Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mike Bard]

I ran into an odd little rules event last night and I want to confirm that
the rules mean what I think they mean (especially given the fact that some
of the wording implied incorrect things to me at Historicon last yeare.
)

Player 1 has one unit known as "A". It is a pike phalanx four elements deep
and with three elements frontage.

Player 2 has three units. Unit "1" is a six element hoplite phalanx, three
elements deep and with two elements frontage. Unit "2" is a two element
unit of Irreg C Spaniards (supported on both flanks by steady friends) two
elements deep and with one element frontage. Unit "3" is a two element
hoplite phalanx two elements deep and with one element frontage.

The situation. Unit "A" has been contacted last bound by Unit "1". The two
bodies are offset so that there is only one element width of contact. (from
the POV of Unit "1", their left element contacts Unit "A"'s right element)

Unit "2" is in position to charge the other front element of unit "A"
impetuously. Unit "3" is in position to charge the shielded flank of Unit
"A" (obviously non impetuously).

According to 6.163 "Cancelled Charges" (third bullet, near bottom of page
39): "it contains elephants or non-impetuous foot and a separate impetuous
or mounted body not of elephants declares a charge against the same enemy
body. That is, elephants and non-impetuous foot cannot join in charging an
enemy with impetuous or (non-elephant) mounted friends."

So, according to this, if Unit "2" declares an impetuous charge against the
already engaged legal charge target Unit "A", that means that any charge
declarations by Unit "3" against the flank of Unit "A" (given that Unit "3"
cannot declare an impetuous charge) is cancelled.

Is this the intent of the rule authors? Is there an exception buried
somewhere else in the book? If this is not the intention (i.e. the
intention is that both Units "2" and Unit "3" can charge if one is
impetuous, then the wording should be made clearer.

Michael Bard
That Greek Hoplite Guy (who is starting to get panicky over Cold Wars and
having only possible partners)

[joncleaves]

So, according to this, if Unit "2" declares an impetuous charge against the
already engaged legal charge target Unit "A", that means that any charge
declarations by Unit "3" against the flank of Unit "A" (given that Unit "3"
cannot declare an impetuous charge) is cancelled.

Is this the intent of the rule authors?>>
[
Indeed it is.

Jon

[Mike Bard]

Thanks. Just one of my attempts to help make the revised rulebook a better
product. :)

Michael Bard
That Greek Hoplite Guy (who really hates SHKs...)


>
> So, according to this, if Unit "2" declares an impetuous charge against
the
> already engaged legal charge target Unit "A", that means that any charge
> declarations by Unit "3" against the flank of Unit "A" (given that Unit
"3"
> cannot declare an impetuous charge) is cancelled.
>
> Is this the intent of the rule authors?>>
> [
> Indeed it is.
>
> Jon