Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 1/11/2006 23:56:01 Central Standard Time,
shahadet_99@... writes:

Question: Since "declared non-cancelled charge" is NOT a response,
does a loose/open order foot unit that has declared a charge on
mounted enemies (the LI/open would be on LC, since other steady
mounted are illegal charge targets, and impetuously, since non-
impetuous foot get cancelled by mounted) have to take the waver test?

This came up because it was felt that foot that are charging
themselves are not "responding" (where "response" are 3 specifically
defined actions of evade/hold/countercharge) to a charge, but are
instead initiating action (an impetuous charge).>>

Foot making an impetuous charge that is not canceled do not take that waver
test. they are indeed charging and not responding.

J


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 1/12/2006 00:02:21 Central Standard Time,
sitalkes@... writes:

A non-impetuous charge by foot on mounted would be cancelled if it
becomes the target of a charge. In that circumstance loose/open
order foot would have to take a waver test.

An impetuous charge by foot goes in even if it is charged by the
mounted.

Chris >>
Chris, I know you mean well. But I would request that only I answer rules
questions on this group. Thanks!
And yes, you were right...

Jon


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

Hi all.

Had a question come up during a Warrior game:

Loose order troops are in the open.

They get charged.

Normal charge responses are evade (when possible), hold&shoot,
counter charge.

Question: Since "declared non-cancelled charge" is NOT a response,
does a loose/open order foot unit that has declared a charge on
mounted enemies (the LI/open would be on LC, since other steady
mounted are illegal charge targets, and impetuously, since non-
impetuous foot get cancelled by mounted) have to take the waver test?

This came up because it was felt that foot that are charging
themselves are not "responding" (where "response" are 3 specifically
defined actions of evade/hold/countercharge) to a charge, but are
instead initiating action (an impetuous charge).

A definitive answer would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,
Asif Chaudhry

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "shahadet_99"
<shahadet_99@y...> wrote:
>
> Hi all.
>
> Had a question come up during a Warrior game:
>
> Loose order troops are in the open.
>
> They get charged.
>
> Normal charge responses are evade (when possible), hold&shoot,
> counter charge.
>
> Question: Since "declared non-cancelled charge" is NOT a
response,
> does a loose/open order foot unit that has declared a charge on
> mounted enemies (the LI/open would be on LC, since other steady
> mounted are illegal charge targets, and impetuously, since non-
> impetuous foot get cancelled by mounted) have to take the waver
test?
>
> This came up because it was felt that foot that are charging
> themselves are not "responding" (where "response" are 3
specifically
> defined actions of evade/hold/countercharge) to a charge, but are
> instead initiating action (an impetuous charge).
>
> A definitive answer would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Regards,
> Asif Chaudhry
>
A non-impetuous charge by foot on mounted would be cancelled if it
becomes the target of a charge. In that circumstance loose/open
order foot would have to take a waver test.

An impetuous charge by foot goes in even if it is charged by the
mounted.

Chris

[Ewan McNay]

I've bitten my virtual tongue many times on such; I suspect Jon is right
that his workload is lower in the long run that way, although if several
folk give wrong answers it might serve as confirmation of a rules
confusion (granted, that tends to happen the other way around if folk
disagree with a Jon answer anyway).

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 JonCleaves@... wrote:

> In a message dated 1/12/2006 00:02:21 Central Standard Time,
> sitalkes@... writes:
>
> A non-impetuous charge by foot on mounted would be cancelled if it
> becomes the target of a charge. In that circumstance loose/open
> order foot would have to take a waver test.
>
> An impetuous charge by foot goes in even if it is charged by the
> mounted.
>
> Chris >>
> Chris, I know you mean well. But I would request that only I answer rules
> questions on this group. Thanks!
> And yes, you were right...
>
> Jon
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 1/12/2006 00:23:57 Central Standard Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

I've bitten my virtual tongue many times on such; I suspect Jon is right
that his workload is lower in the long run that way, although if several
folk give wrong answers it might serve as confirmation of a rules
confusion (granted, that tends to happen the other way around if folk
disagree with a Jon answer anyway).>>
[
Gosh, Ewan, thanks for the support. I think... ;)

As the author it is my duty to answer every rules question. Some times,
like today, I will wake to find four rules questions that either have already
come in and I wanted time to make sure I got it right or came in overnight.
There are also two list questions that I need to make sure Scott or Bill
answer. Pretty typical, sometimes more, sometimes less. About that many will
come
in before I am done for the day. This has to be balanced with the fact that
the revised rulebook - which I will be working on every day until it goes to
the printers - often has different, cleaner language than the original which
cannot yet be used. Players answering rules questions - no matter how good
they are at it - causes too many problems. An incorrect answer kills me - my
mailbox fills and I am left to sort it out. Since you already have the
fastest rules answerer in all of gaming and since many players - like myself -
will wait for the designer on a forum like this no matter how many fellow
players fill my box with their answers, even if ultimately correct - why
wouldn't
we want it that way?


Just me please. Thanks!
Jon


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