Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Bill Chriss]

Jon,

Please take a look at 6.522. I believe an erratum is necessary in the third paragraph. It now reads that if a "split" evading body is contacted by a charger and then ROUTS "the interpenetrated body is considered uncovered." Isn't this incorrect? The interpenetrated body is NOT uncovered, rather it has just been the subject of a Converted Charge. Or am I missing something? The obvious importance of the question is whether the interpenetrated body, if loose or open foot charged by mounted, would have to test. Thanks.

[Bill Chriss]

Reposting here in the event the question was missed or badly phrased. Paragraph 6.522, third paragraph, reads that if a "split" evading body is contacted by a charger and then ROUTS "the interpenetrated body is considered uncovered." My belief is that the interpenetrated body is NOT uncovered, but rather it has just been the subject of a Converted Charge to be adjudicated next bound. Am I missing something? The importance of the question is whether the interpenetrated body, if loose or open foot charged by mounted, would have to test. Thanks.

[joncleaves]

I don't understand. Its uncovered and is also likely to be the subject of a converted charge. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

[Bill Chriss]

[joncleaves]

Hey, no sweat. I do it all the time, and I wrote the damned thing...