Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Greg Preston]

Dear Jon,

Had an event in a game last night which we could not definitively resolve.

A unit of 2 Regular HCH models is joined by its detachment of 2 elements of
regular LMI foot (with Jav).
One of the Chariot models is a general.

Thus a four element body is formed which has 2 E chariots (with 1 general)
as the front rank and 2E foot as the second rank- all regular.

The following questions arise.

1. Can the body declare an impetous charge ?

2. Can the body elect to charge as a response to receiving 2CPF from
shooting ? (and therefore avoid the test)

3. Can the body elect to Halt as a response to receiving 2CPF from shooting
? (and therefore avoid the test)

4. Can the body counter-charge enemy mounted ?

5. Is the body's charge cancelled if the body is charged by impetous foot ?


Regards,

Greg P.

Greg Preston
Lecturer in Education and Arts
Manager, Web-based Learning and Development
School of Education
Email: edgdp@...
Ph: +61(02) 49215891 Post: School of Education
Fax: +61(02) 49217196 Newcastle University
University Drive
Callaghan 2308 NSW
Australia

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Greg Preston <edgdp@a...> wrote:
> Dear Jon,
>
> Had an event in a game last night which we could not definitively
resolve.
>
> A unit of 2 Regular HCH models is joined by its detachment of 2
elements of
> regular LMI foot (with Jav).
> One of the Chariot models is a general.
>
> Thus a four element body is formed which has 2 E chariots (with 1
general)
> as the front rank and 2E foot as the second rank- all regular.
>
> The following questions arise.
>
> 1. Can the body declare an impetous charge ?
>
> 2. Can the body elect to charge as a response to receiving 2CPF
from
> shooting ? (and therefore avoid the test)
>
> 3. Can the body elect to Halt as a response to receiving 2CPF from
shooting
> ? (and therefore avoid the test)
>
> 4. Can the body counter-charge enemy mounted ?
>
> 5. Is the body's charge cancelled if the body is charged by
impetous foot ?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg P.
>
Jon

And further to the above, are any of these answers changed if the
chariot and infantry detachment are both Irregular?

Muz

[Mark Stone]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Greg Preston <edgdp@a...> wrote:
>>
>> Had an event in a game last night which we could not definitively
>> resolve.
>>
>> A unit of 2 Regular HCH models is joined by its detachment of 2
>> elements of regular LMI foot (with Jav). One of the Chariot models is a
>> general.
>>
>> Thus a four element body is formed which has 2 E chariots (with 1
>> general) as the front rank and 2E foot as the second rank- all regular.
>>
>> The following questions arise.
>>
>> 1. Can the body declare an impetous charge ?
>>
>> 2. Can the body elect to charge as a response to receiving 2CPF from
>> shooting ? (and therefore avoid the test)
>>
>> 3. Can the body elect to Halt as a response to receiving 2CPF from
>> shooting? (and therefore avoid the test)
>>
>> 4. Can the body counter-charge enemy mounted ?
>>
>> 5. Is the body's charge cancelled if the body is charged by
>> impetous foot ?
>>
--- To which Murray Evans added: ---
>
> Jon
>
> And further to the above, are any of these answers changed if the
> chariot and infantry detachment are both Irregular?
>
> Muz

So, if Yahoo had any kind of decent search functionality for groups, you would
find that some of this has come up before and been answered before by Jon. Took
me about half an hour of searching by hand, but see the following thread:

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/message/17844
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/message/17845
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/message/17846
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/message/17847
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/message/17848
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/message/17849

The gist of Jon's replies seems to be that charges and responses depend on the
front rank troop type, unless an opposing charge would actually contact a
detachment behind. So chariots with either detachments of foot behind or
escorts on the base do not have their charge cancelled by mounted or impetuous
troops, nor would elephants in the same situation have their charge cancelled.

I think Jon has answered the other question before as well, though I couldn't
find it easily in the archives, and he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but 6.164
says "The following troops are incapable of declaring an impetuous charge...
regulars on foot." I'm pretty sure that Jon ruled that means a body that
contains _any_ regular foot, not just regular foot in the front rank.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

Mark's response is correct.

I generally don't want people answering rules questions on here, but he did me a
huge service by finding those answers on the list and I appreciate it.

Jon


-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stone <mark@...>
To: warrior <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 16:36:52 +0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Rules Question- Mixed regular unit


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Greg Preston <edgdp@a...> wrote:
>>
>> Had an event in a game last night which we could not definitively
>> resolve.
>>
>> A unit of 2 Regular HCH models is joined by its detachment of 2
>> elements of regular LMI foot (with Jav). One of the Chariot models is a
>> general.
>>
>> Thus a four element body is formed which has 2 E chariots (with 1
>> general) as the front rank and 2E foot as the second rank- all regular.
>>
>> The following questions arise.
>>
>> 1. Can the body declare an impetous charge ?
>>
>> 2. Can the body elect to charge as a response to receiving 2CPF from
>> shooting ? (and therefore avoid the test)
>>
>> 3. Can the body elect to Halt as a response to receiving 2CPF from
>> shooting? (and therefore avoid the test)
>>
>> 4. Can the body counter-charge enemy mounted ?
>>
>> 5. Is the body's charge cancelled if the body is charged by
>> impetous foot ?
>>
--- To which Murray Evans added: ---
>
> Jon
>
> And further to the above, are any of these answers changed if the
> chariot and infantry detachment are both Irregular?
>
> Muz

So, if Yahoo had any kind of decent search functionality for groups, you would
find that some of this has come up before and been answered before by Jon. Took
me about half an hour of searching by hand, but see the following thread:

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/message/17844
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/message/17845
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/message/17846
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/message/17847
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/message/17848
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/message/17849

The gist of Jon's replies seems to be that charges and responses depend on the
front rank troop type, unless an opposing charge would actually contact a
detachment behind. So chariots with either detachments of foot behind or
escorts on the base do not have their charge cancelled by mounted or impetuous
troops, nor would elephants in the same situation have their charge cancelled.

I think Jon has answered the other question before as well, though I couldn't
find it easily in the archives, and he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but 6.164
says "The following troops are incapable of declaring an impetuous charge...
regulars on foot." I'm pretty sure that Jon ruled that means a body that
contains _any_ regular foot, not just regular foot in the front rank.


-Mark Stone




Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[joncleaves]

<<1. The mixed body of Reg chariot (with general) and Reg detachment
cannot declare an impetuous charge. >>

True.

<<2. The mixed body of Reg chariot (with general) and Reg detachment
can respond to 2 shooting cpf's by declaring a charge (ie the mounted
response)>>

If the chariots were nearest the shooter.

<<3. The mixed body of Reg chariot (with general) and Reg detachment
can not halt as a response to 2 cpf from shooting (the foot response)
and must waver test if not in charge range.>>

Not true. If the infantry was nearest the shooter than they would have that
choice instead.

<<4. The mixed body of Reg chariot (with general) and Reg detachment
cannot counter-charge enemy mounted (a mounted response). 6.163
talks about cancelled charges and says that a body's charge is
cancelled if it contains non-impetuous foot (refer 1 above so this
would be the case) that have a charge declared against them by
mounted or impetuous troops.>>

They can if the mounted are what would contact the enemy.

<<5. The mixed body of Reg chariot (with general) and Reg detachment
does have its charge cancelled by an impetuous foot charge (refer 4
above).>>

Only if the impetuous foot charge would reach the foot in the mixed body
first.

Jon




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

Jon

This is likely to come up in the comp we are holding in Newcastle
(Aust.) next weekend, which is based on Classical Warrior (including
any other preAD armies) and which may include Chinese armies (such as
my Qin).

If the general gist is that the front rank determines the interaction
of the body with particuar rule requirements, this would mean that:

1. The mixed body of Reg chariot (with general) and Reg detachment
cannot declare an impetuous charge.

2. The mixed body of Reg chariot (with general) and Reg detachment
can respond to 2 shooting cpf's by declaring a charge (ie the mounted
response)

3. The mixed body of Reg chariot (with general) and Reg detachment
can not halt as a response to 2 cpf from shooting (the foot response)
and must waver test if not in charge range.

4. The mixed body of Reg chariot (with general) and Reg detachment
cannot counter-charge enemy mounted (a mounted response). 6.163
talks about cancelled charges and says that a body's charge is
cancelled if it contains non-impetuous foot (refer 1 above so this
would be the case) that have a charge declared against them by
mounted or impetuous troops.

5. The mixed body of Reg chariot (with general) and Reg detachment
does have its charge cancelled by an impetuous foot charge (refer 4
above).

Could you confirm these are correct interpretations of your earlier
answers.

Muz


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Mark's response is correct.
>
> I generally don't want people answering rules questions on here,
but he did me a huge service by finding those answers on the list and
I appreciate it.
>
> Jon
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Stone <mark@d...>
> To: warrior <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 16:36:52 +0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Rules Question- Mixed regular unit
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Greg Preston <edgdp@a...>
wrote:
> >>
> >> Had an event in a game last night which we could not definitively
> >> resolve.
> >>
> >> A unit of 2 Regular HCH models is joined by its detachment of 2
> >> elements of regular LMI foot (with Jav). One of the Chariot
models is a
> >> general.
> >>
> >> Thus a four element body is formed which has 2 E chariots (with 1
> >> general) as the front rank and 2E foot as the second rank- all
regular.
> >>
> >> The following questions arise.
> >>
> >> 1. Can the body declare an impetous charge ?
> >>
> >> 2. Can the body elect to charge as a response to receiving 2CPF
from
> >> shooting ? (and therefore avoid the test)
> >>
> >> 3. Can the body elect to Halt as a response to receiving 2CPF
from
> >> shooting? (and therefore avoid the test)
> >>
> >> 4. Can the body counter-charge enemy mounted ?
> >>
> >> 5. Is the body's charge cancelled if the body is charged by
> >> impetous foot ?
> >>
> --- To which Murray Evans added: ---
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > And further to the above, are any of these answers changed if the
> > chariot and infantry detachment are both Irregular?
> >
> > Muz
>
> So, if Yahoo had any kind of decent search functionality for
groups, you would
> find that some of this has come up before and been answered before
by Jon. Took
> me about half an hour of searching by hand, but see the following
thread:
>
> http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/message/17844
> http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/message/17845
> http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/message/17846
> http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/message/17847
> http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/message/17848
> http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/message/17849
>
> The gist of Jon's replies seems to be that charges and responses
depend on the
> front rank troop type, unless an opposing charge would actually
contact a
> detachment behind. So chariots with either detachments of foot
behind or
> escorts on the base do not have their charge cancelled by mounted
or impetuous
> troops, nor would elephants in the same situation have their charge
cancelled.
>
> I think Jon has answered the other question before as well, though
I couldn't
> find it easily in the archives, and he'll correct me if I'm wrong,
but 6.164
> says "The following troops are incapable of declaring an impetuous
charge...
> regulars on foot." I'm pretty sure that Jon ruled that means a body
that
> contains _any_ regular foot, not just regular foot in the front
rank.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/11/2005 03:48:52 Central Standard Time,
murray.evans@... writes:

And further to the above, are any of these answers changed if the
chariot and infantry detachment are both Irregular?



Yes. In that case it would not matter if the enemy would reach the foot
detachment first.

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/13/2005 10:00:32 Central Standard Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

But in the future perhaps it would be a better service to the Warrior
player community, and perhaps even yourself and the umpires, to
compile all future such - even the ones deemed obvious to you - into
some kind of seperate list, if not into the clarifications (and future
rulebook) themselves.

Of course the responses of "look at this sentence in the rulebook"
(really just reading the rulbook for the person asking the question)
are not what I am talking about of course. Though those might be a
clue to a phrase that could be better positioned within the text.

Anyway, only a suggestion, but I believe it not your intent (or at
least certainly not very practical) to require the body of e-mail
traffic on this list to become, like the clarification sheet, part of
the "official" Warrior rules.

John



Good points.

This is something I hope to do with the revised rules. Right now I am in
task triage. I do not have the time to continue to clarify the 'white
rulebook' and still get the 'black rulebook' out on time. I am trying to make
sure
we incorporate all such things in the revised text, but I am sure to miss some
and there are sure to be detail things - although the intent is to have far
fewer - after the revised book is published. I will do a better job of
turning my 'rulings' into clarifications after the new book is published. I'd
also like to find a new volunteer to keep the FAQ updated after we have a new
text and page numbers to start from.


Jon


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

[John Murphy]

Jon,

I will make a suggestion...

There have been a number of times, a fairly large number even, that a
good RULES question has been asked by someone and then answered by you
in an e-mail reply. Yet, the response never gets into the
clarifications sheets. I believe in most cases because you deem the
response to be one more obvious to the reader than perhaps it really
is.

So the only way to find a "ruling" previously made by you on the
subject is to search laboriously through the archives which in some
(though not all - some have used the RULES keyword in the subject line
but that still leaves a lot to search through) cases may require
literally reading every single one of the gobs of messages from the
past several years - really an impossible task on a practical level.

There is likely nothing reasonable to be done about the "ruling"
or "clarifications" issued in the past.

But in the future perhaps it would be a better service to the Warrior
player community, and perhaps even yourself and the umpires, to
compile all future such - even the ones deemed obvious to you - into
some kind of seperate list, if not into the clarifications (and future
rulebook) themselves.

Of course the responses of "look at this sentence in the rulebook"
(really just reading the rulbook for the person asking the question)
are not what I am talking about of course. Though those might be a
clue to a phrase that could be better positioned within the text.

Anyway, only a suggestion, but I believe it not your intent (or at
least certainly not very practical) to require the body of e-mail
traffic on this list to become, like the clarification sheet, part of
the "official" Warrior rules.

John

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> huge service by finding those answers on the list