Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Historian]

We had an situation, where a 4 element LC unit charged a 2 element LC unit. Next to the 2 element LC was an HC unit that also declared a charge on the 4 element LC. SO the situation was like this:

HCLC
HCLC

LCLC
LCLC

My thought was the 4 element LC has it's charge canceled and must now evade instead. But we could not find it and the judge ruled the charges go through. But is that correct?

As the event went on, the 4 element LC rolled +3 and fought 1.5 ranks, routing the smaller LC unit, and recoiling disordered the HC.

[lilroblis]

I believe that the charges go - LC had a charge - and could countercharge the HC in any case if not already charging. Legal Charge, chargers moving into path, charges proceed

[Historian]

HC is not a valid charge target for LC, (except if unsteady or behind flank), and so is not a valid target to counter charge either.

[Mark Stone]

The charge goes through. Dave Stier has used this for years with various knight/LC armies to get his knights to destroy enemy LC.

[Ed Kollmer]

My question now is:
When is a charge cancelled???
If the 4El LC charges another unit and then itself if charged by another unit. Why is the 4El not cancelled????
EK

[Mark Stone]

[Historian]

I thought that if you had a charge declared on you by someone you could not normally charge forces a charge response, in this case LC charged by HC. But apparently not.

[Ed Kollmer]

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa......Mark
I finally got my butt out the chair and after dusting off the rulebook. I turned to 6.16 and looked it up.
the rule I didn't know was.
Charges are canceled if "a charge is declared against it by enemy not already in or moving into the path of the charge"
Now I understand.
Therefore, the 4El LC charge is not cancelled. They charge the legal target the LC while the HC charge them and ALL HELL BREAKS LOSE.
SORRY for the outburst. I am prone to uncontrolled behavior as those who play me have found out.
Again sorry Mark.
EK

[Mark Stone]

I for one am really glad this thread came up. This is an important combined arms tactic in light cavalry exchanges that everyone should be aware of. I think the first time I figured it out (as in, had it explained to me) was waaaay back in 7th edition days when I paired up with Dave Stier to play Tibetans at Cold Wars.

That tournament was notorious for its own reasons, and while the final game may not have been single handedly responsible for the adoption of our current scoring system, that final game was probably the straw that broke the camel's back. Ask Scott about it some time over a beer... long story... and I digress.

Anyway, Dave wanted us to use a deployment that interleaved Tibetan SHC and EHC with the LC. This has the virtue of pulling bowfire away from LC and onto sturdier SHC and EHC units, but it also set us up for a number of situations in which arguably superior enemy LC would charge at our LC, which would obligingly evade... while our SHC/EHC charged, contacted, and routed said enemy light cavalry.

Since then I've watched Dave use this tactic successfully many times, and used it with success myself. It's how he turns the relatively anemic Sicilian Hohenstafen Reg C LC B into skirmish wars powerhouses. Mix a knight unit or two into the skirmish mix judiciously, and suddenly you're driving back if not outright routing your opponent's LC.

There's a bit of a guessing game involved. You don't want to waste a charge with something like a knight unit when the enemy LC isn't, in fact, going to charge. But there are many times when the enemy is committed to an aggressive posture with their LC and need to maintain that aggressive posture in order to protect flanks of foot units. Defusing that aggression and turning it to your own advantage is powerful. But like many tactics in Warrior, it often requires careful combined arms planning.

[Ed Kollmer]

Thanks
I will have to see how I can use this.
I still have your Light troops analysis.
Ed the less Ignorant

[Mark Stone]

In re-reading the rules, I found a further nuance on this example:

[Frank Gilson]

[Frank Gilson]

[lilroblis]

Last event _ had Scot rule that mu charge with LMI was cancelled - even though it was not in the opponents charge range or declared - and I had to take a waver test - so I would argue it depends on what the umpire had for breakfast

[Frank Gilson]