and broke some other worn down unit in
conjuction with some other guys.

>Ah, tactics after my own heart. Move to Point A, charge enemy, roll up 4. Heh
heh, sucks being on the receiving end of that. Just ask Antigonus while
fighting, er, dieing against the Ghazanavids:) Smile

:)