Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

srawls · Recruit Joined: 18 Apr 2006 Posts: 86

In a recent game, I shot a unit of close order foot for CPF in prep shooting. My opponent decided to halt rather than take the waiver. When it came time for charges, I declared a charge on the unit and my opponend informed me he would be counter charging. When I looked puzzled, I was informed that he had a similar situation at HistoriCon and that there was a ruling that allowed a halted unit to counter-charge. I conferred with the New England guys and was informed that this was in fact the case. His close order foot was allowed to counter charge.

I decided to take a close look at the rules so I could try to figure out the rational for this ruling, so I could be prepared to answer at the next tournament why this would be allowed. After lots of review, I am further confused, as I cannot seem to figure out why this would have been ruled this way.

At the bottom of table 11-1, it states "When an apporopriate body takes 2 CPF from prep shooting andeither must halt or chooses to halt, it CANNOT perform any voluntary movement (approaches, counters, retirements, enter skirmish formation (or any other), etc.)."

6.16 states "A charge is a move intended to result in hand-to-hand combat". This tells me a charge is a move and as such could not be performed by a unit that is halted.

6.166.A states "A counter-charge differs from a charge in that it:

- cannot be impetuous
- is not declared or prompted
- must be against an enemy who count as having declared a charge on the body
- movement by each body is prorated until contact is made
- does not have to begin with the counter-chargeing body being within its own tactial move distance of the charger"

No where in 6.166.A does is state that a counter-charge is not a move. In fact it talks about movement being prorated.

6.166 states " The only reponses allowed to an enemy charge are to stand to receive it at the halt, without further direction or formation changes, or to counter-charge or to evade."

Am I correct in thinking that table 11-1 disallows either the choice of a counter-charge or an evade, as they are movement? Or did I miss something somewhere? Any assistance you could provide would be appreciated.

Steve Rawls

Frank Gilson · Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:01 am Post subject: Re: Halted

scott holder · Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:12 pm Post subject:

Um, if the ruling was done at Hcon, it was done by me. Why can't people call a spade a spade in situations like this?

I know there's a compelling reason for that ruling. It might be something that's come up in the Forum, I searched and found it.

Feel free to search for it. I can't remember off hand what I found but I would have found something compelling.

Next time when referring to conventions that I ump and *I* make a ruling, refer to me specifically.

scott

lilroblis · Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:42 pm Post subject: Unpiring

Scott in this case I think it may have - no offense implied but for me I remember (sometimes) the conversation and sometimes who was involved and sometimes not. I believe when we were discussing this on chat - it was put as ruled at Historicon not by who. That being said I think it was you and the game was Derek and I - but I may be wrong. Hcon is fading in memory like most things - but still loved the Sumerians - now trying to figure out dogs

srawls · Recruit Joined: 18 Apr 2006 Posts: 86

Point taken, Scott. Next time I will be sure to start with "Scott, what kind of crack have you been smoking?!" Very Happy

Frank Gilson · Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 1:11 pm Post subject: Feb 2016

The February 2016 Official Clarifications, available on this Forum, state:
11.1 (page 91). Below Table 11-1, fourth bullet: Add to the list of prohibited voluntary movement: “charge, counter-charge”. Add new sentence at the end: “It can, however, still perform involuntary movement (recoils, routs, etc.).”

Don't know who said what or why at Historicon, where I was not present, but no counter-charges if you decided to halt as a reaction to 2 CPF from prep shooting.

In a simple search of this forum based on the word 'halt' I find nothing to change this.

srawls · Recruit Joined: 18 Apr 2006 Posts: 86

It has an etc at the end of the list in the book. Figured that was not an exhaustive list. Thanks again, Frank!

Steve

Todd Kaeser · Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 6:25 pm Post subject:

So

Question: Can we state now that a body that has been halted is not entitled to counter-charge?

I believe the rationale for this was a troop rallying disordered is entitled to charge responses - which includes counter-charging.

Todd

scott holder · Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:39 pm Post subject:

scott holder · Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:41 pm Post subject:

Mark Stone · Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:03 pm Post subject:

It was answered by Jon back in the day, specifically on June 11, 2004. According to Jon, counter-charging is forbidden.

http://www.fourhorsemenenterprises.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13015&sid=05b46005f5c487e78998010c589d98c7

scott holder · Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:17 pm Post subject:

Well crap, that's not the post I remember finding.

Heh heh, but it's clear...in that post and in the latest Clarifications.

Nothing more to see here people, move along.

scott

Frank Gilson · Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:17 am Post subject:

Todd Kaeser · Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 5:14 pm Post subject:

scott holder · Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 6:18 pm Post subject:

I disagree that it's not clear. The 11.1 clarification makes it clear, at least as it pertains to choosing to halt from shooting CPF. 4th bullet under the table.

Of course if you want to write in something extra like "Jon said this on the Forum a gazillion years ago", knock yourself out.

Shocked