Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

This question came up in a recent Warrior game:

11.221 Who May (or Must) Follow-up states that "those standing to receive a
mounted charge halted cannot." This is ambiguous between:
(a) those standing to receive a mounted charge halted this bound cannot; and
(b) those standing to receive a mounted charge halted initially cannot

To make it concrete, consider a unit of close order foot who, on Bound 1, stand
to receive a mounted charge with neither body doing a CPF to the other, and on
Boud 2, doing a CPF and more to the mounted who then recoil. Can the foot follow
up on Bound 2 or not?


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

Mark, I know how I want to answer, but I am checking a couple things first -
please stand by.

Jon


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

[Doug]

FWIW, the phrasing of the rule seems redundant to me-- "standing to
receive" is obviously motionless, so why do you need to include the
word "halted" unless there is some other rules-defined manner of
"standing to receive?"

I think its a holdover from TOG Britspeak; after flipping thru the
rules (oh for a Glossary!) I find that 6.166 Charge Responses uses
the cumbersome phrase "stand to receive it at the halt."

But back to the grammar affecting the actual question-- isn't there a
difference in tenses between
"those who stood to receive a [mounted] charge at the halt"
and
"those standing to receive a [mounted] charge {while} halted?"

In the first case, I'd think it applies to any past interaction with
this [mounted] charger.

In the second case, I'd think it applies only to a charge during the
current bound.

Dunno which was intended.


>This question came up in a recent Warrior game:
>
>11.221 Who May (or Must) Follow-up states that "those standing to receive a
>mounted charge halted cannot." This is ambiguous between:
>
>(a) those standing to receive a mounted charge halted this bound cannot; and
>(b) those standing to receive a mounted charge halted initially cannot
>
>To make it concrete, consider a unit of close order foot who, on
>Bound 1, stand
>to receive a mounted charge with neither body doing a CPF to the other, and on
>Bound 2, doing a CPF and more to the mounted who then recoil. Can
>the foot follow
>up on Bound 2 or not?
>
>
>-Mark Stone

Greetings

This is a comment from a position of ignorance because I haven't got
my copy of the rules yet ... but using WRG 7th as an aid that
differentiates between follow ups where "Other troops have the option
of doing so [followng up], except that those standing to receive a
mounted charge halted cannot." However the section continues in WRG
7th in the next paragraph "Regular close formation troops, or regular
foot who stood to receive a charge and have not followed up beyond
their original position, need not pursue ...".

By implication the author is indeed making a distinction between the
charge response (standing = current bound) and later (stood = past
bound)?

So in bound 1 if the mounted 'bounce' by being recoiled the troops
who have received the charge cannot follow up. If they continue in
combat and are recoiled in bound 2 they can. Seem sensible?

Edward

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Doug <rockd@p...> wrote:

> But back to the grammar affecting the actual question-- isn't there
a
> difference in tenses between
> "those who stood to receive a [mounted] charge at the halt"
> and
> "those standing to receive a [mounted] charge {while} halted?"
>
> In the first case, I'd think it applies to any past interaction
with
> this [mounted] charger.
>
> In the second case, I'd think it applies only to a charge during
the
> current bound.
>
> Dunno which was intended.
>
>
> >This question came up in a recent Warrior game:
> >
> >11.221 Who May (or Must) Follow-up states that "those standing to
receive a
> >mounted charge halted cannot." This is ambiguous between:
> >
> >(a) those standing to receive a mounted charge halted this bound
cannot; and
> >(b) those standing to receive a mounted charge halted initially
cannot
> >
> >To make it concrete, consider a unit of close order foot who, on
> >Bound 1, stand
> >to receive a mounted charge with neither body doing a CPF to the
other, and on
> >Bound 2, doing a CPF and more to the mounted who then recoil. Can
> >the foot follow
> >up on Bound 2 or not?
> >
> >
> >-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 11/24/2003 4:15:38 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mark@... writes:

> 11.221 Who May (or Must) Follow-up states that "those standing to receive a
> mounted charge halted cannot." This is ambiguous between:
> (a) those standing to receive a mounted charge halted this bound cannot; and
> (b) those standing to receive a mounted charge halted initially cannot>>

The answer is b.

>
> To make it concrete, consider a unit of close order foot who, on Bound 1,
stand
> to receive a mounted charge with neither body doing a CPF to the other, and on
> Boud 2, doing a CPF and more to the mounted who then
> recoil. Can the foot follow
> up on Bound 2 or not?>>

No.

I will admit again that I left too much 'barkerese' in the rules, even though it
is the right 'rule' it needs better wording which I will correct in the 2d
printing.

Greetings

Jon, is it worth putting proposed revised wording in your very useful
clarifications before the 2nd printing? Could you elaborate the
rationale for it - at least on this forum?

Thanks

Edward


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 11/24/2003 4:15:38 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mark@d... writes:
>
> > 11.221 Who May (or Must) Follow-up states that "those standing to
receive a
> > mounted charge halted cannot." This is ambiguous between:
> > (a) those standing to receive a mounted charge halted this bound
cannot; and
> > (b) those standing to receive a mounted charge halted initially
cannot>>
>
> The answer is b.
>
> >
> > To make it concrete, consider a unit of close order foot who, on
Bound 1, stand
> > to receive a mounted charge with neither body doing a CPF to the
other, and on
> > Boud 2, doing a CPF and more to the mounted who then
> > recoil. Can the foot follow
> > up on Bound 2 or not?>>
>
> No.
>
> I will admit again that I left too much 'barkerese' in the rules,
even though it is the right 'rule' it needs better wording which I
will correct in the 2d printing.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 11/25/2003 12:52:30 PM Eastern Standard Time,
edward_sturges@... writes:

> Jon, is it worth putting proposed revised wording in your very useful
> clarifications before the 2nd printing?>>

I can do that.

<< Could you elaborate the rationale for it - at least on this forum? >>

What is the 'it', Edward? The rationale for the rule being the way it is?

[joncleaves]

Foot troops who stand to receive a mounted charge are more disorganized and
intermingled by the event than 'normal'. It takes them longer to reorganize at
the small unit level than a unit in a simple infantry 'push', they have no
momentum with respect to the faster mounted troops and they have more trouble
capitalizing on any mounted set back.


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

Greetings

Jon, sorry for the lack of clarity. Yes, the logic for the rule the
way it is - I can come up some support for it I think but that would
just be supposition on my part. I don't think I have any problem
it's just trying to understand a particular component. If it's clear
in the rulebook I'll wait to read it rather than waste your time now.

Kind regards

Edward


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 11/25/2003 12:52:30 PM Eastern Standard Time,
edward_sturges@h... writes:
>
> > Jon, is it worth putting proposed revised wording in your very
useful
> > clarifications before the 2nd printing?>>
>
> I can do that.
>
> << Could you elaborate the rationale for it - at least on this
forum? >>
>
> What is the 'it', Edward? The rationale for the rule being the way
it is?