Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ed Forbes]

Ok Jon, lets try it from another direction.

1) What would be an 'illegal target" in the charge path under 6.163
Charge Path: ?

2) Under 6.163 Canceled Charges: "Charges legally declared cannot be
canceled by enemy charges that are in or come into the charge path but
ARE NOT INITIALLY WITHIN REACH, unless non-impetuous foot is charged by
mounted.

The consensus of our group is that as 6.163 Charge Path: and 6.163
Canceled Charges: are written: 1) The HC is not a legal target for the
LC, and 2) the HC was within the LC charge reach when the LC charge was
declared.

The problem is that the LC charge is not cancelled ( not on the list of
what cancels charges), has to continue to try and follow the evaders,
can not contact the steady charging HC as they are not a legal target and
the HC started within 200 ( LC reach). As written, this suggest the LC
gets hit in the flank by the HC as the LC ignore the HC to follow the
evaders. Not saying that this is what you want, only the way we currently
read it as written

Ed

________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/12/2003 17:17:01 Central Daylight Time,
eforbes100@... writes:

> 1) What would be an 'illegal target" in the charge path under 6.163
> Charge Path: ?

One example of an illegal target that could be in your charge path would be
steady HC with it front to you if you were LC, but there are others. Another
example would be a charge target you could not 'fit' against.

>
> 2) Under 6.163 Canceled Charges: "Charges legally declared cannot be
> canceled by enemy charges that are in or come into the charge path but
> ARE NOT INITIALLY WITHIN REACH, unless non-impetuous foot is charged by
> mounted.

Correct. They also cannot be cancelled by anything not on the list of things
that cancel charges. Said another way, the ONLY things that can CANCEL a
charge are listed under 6.163. Having an illegal charge target in your path
is not on that list, so it does not cancel your legally declared charge. It
does require that you do not contact it through your own movement as you
cannot charge it. BUT IT CAN CHARGE YOU.

>
> The consensus of our group is that as 6.163 Charge Path: and 6.163
> Canceled Charges: are written: 1) The HC is not a legal target for the
> LC, and 2) the HC was within the LC charge reach when the LC charge was
> declared.

Both of those things are true. Neither causes the charge to be cancelled,
however, as niether of those things is on the list of things that cancels
charges. There is a difference between having your charge cancelled and
having an illegla target in your charge path that you must avoid with your
own movement. But if IT charges YOU, which is what this whole thing was
about, it can contact you and it does not cancel your charge just by charging
you.

>
> The problem is that the LC charge is not cancelled ( not on the list of
> what cancels charges), has to continue to try and follow the evaders,
> can not contact the steady charging HC as they are not a legal target and
> the HC started within 200 ( LC reach).

All true. But the HC can sure contact the LC while the LC is charging
someone else.

As written, this suggest the LC>
> gets hit in the flank by the HC as the LC ignore the HC to follow the
> evaders. Not saying that this is what you want, only the way we currently
> read it as written

Um that *could* happen, but I'd need a precise diagram to say in any given
case if it did. I don't *think* in the original diagram that would be the
case.



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

[Mark Mallard]

Jon,

Well if any thing I/we feel better here as it appears other players had
difficulty with this scenario too.

Sometimes i feel a bit embarrassed asking questions, but please bear in mind
i ask them for a number of different people and more often than not i
personally know the answer, or think i do. The other guys just will not take
my word for it all the time.

mark mallard


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/13/2003 05:58:28 Central Daylight Time,
markmallard77@... writes:

> Sometimes i feel a bit embarrassed asking questions, but please bear in mind
>
> i ask them for a number of different people and more often than not i
> personally know the answer, or think i do. The other guys just will not
> take
> my word for it all the time.
>

I am more than happy to help.

And remember, the best way to go is to read the rulebook literally. If you
find someone saying 'well, it doesn't say that charge is cancelled, but I
think it *should* be'

or

'well, it doesn't say that charge is cancelled, but this other thing
*implies* it is'

(or things like the above, even if not about cancelled charges)

then the chance is 99.9% that they are wrong.

Jon


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