Warrior Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules
A Four Horsemen Enterprises Rules Set
 
  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups AlbumAlbum   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Canceled LC Charge
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Rules
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
lilroblis
Legionary
Legionary


Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 560
Location: Cleveland Ohio

PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2022 2:39 pm    Post subject: My thoughts - on ruling

Scot - I appreciate your rulings, and the time you spend - my apologies for pissing you off
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1510
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2022 4:28 pm    Post subject:

scott holder wrote:
Quote:
Particularly we have in the relevant case:
6.163K "a charge is declared against it by enemy not already in or moving into the path of the charge."

'path of the charge' must refer to Charge Path, 6.163H, which "a zone as wide as the charging body extending out to its charge reach."

Charge reach does NOT include illegal targets...so...we could interpret all this that your lights charge, should said lights be charged by a target illegal for them, is cancelled...which would seem to make things simpler, BUT, would make the 'old Dave tactic' fail in a different way.


This is good. It's where I've been heading as I've thought more about this. Lemme see if I can step thru how this would work.

We use Phil's original example:

HCLC
HCLC

LCLC
LCLC

As usual, what happens "depends" on which units are moving. The easiest is the 4E of LC charging ahead with the intended target being the 2E LC unit. The HC stands, the LC either stands or evades. Per the rules discussion earlier, the 4E of LC then drops back elements to avoid the HC and either hits the 2E LC where it's standing or runs after it when it evades.

But, let's say the HC also declared a charge, straight ahead, no wheel. That changes everything per what you just posted. If I take that approach, then yes, the 4E LC's charge is cancelled, it then has responses.

But, again per previous discussion, some will say "but the 4E LC drops back elements". True but the question then becomes precisely when does that happen. That's somewhat easy to adjudicate in that we can extrapolate how we "drop back" when passing gaps, namely you drop back when the elements hit the gap, not before.

The same would apply here. The 4E LC initiates the charge but wouldn't drop back elements until they were to come into contact with the HC, again assuming the HC stood. The instant the HC moves forward (it's declared a charge), then the 4E LC has something ineligible in it's path (I'm probably not explaining this as precisely as I need to), thus the charge is now cancelled and the 4E LC responds.

As you say, this is simpler and it's how I could go. The main thing is trying to suss out any second and third order effects from this approach.

scott


I'm trying to think of 'problems' with this and the only thing I can think of is that it provides lights a little more flexibility in that they could declare some charges they otherwise shouldn't, and just get cancelled and evade if an illegal target was charging them.

I'm fine with that, to buy the simplicity it offers, rather than having to try to have lights wheel/drop-back in a dynamic situation, variable every time.

The only remaining thought experiments would have to involve extensions of this kind of cancelling to other situations, that is, an illegal target is in a chargers path (but isn't, by our reasoning, so it can cancel the charge if it is charging). We can 'fix' that by saying that the above only applies to lights.

However, we do need to spend some thought on what happens for non-lights who declare a charge, but end up with an illegal target in their path.

First off, what would be an illegal target in the path of a non-light unit's charge?

One could postulate that mounted under Probe orders that would hit steady close LTS or P armed foot would treat said foot as an illegal target.

So, can said mounted declare a charge at all if LTS or P steady close foot would be hit? One answer is no.

The other answer is yes, if said mounted have at least one legal target...in which case they just hit the LTS/P foot also.

A third answer would be that they could declare the legal charge, but, if they would end up hitting the LTS/P foot the charge is judged to be illegal and reverted...as well as any responses to said charge.

Any other illegal charges involving non-lights that you can think of?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
theblackprince
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 21 Nov 2018
Posts: 17

PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2022 7:10 pm    Post subject:

I think have the HC etc. cancel the LC/LI charge is the best way to play this. It's clear to all. If the HC don't charge, then the lights drop the minimum elments to miss any illegal targets and then go ahead. No matador action with the lights dropping elements and having the HC whip by...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 5954
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2022 10:23 pm    Post subject:

"Matador action". That's something that will not occur. The only time a charge doesn't hit something is if it evades away. It's yet another reason I like where this is going.

Quote:
So, can said mounted declare a charge at all if LTS or P steady close foot would be hit? One answer is no.


Correct. Taking this approach stops just about every possible wierdness. The 2nd and 3rd possibilities are then a moot point, I wouldn't allow it.

_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1510
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2022 11:30 pm    Post subject:

scott holder wrote:
"Matador action". That's something that will not occur. The only time a charge doesn't hit something is if it evades away. It's yet another reason I like where this is going.

Quote:
So, can said mounted declare a charge at all if LTS or P steady close foot would be hit? One answer is no.


Correct. Taking this approach stops just about every possible wierdness. The 2nd and 3rd possibilities are then a moot point, I wouldn't allow it.


"The only time a charge doesn't hit something is if it evades away." - Well, this is almost always true...and I can't think of a case off hand where a charge not against evaders doesn't hit something...but it might be possible in some really weird case.

So, your point about a mounted unit under Probe not being able to declare a charge that would hit steady LTS or P is great. That's simple and clean. What it basically means is that a non-light body cannot declare a charge that would hit an illegal target.

However, I'm assuming a non-light body COULD declare a charge that MIGHT hit an illegal target if things transpire that way, right? What do we do then? Does the charge hit the illegal target? or is the charge illegal and reverted?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 5954
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Wed Jan 12, 2022 6:52 pm    Post subject:

Quote:
I'm assuming a non-light body COULD declare a charge that MIGHT hit an illegal target if things transpire that way, right? What do we do then? Does the charge hit the illegal target? or is the charge illegal and reverted?


I'm not going there, to open-ended.

One example, kind of, is the ole non-light Irr foot body against mounted. If such a body can get an impetous charge declared, it's not cancelled if mounted are involved (frontally, obvious other rules factor into this so I don't need chapter and verse repeated here).

I'm sure there might be other examples but again, I hesitate to make a blanket statement.

scott

_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1510
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Wed Jan 12, 2022 6:55 pm    Post subject:

scott holder wrote:
Quote:
I'm assuming a non-light body COULD declare a charge that MIGHT hit an illegal target if things transpire that way, right? What do we do then? Does the charge hit the illegal target? or is the charge illegal and reverted?


I'm not going there, to open-ended.

One example, kind of, is the ole non-light Irr foot body against mounted. If such a body can get an impetous charge declared, it's not cancelled if mounted are involved (frontally, obvious other rules factor into this so I don't need chapter and verse repeated here).

I'm sure there might be other examples but again, I hesitate to make a blanket statement.

scott


Totally fine...that's what we need referees for Wink...to evaluate the specific situation at hand.

Personally, say a mounted unit declared a legal charge against a unit that evaded, and the mounted went long and were under Probe orders (they were impetuous) and would hit steady close foot with P or LTS. I would rule that they stop 40p short of said P/LTS...and not hit them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 5954
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 6:36 pm    Post subject:

That seams the thing to do as you describe it.
_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Rules All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group