Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

Jon,

Several armies, including Late Hebrews and presumably the forthcoming Han
Chinese, can get regular chariots with detachments of LMI JLS,Sh runners. This
is a useful combination, since when the detachment is attached as a second rank
of the parent chariot body, it fights with half a rank. In fact this combination
might be enough to turn certain armies from "in period only" to "tournament
viable".

The problem is that right now I see a huge show-stopper to using this
combination, given the way the rules are currently written. I want to make sure
I understand the relevant rule, and that the actual wording of the rule matches
the intent.

The rule in question is 6.163 "Declaring Charges", specifically the subsection
titled "Cancelled Charges". Here it states:
"A body's charge is cancelled if it contains non-impetuous foot that have a
charge declared on them by impetuous or mounted troops."

This would seem to lead to several odd sitations; I'll mention two.

(1) A body of eager Irr C LMI JLS,Sh approach to 120p from a body of Hebrew 4
Horse HCh with a detachment of regular LMI JLS,Sh attached behind. This would
appear to be a bad deal for the Irr C LMI; they'll get off their impetuous
charge, but 4 horses, 2 crew, and 2 javelinmen behind are about to hit them.
But wait: under 6.163, the chariot unit has its charge cancelled, is forced to
take the charge at the halt, meaning the horses don't fight and the chariot
unit is thus pretty much toast. Is this the intended outcome?

(2) A body of regular 4 horse LCh and a body of Hebrew 4 Horse HCh with a
detachment of regular LMI JLS,Sh attached behind approach to 120p of each
other. Again, this would appear to be a bad deal for the LCh if they charge.
Again, though, under 6.163, the HCh body has its charge cancelled, takes an
impetuous charge at the halt, and in all likelihood loses the melee. Is this
the intended outcome?

I have several follow-up questions depending on your answers, but let's just
start with this.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

I think I can simplify this for you, Mark. If the chariot unit that includes
regular foot can otherwise declare an impetuous charge, then the foot contained
within are as well. The 'regulars on foot' limitation is for bodies of ONLY
such declaring an impetuous charge.

If you have a charging general in the body or nearby, the whole thing can be
made impetuous.

6.164 needs work, as it isn't crystal clear this is possible, and so in the
interim, I will work on a clarification.

J

[Greg Regets]

Does that mean Regular infantry with an impetuous eligible general
attached, can make an impetuous charge?

g


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> I think I can simplify this for you, Mark. If the chariot unit
that includes regular foot can otherwise declare an impetuous charge,
then the foot contained within are as well. The 'regulars on foot'
limitation is for bodies of ONLY such declaring an impetuous charge.
>
> If you have a charging general in the body or nearby, the whole
thing can be made impetuous.
>
> 6.164 needs work, as it isn't crystal clear this is possible, and
so in the interim, I will work on a clarification.
>
> J

[joncleaves]

Does that mean Regular infantry with an impetuous eligible general
attached, can make an impetuous charge?

g>>

No, because the way i am going to write the clarification the mounted will have
to be in the front rank.

let's all just leave this one alone until i have time to wtite the exact words.
i knew I shouldn't have answered quickly....

J

[Greg Regets]

Works for me ...

Thanks Jon!


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Does that mean Regular infantry with an impetuous eligible general
> attached, can make an impetuous charge?
>
> g>>
>
> No, because the way i am going to write the clarification the
mounted will have to be in the front rank.
>
> let's all just leave this one alone until i have time to wtite the
exact words. i knew I shouldn't have answered quickly....
>
> J