Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[John Murphy]

This came up in a game recently and I persuaded my opponent it worked as
follows but now I am not certain I am correct.

Take 5 units in ASCII-vision like so...


CCCC
--/

A>
A> ^^^^
A> 2222
A>

BBBB
--/

^^^^
1111


Units 1 and 2 are my units. 1 is 4E longbows and 2 is 2E knights. 2 can
reach C to charge and 1 can reach both A & B to charge.

Units A, B and C are my opponent's units. A is 2E HC lancers in block, B
is 2E LI archers in *skirmish* and C is a shaken 4E LHI unit. A can
reach my unit 2 knights to charge.

Here is what happened. I declared both charges (2 against C and 1 in the
direction of A which is partially exposed already and will be uncovered
by B when they evade as skirmishers must). My opponent declared a charge
by A against 2.

Resolution order, however, is right to left across your radio dial. If
it doesn't come out right in ASCII vision that means in order 2, then A,
then 1.

I convinced my opponent, who I think is a more experienced player than
me, that A's charge is cancelled by being in the charge path of 1 even
though A is ahead of 1 in resolution order and B is still partially
blocking 1's charge until B does a mandatory evade.

This allowed 2 to break already-shaken C and then 1 rolled up 3 to break
A also. It was probably one of the decisive moments in the game which
wound up scored 3-3.

If A's charge had not been cancelled then A would have saved C by
charging 2 in the flank and canceling 2's charge meaning LHI C would not
even have to waver test.

BUT something nags my conscience about this although we considered it at
the time and I persuaded my opponent that we did it right. Does charge
order take precedence here and allow A to make its charge first
especially since 1 can't actually contact A (even though A is in the
charge path) until B makes the mandatory evade?

Appreciate your clarification here.

Thanks
John Murphy

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 10/15/2003 9:10:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

> BUT something nags my conscience about this although we considered it at
> the time and I persuaded my opponent that we did it right. Does charge
> order take precedence here and allow A to make its charge first
> especially since 1 can't actually contact A (even though A
> is in the
> charge path) until B makes the mandatory evade?
>
> Appreciate your clarification here.>>

You did it all correctly, John.

If B had not had to evade and chose to stand, A's charge would not have been
cancelled, but in the example you gave - given that I understand the ascii - it
all looks like you did everything right.

Jon