Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Please gang, let's not start a flame war here. I'll handle the countercharge
question and I strongly urge everyone to ignore Brian's other comments - he
obviously has had a bad day and needed to vent somewhere and now he is done and
appropriately contrite.

The important portion of the (final) rules text:

"Counter-charge. A counter-charge differs from a charge in that it:
€ cannot be impetuous.
€ is not declared or prompted.
€ must be against enemy who count as having declared a charge on the body.
€ ends half way to the chargers or at half own move distance, whichever is
sooner.
Otherwise, a counter-charge must abide by all the same rules as a charge (e.g.
it can be cancelled, it must have room to fit,
etc.).
Counter-charge restrictions:
€ A body may not counter-charge a body that it is not eligible to charge
(6.161).
€ A body charged by two enemy bodies that cannot counter-charge both,
counter-charges that permitted by its
orders and most directly to its front.
€ Foot cannot counter-charge impetuous or mounted troops.
€ Shaken or exhausted troops cannot counter-charge."


Therefore, a counter charge in Warrior is EXACTLY like a charge with four
exceptions.
This is not some misinterpretation of a previous edition of a another rules set,
it is the way I wrote it.

The philosophy is that countercharges can be used to respond to a charge, but
cannot be used to get you out of a situation where you would have had a declared
charge cancelled.

Remember all, this is Warrior, not WRG 8th. Comparisons to the way you remember
playing WRG aren't really relevant. I could point out how little the two sets
differ in this area, but such a debate about how someone might have been playing
WRG 7th 'wrong' is no more going to be allowed on this list than is an argument
about how some rules set that 'games' ancients at the operational vice tactical
level is 'better' than Warrior.

Take a deep breath.
Jon

[joncleaves]

The whole rule was in my post and it included:

"Otherwise, a counter-charge must abide by all the same rules as a charge
(e.g. it can be cancelled, it must have room to fit, etc."

[Don Coon]

? A body charged by two enemy bodies that cannot counter-charge both,
counter-charges that permitted by its
orders and most directly to its front.


The philosophy is that countercharges can be used to respond to a charge,
but cannot be used to get you out of a situation where you would have had a
declared charge cancelled.

Just MHO, but wouldnt a charge declared against an enemy to front be
cancelled by a charge declared by the second enenmy to flank? Given that,
the above rule allows a countercharger to get in his countercharge even
though an enenmy is charging from the flank. It therfore does get you out
of a situation where you would have had a declared charge cancelled. Am I
misreading?

Don

[Don Coon]

> The whole rule was in my post and it included:
>
> "Otherwise, a counter-charge must abide by all the same rules as a charge
> (e.g. it can be cancelled, it must have room to fit, etc."

Yes I saw the whole thing. Do you think it might be confusing that it says
if charged by 2 enemies it can counter charge that most to its front? Yet I
can not if my charge would be preemted and cancelled. So if I am charged by
2 bodies, I can countercharge one and only one? I can countercharge any to
my front? I can not countercharge if a charge against the same target would
be preempted? Why say "body most to its front" at all since all other
bodies would preemt the countercharge anyway?

Don