Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

Someone asked where the prohibition on replacing impetuous troops in combat is
stated, so here it is:

"6.163 Decaring Charges - Interpenetration. Bodies interpenetrating another body
while charging need not be able to see the target body before this. Impetuous
troops cannot be replaced in combat in this way."

This matters a great deal when working with LI. LI can often avoid a rout by
declaring an impetuous charge against enemy LI or LC. The problem, then, is
that you can't replace the LI in combat. It's actually sometimes better to risk
getting routed so that your opponent gets a shock unit of some kind stuck to
your LI, which you can then charge by replacing the LI.

Moral of the story: just because you can be impetuous doesn't mean you
necessarily want to be.


-Mark Stone

[Ewan McNay]

...and this is doubly important when you're the one facing the LI.
Because I realise on reading this that I cheated against Jon and Mike: my
LI which destroyed the artilery (and simultaneously locked against the HC
who were charging them) were promptly charged through by my SHC into the HC.

Sorry, Mike especially. "Schooled in LI tactics" indeed .

[I'd still have gone impetuous - killing off the artillery was more than
worthwhile. And if the LI get routed, that removes impetuosity (!) so the
sequence is still possible, just takes longer.]

Mark Stone wrote:

> Someone asked where the prohibition on replacing impetuous troops in combat is
> stated, so here it is:
>
> "6.163 Decaring Charges - Interpenetration. Bodies interpenetrating another
body
> while charging need not be able to see the target body before this. Impetuous
> troops cannot be replaced in combat in this way."
>
> This matters a great deal when working with LI. LI can often avoid a rout by
> declaring an impetuous charge against enemy LI or LC. The problem, then, is
> that you can't replace the LI in combat. It's actually sometimes better to
risk
> getting routed so that your opponent gets a shock unit of some kind stuck to
> your LI, which you can then charge by replacing the LI.
>
> Moral of the story: just because you can be impetuous doesn't mean you
> necessarily want to be.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[joncleaves]

Yeah, I wondered about all that, but my fault too for not taking a look at the
big picture enough. But the assessment that the imp. charge was still the right
thing is one I agree with.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:37:35 -0400
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] skirmisher doctrine and replacing in combat



...and this is doubly important when you're the one facing the LI.
Because I realise on reading this that I cheated against Jon and Mike: my
LI which destroyed the artilery (and simultaneously locked against the HC
who were charging them) were promptly charged through by my SHC into the HC.

Sorry, Mike especially. "Schooled in LI tactics" indeed .

[I'd still have gone impetuous - killing off the artillery was more than
worthwhile. And if the LI get routed, that removes impetuosity (!) so the
sequence is still possible, just takes longer.]

Mark Stone wrote:

> Someone asked where the prohibition on replacing impetuous troops in combat is
> stated, so here it is:
>
> "6.163 Decaring Charges - Interpenetration. Bodies interpenetrating another
body
> while charging need not be able to see the target body before this. Impetuous
> troops cannot be replaced in combat in this way."
>
> This matters a great deal when working with LI. LI can often avoid a rout by
> declaring an impetuous charge against enemy LI or LC. The problem, then, is
> that you can't replace the LI in combat. It's actually sometimes better to
risk
> getting routed so that your opponent gets a shock unit of some kind stuck to
> your LI, which you can then charge by replacing the LI.
>
> Moral of the story: just because you can be impetuous doesn't mean you
> necessarily want to be.
>
>
> -Mark Stone
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




Yahoo! Groups Links






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

Thanks Mark:

I looked the rule up but couldn't find it. Thanks for the reference. I
like to at least be able to know where a rule is, so that if it comes
up in a game I know where to find it. I kept looking in the
interpenetration and replacing in combat sections, but couldn't find
it there.

Peter

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> Someone asked where the prohibition on replacing impetuous troops in
combat is
> stated, so here it is:
>
> "6.163 Decaring Charges - Interpenetration. Bodies interpenetrating
another body
> while charging need not be able to see the target body before this.
Impetuous
> troops cannot be replaced in combat in this way."
>