Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/13/2003 21:52:55 Central Daylight Time,
eforbes100@... writes:

> Jon,
>
> Here are the sequencing we used to come to the problem. Where do we
> differ?
>
> 6.16 Charges: page 37
> Sequence of events
> a) Charge declarations (6.163)
> b) Charge actions:
> Sequence for each charge action
> a) Charge response (6.166)
> b) Charge move (6.165)
> c) Rout moves for broken troops being charged

Yup.

>
>
> Our interp of the above:
>
> 1) All charges are reveled
>
> 2) Charge responses and charge movement is accomplished per Combat
> Direction (8.1).

yup.

>
> Assuming the LC is in line to adjudicate its charge first:
> a) As the HC has declared a charge on the LC, the HC is moved into the
> same sequence as the LC for the same charge action.

Yup.

>
> b) Charge responses are conducted. The lights respond to the declared
> charge by the LC and the LC respond to the charge by the HC ( as one
> charge action, all done together).

Nope. Charging troops that don't have their charge cancelled (which would
make them into not charging troops) do not make charge responses - they
charge.

>
> Why do you count the LC as charging and not required to Respond to Charge
> by the HC when the LC and the HC are one charge action?

See above. Charging troops do not make charge responses.

>
> We see the LC charge as not canceled ( it is not), but the LC does have
> to respond to the HC charge. If not, why not?

It is charging. At least the LC I think we are talking about from the
original example.

>
> If the Combat Direction had the HC sequence first, the LC would be
> brought into the HC sequence, with the same above result.
>
>

All charge moves are made together. No one charges first and catches another
charger standing just because of CD. CD is for wavers and responses, etc, -
not for mutual charges.


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/13/2003 23:46:41 Central Daylight Time,
eforbes100@... writes:

> I think that the point if you have a declared charge, and the charge is
> not canceled, you do not respond to charge needs to be made directly.

You know, in answering this set of questions it does seem like there is no
direct explicit statement that you don't do 6.166 if you are yourself
charging. Logically, you can't respond to a charge if you are yourself
charging, but I *do* want this all to read correctly in the literal sense. I
will add this to the next update.

Jon


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

[Ed Forbes]

> > 6.166 Charges Responses: "The only responses allowed to an enemy
> charge
> > are to stand to receive it at the halt without further direction
> of
> > formation changes, or to countercharge, or to evade."

Jon:
> Sure. If you aren't charging already.....


Jon,

Here are the sequencing we used to come to the problem. Where do we
differ?

6.16 Charges: page 37
Sequence of events
a) Charge declarations (6.163)
b) Charge actions:
Sequence for each charge action
a) Charge response (6.166)
b) Charge move (6.165)
c) Rout moves for broken troops being charged


Our interp of the above:

1) All charges are reveled

2) Charge responses and charge movement is accomplished per Combat
Direction (8.1).

Assuming the LC is in line to adjudicate its charge first:
a) As the HC has declared a charge on the LC, the HC is moved into the
same sequence as the LC for the same charge action.

b) Charge responses are conducted. The lights respond to the declared
charge by the LC and the LC respond to the charge by the HC ( as one
charge action, all done together).

Why do you count the LC as charging and not required to Respond to Charge
by the HC when the LC and the HC are one charge action?

We see the LC charge as not canceled ( it is not), but the LC does have
to respond to the HC charge. If not, why not?

If the Combat Direction had the HC sequence first, the LC would be
brought into the HC sequence, with the same above result.

Ed

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

[Ed Forbes]

> > b) Charge responses are conducted. The lights respond to the
> declared
> > charge by the LC and the LC respond to the charge by the HC ( as
> one
> > charge action, all done together).
>
> Nope. Charging troops that don't have their charge cancelled (which
> would
> make them into not charging troops) do not make charge responses -
> they
> charge.

Ok, I see where we differed.

I take it to also mean that as there is no response to a charge, there
can be no counter charge. ie: no change of direction to meet these
chargers. You contact where you contact, and if it is the flank, o'well.

I think that the point if you have a declared charge, and the charge is
not canceled, you do not respond to charge needs to be made directly.
This point is not at all clear in the rules and should to be a bullet
point in 6.166 Charge Responses (or some where).

I actually like this as it adds all kinds of uncertainty (I am a great
fan of anything that increase uncertainty on what the troops will
actually do), but it really does need to be spelled out in the rules as
it is not directly covered anywhere I could find. This is the kind of
hidden rule that causes all kinds of argument.

Ed

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

[Phil Gardocki]

<decloak>

Please do write this one up, with pictures. Because after reading all the
responses, I still do not know what the answer is!

Phil
<cloak on>


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