Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

Jon,

The following came up in a game last night between me and Ed Forbes. It has to
do with figuring out charge targets, charge eligibility, charge paths, etc.
Please consult the file "charge_path_question.ppt" that has been uploaded to
the files section for the group.

The situation is this: on the previous bound I (Knights of Saint John) had
non-impetuously charged and routed a unit of Ed's (Medieval French) light
infantry with my light cavalry. At the beginning of the present bound's charge
declaration phase, units are where depicted on the diagram.

My SHK is within 120p of his Brigans. His Brigans are within 40p of my light
cavalry. Direction of charge combat resolution is from the right to the left.

Things there's no question about:
- His left-most SHK can and must declare an impetuous charge on my LC,
interpenetrating his routing LI;
- His Brigans declare a charge with the intent of being impetuous, also on the
LC;
- My SHK declares a charge on his Brigans;
- The distance between my SHK and his Brigans is more than 80p but less than
120p;
- Because my LC did not originally charge impetuously, I can and will evade;
- At the beginning of charge declarations, his Brigans are supported but have at
least one cause of unease, namely enemy behind the flank.
- The French army standard (unit not depicted in this diagram) is within 240p of
the enemy, made an advance this turn, is visible to the Brigans, as is the enemy
unit towards which the army standard advanced.

Two questions:
(1) Can his Brigans declare an impetuous charge?

Ed's point of view: the target of his charge is the LC, not the SHK, hence the
SHK are not a cause of unease. Support for this comes from section 6.163
"Declaring Charges" at the bottom of page 38 under "Charge Path", first bullet
point where it says "enemy bodies in the path that are legal targets may be
contacted by the charger". It does not say _must_ be contacted, it says _may_
be contacted, and hence Ed has the option, but not the requirement to charge
the SHK.

My point of view: once his target has been established, that dictates what his
charge path will be, and the SHK are in his path, hence they too are a target
of the charge. Since charging SHK frontally would be a second cause of unease
for the Brigans, their charge cannot be impetuous (and is hence cancelled).
Support for this comes from section 6.163 "Declaring Charges" on page 38, under
"Multiple Targets", last sentence, which says "Charges count as declared on all
legal targets in or moving into the 'charge path', see below."

(2) Had the direction of combat resolution been from left to right, we would
have done the charge move for Ed's SHK and the evade for my LC prior to getting
to the Brigans and my SHK, which would have then removed one cause of unease
(enemy behind the flank). Now, it also would have removed one cause of support
since the SHK become disordered when interpenetrating the LI, but assume his
Brigans were otherwise still supported. Under this circumstance, the Brigans
could and would charge the SHK impetuously (having only one cause of unease),
yes? Or do they have no charge because his SHK have removed the target of the
charge (the LC)? Or since the SHK the Brigans have the same target, do we
resolve all of this simultaneously, making -- in this case -- direction of
combat resoultion irrelevant?


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/29/2004 16:10:52 Central Daylight Time,
mark@... writes:

Two questions:
(1) Can his Brigans declare an impetuous charge?>>
[
No.



Ed's point of view: the target of his charge is the LC, not the SHK, hence
the
SHK are not a cause of unease. Support for this comes from section 6.163
"Declaring Charges" at the bottom of page 38 under "Charge Path", first
bullet
point where it says "enemy bodies in the path that are legal targets may be
contacted by the charger". It does not say _must_ be contacted, it says _may_
be contacted, and hence Ed has the option, but not the requirement to charge
the SHK.>>
[
The fact that it does not say 'must' in that sentence has nothing to do with
this situation.



My point of view: once his target has been established, that dictates what
his
charge path will be, and the SHK are in his path, hence they too are a target
of the charge. Since charging SHK frontally would be a second cause of unease
for the Brigans, their charge cannot be impetuous (and is hence cancelled).
Support for this comes from section 6.163 "Declaring Charges" on page 38,
under
"Multiple Targets", last sentence, which says "Charges count as declared on
all
legal targets in or moving into the 'charge path', see below.">>
[
Precisely correct, and the relevant issue here.



(2) Had the direction of combat resolution been from left to right, we would
have done the charge move for Ed's SHK and the evade for my LC prior to
getting
to the Brigans and my SHK, which would have then removed one cause of unease
(enemy behind the flank). Now, it also would have removed one cause of
support
since the SHK become disordered when interpenetrating the LI, but assume his
Brigans were otherwise still supported. Under this circumstance, the Brigans
could and would charge the SHK impetuously (having only one cause of unease),
yes? Or do they have no charge because his SHK have removed the target of the
charge (the LC)? Or since the SHK the Brigans have the same target, do we
resolve all of this simultaneously, making -- in this case -- direction of
combat resoultion irrelevant?>>
[
Combat direction is for resolving combats. Charge declarations (and
therefore potential cancellations) are simultaneous.

J


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

[Doug]

>Combat direction is for resolving combats. Charge declarations (and
>therefore potential cancellations) are simultaneous.
> J

Might be clarifying to put a line in the Sequence of Play saying
something like "From this point on, play is resolved by Combat
Direction, and rules which affect a body's situation are only
evaluated at the time of combat."

[Greg Regets]

This has a curious Catch-22 feeling to it.

The Brigans charge path makes the SHK a target of the charge, so they
cannot charge impetuously, because charging the SHK gives then a
second cause of uneasy, which means their charge will be cancelled by
the SHK charge, which means they never had a charge path in the first
place, which means they would never have gotten the second cause of
unease for frontally charging SHK in the first place.

Is there any chance this can just be much more simple in the rules
redo?

Thanks ... g

[joncleaves]

The Brigans charge path makes the SHK a target of the charge, so they
cannot charge impetuously, because charging the SHK gives then a
second cause of uneasy,>>

True.

<< which means their charge will be cancelled by
the SHK charge,>>

As they are non-impetuous foot, true.

<< which means they never had a charge path in the first
place, which means they would never have gotten the second cause of
unease for frontally charging SHK in the first place.>>

Not true. Unease can change throughout the turn. They are uneasy when charging
the SHK and not once the charge is cancelled. So, yes they did get the second
cause and then the circumstances changed and it went away - in a similar manner
to having an enemy body behind your flank and then having it become broken. One
moment you are uneasy, the next you are not.


<<Is there any chance this can just be much more simple in the rules redo?>>

Everything will be looked at for clarity. I also plan to include Marks' diagram
as a rule example....

J

[Larry Essick]

> This has a curious Catch-22 feeling to it.
>
> The Brigans charge path makes the SHK a target of the charge, so they
> cannot charge impetuously, because charging the SHK gives then a
> second cause of uneasy, which means their charge will be cancelled by
> the SHK charge, which means they never had a charge path in the first
> place, which means they would never have gotten the second cause of
> unease for frontally charging SHK in the first place.
>
> Is there any chance this can just be much more simple in the rules
> redo?

Greg's observation is not precisely correct. The Brigans have a charge path,
just not the ability to be impetuous. They can still declare a non-impetuous
charge. It is possible, after all, that the KoSJ SHK might not declare their
own charge.

Just my opinion,

Larry

[Greg Regets]

I think in this instance the SHK did charge, although I might be
mistaken.

Unease for the purpose of being impetuous, is determined at the point
of charge declaration ... such that even if you become uneasy during
the charge move, you are still impetuous if you were able at the time
of the charge. Right?

Like Jon said ... I'm sure this is an easy fix ... and not really the
sort of thing anyone could anticipate.

g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, <larryessick@b...> wrote:
> > This has a curious Catch-22 feeling to it.
> >
> > The Brigans charge path makes the SHK a target of the charge, so
they
> > cannot charge impetuously, because charging the SHK gives then a
> > second cause of uneasy, which means their charge will be
cancelled by
> > the SHK charge, which means they never had a charge path in the
first
> > place, which means they would never have gotten the second cause
of
> > unease for frontally charging SHK in the first place.
> >
> > Is there any chance this can just be much more simple in the
rules
> > redo?
>
> Greg's observation is not precisely correct. The Brigans have a
charge path, just not the ability to be impetuous. They can still
declare a non-impetuous charge. It is possible, after all, that the
KoSJ SHK might not declare their own charge.
>
> Just my opinion,
>
> Larry

[joncleaves]

Unease for the purpose of being impetuous, is determined at the point
of charge declaration ... such that even if you become uneasy during
the charge move, you are still impetuous if you were able at the time
of the charge. Right?>>

Correct.

[Todd Schneider]

Thinking aloud here...The SHK did charge.

I think the issue is that even though the charge was
only declared on the LC, as the SHK were in the Charge
path, they are a valid charge target, whether they
were declared on or not.
Its not like the Brigans could "collapse" during the
charge to avoid the SHK, or wheel in such a way that
the SHK couldn't have been in the charge path.

My understanding is that unease is determined on a
unit by unit basis during the phase. A unit thats
uneasy at the beginning of the turn is only uneasy
that entire turn if the causes of unease are present
the entire turn.

I think in Marks example, if the combat was left to
right, if the LC had been chased of by the charging
knights, they no longer would have been behind the
flank of the brigans, and therefore the brigans would
have only had one cause of unease, right?

Or do I have the sequence wrong?

Todd


--- Greg Regets <greg.regets@...> wrote:
---------------------------------
I think in this instance the SHK did charge, although
I might be
mistaken.

Unease for the purpose of being impetuous, is
determined at the point
of charge declaration ... such that even if you become
uneasy during
the charge move, you are still impetuous if you were
able at the time
of the charge. Right?

Like Jon said ... I'm sure this is an easy fix ... and
not really the
sort of thing anyone could anticipate.

g



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com,
<larryessick@b...> wrote:
> > This has a curious Catch-22 feeling to it.
> >
> > The Brigans charge path makes the SHK a target of
the charge, so
they
> > cannot charge impetuously, because charging the
SHK gives then a
> > second cause of uneasy, which means their charge
will be
cancelled by
> > the SHK charge, which means they never had a
charge path in the
first
> > place, which means they would never have gotten
the second cause
of
> > unease for frontally charging SHK in the first
place.
> >
> > Is there any chance this can just be much more
simple in the
rules
> > redo?
>
> Greg's observation is not precisely correct. The
Brigans have a
charge path, just not the ability to be impetuous.
They can still
declare a non-impetuous charge. It is possible, after
all, that the
KoSJ SHK might not declare their own charge.
>
> Just my opinion,
>
> Larry


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

[Larry Essick]

IMO, the critical thing is that the KoSJ's SHK are within 120p and also within
the path of the Brigans.

That means that any charge declared by the Brigans must include the KoSJ's SHK
whether the Brigans want to charge them or not.

That seems clear by the diagram and Mark's description. I don't know how it
could be made plainer by Jon even if he wanted to do so.

Larry

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/30/2004 17:22:50 Central Daylight Time,
mark@... writes:

(2) LI and LC can delcare a charge only if _every_ target in their charge
path
is a legal target. This would dramatically weaken the power of light troops
from the way I have understood them to operate, but may in fact be the
correct
reading, and I've just been reading it wrong.>>
[
The answer is 2) above. But I don't get what you are saying - you've been
charging LI/LC into illegal targets and thinking this was ok because they also
hit legal ones??

J







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

[Ed Forbes]

Jon,

If the SHK unit had been a chariot, the unease would have been automatic just
for the fact that the chariot was there.

As the Brigons would not suffer unease unless the SHK were the target of the
Brigons charge, I still have a problem understanding how the charge mechanism
works.

Lets say it was LI in place of the Brigons. Would the LI be able to declare a
charge at all on the LC, as the SHK would not be a legal target for the LI and
is in the LI charge path?

Ed



>Unease for the purpose of being impetuous, is determined at the point
of charge declaration ... such that even if you become uneasy during
the charge move, you are still impetuous if you were able at the time
of the charge. Right?>>

Correct.




________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

[joncleaves]

Lets say it was LI in place of the Brigons. Would the LI be able to declare a
charge at all on the LC, as the SHK would not be a legal target for the LI and
is in the LI charge path?>>
[
The LI would not be able to declare a charge. From the diagram, it appears that
the brigans/theoretical LI could not wheel enough to their right to place only
the LC in their charge path, and even if they did, the charging SHK would then
cancel the charge by coming from out of the foot's charge path.

The brigans are in a bad spot - they have enemy behind their flank and SHK to
their front. I am quite satisfied with how the rules are working in this
situation....

Jon

[Mark Stone]

--- On August 30 Jon Cleaves said: ---

>> Lets say it was LI in place of the Brigons. Would the LI be able to declare a
>> charge at all on the LC, as the SHK would not be a legal target for the LI
and
>> is in the LI charge path?>>
>
> The LI would not be able to declare a charge. From the diagram, it appears
that
> the brigans/theoretical LI could not wheel enough to their right to place only
> the LC in their charge path, and even if they did, the charging SHK would then
> cancel the charge by coming from out of the foot's charge path.
>
> The brigans are in a bad spot - they have enemy behind their flank and SHK to
> their front. I am quite satisfied with how the rules are working in this
> situation....

Now I'm a bit confused. The fact that the SHK are charging shouldn't
particularly enter into this, I would have thought. Clearly the Brigan unit can
contact the LC before it would contact the SHK; the situation describes the
Brigans as being within 40p of the LC, but outside 80p of the SHK. The problem,
I would have thought, is that the SHK are in the path -- that is, within 120p --
and an eligible target -- that is, LMI are allowed to charge SHK fronntally.

If you replace the Brigan unit with an LI, my expectation would be that it's
charge gets cancelled _only_ if the SHK declare a charge. Otherwise, since the
LI could contact the LC before reaching the SHK, and since the SHK are not an
eligible target, the LI charges simply stops at the LC.

I guess it comes down to this. Which of the following applies:

(1) LI and LC can declare a charge if they have _any_ legal target in their
charge path that they can reach before other targets, but then such a charge
counts as declared only on such legal targets as they reach before reaching the
first illegal target in their charge path (this is the way I have been
understanding the rules).

(2) LI and LC can delcare a charge only if _every_ target in their charge path
is a legal target. This would dramatically weaken the power of light troops
from the way I have understood them to operate, but may in fact be the correct
reading, and I've just been reading it wrong.

So Jon, which reading is it, and what textual support can you point us to in
order to guide us in understanding why that's the reading?


-Mark Stone

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I have a bit of a concern here with this whole situation. First of all there are
no SHK to begin with in the Charge path of the Brigans as the SHK are 120 paces
out. If the Brigans are not impetuous why is that the case? Their charge should
go off before that of the SHK. How then would they not be impetuous after the
fact with the SHK charge coming after that of the Brigans in order? This seems a
bit odd to me as the brigans get all frenzied up and in the middle of their
frenzied charge they decide to stop their b/c of the knights who charge after
they have already started theirs. Please help me understand this. . .

kelly

larryessick@... wrote:
> This has a curious Catch-22 feeling to it.
>
> The Brigans charge path makes the SHK a target of the charge, so they
> cannot charge impetuously, because charging the SHK gives then a
> second cause of uneasy, which means their charge will be cancelled by
> the SHK charge, which means they never had a charge path in the first
> place, which means they would never have gotten the second cause of
> unease for frontally charging SHK in the first place.
>
> Is there any chance this can just be much more simple in the rules
> redo?

Greg's observation is not precisely correct. The Brigans have a charge path,
just not the ability to be impetuous. They can still declare a non-impetuous
charge. It is possible, after all, that the KoSJ SHK might not declare their
own charge.

Just my opinion,

Larry


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.

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