Doug Centurion
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1412
|
Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 8:48 pm Post subject: Re: Errata Up - 6.163 |
|
|
Good point. Trying to get rid of the extra negation in the line. What about:
As an exception to 6.163, such troops who are willing or eager DO NOT
have their charge cancelled by frontal charges declared on them by
bodies of impetuous foot.
>Not the same thing - what about being cancelled by flank charges or
>non-impetuous mounted charges, as the rules default? This re-wording
>changes all that.
>
>--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Doug <rockd@...> wrote:
>>
>> Feudal errata: The double negative in the parenthetical is pretty
>odd:
>>
>> 2. As an exception to 6.163, such troops who are willing or eager do
>> not have their charge cancelled by frontal charges declared on them
>> by bodies of impetuous foot (but not mounted).
>>
>> How about
>>
> > 2. As an exception to 6.163, such troops who are willing or eager
>> only have their charge cancelled by frontal charges declared on them
>> by bodies of impetuous mounted; their charge is not cancelled by
> > impetuous foot.
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
|
|