Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

The following situation arose in a wargame. Units A and B are
friends, Unit X is an enemy unit. A and X are frontally aligned and
legally able to charge each other. B is able to angle charge X in
the flank through a legal gap and without threat from other units:

AAA

B XXX
B
B


The following alternatives arose.

Case 1: All units are cavalry.
A and B declare charges. Unit X does not, but as a charge
response, wants to counter charge. According to 6.166, Counter
Charge Restrictions, it can countercharge A and ignore B: "A body
charged by two enemy bodies that cannot counter-charge both,
counter-charges that permitted by its orders and most directly to its
front." In this case, Unit A. Unit X's countercharge is
non-impetuous
and is directed against Unit A, and ignores unit B.


Case 2: All units are cavalry.
A and X declare impetuous charges on each other. B also declares a
charge on X. Now, as B is neither in the charge path of X, nor does
it move into that charge path, the charge of X is pre-empted and
cancelled by the charge of B. (6.613 Cancelled charges: "If a body
is charged by an enemy body that was not in its charge path at the
moment of declaration, and would not have to enter that path to make
contact, the charge is cancelled.")
However, X can still respond to a charge (evade if eligible, or
stand, or (as in case 1 above) countercharge that unit most directly
to it's front (= unit A). EVEN THOUGH X's INITIAL DECLARED CHARGE
AGAINST Unit A WAS PRE-EMPTED AND CANCELLED BY UNIT B - a unit it can
then ignore in it's (X's) counter-charge response!

I don't see the logical differences in these two cases.


The situation was further complicated by the following hypothetical:

Case 3: Unit B is infantry, A and X cavalry.
Infantry Unit B declares an impetuous charge against X. The
charge of X against A is cancelled by B as above. Also as above, X
then counter-charges A (for being most directly to its front) but can
now only do it non-impetuously. In the course of the charge moves, B
(being infantry) FAILS TO CONTACT X. Yet X has been hampered by B's
charge declaration in having its impetuous charge (vs A) cancelled,
yet still being able to counter-charge A (though non-impetuously) and
not be contacted by B.

I know army lists never include Surveyors but in this case unit X
seems robbed of an impetuous charge by an infantry unit B that cannot
contact X if X charges its target A. Is this the proper outcome
(and/or indeed intent) of the rules or I have missed something
important?

[joncleaves]

X cannot countercharge A if charged by B. A counter charge is a charge.

[joncleaves]

Once again, please do not answer rules questions. That's my job, with Scott as
backup.

[Don Coon]

> However, X can still respond to a charge (evade if eligible, or
> stand, or (as in case 1 above) countercharge that unit most directly
> to it's front (= unit A). EVEN THOUGH X's INITIAL DECLARED CHARGE
> AGAINST Unit A WAS PRE-EMPTED AND CANCELLED BY UNIT B - a unit it can
> then ignore in it's (X's) counter-charge response!
>
> I don't see the logical differences in these two cases.

That is correct. Just because it can not charge unit A impetuously does not
mean it has to stand there and take it in the shorts. It can countercharge
(losing its +2 for impetuous if it otherwise would have been allowed that
option, which unless Irr A or B it would anyway for being uneasy due to unit
B in flank.)

> The situation was further complicated by the following hypothetical:
>
>
> I know army lists never include Surveyors but in this case unit X
> seems robbed of an impetuous charge by an infantry unit B that cannot
> contact X if X charges its target A. Is this the proper outcome
> (and/or indeed intent) of the rules or I have missed something
> important?
>
I do not think you have missed anything important, but I do not see it as a
conundrum either.
Unit X was almost surely robbed of the impetuous charge anyway, because unit
B is a cause of enease. They would need to be Irr A, or supported Irr B to
even have an impetuous option. The player of unit A and B would be silly to
declare the charge with unit A in the first place, as the potential to lose
contact by unit B is there. Charge with just unit B and get the free flank
hit. Blast him with unit A next bound.

Also remember there are other cases where a unit can counter charge an enemy
he is not eligible to charge. 2 come to mind quickly: 1. HI 120p away from
REG LHI. Hi can not declare charge (to far away), but can counter charge.
2. Missile troops to far from General for prompt to reach them. They can
not charge, but can countercharge.

Don

--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> X cannot countercharge A if charged by B. A counter charge is a
charge.


Agreed, Jon, as that always seemed to be implied in WRG 7.5, and we
have not allowed a pre-empted charger to then respond with a
countercharge (unlike X in my example), but only to stand (or evade
if eligible to.)

I realise the July draft is just that: a draft released in July (so
all this could be irrelevant), but I have been troubled by these
following two pieces in combination. And as Don gave a response that
was different to yours, Jon, it suggests some clearing up is needed.

Firstly, 6.166 Charge Response includes this:
`Charge responses are permitted to uncovered (1.26) bodies,
bodies that just had a charge cancelled and pursuing bodies in
contact only with routing troops.'

Secondly, my brainstorm mostly came from the following bullet:
Counter-charge restrictions:
· A body charged by two enemy bodies that cannot counter-charge
both, counter-charges that permitted by its orders and most directly
to its front.

This bullet could be seen to give permission for a counter-charge to
ignore a flank charge - the essence of my puzzlement.

Solution: add a further bullet to the restrictions:

`A body that has its charge pre-empted and cancelled cannot
counter-charge.'


And my hat is off to Don, for seeing it was best to charge with B
first, then wait next bound before charging with A. Ouch! And no
room for debate, either. ;)

Terry

[joncleaves]

Terry

The July draft is just that and that issue has already been fixed in the
final version.

I maintain that even after the rules are published, only myself and Scott
will be qualified to answer a rules question. I am on enough of these things
to have seen the confusion that results whenever a player (however regularly
correct and able to read as well as anyone else) answers a rules question.
Just be patient and let me do it, that's my job.

Jon

[joncleaves]

A. That is an old draft you are reading. See my email of this morning.

B. Brian, your tone is decidedly unhelpful. Is there some issue you wish to
discuss?

[joncleaves]

Oh, and since I am the author of Warrior, I do not interpret my own rules. I
only clarify them.

Excuse me??? Let me read that again with my good eye... a counter-charge is a
charge??? Since when??? I played 7th Ed. for many years. As a NASAMW Regional
Rules Coordinator in the 1980's I knew those rules as well as anyone and better
than many. Formerly a would-be charger whose charge was cancelled immediately
reverted to a response permitted by its troop type and orders, including "A body
charged by two enemy bodies that cannot counter-charge both, counter-charges
that permitted by its orders and most directly to its front." As I recall the
original author of the rules included this to kill a Sleazy Tournament Gamesman
Tactic of throwing a second worthless little unit at a target enemy body's flank
to rob the target of any counter-charge response to a declared charge against
the target's front (and which tactic Mr. Cleaves appears to have just
resurrected; tournament players take note). Also, a counter-charge has always
been a RESPONSE (one of several) to a (declared) charge and as such emphatically
NOT the equivalent of a (declared) charge. Has this changed? Not according to
the Warrior draft I read, but its predecessor had an unsavory history of
second-guessers "legislating from the bench" and making significant changes to
the printed rules under the warm fuzzy euphemism of "interpretations," and I
suppose it's difficult to break a tradition (or old habits). I knew that with
7th Ed. resurrected as Warrior, a revived companion collection of the related
classic "Shock of Interpretations" would soon follow, as surely as night follows
day.

If you interpret the cancellation of a charge as also cancelling the ability to
RESPOND with a counter-charge to the front (troop type and orders permitting)
then congratulations, you got it exactly wrong.

Yet another reason to stay with DBM.

Brian K. Fritz

-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... <JonCleaves@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, October 26, 2001 6:27 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Counter-charges


>X cannot countercharge A if charged by B. A counter charge is a charge.
>
>
>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/
>
>


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

[scott holder]

"Yet another reason to stay with DBM."

>Please do. You are most certainly entitled to pose questions and critically
reply to answers provided by anyone involved in Warrior. However, gratuitious
"comments" like the one I quoted do nothing to further our efforts to make
this a rules set that significantly improves upon its predecessor. Instead of
hyperbole and backhanded slaps at those who worked very hard for over a decade
to clean up a set of rules that needed cleaning, perhaps a simple "Jon, were
you aware that your answer might lead some to believe that two bodies charging
one body, one from the front and one from the side, might resurrect an old
tournament ploy whereby a worthless unit on the target unit's flank might
totally cancel the target unit's *counter-charging* options" or something to
that effect.

>Perhaps you are new to the group but in the past, whenever the "you people
suck, that's why I stick with DBM" types decide to join the group and inflict
such a "tone" on the back and forth, they get bounced. Now that I've had the
opportunity to read your second post, I'd strongly urge you to reconsider your
presence on this group. If it's for nothing else than to hurl potshots at the
system, perhaps your time and effort would be better spent elsewhere.

Scott Holder
List Ho

[joncleaves]

Don
That rule has its very specific purpose for being there. Christmas riddle:
what is it?

Jon

[Don Coon]

> > The whole rule was in my post and it included:
> >
> > "Otherwise, a counter-charge must abide by all the same rules as
a charge
> > (e.g. it can be cancelled, it must have room to fit, etc."
>
> Yes I saw the whole thing.

Yes I saw it, but I did not remember it very well. I just reread it
(as I should have done prior to posting) and I see the light. Sorry
for taking up everyones time.

Don

[Don Coon]

> Don
> That rule has its very specific purpose for being there. Christmas
riddle:
> what is it?
>
> Jon

Don't know.

Don

[scott holder]

Yes I saw it, but I did not remember it very well. I just reread it
(as I should have done prior to posting) and I see the light. Sorry
for taking up everyones time.

>Actually Don, thanks for sharing the "mental process" on your end because I'm
sure it mirrors (and will mirror) many others, including mine. I always felt
the countercharge rules somewhat confusing, particularly the whole "to front"
issue as it relates to a unit getting onto a target's flank. The idea here is
to SCREW the target body in this case:):)

Scott
List Ho

[Don Coon]

> Yes I saw it, but I did not remember it very well. I just reread it
> (as I should have done prior to posting) and I see the light. Sorry
> for taking up everyones time.
>
> >Actually Don, thanks for sharing the "mental process" on your end because
I'm
> sure it mirrors (and will mirror) many others, including mine. I always
felt
> the countercharge rules somewhat confusing, particularly the whole "to
front"
> issue as it relates to a unit getting onto a target's flank. The idea
here is
> to SCREW the target body in this case:):)

Yes. I think the target body deserves to be screwed too. An enemy to flank
has to have been (and no doubt still is) a very disconcerting thing.

Don