Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I see now the problem. I thought the Brigans were MI. I see now.

kelly

larryessick@... wrote:
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


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]

[joncleaves]

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?>.

I'm sorry - I must have missed the fact that the SHK were over 80 from the
Brigans and the brigans are close order. They can't declare on a charge on a
body out of reach.

J

[Mark Stone]

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

>> 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?>.
>
> I'm sorry - I must have missed the fact that the SHK were over 80 from the
> Brigans and the brigans are close order. They can't declare on a charge on a
> body out of reach.
>
> J

No, Jon, they _aren't_ close order. Whoever read it that way (Kelly, I think?)
isn't paying attention.

And I would like to know the answer to my question (and Ed's) regarding an LI
unit in the same position as the Brigans, with no charge declared on it by the
SHK:

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.


-Mark Stone

[Mark Stone]

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

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

No, of course not.

Look at the file I've uploaded entitled "light_charge_path.ppt". Suppose that
the LI unit in this diagram is supported, and suppose that it wishes to avoid
taking a waver test for being charged by the LC by declaring an impetuous
charge on the LC.

But, according to the answer you just gave me, since not _every_ target in the
path of the LI is an eligible target, it can't declare a charge of any kind,
impetuous or otherwise. Is that really how we're supposed to be playing this?


-Mark Stone

> 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??
>

I think Mark (and I) are looking at "The charge path of a charge is
a zone as wide as the charging body extending out its tactical move"
and taking this to mean a rectangle as wide as the chargers'
frontage once it has wheeled and extending out 120p for LI. If
there is a legal enemy target closest in that rectangle and an
illegal one farther away, then we were thinking the LI can charge
the legal target notwithstanding the illegal target farther off.

Option 2 as Mark described it means that the LI has no legal charge
if there is an illegal target anywhere at all in that 120p deep
rectangle, even an enemy 100p away on the other side of a mass of
outflanked shaken enemy lights at 40p that the LI could have charged
if the illegal target had instead been outside the rectangle 121p
away.

From your answer, it sounds to me as though in picking option 2 you
are thinking in terms of the charge path extending not the full
tactical move distance of 120p out but the actual tactical move made
to contact the nearest enemy. Therefore an illegal target farther
away than a closer legal enemy target is not in the initial charge
path (aside from echelon forward wrinkles), but, as in my other
thread example, it would become in the charge path once the first
unit evaded out of the way. (See other thread.)

Am I taking this correctly?

Mike

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/30/2004 18:48:24 Central Daylight Time,
mailtomikek@... writes:

I think Mark (and I) are looking at "The charge path of a charge is
a zone as wide as the charging body extending out its tactical move" >>
Essentially true, but again, 6.162 says:

"If the body cannot legally declare a charge against a target or is
prevented from doing so by some obstacle such as terrain or an intervening body,
that
target is not in the body's charge reach."




and taking this to mean a rectangle as wide as the chargers'
frontage once it has wheeled and extending out 120p for LI. If
there is a legal enemy target closest in that rectangle and an
illegal one farther away, then we were thinking the LI can charge
the legal target notwithstanding the illegal target farther off. >>
[
True. 6.162 would not come into play because no body intervened.



Option 2 as Mark described it means that the LI has no legal charge
if there is an illegal target anywhere at all in that 120p deep
rectangle, even an enemy 100p away on the other side of a mass of
outflanked shaken enemy lights at 40p that the LI could have charged
if the illegal target had instead been outside the rectangle 121p
away. >>
[
I've lost track of 'option 2', but what you just described is incorrect.



From your answer, it sounds to me as though in picking option 2 you
are thinking in terms of the charge path extending not the full
tactical move distance of 120p out but the actual tactical move made
to contact the nearest enemy.>>
[
I don't know what 'picking option 2 means, but your charge path isn't the
only thing in play here. the target has to be in your charge reach and no
matter how far away someting is, if you'd hit something else first, that is
where
your charge reach ends - barring any legal echeloning.

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/30/2004 22:19:35 Central Daylight Time,
ewan.mcnay@... 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??

Naah.

Naah.

That's the sound of me simply not believing this answer .



[
Would you still feel that way given the fact that for all intents and
purposes your charge path does not extend beyond your charge reach? Charge
paths
are not infinite - they essentially end where you contact something.

J


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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Mark,

Had you read my second post, you would have seen that I corrected myself
after realizing my mistake. I try very much to pay attention as this is very
important.
So had the brigans been close order I must assume the charge would have
come off as impetuous seeing jon's comment here. For the life of me I can't
understand why anyone would run brigans any way other than the way my friend
Charles Yaw runs them as HI 2HCT, PA 1/2 JLS. They absolutely tore me up the
first time I ran into them.

kelly

Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
--- On August 30 Jon Cleaves said: ---

>> 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?>.
>
> I'm sorry - I must have missed the fact that the SHK were over 80 from the
> Brigans and the brigans are close order. They can't declare on a charge on a
> body out of reach.
>
> J

No, Jon, they _aren't_ close order. Whoever read it that way (Kelly, I think?)
isn't paying attention.

And I would like to know the answer to my question (and Ed's) regarding an LI
unit in the same position as the Brigans, with no charge declared on it by the
SHK:

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.


-Mark Stone


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!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

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

[Ewan McNay]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 JonCleaves@... wrote:
> 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??

Naah.

Naah.

That's the sound of me simply not believing this answer .

If light troops are only permitted to declare a charge in the situation
where everybody with whom they would be able to make contact, were they
not light troops, is a legal charge target - well, suffice to say that I
just don't think that can possibly be the case.

For one thing, it would render entirely obsolete the dropping back of
elements in a charge to avoid contacting illegal-to-contact enemy.

For a second, it would render incorrect the way that this is played in
every game I've played .

It ain't so. Jon was temporarily posessed by an evil spirit...

e

> Would you still feel that way given the fact that for all intents
and purposes your charge path does not extend beyond your charge
reach? Charge paths are not infinite - they essentially end where
you contact something.<


Thanks Jon. I think the confusion is arising from charge
declaration (and hence cancellations, wavers etc.) being tied to the
definition of charge path in terms of distance rather than charge
reach in terms of contact, but I'm not sure I can capture all the
relevant issues in a diagram. Practically, I think I understand
what you mean.

Aloha,

Mike

[joncleaves]

Thanks Jon. I think the confusion is arising from charge
declaration (and hence cancellations, wavers etc.) being tied to the
definition of charge path in terms of distance rather than charge
reach in terms of contact, but I'm not sure I can capture all the
relevant issues in a diagram. >>
[
I will look at rewording it to say path out to charge reach and not simply tac
move distance so both concepts are combined in one place. and a diagram would
not hurt us there either.

J

[joncleaves]

Look at the file I've uploaded entitled "light_charge_path.ppt". Suppose that
the LI unit in this diagram is supported, and suppose that it wishes to avoid
taking a waver test for being charged by the LC by declaring an impetuous
charge on the LC.>>
[
Ok. Got it.

<<But, according to the answer you just gave me, since not _every_ target in the
path of the LI is an eligible target, it can't declare a charge of any kind,
impetuous or otherwise. Is that really how we're supposed to be playing this?>>

The MI is not a target. It is out of the charge reach of the LI. See 6.162.
If the LI is not uneasy or tired it can certainly make this charge.

jon

[Ed Forbes]

Jon,

If the LI example can make the charge due to the fact that the MI is not
a "target", why do the LMI Brigands have to count the SHK as a charge
target?

In the brigand example, the LC is less than 40 paces away from the LMIand
in the charge path of the LMI. The SHK is farther away from the LMI than
the LC. The charge path therefore ends at the LC. As the charge path ends
at the LC, the SHK is considered out of the charge path for charge
declarations.

The Brigands are only uneasy if the SHK is a target. If the Brigions are
not uneasy, they can get off an impetuous charge on the LC. If the SHK
do declare a charge on the LMI, the LMI charge should not be canceled due
to a declared impetuous charge on the LC.

Ed

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:03:14 -0400 JonCleaves@... writes:
> Look at the file I've uploaded entitled "light_charge_path.ppt".
> Suppose that
> the LI unit in this diagram is supported, and suppose that it wishes
> to avoid
> taking a waver test for being charged by the LC by declaring an
> impetuous
> charge on the LC.>>
> [
> Ok. Got it.
>
> <<But, according to the answer you just gave me, since not _every_
> target in the
> path of the LI is an eligible target, it can't declare a charge of
> any kind,
> impetuous or otherwise. Is that really how we're supposed to be
> playing this?>>
>
> The MI is not a target. It is out of the charge reach of the LI.
> See 6.162.
> If the LI is not uneasy or tired it can certainly make this charge.
>
> jon
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~-->
> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
> Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/IMSolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->

>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

________________________________________________________________
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]

In a message dated 8/31/2004 02:07:06 Central Daylight Time,
eforbes100@... writes:

In the brigand example, the LC is less than 40 paces away from the LMIand
in the charge path of the LMI. The SHK is farther away from the LMI than
the LC. The charge path therefore ends at the LC. As the charge path ends
at the LC, the SHK is considered out of the charge path for charge
declarations.



No, in the example, the LC does not prevent the LMI from contacting the SHK.
There is a difference between 'first contacted' and 'prevented from being
contacted'. The latter is the rule in 6.162.

Jon


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

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 8/30/2004 22:19:35 Central Daylight Time,
> ewan.mcnay@... 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??
>
>
> Naah.
>
> Naah.
>
> That's the sound of me simply not believing this answer .
>
>
>
> [
> Would you still feel that way given the fact that for all intents and
> purposes your charge path does not extend beyond your charge reach? Charge
paths
> are not infinite - they essentially end where you contact something.

Well, yes, because I would not imagine that a charge path could
possibly extend beyond my charge reach.

I really suspect that something is being lost in translation between
what you (think you) are saying, and what we (think we) are hearing.

If I have time, I'll try to add some diagrams and Qs to clarify here,
but I (still) just can't see the truth being anything other than the
way I (and I believe Mark, but I also believe you) have played it.