Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

I am having trouble understanding charge cancellations.

6.163, under 'Multiple Targets" it says, last sentence: "Charges count as
declared on all legal targets in or moving into the 'charge path'..." It
goes on to reference the following: "...enemy bodies in the path (whether
they started there or move into it during charge resolution) that are legal
targets may be contacted by the charger."

Does this apply to charge cancellations? Or is it just a rule to allow
chargers to make contact with units it didn't declare on a charge on during
declarations?

For example:

...........AAAA

BBBB.........CC
...................CC
...........DD
...........DD

During charge declarations: C (non-imp foot) charges B. D (mounted) charges
A. Combat direction is from right to left (C is first). Next we check for
canceled charges. C would enter the charge path of D. Would D's charge be
canceled due to the statement: "Charges count as declared on all legal
targets in or moving into the 'charge path'...", and in this case D is
mounted...thus canceling C's charge because it non-imp foot? The funny thing
about this is that D never declared a charge on C...but the rules seem to
say that it is considered to have done so due to C entering D's charge path.
What if C was a mounted unit instead of non-imp foot. Would its charge still
be canceled because its considered charged by D who never enters C's charge
path to make contact (once C moves)?




***
Kurtus A. Brown
sheol@...
jab@...
Known as I_SHEOL on Delphi and Yahoo.
Feel free to add me to your ICQ: 6953323
Co-Founder of the Table-Top Warlords Wargaming Club.
Check out our Club webpage at http://members.toast.net/jab/
Also the Founder of Para-Search, Paranormal Research and Investigation
Society (webpage coming soon).
***

[joncleaves]

<<> 6.163, under 'Multiple Targets" it says, last sentence: "Charges count as
> declared on all legal targets in or moving into the 'charge path'..." It
> goes on to reference the following: "...enemy bodies in the path (whether
> they started there or move into it during charge resolution) that are legal
> targets may be contacted by the charger."
>
> Does this apply to charge cancellations? Or is it just a rule to allow
> chargers to make contact with units it didn't declare on a charge on during
> declarations?>>

This rule 'applies' to charge cancellations in that it can affect them. Is that
what you are asking?

<<> For example:
>
> ...........AAAA
>
> BBBB.........CC
> ...................CC
> ...........DD
> ...........DD
>

I assume this is meant to show C is at an angle to D, B.

<<> During charge declarations: C (non-imp foot) charges B. D (mounted) charges
> A. Combat direction is from right to left (C is first). Next we check for
> canceled charges. C would enter the charge path of D. Would D's charge be
> canceled due to the statement: "Charges count as declared on all legal
> targets in or moving into the 'charge path'...",>>

The diagram is problematic, but IF I am reading it right, I see nothing
cancelling D's charge.

<< and in this case D is
> mounted...thus canceling C's charge because it non-imp foot? >>

That is true.

<<The funny thing
> about this is that D never declared a charge on C...but the rules seem to
> say that it is considered to have done so due to C entering D's charge path.>>

True.

<<> What if C was a mounted unit instead of non-imp foot. Would its charge still
> be canceled because its considered charged by D who never enters C's charge
> path to make contact (once C moves)?>>

Not for any reason that I can see.

> >
> > ...........AAAA
> >
> > BBBB.........CC
> > ...................CC
> > ...........DD
> > ...........DD
> >
>



In the example, C is charging B in the right flank. This charge enters the
charge path of unit D (who is facing unit A). C is moving first based on
combat direction, therefore its move will cross through unit D's charge
path. Does this cancel C's charge on B?

The reason I ask is because of the statement in 6.163, under Multiple
Targets: "Charges count as declared on all legal targets in or moving into
the 'charge path'..." Under 'Canceled Charges' first bullet says: "A body's
charge is canciled if: a charge is declared against it by enemy not already
in or moving into the path of the charge." If C was non-imp foot, and D was
mounted, that would be another reason for C's charge to be canciled (2nd
bullet).

Are charges really canceled in this way? If it is then resolving them in
combat direction becomes very important, since it determines what unit
enters whos charge path.

OK. Based on your answers to my questions here is what I am getting:

1. A unit whos charge move takes it through an enemy units charge path
counts as a unit that had a charge declared on it by that enemy whos charge
path it enters / passes through, even though no actual charge was declared
on it during **charge declarations**.

2. Based on 1. above, units moving through an enemy charge path CAN have
their charge canceled, even though such a canelation is from moving through
an enemy charge path, not actually having a charge declared on it during
charge declarations. The statement "Charges count as declared on all legal
targets in or moving into the 'charge path'..." makes this so.


Am I correct in the above assumptions?

[joncleaves]

In a message dated Tue, 3 Sep 2002 9:33:45 AM Eastern Standard Time,
sheol@... writes:

> > >
> > > ...........AAAA
> > >
> > > BBBB.........CC
> > > ...................CC
> > > ...........DD
> > > ...........DD
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> In the example, C is charging B in the right flank. This charge enters the
> charge path of unit D (who is facing unit A). C is moving first based on
> combat direction, therefore its move will cross through unit D's charge
> path. Does this cancel C's charge on B?

If C is nonimp foot and D is mounted? Yes.

> The reason I ask is because of the statement in 6.163, under Multiple
> Targets: "Charges count as declared on all legal targets in or moving into
> the 'charge path'..." Under 'Canceled Charges' first bullet says: "A body's
> charge is canciled if: a charge is declared against it by enemy not already
> in or moving into the path of the charge.">>

Well, this does not look like it applies as it looks like C has D in its charge
path also. Is that true?

<< If C was non-imp foot, and D was
> mounted, that would be another reason for C's charge to be canciled (2nd
> bullet).>>

Definitely.

<<> Are charges really canceled in this way? If it is then resolving them in
> combat direction becomes very important, since it
> determines what unit
> enters whos charge path.>>

It could.

> > > > ...........AAAA
> > > >
> > > > BBBB.........CC
> > > > ...................CC
> > > > ...........DD
> > > > ...........DD
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > The reason I ask is because of the statement in 6.163, under Multiple
> > Targets: "Charges count as declared on all legal targets in or moving
into
> > the 'charge path'..." Under 'Canceled Charges' first bullet says: "A
body's
> > charge is canciled if: a charge is declared against it by enemy not
already
> > in or moving into the path of the charge.">>
>
> Well, this does not look like it applies as it looks like C has D in its
charge path also. Is that true?
>

Well, yes...D would have to cross C's charge path. But doesn't combat
direction determine who is actually moving through whose charge path? I
mean, C goes first in the example. D would be next AFTER c already
charged...so it never really moves through C's path. Then again, all
charging is simultaneous. So why wouldn't the move be prorated like when two
units charge each other deliberately.

I think I am confused regarding the timing here.

Hmmm...OK. So a unit that moves through an enemy charge path counts fully as
if a charge was declared on it during the **charge declarations** part of
the phase then. My point though was that no actual..."Hey, my unit A is
charging your unit B" is stated BEFORE units move on the table. It simply
'happens'.


----- Original Message -----
From: <JonCleaves@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Canceled Charges???


>
> <<> 1. A unit whos charge move takes it through an enemy units charge path
> > counts as a unit that had a charge declared on it by that enemy whos
charge
> > path it enters / passes through,>>
>
> True.
>
> << even though no actual charge was declared
> > on it during **charge declarations**.>>
>
> Not exactly correct, as a charge is declared on everyone in the path.
"Charges count as declared on all legal targets in or moving into the
'charge path',"
>
> <<> 2. Based on 1. above, units moving through an enemy charge path CAN
have
> > their charge canceled, even though such a canelation is from moving
through
> > an enemy charge path, not actually having a charge declared on it during
> > charge declarations. The statement "Charges count as declared on all
legal
> > targets in or moving into the 'charge path'..." makes this
> > so.>>
>
> Yes, but you are trying to differentiate between (as you see it) two
different 'kinds' of declarations, and there is only one.
>
>
>
> 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]

<<> 1. A unit whos charge move takes it through an enemy units charge path
> counts as a unit that had a charge declared on it by that enemy whos charge
> path it enters / passes through,>>

True.

<< even though no actual charge was declared
> on it during **charge declarations**.>>

Not exactly correct, as a charge is declared on everyone in the path. "Charges
count as declared on all legal targets in or moving into the ‘charge path’,"

<<> 2. Based on 1. above, units moving through an enemy charge path CAN have
> their charge canceled, even though such a canelation is from moving through
> an enemy charge path, not actually having a charge declared on it during
> charge declarations. The statement "Charges count as declared on all legal
> targets in or moving into the 'charge path'..." makes this
> so.>>

Yes, but you are trying to differentiate between (as you see it) two different
'kinds' of declarations, and there is only one.

Ooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhh!!!

Damnit...and that's y YOU are the rules author.

Your point that I missed was that you check for charge cancellations before
moving anything. If I looked closer at MY OWN example, I would have seen
that D does have C in its path as well...combat directions and who moves
first means nothing here. In the example both units would be moving in each
others charge paths...so no reason to cancel for that cause alone.

When you say literal INTERP you mean LITERAL!!!

Am I getting it now?


> > The reason I ask is because of the statement in 6.163, under Multiple
> > Targets: "Charges count as declared on all legal targets in or moving
into
> > the 'charge path'..." Under 'Canceled Charges' first bullet says: "A
body's
> > charge is canciled if: a charge is declared against it by enemy not
already
> > in or moving into the path of the charge.">>
>
> Well, this does not look like it applies as it looks like C has D in its
charge path also. Is that true?
>

[joncleaves]

In a message dated Tue, 3 Sep 2002 10:21:17 AM Eastern Standard Time,
sheol@... writes:

> Hmmm...OK. So a unit that moves through an enemy charge path counts fully as
> if a charge was declared on it during the **charge
> declarations** part of
> the phase then.

Yes

Funny but true.



----- Original Message -----
From: <JonCleaves@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Canceled Charges???


> 'Literal interp'? Too funny.
>
>
> 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]

'Literal interp'? Too funny.

[Doug]

WRT to the part of the question below that says

<< and in this case D is mounted...thus canceling C's charge because
it non-imp foot? >> That is true.

[ie Jon clarified that infantry unit C's charge is cancelled, because
they would move into the charge path of third-party mounted unit D]

So where on the table is C located after its charge is cancelled? Is
C moved to the point where it would enter D's path and then halted,
or do they conceptually become aware of the fact that D is going to
hit them if they move and respond by cancelling their charge before
the move at all?

WHOLE Q & A BELOW:
><<> 6.163, under 'Multiple Targets" it says, last sentence: "Charges count as
>> declared on all legal targets in or moving into the 'charge path'..." It
>> goes on to reference the following: "...enemy bodies in the path (whether
>> they started there or move into it during charge resolution) that are legal
>> targets may be contacted by the charger."
>>
>> Does this apply to charge cancellations? Or is it just a rule to allow
>> chargers to make contact with units it didn't declare on a charge on during
>> declarations?>>
>
>This rule 'applies' to charge cancellations in that it can affect
>them. Is that what you are asking?
>
><<> For example:
>>
>> ...........AAAA
>>
>> BBBB.........CC
>> ...................CC
>> ...........DD
>> ...........DD
>>
>
>I assume this is meant to show C is at an angle to D, B.
>
><<> During charge declarations: C (non-imp foot) charges B. D
>(mounted) charges
>> A. Combat direction is from right to left (C is first). Next we check for
>> canceled charges. C would enter the charge path of D. Would D's charge be
>> canceled due to the statement: "Charges count as declared on all legal
>> targets in or moving into the 'charge path'...",>>
>
>The diagram is problematic, but IF I am reading it right, I see
>nothing cancelling D's charge.
>
><< and in this case D is
>> mounted...thus canceling C's charge because it non-imp foot? >>
>
>That is true.
>
><<The funny thing
>> about this is that D never declared a charge on C...but the rules seem to
>> say that it is considered to have done so due to C entering D's
>>charge path.>>
>
>True.
>
><<> What if C was a mounted unit instead of non-imp foot. Would its
>charge still
>> be canceled because its considered charged by D who never enters C's charge
>> path to make contact (once C moves)?>>
>
>Not for any reason that I can see.
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at
present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come
in it's turn, but it will be at a remote period." James Madison, 15
March 1798 (_Papers of J.M._ vol 12, p.14; LC call no. JK.111.M24)

[Doug]

>Your point that I missed was that you check for charge cancellations before
>moving anything. If I looked closer at MY OWN example, I would have seen
>that D does have C in its path as well...combat directions and who moves
>first means nothing here. In the example both units would be moving in each
>others charge paths...so no reason to cancel for that cause alone.

So here's an item for the FAQ or Players' Guide:
"When learning the game you may find it helpful to lay a piece of
string on the table to show the intended path of each charger to its
target. If any strings cross over one another, you have a situation
when someone's charge _might_ get cancelled (Rule xxx), or the target
of the charge might change (Rule yyy)."
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at
present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come
in it's turn, but it will be at a remote period." James Madison, 15
March 1798 (_Papers of J.M._ vol 12, p.14; LC call no. JK.111.M24)

[joncleaves]

<<So where on the table is C located after its charge is cancelled? Is
C moved to the point where it would enter D's path and then halted,
or do they conceptually become aware of the fact that D is going to
hit them if they move and respond by cancelling their charge before
the move at all?>>

A body that has its charge cancelled does not charge.....