Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Don Coon]

Jon,
 
After 12 tourny games in 15mm today with the new charge ideas I presented to you, we have the following tweaks.
 
1.261 Uncovered.Delete this definition.  We do not see its use.  The only place we see it , I will address shortly.
 
6.163 Add the definition "charge path - the charge path is the area covered by the charging bodies footprint during a charge move.  This includes any mandatory adjustment to follow a target evading or routing."
 
Reword "uncovered targets - a charge declared on a specific enemy counts as declared on any other enemy in the charge path or moving into the charge path.  Use combat direction (8.1) to determine which units are moving into the path of which charges.  If a charge target makes an evade move (6.166) as a response to a charge the charging body may be able to contact another body as a legal charge target.  All charging bodies must wheel to follow evaders or routers to the best of their ability.  If during the attempt to follow the evading or routing body, a new legal charge target is contacted, that body counts as having a charge declared on it.  Non impetuous chargers have the option to, but do not have to drop elements back in order to avoid a new charge target.  Non impetuous chargers have the option of stopping 40p short of a new charge target as well.  Impetuous chargers may not drop elements to avoid a new legal charge target.  Impetuous chargers may not avoid a new charge target.   A charging unit may not charge a new charge target that is not legal for them.  Instead they stop 40p short.  A new charge target gets all normal charge responses.  Note that this is not a converted charge, but an original one.  Rule 6.167 does not apply to such a charge."
 
We then recommend a diagram showing a charge towards a body that then evades.  Make the evade at such an angle that the charger while wheeling to follow, will hit another enemy.  Use some dotted line to denote the charge path.  The charger should be 2 or 3 elements wide as this is a very graphic example of a big slow wheel that wont catch an evader but still might hit a body near the evader.
 
This cleaned up a few messes we had today.  The wheeling to follow evaders stops a lot of charge confusion.  It also eliminates the need to define uncovered.  We have had several instances where a charger had its target evade, but not divert or interpenetrate around a body that the charger could now contact (and in fact could not possibly avoid).  There is nothing in the current rules to handle this.  Since the new enemy is not "uncovered" it can not be a charge target (why not say we?) .  If it can not be a new charge target, what does the charger do?  Stop a .0001P from the body?  We think it should get whacked!!!  Uncovered or not, if you are in a units charge path, It should get to plow you.  It is after all, charging in the first place.  It is going to want to hit something.  A unit directed to charge will do what it can to hit that target, but when it can not due to another enemy it will vent on that enemy by smacking it.  That we feel is an acurate portrayal of people on the battlefield.  It also takes away a bit of control from the omnipotent player/commander.  It also forces impetuous charges to blast into whatever gets in their way.  Try it, see how it feel.  We think you will like it.
 
Don

[Chris Bump]

Sorry to all,

I am half brain dead after a long day, and only just realized that I sent a
message to Don, but addressed it to the whole Warrior group. Terribly sorry
for any confusion.

Chris

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Chris,
No problem man, we all make mistakes. I have and
as a man, I will most likely make more. No one is
without fault.

Kelly

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

[joncleaves]

<< Imagine a flank charge at an LI unit .
In the LI units other flank is an enemy LMI unit. When the LI evade
straight to their rear (as they are allowed to do), the LMI can now be seen
by the charger. The charger must wheel 45 to try to follow the LI but can
not clear the LMI unit. The LMI were not diverted around per 1.261, and the
charger can not avoid them. What would you do with the charger now? >>
>>

I'd let it hit, and will review what uncovered says to see why this guy is
not uncovered by definition.

[joncleaves]

Give me some time to look at all this..... If someone stayed up talking
about it, the rule could obviously be clearer, just need a fee minute to
investigate. Be patient.

[joncleaves]

I do not intend an LOS-based change for uncovered. i just read it again and
don't see an issue.

I am working on a section labeled 'charges at evading troops' that has much
the same language as 6.33. Impetuous troops will have to chase their target.
Non-impetuous will have options. The 'choose to wheel to follow' is the
confusing part and will be fixed and the fix incorporated into the new
section. It means that you can either leave your original charge path in
place and charge along it, or wheel after the evader. Non-impetuous troops
can always go after someone in the charge path as all of them are legal
targets and the charge counts as declared on them as well.

Targets of charges always have charge responses. Is there someplace I missed
that says otherwise?

The main question should be "where the targets that were NOT
uncovered in the evade from the original charge, an eligable target
in the first instance?" That is, if these units were in range and an
eligable target when the original charge declaration was made, why
where they not declared and charged then?

I believe that, unless uncovered / diverted around etc, units that
are in charge range at time of charge declarations and NOT declared
against, cannot be "run into" and forced into combat. This goes
back to the original 7th edition in not specifically designating
targets but allowing units to "charge to their front" and hit
anything they come into contact with.

Reasons against.
1. This prevents the new target from responding to the undeclared
charge against it. ie counter-charge / evade etc

2. Allows for "fudges" so as to ignore gaps.

3. Allows the chargers to exceed their original charge range if the
new target is beyond original charge range but now able to be hit if
charging mounted rolled "fast". If you want to do this, allow for a
converted charge and be done with it.

4. If the attacker declines to nominate some targets to be charged
but does specify another target, then the attacker loses the option
of a defacto charge on those targets he previously declined.

All of this MUST apply to both irreg and reg. I agree that the
charger must make every effort to follow the original target /
targets before the options of converted charges can be taken.

Bottom line, if ya wanna charge it, declare it!


>>> big snip here <<<

We have had several instances where a charger had its target evade,
but not divert or interpenetrate around a body that the charger could
now contact (and in fact could not possibly avoid). There is nothing
in the current rules to handle this. Since the new enemy is
not "uncovered" it can not be a charge target (why not say we?) . If
it can not be a new charge target, what does the charger do? Stop
a .0001P from the body? We think it should get whacked!!! Uncovered
or not, if you are in a units charge path, It should get to plow
you. It is after all, charging in the first place. It is going to
want to hit something. A unit directed to charge will do what it can
to hit that target, but when it can not due to another enemy it will
vent on that enemy by smacking it. That we feel is an acurate
portrayal of people on the battlefield. It also takes away a bit of
control from the omnipotent player/commander. It also forces
impetuous charges to blast into whatever gets in their way. Try it,
see how it feel. We think you will like it.
>
> Don

[joncleaves]

I'll work a more complicated path diagram.

I am working rule 17.0 at the moment. Don's proposal on lining up and
pivoting is in a stack of 37 things that need to be done, none of them
simple. That stack includes all this 'footprint' stuff I have to wade
through, but does not include the 18 diagrams that are left, nor does it take
into account either the fact that I also have to lay this thing out for the
printer instead of a pro doing it or the events of 9/11/01 and their impact
on me.

Be patient.

Jon

[Don Coon]

> The main question should be "were the targets that were NOT
> uncovered in the evade from the original charge, an eligable target
> in the first instance?" That is, if these units were in range and an
> eligable target when the original charge declaration was made, why
> where they not declared and charged then?

No they were not, for if they were thay would have been declared against.
This is about bodies that can not be declared against, and do not become
uncovered (by the 1.261 definition). Imagine a flank charge at an LI unit .
In the LI units other flank is an enemy LMI unit. When the LI evade
straight to their rear (as they are allowed to do), the LMI can now be seen
by the charger. The charger must wheel 45 to try to follow the LI but can
not clear the LMI unit. The LMI were not diverted around per 1.261, and the
charger can not avoid them. What would you do with the charger now?

> I believe that, unless uncovered / diverted around etc, units that
> are in charge range at time of charge declarations and NOT declared
> against, cannot be "run into" and forced into combat. This goes
> back to the original 7th edition in not specifically designating
> targets but allowing units to "charge to their front" and hit
> anything they come into contact with.

What else would you have us do? I asked where my chargers are supposed to
stop, but you failed to address this critical point of my post.

> Reasons against.
> 1. This prevents the new target from responding to the undeclared
> charge against it. ie counter-charge / evade etc

Untrue. Did you read my rule? I specifically allowed any new target a
normal charge response. This is NOT a converted charge.

> 2. Allows for "fudges" so as to ignore gaps.

Also untrue. All normal charge rules still apply.

> 3. Allows the chargers to exceed their original charge range if the
> new target is beyond original charge range but now able to be hit if
> charging mounted rolled "fast". If you want to do this, allow for a
> converted charge and be done with it.

If you roll horsies up, they move further. If this carries them into a new
body it should be a legal charge target.

> 4. If the attacker declines to nominate some targets to be charged
> but does specify another target, then the attacker loses the option
> of a defacto charge on those targets he previously declined.

I agree, IF they targets were eligible at declaration. However, we had 3
games in 12 Saturday have situations where the new charge target was not
legal at declaration, and only became so after the original target evaded
out of the way.

> All of this MUST apply to both irreg and reg. I agree that the
> charger must make every effort to follow the original target /
> targets before the options of converted charges can be taken.

Please be careful useing "converted charge" nomenclature. This has NOTHING
to do with converted charges, which can only occur as a result of a combat
results move.

> Bottom line, if ya wanna charge it, declare it!

Near the bottom dude, but not quite the bottom .

> We have had several instances where a charger had its target evade,
> but not divert or interpenetrate around a body that the charger could
> now contact (and in fact could not possibly avoid). There is nothing
> in the current rules to handle this. Since the new enemy is
> not "uncovered" it can not be a charge target. If it can not be a new
charge target, what does the charger do? Stop
> a .0001P from the body? 40P? 1 AU?

You failed to address this key point. Steve, when this situation occurs in
your games, where do you have the charger stop? The rules say nothing about
this.

Don

[Patrick Byrne]

Steve, I must disagree with you. Let's see if I can hit your points in
order.

Here is a situation that occurred at the recent DFW Tourney. A Cav Unit is
lining up for a flank charge on an enemy unit. He is directly pointed at the
unit. On the opponents cav move, they move a stand of LC in to protect the
flank. In charge declaration the Cav unit is able to declare a charge
against the LC but not the intended target because it can't fit. (I believe
this answers your questions as to why the 'not uncovered' unit couldn't be
charged).

The question became, does the Cav have to wheel to follow the new LC target
(that it can't reach) or could it go straight and hit the unit it originally
lined up to hit. Rule 6.166 'evade move' says that I can choose to follow or
not. Rule 6.163 'Multiple Targets' & 'Uncovered Targets' says that the Cav
unit can't charge the original intended unit.

So the cav can't charge the intended unit. Here are some questions that were
raised.
1. If the Cav choose not to wheel to 'go after' the LC, then what, stop 20 or
40p shy of the intended target?
2. What if the Cav couldn't perform the wheel with-out contacting the
intended target?
3. If the Cav unit was 2 or 3 elements wide, would they get a free drop back?

4. What do the 4 Horsemen intend in this situation?

With this, we stayed up until 12:30 debating this issue between several of
us, including the resident Military Historian. We can up with the posting
that Don made based on several points, I'll get to below.

Now I will counter the points you've brought up.
0. We talked about the philosophy of the charging unit. If a unit is
charging, and it sees it's target running away opening up a new charging
target (especially one it lined up on before the enemy LC move), would it
turn to go for the LC which is outdistancing it, or would it attack the
hittable target?
0.A. Our answer was conditionally. If it was charger was impetuous, it would
hit what ever it could hit. If it was un-impetuous, the unit commander might
have enough control to make it go straight ahead or wheel to follow. Also,
if it was impetuous, the unit would be less inclined to drop back ranks and
wheel to follow, whereas again a non-impetuos unit might just have the
control. (BTW this is contrary to 6.163 'Uncovered Targets' were the
impetuous bodies currently have more self discipline and control than the
regulars).

Reasons for (in response to your numbers below):
1. New targets, even if 'uncovered' as in the current rules, still can
respond to a charge (6.166 'Uncovered Targets'), this does not go away.
2. Don's proposal would not change how gap rules work. A charging unit
whether wheeling to follow, or wanting to hit the new target, would still
abide by the gap rule.
3. The current rules still allows for the Cav unit to roll "fast" and still
hit "uncovered" targets. This is not any different. And let it be known
that a this minor rules change would not infringe on converted charges as
this movement is not a combat results move.
4. You are confusing me a little with this one; but, in the current rules, a
charging unit attacking can not declare an attack on more than one unit
(unless the target evades around or interpenetrates a unit). This would
broaden the amount of charge targets, and in a sense, broaden the amount of
'uncovered targets'.

It would also stop a lot of cheese by having someone just shove some LC or LI
on some-one's flank to protect it. Look at it this way, if LC or LI don't
count for support on the shoulders if HI, then why should it prohibit the HI
from getting charged. How about since the current rules allow for LC and LI
to prevent charges on the flanks of loose or close ordered foot, then make it
count for support against unease!

In summary, the rule clarification Don proposed gives less control to the
omnipotent general. It also makes regulars more controllable than irregulars
(by giving them the choice).

Finally,
The charge WAS declared, and now I'm standing here deep behind enemy lines
instead of hitting the person I actually wanted to hit! (Read as, the 4
horsemen were my intended target but now Steve Honeyman has forced me to
charge him.)
-PB


Steve Honeyman wrote:

> The main question should be "where the targets that were NOT
> uncovered in the evade from the original charge, an eligable target
> in the first instance?" That is, if these units were in range and an
> eligable target when the original charge declaration was made, why
> where they not declared and charged then?
>
> I believe that, unless uncovered / diverted around etc, units that
> are in charge range at time of charge declarations and NOT declared
> against, cannot be "run into" and forced into combat. This goes
> back to the original 7th edition in not specifically designating
> targets but allowing units to "charge to their front" and hit
> anything they come into contact with.
>
> Reasons against.
> 1. This prevents the new target from responding to the undeclared
> charge against it. ie counter-charge / evade etc
>
> 2. Allows for "fudges" so as to ignore gaps.
>
> 3. Allows the chargers to exceed their original charge range if the
> new target is beyond original charge range but now able to be hit if
> charging mounted rolled "fast". If you want to do this, allow for a
> converted charge and be done with it.
>
> 4. If the attacker declines to nominate some targets to be charged
> but does specify another target, then the attacker loses the option
> of a defacto charge on those targets he previously declined.
>
> All of this MUST apply to both irreg and reg. I agree that the
> charger must make every effort to follow the original target /
> targets before the options of converted charges can be taken.
>
> Bottom line, if ya wanna charge it, declare it!
>

[Patrick Byrne]

Jon,
The unit was not uncovered because the LI did not evade around, routed, nor did
the LMI move into the path. You may want to look at interpenetration and no LOS
as being causes for "uncovered".

But I agree with Don, "uncovered" really doesn't seem necessary.

Also, please note that we are suggesting reversing the amount of control of the
charging body so that impetuous chargers have less control and non-impetuous
have
more control. This was the change for rule 6.166 'Evade Moves'.
-PB

JonCleaves@... wrote:

> << Imagine a flank charge at an LI unit .
> In the LI units other flank is an enemy LMI unit. When the LI evade
> straight to their rear (as they are allowed to do), the LMI can now be seen
> by the charger. The charger must wheel 45 to try to follow the LI but can
> not clear the LMI unit. The LMI were not diverted around per 1.261, and the
> charger can not avoid them. What would you do with the charger now? >>
> >>
>
> I'd let it hit, and will review what uncovered says to see why this guy is
> not uncovered by definition.
>
>
> 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/

[Patrick Byrne]

Could you also put 'charge path' in the definitions portion of the rules. Our
question here is, does the charge path extend straight out from the unit, or is
it the path taken after all wheels towards the target are made?

I would recommend a more complicated example of a charge path than the striaght
ahead one shown in 6.163. Maybe one that had the charger coming in at an angle
and includes wheel in it against two opposing enemy units. Then you could say
Unit 'A' and Unit 'B' are in the charge path of Unit 'X', however Unit 'X' can
not declare on Unit 'B' since it can't fit on contact and meet the requirements
of 'uncovered'.


Also, what happened with the pivoting to conform issue. Your last post was
saying to consider any unit who contacts another unit as being in HTH regarding
of line-up or pivoting to conform. Then you asked Don to address it. He did,
and I haven't heard anything since.
-PB

JonCleaves@... wrote:

> I do not intend an LOS-based change for uncovered. i just read it again and
> don't see an issue.
>
> I am working on a section labeled 'charges at evading troops' that has much
> the same language as 6.33. Impetuous troops will have to chase their target.
> Non-impetuous will have options. The 'choose to wheel to follow' is the
> confusing part and will be fixed and the fix incorporated into the new
> section. It means that you can either leave your original charge path in
> place and charge along it, or wheel after the evader. Non-impetuous troops
> can always go after someone in the charge path as all of them are legal
> targets and the charge counts as declared on them as well.
>
> Targets of charges always have charge responses. Is there someplace I missed
> that says otherwise?
>
>
> 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,

Oops! Let me dig myself an even deeper hole......

> > The main question should be "were the targets that were NOT ...."
> No they were not, for if they were thay would have been declared
against. This is about bodies that can not be declared against, and
do not become uncovered (by the 1.261 definition). Imagine a flank
charge at an LI unit . In the LI units other flank is an enemy LMI
unit. When the LI evade straight to their rear (as they are allowed
to do), the LMI can now be seen by the charger. The charger must
wheel 45 to try to follow the LI but can not clear the LMI unit. The
LMI were not diverted around per 1.261, and the charger can not avoid
them. What would you do with the charger now?

*** I would have the charger make every attempt to follow the
original target. If this is not viable (or unachievable) and the new
unit is contactable, then the charger should be allowed to hit it.
As an aside, here we generally rule that in this type of situation
the LI DID uncover the LMI in it's evade move as the LMI could not be
seen nor was it an eligable target at time of charge
declarations. 'N besides, if the charging unit was a scythed
chariot, the LMI is the only legitimate target now. Ergo, the LMI
was uncovered by the LI's evade as per 1.261 so the diagram and
wording must be changed.

> I believe that, unless uncovered / diverted around etc.....
> What else would you have us do? I asked where my chargers are
supposed to stop, but you failed to address this critical point of my
post.

*** Yes, you are right, I did not answer your question. See above.

<<< BIG SNIP >>>
> I agree, IF they targets were eligible at declaration. However, we
had 3 games in 12 Saturday have situations where the new charge
target was not legal at declaration, and only became so after the
original target evaded out of the way.

*** See above.

> Please be careful useing "converted charge" nomenclature. This has
NOTHING to do with converted charges, which can only occur as a
result of a combat results move.

*** I stand (or sit rather) corrected. I should not have used
the "converted charge" phrase.

> We have had several instances where a charger had its target
evade, but not divert or interpenetrate around a body that the
charger could now contact (and in fact could not possibly avoid).
There is nothing in the current rules to handle this. Since the new
enemy is not "uncovered" it can not be a charge target. If it can
not be a new charge target, what does the charger do? Stop a .0001P
from the body? 40P? 1 AU?

You failed to address this key point. Steve, when this situation
occurs in your games, where do you have the charger stop? The rules
say nothing about this.

*** Very sorry Don. I actually agree with you and most humbley
apologise. As I have said above, we here would consider that the LMI
were uncovered by the LI evade and, if chasing the LI was not
possible, then the LMI would be a legitimate target to hit. Also, as
I have said, the LMI would become the ONLY target if the attcker was
a scythed chariot charging impetuously and can not change course once
it began it's charge. Perhaps this last point is the most telling to
change the 1.261 wording and diagram otherwise the chariot, not being
able to chase the LI, would be forced to pull up one/beesdick short
of the LMI and stop it's charge. And this is contrary to the rules
for the chariot.

Can I stop digging now? BTW, did you guys dry run the LI delaying
their recall from close and loose until after prep shooting? What
was the result? I will keep a track on this over this coming
weekend. I'm sure that over 6 games, I'll have some data for you.

Cheers

Steve

A FEE minute? Are you charging for the charging????? hehehehehe


--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Give me some time to look at all this..... If someone stayed up
talking
> about it, the rule could obviously be clearer, just need a fee
minute to
> investigate. Be patient.

Jon,

My question is for your section outlined below and is on the
impetuous troops and gaps. If in chasing the target, this leads to
going through an illegal gap, would the imp troops now hit the other
taget?

eg. using the LI / LMI example quoted elsewhere. If the LI evaded
through a 1 element gap between woods and the flank of the LMI and
the attaching unit was 4hHch (unable to enter woods), since the 4hHch
cannot pass through the gap (less than 2 elements wide) nor can it go
through the woods, can it now hit the LMI as it cannot now contact
the LI?


--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> I do not intend an LOS-based change for uncovered. i just read it
again and
> don't see an issue.
>
> I am working on a section labeled 'charges at evading troops' that
has much
> the same language as 6.33. Impetuous troops will have to chase
their target.
> Non-impetuous will have options. The 'choose to wheel to follow'
is the
> confusing part and will be fixed and the fix incorporated into the
new
> section. It means that you can either leave your original charge
path in
> place and charge along it, or wheel after the evader. Non-
impetuous troops
> can always go after someone in the charge path as all of them are
legal
> targets and the charge counts as declared on them as well.
>
> Targets of charges always have charge responses. Is there
someplace I missed
> that says otherwise?