Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

--- On September 1 Steve Hollowell said: ---

>
> According to my example, they were in charge reach when prompted to retire....
>
> I just wanted to make that clear in case some wires are getting crossed here.
>

Um, no. In your example they were within tactical move distance, but that's
_not_ the same as charge reach.

People seem to be confounding two things here:

(1) Can bodies retire within tactical move distance (which is often, but not
always, charge reach) of an enemy body? Sure they can. Happens all the time.
Often it requires a waver test, but it happens all the time.

(2) Does a body being prompted to retire have to take a waver test if, at the
moment it receives the prompt, it is frontally facing enemy who are not
eligible to charge it (even if it happens to be within that enemy's tactical
move distance)? No, of course they don't test. Why should they?

I had this confused too, but now that I see the way it's written, it actually
makes perfect sense.

Here's an analogy. Suppose I have a unit of regular light cav off to the side
and forward of a large block of enemy close order foot. What with trying to
wheel that large block of foot, it so happens that my LC isn't within charge
reach, even though the nearest point between the two bodies is less than 80p. I
now prompt the LC to retire. Should it waver test? Of course not. Now, during
it's retirement, it happens to pass through the charge reach of the enemy foot
block. Does that mean that, retroactively, I suddenly have to take a waver
test? Of course not. That would be absurd, and -- more importantly -- nothing
in the rules indicates I would have to take a "retroactive" waver test in that
situation.

The case of the HC directly in front of, and within 120p of, enemy LI is exactly
the same. When it receives the prompt, it isn't in charge reach. At some point
during the retirement, it happens to pass through charge reach. So what? That
doesn't force it to test "retroactively" any more than the LC would test in the
other example.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Jon, but I think I now finally understand this
situation.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Jon, but I think I now finally understand this
situation.>>

Mark, your mail of today that ends with the above statement is 100% dead on
correct.

Praise the Lord...lol

Jon

[Steve Hollowell]

"Umm, no"

Is that really necessary?

I posed the question because I assumed the rear of a cav unit at 120 paces could
be charged. In my example, tactical move reach and charge range were the same.
If there is some wordsmithing clarification that makes it simple for those of us
new to the rules, all the better. I know I have been faced with the
counter/retirement-waver test option many times while learning this game from
experienced players so I am not the only one confused about this.

<mark@...> wrote:
--- On September 1 Steve Hollowell said: ---

>
> According to my example, they were in charge reach when prompted to retire....
>
> I just wanted to make that clear in case some wires are getting crossed here.
>

Um, no. In your example they were within tactical move distance, but that's
_not_ the same as charge reach.

People seem to be confounding two things here:

(1) Can bodies retire within tactical move distance (which is often, but not
always, charge reach) of an enemy body? Sure they can. Happens all the time.
Often it requires a waver test, but it happens all the time.

(2) Does a body being prompted to retire have to take a waver test if, at the
moment it receives the prompt, it is frontally facing enemy who are not
eligible to charge it (even if it happens to be within that enemy's tactical
move distance)? No, of course they don't test. Why should they?

I had this confused too, but now that I see the way it's written, it actually
makes perfect sense.

Here's an analogy. Suppose I have a unit of regular light cav off to the side
and forward of a large block of enemy close order foot. What with trying to
wheel that large block of foot, it so happens that my LC isn't within charge
reach, even though the nearest point between the two bodies is less than 80p. I
now prompt the LC to retire. Should it waver test? Of course not. Now, during
it's retirement, it happens to pass through the charge reach of the enemy foot
block. Does that mean that, retroactively, I suddenly have to take a waver
test? Of course not. That would be absurd, and -- more importantly -- nothing
in the rules indicates I would have to take a "retroactive" waver test in that
situation.

The case of the HC directly in front of, and within 120p of, enemy LI is exactly
the same. When it receives the prompt, it isn't in charge reach. At some point
during the retirement, it happens to pass through charge reach. So what? That
doesn't force it to test "retroactively" any more than the LC would test in the
other example.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Jon, but I think I now finally understand this
situation.


-Mark Stone




Yahoo! Groups Links







---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

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

[joncleaves]

"Umm, no"

Is that really necessary?>>

No offense meant, Steve.

<<I posed the question because I assumed the rear of a cav unit at 120 paces
could be charged.>>

It could be.

<< In my example, tactical move reach and charge range were the same.>>

I am not splitting hairs when I say there is no tactical move reach or charge
range in Warrior.

There is tactical move distance - 120p for LI for example.

And there is charge reach - which is tactical move distance EXCEPT for
intervening bodies/terrain and illegal targets.

<< If there is some wordsmithing clarification that makes it simple for those of
us new to the rules, all the better.>>

I agree. I will always, always, always take recommended new wording for rules
you find confusing. Always.

Jon

[Steve Hollowell]

Thanks John, but that wasn't you.

Anyway, I appreciate the detailed response. I was a little slow on the uptake
after thinking/playing it wrong all summer.

JonCleaves@... wrote:

"Umm, no"

Is that really necessary?>>

No offense meant, Steve.


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.

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