View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Mark Stone Moderator
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2102 Location: Buckley, WA
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 6:33 pm Post subject: escorts and cancelled charges |
|
|
Jon,
A couple of questions regarding chariot and elephant escorts. I know that I've
raised both of these as issues to be addressed in the revamped rule book, but
with Cold Wars upon us it would help to have preliminary answers.
Case 1: A unit of irregular foot declares a frontal, impetous charge on a unit
of elephants who also declare a frontal charge on the irregular foot. The
elephants have LI escorts on the base. Does the elephant unit have its charge
cancelled?
The reason for yes would be: Per 6.163, Declaring Charges, subsection on page 39
labelled Cancelled Charges: "A body's charge is canceled if it contains
non-impetuous foot that have a charge declared on them by impetuous or mounted
troops."
The reasons for no might be:
- The stand in question is still an elephant stand, not an LI stand. Note,
however, that we do restrict other aspects of its movement on the basis of the
LI (must move in foot approaches, cannot go long in pursuit).
- The LI is not in the front rank (counts as if in a second rank). Now, nowhere
does it _say_ that being in the front rank matters, but by the same token
nowhere does it say that a body of front rank HI and back rank LMI _doesn't_
waver for being charged in the open by mounted. This is generally a problem
with the current wording of the rules: not enough differentiation between when
things apply to a body as a whole, when things apply to a particular rank, and
when things apply to a particular element.
Case 2: A unit of irregular foot declares a frontal, impetous charge on a unit
of elephants who also declare a frontal charge on the irregular foot. The
elephants have an LI escort detachment on the base. Does the elephant unit have
its charge cancelled?
The reason for yes would be the same as Case 1.
The reason for no could be because the LI aren't in the front rank I suppose.
I may be overlooking some other relevant part of the rules, but 6.163 seems
pretty definitive. What say you?
-Mark Stone
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
joncleaves Moderator
Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 7:14 pm Post subject: Re: escorts and cancelled charges |
|
|
<<Case 1: A unit of irregular foot declares a frontal, impetous charge on a unit
of elephants who also declare a frontal charge on the irregular foot. The
elephants have LI escorts on the base. Does the elephant unit have its charge
cancelled?>>
Nope. Elephants are mounted troops, except that if LI are mounted on their
base, they move as foot
for initiative purposes.
<<Case 2: A unit of irregular foot declares a frontal, impetous charge on a unit
of elephants who also declare a frontal charge on the irregular foot. The
elephants have an LI escort detachment on the base. Does the elephant unit have
its charge cancelled?>>
I would note here that case 1 and case 2 are exactly the same. The use of the
word detachment in case 2 is incorrect as if you are on the base, you are not a
detachment.
The answer is still no.
Jon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
_________________ Roll Up and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mark Stone Moderator
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2102 Location: Buckley, WA
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 7:21 pm Post subject: Re: escorts and cancelled charges |
|
|
Note to self: drink coffee first, _then_ send emails.
Case 2 should say the elephants have a detachment of LI attached directly behind
them. Hope that makes more sense now.
-Mark
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
joncleaves Moderator
Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 7:30 pm Post subject: Re: Re: escorts and cancelled charges |
|
|
That charge would only be canceled if the charging impetuous foot could reach
the LI - say if they were charging the flank.
Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stone <mark@...>
To: warrior <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 16:21:04 +0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: escorts and cancelled charges
Note to self: drink coffee first, _then_ send emails.
Case 2 should say the elephants have a detachment of LI attached directly behind
them. Hope that makes more sense now.
-Mark
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
_________________ Roll Up and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mark Stone Moderator
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2102 Location: Buckley, WA
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 7:55 pm Post subject: Re: escorts and cancelled charges |
|
|
--- On March 30 Jon Cleaves said: ---
>
> That charge would only be canceled if the charging impetuous foot could reach
> the LI - say if they were charging the flank.
>
So, that's what I expected you to say. I understand _what_ the answer is, but I
don't understand _why_ it's the answer. Can you point me to the section of the
rules that supercedes 6.163 in this case? Or should I just wait for the new rev
of the rule book?
-Mark Stone
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
joncleaves Moderator
Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:11 pm Post subject: Re: Re: escorts and cancelled charges |
|
|
damn Americans - always want to know 'why?'...lol
6.163 says:
"Canceled Charges: A body’s charge is canceled if:...
• it contains non-impetuous foot that have a charge declared on them by
impetuous or mounted troops."
The intent is that the charge is canceled only if the non-impetuous foot have
the charge reaching them. Them = the nonimpetuous foot. I have admitted
already that the wording could be better and I do indeed intend to have that
fixed when we revise the text.
J
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stone <mark@...>
To: warrior <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 16:55:12 +0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: escorts and cancelled charges
--- On March 30 Jon Cleaves said: ---
>
> That charge would only be canceled if the charging impetuous foot could reach
> the LI - say if they were charging the flank.
>
So, that's what I expected you to say. I understand _what_ the answer is, but I
don't understand _why_ it's the answer. Can you point me to the section of the
rules that supercedes 6.163 in this case? Or should I just wait for the new rev
of the rule book?
-Mark Stone
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
_________________ Roll Up and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mark Stone Moderator
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2102 Location: Buckley, WA
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:23 pm Post subject: Re: escorts and cancelled charges |
|
|
--- On March 30 Jon Cleaves said: ---
>
> The intent is that the charge is canceled only if the non-impetuous foot have
> the charge reaching them. Them = the nonimpetuous foot. I have admitted
> already that the wording could be better and I do indeed intend to have that
> fixed when we revise the text.
>
Thanks, Jon. That's all I was looking for, and I'm sure the wording will be
clear on this point with the revised text. I appreciate your prompt response
here; I'm sure you understand that this is an issue that could potentially
matter quite a bit.
-Mark Stone
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
joncleaves Moderator
Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:45 pm Post subject: Re: Re: escorts and cancelled charges |
|
|
Dude, no worries. Tantor can charge, I am still gonna kill him.....
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stone <mark@...>
To: warrior <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:23:42 +0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: escorts and cancelled charges
--- On March 30 Jon Cleaves said: ---
>
> The intent is that the charge is canceled only if the non-impetuous foot have
> the charge reaching them. Them = the nonimpetuous foot. I have admitted
> already that the wording could be better and I do indeed intend to have that
> fixed when we revise the text.
>
Thanks, Jon. That's all I was looking for, and I'm sure the wording will be
clear on this point with the revised text. I appreciate your prompt response
here; I'm sure you understand that this is an issue that could potentially
matter quite a bit.
-Mark Stone
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
_________________ Roll Up and Win! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|