 |
Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules A Four Horsemen Enterprises Rules Set
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Chris Bump Legate

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1625
|
Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2000 3:04 am Post subject: Re: Digest Number 22 |
 |
|
Jon,
We playtested again today and again ran into syntax issues or word choice
problems with regards to the way we used to play and how the rules appear to
want you to play.
First: A loose order foot unit is in skirmish and within 120 paces of a
Heavy cav unit in the open. The foot unit recognizes he is likely to be
charged and thus decalares a charge on the HC unit. the HC unit had also
declared a charge on the loose order unit. Both advanced during the approach
phase and so counters are no longer an issue. According to the rules as soon
as the loose order unit declared a charge he went from skirmish to block The
foot unit is not capable of declaring impetious. Although the foot charge
is pre-empted by the mounted charge, the rules state that the moment that the
foot unit declares a charge it reverts to block. In block he can stand to
receive a charge and not have to evade as he would have to in skirmish. Is
this correct?
Additionally the word response appears to be used too frequently for
different reasons, that cause confusion.
According to the rules a foot unit, even loose, whose charge is pre-empted by
a mounted charge is forbidden any charge response. Isn't a waiver test a
response to charge? I know of course the loose troops must waiver. But the
rules seem to be contrary and I could not delinieate where in the rules this
was more clearly outlined. Perhaps a more detailed description is in order??
Second is the issue of charge reach. In this example I found myself at a
quandry based on what I thought I took from one of the last web page comments.
If two loose order units are facing each other at an acute angle, but just
barely acute, and the two closest elements opposing each other are 80 paces
apart but the two furthest elements opposing each other are more than 240
paces apart (big units). Both units declare a charge. The outside elements
do not have the movement to make contact. I recall seeing that we were no
longer going to step back units that do not have the range to make contact.
Do both units conform to gain full contact with all elements facting each
other?
What if they were both in the brush and the 2 closest opposing elements could
contact, but the two furthest really had to gain ground to make contact.
Would you conform all opposing elements?
What if the one unit was standing to receive and the other charging. The two
closest elements could easily contact, but now the "whip" on that outside
element gives him more movement than if he were marching. Is this correct?
Or is the rule now that the outside element must have the movement to contact
the enemy before a charge can be declared? The rule as I could find it says
first element to contact and all others conform. I am sure I am missing
something, but not sure where or what.
Thanks for your help
Chris
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
joncleaves Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447
|
Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2000 3:39 am Post subject: Re: Digest Number 22 |
 |
|
<< First: A loose order foot unit is in skirmish and within 120 paces of a
Heavy cav unit in the open. The foot unit recognizes he is likely to be
charged and thus decalares a charge on the HC unit. the HC unit had also
declared a charge on the loose order unit. Both advanced during the
approach
phase and so counters are no longer an issue. According to the rules as
soon
as the loose order unit declared a charge he went from skirmish to block
The
foot unit is not capable of declaring impetious. Although the foot charge
is pre-empted by the mounted charge, the rules state that the moment that
the
foot unit declares a charge it reverts to block. In block he can stand to
receive a charge and not have to evade as he would have to in skirmish. Is
this correct? >>
The current Warrior draft (current meaning the one sitting next to me with
the wet ink) says in 6.45 that a body in skirmish that has its charge
cancelled reverts to a disordered block AFTER it makes charge responses.
Your foot would evade and be disordered when it completed the evade move.
[I'm pretty sure this is also straight out of 7.6+interp book.]
<<Additionally the word response appears to be used too frequently for
different reasons, that cause confusion.>>
Agreed. Working on it.
<< According to the rules a foot unit, even loose, whose charge is pre-empted
by
a mounted charge is forbidden any charge response. Isn't a waiver test a
response to charge? >>
A waver is not a charge response.
<< I know of course the loose troops must waiver. But the
rules seem to be contrary and I could not delinieate where in the rules this
was more clearly outlined. Perhaps a more detailed description is in
order??>>
I'll look into it.
<<Second is the issue of charge reach. In this example I found myself at a
quandry based on what I thought I took from one of the last web page
comments.
If two loose order units are facing each other at an acute angle, but just
barely acute, and the two closest elements opposing each other are 80 paces
apart but the two furthest elements opposing each other are more than 240
paces apart (big units). Both units declare a charge. The outside elements
do not have the movement to make contact. I recall seeing that we were no
longer going to step back units that do not have the range to make contact.
Do both units conform to gain full contact with all elements facting each
other?>>
Yes. Elements in contact pivot for free. Elements that did not make contact
go their full move, echeloning back if they must. If they cannot stay in
side contact with friendly elements, no charge. The echeloning back is
similar to the old 20p thing, but not the same.
<< What if they were both in the brush and the 2 closest opposing elements
could
contact, but the two furthest really had to gain ground to make contact.
Would you conform all opposing elements?>>
See above.
<< What if the one unit was standing to receive and the other charging. The
two
closest elements could easily contact, but now the "whip" on that outside
element gives him more movement than if he were marching. Is this correct?
>>
See above.
<< Or is the rule now that the outside element must have the movement to
contact
the enemy before a charge can be declared?>>
It must have the move given that it may echelon back (in side contact with
the same friendly elements it started in side contact with.
<< The rule as I could find it says first element to contact and all others
conform. I am sure I am missing
something, but not sure where or what.>>
You are missing the final draft, which I will make available in exactly eight
days.
Happy 4th.
Jon
_________________ Roll Up and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Don Coon Imperator

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2742
|
Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2000 11:18 am Post subject: Re: Digest Number 22 |
 |
|
JonCleaves@... wrote:
> The current Warrior draft (current meaning the one sitting next to me with
> the wet ink) says in 6.45 that a body in skirmish that has its charge
> cancelled reverts to a disordered block AFTER it makes charge responses.
> Your foot would evade and be disordered when it completed the evade move.
> [I'm pretty sure this is also straight out of 7.6+interp book.]
It was me that did this. I will not do it again. Your above statement
that bodies in skirmish whose charges are cancelled revert to a
disordered block after it evades will be new. Will only skirmishers who
declare a charge suffer this fate or is the intent to have any
skirmisher end evades in a disordered block? Also 5.221 already states
that skirmishers whose charge is cancelled is a cesasation cured
disorder. I should have been disordered on contact even with the
misapplication of the reverts to a block thing.
> <<Additionally the word response appears to be used too frequently for
> different reasons, that cause confusion.>>
>
> Agreed. Working on it.
Our specific change was to 5.141 (charges by mounted). It should say
"If non impetuous LHI, LMI, or LI charged by mounted unless some
difficult terrain must be crossed to meet them." Notice the loss of the
"responding to a charge" nomenclature. Also note the "non impetuous"
added nomenclature. Chris insists impetuous troops do not test waver vs
mounted chargers even when their charge is cancelled. The rules do not
support this claim. The revised wording above does support this claim.
If you do not agree with this just remove "non impetuous" from the line.
> << According to the rules a foot unit, even loose, whose charge is pre-empted
> by
> a mounted charge is forbidden any charge response. Isn't a waiver test a
> response to charge? >>
>
> A waver is not a charge response.
See my comment above on the impetuous/non impetuous state of the body
whose charge is preempted. Also where does it state a body whose charge
is cancelled is not allowed a response?
> <<Second is the issue of charge reach. In this example I found myself at a
> quandry based on what I thought I took from one of the last web page
> comments.
>
> If two loose order units are facing each other at an acute angle, but just
> barely acute, and the two closest elements opposing each other are 80 paces
> apart but the two furthest elements opposing each other are more than 240
> paces apart (big units). Both units declare a charge. The outside elements
> do not have the movement to make contact. I recall seeing that we were no
> longer going to step back units that do not have the range to make contact.
> Do both units conform to gain full contact with all elements facting each
> other?>>
>
> Yes. Elements in contact pivot for free. Elements that did not make contact
> go their full move, echeloning back if they must. If they cannot stay in
> side contact with friendly elements, no charge. The echeloning back is
> similar to the old 20p thing, but not the same.
This is a HUGE change to the way the game has been played. I will
adapt, but I hope you include GRAPHIC examples of how this works.
> You are missing the final draft, which I will make available in exactly eight
> days.
We will not be playtesting again during this period. If our rules are
outdated we are spinning our wheels. We had some tension yesterday due
to rule interps/rule manipulation. This is tension I prefer to do
without. I WILL play the rules as written. I will deliver playtest
comments that iron the rules in to saying what you meant. I think that
is what Chris is trying to say as well. He knows how WRG is played
better than the other three of us do. I must say the most annoying
comment that occurs in the games we play is "what they have ruled
is..." I long for the day where that statement is gone, and the rules
are the rules.
Another point of contention was a body of HC charged across brush
(becoming disordered on contact with the brush (we did this incorrectly
- see follow up comment)) then recieved a becomes disordered combat
result. This causes a waver check correct? Now, I have reviewed the
rules and see HC should not be disordered by brush, so let the example
be a HI unit instead so my question gets answered.
To the above - 5.221 needs to be rewritten to point out that rough areas
only disorder close formation. Having that important tidbit buried in
6.71 is something all 4 of us missed all day.
Don
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
joncleaves Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447
|
Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2000 11:19 am Post subject: Re: Digest Number 22 |
 |
|
<<...bodies in skirmish whose charges are cancelled evert to a disordered block
after it evades will be new. >>
Possibly, but I know NASAMW tourneys have been doing that for some time. I'll
have to go back and run through my 7th book. Scott?
<<Is it the intent that only skirmishers who
declare a charge suffer this fate or is the intent to have any skirmisher end
evades in a disordered block? >>
Just skirmishers who declare a charge and have it cancelled.
<< Also 5.221 already states
that skirmishers whose charge is cancelled is a cesasation cured disorder. I
should have been disordered on contact even with the
misapplication of the reverts to a block thing.>>
I am not getting what you are saying here. Could you explain?
<< <<Additionally the word response appears to be used too frequently for
> different reasons, that cause confusion.>>
>
> Agreed. Working on it.
Our specific change was to 5.141 (charges by mounted). It should say
"If non impetuous LHI, LMI, or LI charged by mounted unless some
difficult terrain must be crossed to meet them." Notice the loss of the
"responding to a charge" nomenclature.>>
Actually that matters in this case.
<< Also note the "non impetuous"
added nomenclature. Chris insists impetuous troops do not test waver vs
mounted chargers even when their charge is cancelled.>>
Chris is incorrect.
<< The rules do not support this claim.>>
True.
<< << According to the rules a foot unit, even loose, whose charge is pre-empted
> by a mounted charge is forbidden any charge response. Isn't a waiver test a
> response to charge? >>
>
> A waver is not a charge response.
<<See my comment above on the impetuous/non impetuous state of the body
whose charge is preempted. Also where does it state a body whose charge
is cancelled is not allowed a response?>>
Warrior does not say that.
<< <<Second is the issue of charge reach. In this example I found myself at a
> quandry based on what I thought I took from one of the last web page
> comments.
>
> If two loose order units are facing each other at an acute angle, but just
> barely acute, and the two closest elements opposing each other are 80 paces
> apart but the two furthest elements opposing each other are more than 240
> paces apart (big units). Both units declare a charge. The outside elements
> do not have the movement to make contact. I recall seeing that we were no
> longer going to step back units that do not have the range to make contact.
> Do both units conform to gain full contact with all elements facting each
> other?>>
>
> Yes. Elements in contact pivot for free. Elements that did not make contact
> go their full move, echeloning back if they must. If they cannot stay in
> side contact with friendly elements, no charge. The echeloning back is
> similar to the old 20p thing, but not the same.
<<This is a HUGE change to the way the game has been played.>>
Not NASAMW-interpreted 7.6, it isn't. It is a minor change and cleaner. Note
to all: NASAMW-interpreted WRG 7.6 is Warrior's starting point. Not 7.5, not
the rules as played in England, etc., etc.
<< I will adapt, but I hope you include GRAPHIC examples of how this works.>>
I was working on that one just last evening, in fact.
> You are missing the final draft, which I will make available in exactly eight
> days.
<<I must say the most annoying
comment that occurs in the games we play is "what they have ruled
is..." I long for the day where that statement is gone, and the rules
are the rules.>>
As do I and three of my friends. Thus: Four Horsemen and Warrior.
I am responding separately to the HC-brush question.
Jon
_________________ Roll Up and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
scott holder Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006 Posts: 6077 Location: Bonnots Mill, MO
|
Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2000 11:40 am Post subject: Re: Digest Number 22 |
 |
|
>>> JonCleaves@... 7/3/00 7:17:00 AM >>>
<<...bodies in skirmish whose charges are cancelled evert to a disordered
block after it evades will be new. >>
Possibly, but I know NASAMW tourneys have been doing that for some time. I'll
have to go back and run through my 7th book. Scott?
Uh, um, I can say that in 7.4 (I think), we played it that bodies in skirmish
whose charges are cancelled revert to a disorderd block....Period. They then
sit there and take it in the shorts. Now, having said that, I looked thru 7.5
and discoverd that the wording that lead me (and others) to interp this issue
the way we had been is no longer there. So, in my mind, what is in the first
paragraphs above would be new. I'd be curious as to how some of the NASAMW
tourney regulars on this list have been playing this issue for the last couple
of years.
<< Also note the "non impetuous"
added nomenclature. Chris insists impetuous troops do not test waver vs
mounted chargers even when their charge is cancelled.>>
Chris is incorrect.
Let me add that people should keep in mind the in the path rule. If impetuous
CHARGING troops meet a mounted target that wasn't the original target but that
come into the path of the impetuous charge, the unit does not waver test.
This may or may not have applied to the particular circumstance Chris was
outlining but I just wanted to make sure everyone knew this as well.
> Yes. Elements in contact pivot for free. Elements that did not make
contact
> go their full move, echeloning back if they must. If they cannot stay in
> side contact with friendly elements, no charge. The echeloning back is
> similar to the old 20p thing, but not the same.
<<This is a HUGE change to the way the game has been played.>>
Not NASAMW-interpreted 7.6, it isn't. It is a minor change and cleaner. Note
to all: NASAMW-interpreted WRG 7.6 is Warrior's starting point. Not 7.5, not
the rules as played in England, etc., etc.
The online copy of the NASAMW Interp Booklet might help many people get up to
speed on our departure point. It's been the way we've played for 6 years now.
_________________ These Rules Suck, Let's Paint! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Jake Kovel Legionary

Joined: 02 Apr 2006 Posts: 589 Location: Simsbury, CT
|
Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2000 2:02 pm Post subject: Re: Digest Number 22 |
 |
|
<<...bodies in skirmish whose charges are cancelled evert to a disordered
block after it evades will be new. >>
>Uh, um, I can say that in 7.4 (I think), we played it that bodies in skirmish
>whose charges are cancelled revert to a disorderd block....Period. They then
>sit there and take it in the shorts. Now, having said that, I looked thru
7.5
>and discoverd that the wording that lead me (and others) to interp this issue
>the way we had been is no longer there. So, in my mind, what is in the first
>paragraphs above would be new. I'd be curious as to how some of the NASAMW
>tourney regulars on this list have been playing this issue for the last
couple
>of years.
Gentlemen, another horseman speaks. These are my personal beliefs and do not
necessarily represent the organization.
My experience has always been that the charging unit reverts to a disordered
block at stands. This technique was used to avoid having skirmishing loose
order troops run down from behind. On page 18 of 7.5, under skirmishers (no
equivalent in Warrior), it says that a "skirmishing body that declares a
charge or ceases skirmishing reverts automatically to a block of the same
frontage." On page 22, under cessation cured disorders (also in Warrior 5.221
<< Also note the "non impetuou
Z*arge has been pre-empted." Using this reading, the loose order foot would
stand because they have no other option while an open order unit could evade
because they always have that option.
<< Also note the "non impetuous"
added nomenclature. Chris insists impetuous troops do not test waver vs
mounted chargers even when their charge is cancelled.>>
An impetuous charger whose charge is cancelled is not impetuous or charging.
Therefore, the appropriate tests would be taken.
As for the HC across the brush issue. Cavalry whose charge goes through
rough terrain are disordered. Any subsequent combat caused disorder (ex: 3
per in support shooting or twice as many hand to hand) is a second cause of
disorder and forces a waver test.
Jacob Kovel
_________________ Jacob Kovel
Silver Eagle Wargame Supplies
Four Horsemen Enterprises, LLC |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Don Coon Imperator

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2742
|
Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2000 8:48 pm Post subject: Re: Digest Number 22 |
 |
|
JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> <<...bodies in skirmish whose charges are cancelled evert to a disordered
block after it evades will be new. >>
>
> Possibly, but I know NASAMW tourneys have been doing that for some time. I'll
have to go back and run through my 7th book. Scott?
I think I was unclear. The event is not new, just where you are going
to repeat it in the rules (a good thing BTW).
> <<Is it the intent that only skirmishers who
> declare a charge suffer this fate or is the intent to have any skirmisher end
evades in a disordered block? >>
>
> Just skirmishers who declare a charge and have it cancelled.
Cool, thats is what I hoped.
> << Also 5.221 already states
> that skirmishers whose charge is cancelled is a cesasation cured disorder. I
should have been disordered on contact even with the
> misapplication of the reverts to a block thing.>>
>
> I am not getting what you are saying here. Could you explain?
Your para 5.221 last cause of cessation cured disorder says "Skirmishers
who have a charge cancelled" So even if though we misplayed the
"skirmishers must evade" rule, I still should have been disordered due
to 5.221. I managed to misplay 2 rules in one manuver. Yeah me.
> << <<Additionally the word response appears to be used too frequently for
> > different reasons, that cause confusion.>>
> >
> > Agreed. Working on it.
>
> Our specific change was to 5.141 (charges by mounted). It should say
> "If non impetuous LHI, LMI, or LI charged by mounted unless some
> difficult terrain must be crossed to meet them." Notice the loss of the
> "responding to a charge" nomenclature.>>
>
> Actually that matters in this case.
Why? Waver tests are required before selecting a charge response so it
is the act of the mounted charge, not the response to it that causes the
waver test.
> << Also note the "non impetuous"
> added nomenclature. Chris insists impetuous troops do not test waver vs
> mounted chargers even when their charge is cancelled.>>
>
> Chris is incorrect.
>
> << The rules do not support this claim.>>
>
> True.
>
> << << According to the rules a foot unit, even loose, whose charge is
pre-empted
> > by a mounted charge is forbidden any charge response. Isn't a waiver test
a
> > response to charge? >>
> >
> > A waver is not a charge response.
>
> <<See my comment above on the impetuous/non impetuous state of the body
> whose charge is preempted. Also where does it state a body whose charge
> is cancelled is not allowed a response?>>
>
> Warrior does not say that.
Does this mean a foot unit whose charge is preemted can countercharge?
(a unit that it is legal to do so against - say I am nonimpetuous, and
impetuous foot charge me. My charge is cancelled, can I countercharge?)
> > Yes. Elements in contact pivot for free. Elements that did not make
contact
> > go their full move, echeloning back if they must. If they cannot stay in
> > side contact with friendly elements, no charge. The echeloning back is
> > similar to the old 20p thing, but not the same.
>
> <<This is a HUGE change to the way the game has been played.>>
>
> Not NASAMW-interpreted 7.6, it isn't. It is a minor change and cleaner. Note
to all: NASAMW-interpreted WRG 7.6 is Warrior's starting point. Not 7.5, not
the rules as played in England, etc., etc.
I do not know and am not privey to NASAMW interpreted 7.6. Hence much
of the tension when we play.
> I long for the day where that statement is gone, and the rules
> are the rules.>>
>
> As do I and three of my friends. Thus: Four Horsemen and Warrior.
Well put.
Don
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Don Coon Imperator

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2742
|
Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2000 8:55 pm Post subject: Re: Digest Number 22 |
 |
|
Eaglewars@... wrote:
> Gentlemen, another horseman speaks. These are my personal beliefs and do not
> necessarily represent the organization.
>
> My experience has always been that the charging unit reverts to a disordered
> block at stands. This technique was used to avoid having skirmishing loose
> order troops run down from behind. On page 18 of 7.5, under skirmishers (no
> equivalent in Warrior), it says that a "skirmishing body that declares a
> charge or ceases skirmishing reverts automatically to a block of the same
> frontage." On page 22, under cessation cured disorders (also in Warrior 5.221
This is how I agrued my point during the game. (We missed the
disordered part, but I totally agree.)
> << Also note the "non impetuou
> Z*arge has been pre-empted." Using this reading, the loose order foot would
> stand because they have no other option while an open order unit could evade
> because they always have that option.
>
> << Also note the "non impetuous"
> added nomenclature. Chris insists impetuous troops do not test waver vs
> mounted chargers even when their charge is cancelled.>>
>
> An impetuous charger whose charge is cancelled is not impetuous or charging.
> Therefore, the appropriate tests would be taken.
>
> As for the HC across the brush issue. Cavalry whose charge goes through
> rough terrain are disordered. Any subsequent combat caused disorder (ex: 3
> per in support shooting or twice as many hand to hand) is a second cause of
> disorder and forces a waver test.
That is how we played it.
Don
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
joncleaves Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447
|
Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2000 8:04 pm Post subject: Re: Digest Number 22 |
 |
|
Gents:
See Jake's comments below. We're going to add this to the 'big issue list'
and will resolve it in time for the draft next week.
Until then, enjoy your holiday!
<< Gentlemen, another horseman speaks. These are my personal beliefs and do
not necessarily represent the organization.
My experience has always been that the charging unit reverts to a disordered
block at stands. This technique was used to avoid having skirmishing loose
order troops run down from behind. On page 18 of 7.5, under skirmishers (no
equivalent in Warrior), it says that a "skirmishing body that declares a
charge or ceases skirmishing reverts automatically to a block of the same
frontage." On page 22, under cessation cured disorders (also in Warrior
5.221 >>
Jon
_________________ Roll Up and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
joncleaves Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447
|
Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2000 8:38 pm Post subject: Re: Digest Number 22 |
 |
|
<< > Our specific change was to 5.141 (charges by mounted). It should say
> "If non impetuous LHI, LMI, or LI charged by mounted unless some
> difficult terrain must be crossed to meet them." Notice the loss of the
> "responding to a charge" nomenclature.>>
>
> Actually that matters in this case.
Why? Waver tests are required before selecting a charge response so it
is the act of the mounted charge, not the response to it that causes the
waver test.>>
If they do not have thier charge cancelled, they don't respond and don't take
the waver. To make your change, I'd have to change the cancelled rule as
well to remind players of this. I will triple check the whole thing in any
case.
<< Does this mean a foot unit whose charge is preemted can countercharge?
(a unit that it is legal to do so against - say I am nonimpetuous, and
impetuous foot charge me. My charge is cancelled, can I countercharge?)>>
Foot cannot countercharge impetuous or mounted troops. WRG 7th p. 26 para 2,
Warrior 6.166.
<< I do not know and am not privey to NASAMW interpreted 7.6. Hence much
of the tension when we play.>>
I am here to relieve your tension, Don! Think of me as rules-motrin.
Jon
_________________ Roll Up and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ewan McNay Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2780 Location: Albany, NY, US
|
Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2000 3:41 pm Post subject: Re: Digest Number 22 |
 |
|
On 3 Jul 2000, Holder, Scott <FHWA> wrote:
> Uh, um, I can say that in 7.4 (I think), we played it that bodies in skirmish
> whose charges are cancelled revert to a disorderd block....Period. They then
> sit there and take it in the shorts. Now, having said that, I looked thru 7.5
> and discoverd that the wording that lead me (and others) to interp this issue
> the way we had been is no longer there. So, in my mind, what is in the first
> paragraphs above would be new. I'd be curious as to how some of the NASAMW
> tourney regulars on this list have been playing this issue for the last couple
> of years.
Just as you stated it. [Except that we used 'preempted' rather than
'cancelled'] While I don't have it in front of me, I'm pretty sure that
this is in the interp book. It *is* different from rules-as-written.
> << Also note the "non impetuous"
> added nomenclature. Chris insists impetuous troops do not test waver vs
> mounted chargers even when their charge is cancelled.>>
>
> Chris is incorrect.
Yep. The waver is for making a charge response; the state of impetuosity
or otherwise is irrelevant.
--
Dr. Ewan McNay - Behavioral Neuroscience, Yale University.
(203) 432-7005
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Don Coon Imperator

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2742
|
Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2000 12:50 am Post subject: Re: Digest Number 22 |
 |
|
JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> > Actually that matters in this case.
>
> Why? Waver tests are required before selecting a charge response so it
> is the act of the mounted charge, not the response to it that causes the
> waver test.>>
>
> If they do not have thier charge cancelled, they don't respond and don't take
> the waver. To make your change, I'd have to change the cancelled rule as
> well to remind players of this. I will triple check the whole thing in any
> case.
Got it now (I get a little less dense every post).
> << Does this mean a foot unit whose charge is preemted can countercharge?
> (a unit that it is legal to do so against - say I am nonimpetuous, and
> impetuous foot charge me. My charge is cancelled, can I countercharge?)>>
>
> Foot cannot countercharge impetuous or mounted troops. WRG 7th p. 26 para 2,
> Warrior 6.166.
I am using 2 pieces of 2 rules to support my position. If I read the
whole thing, I would have never asked the question again.
> << I do not know and am not privey to NASAMW interpreted 7.6. Hence much
> of the tension when we play.>>
>
> I am here to relieve your tension, Don! Think of me as rules-motrin.
Take 2 with water.
Don
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|