Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/9/2003 20:17:46 Central Daylight Time,
eforbes100@... writes:

> Hi Jon, just want to be clear on this point.
>
> LC declares a charge on lights directly to its front at 120. These lights
> have a HC unit directly adjacent to their front. The HC declares a
> frontal charge on the LC. The lights elect to evade.
>
> As both declared charges are legal, the HC and LC go to contact.
> I read 6.163/ cancled charges as the LC having no option but to continue
> the charge to contact the HC.
>
> Ed
>

Yes. I think some folks are under the impression there are more cancel
charge causes than there really are. And/or they are confusing charges with
pursuits, which have different rules but 'look' alike.

The other issue is, this situation is more theoretical than real as there are
other interactions (like getting shot for 2 in prep) that come in to play so
often in such a 'set up'. Sure, it 'can' happen this way - but it is not the
norm.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Ed Forbes]

Hi Jon, just want to be clear on this point.

LC declares a charge on lights directly to its front at 120. These lights
have a HC unit directly adjacent to their front. The HC declares a
frontal charge on the LC. The lights elect to evade.

As both declared charges are legal, the HC and LC go to contact.
I read 6.163/ cancled charges as the LC having no option but to continue
the charge to contact the HC.

Ed

________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/10/2003 16:37:40 Central Daylight Time,
jjendon@... writes:

> I have had to rule this at a tourny and the LC player was not happy. Took a
> little convincing him, but in the end he accepted it (and watched his LC
> get
> smoked).
>

Now that I have answered this question, could you tell me on what basis folks
thought it would happen otherwise and what that otherwise was? Just so I can
figure out where the confusion comes from and if there is anything to be
done.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/10/2003 17:20:37 Central Daylight Time,
jjendon@... writes:

> He countered with
> any target in your charge path (or moving into your charge path) is counted
> as having had a charge declared on it by you. Sounds like he has a
> reasonable point of view.
>

Except that isn't quite the rule. The rule is "Charges count as declared on
all *legal* targets in or moving into the charge path."

The last sentence of 6.163 is also important here.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Don Coon]

I have had to rule this at a tourny and the LC player was not happy. Took a
little convincing him, but in the end he accepted it (and watched his LC get
smoked).

> > As both declared charges are legal, the HC and LC go to contact.
> > I read 6.163/ cancled charges as the LC having no option but to
continue
> > the charge to contact the HC.
> >
> > Ed
> >
>
> Yes. I think some folks are under the impression there are more cancel
> charge causes than there really are. And/or they are confusing charges
with
> pursuits, which have different rules but 'look' alike.
>
> The other issue is, this situation is more theoretical than real as there
are
> other interactions (like getting shot for 2 in prep) that come in to play
so
> often in such a 'set up'. Sure, it 'can' happen this way - but it is not
the
> norm.

[Don Coon]

The confusion the player had was that LC is not allowed to charge HC. I
tried to explain that LC is not allowed to declare on HC. He countered with
any target in your charge path (or moving into your charge path) is counted
as having had a charge declared on it by you. Sounds like he has a
reasonable point of view.

Don
----- Original Message -----
From: <JonCleaves@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] LC charges/ contacts HC


> In a message dated 4/10/2003 16:37:40 Central Daylight Time,
> jjendon@... writes:
>
> > I have had to rule this at a tourny and the LC player was not happy.
Took a
> > little convincing him, but in the end he accepted it (and watched his LC
> > get
> > smoked).
> >
>
> Now that I have answered this question, could you tell me on what basis
folks
> thought it would happen otherwise and what that otherwise was? Just so I
can
> figure out where the confusion comes from and if there is anything to be
> done.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/10/2003 22:06:55 Central Daylight Time,
eforbes100@... writes:

> 6.163 Charge Path
> implies that the LC charge is canceled due to the fact that HC is not a
> legal target for the LC.
>

I do not agree that the charge path part of 6.163 implies that. The only
thing that section says about cancelled charges is: "enemy charges against
the body that do not enter the path cancel the charge (see below). " The
'below' is the list of reasons a charge can be cancelled.

Being contacted by what would have been an illegal charge target while you
are making a legal charge is NOT a reason to cancel a charge.

All the things that cancel a charge are listed in the cancelled charges
section of 6.163. There is no reason to assume there are other, unstated,
cancelled charge causes. There are none.

Now, if that HC had been out of the charge path.......



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Ed Forbes]

Ok, I am getting confused again ( real easy for me these days).

6.163 Charge Path: enemy bodies in the path (whether they started there
or moved into it during charge resolution) that are legal targets may be
contacted by the charger.

Steady HC is not a legal frontal charge target for LC. 6.163 Charge Path
implies that the LC charge is canceled due to the fact that HC is not a
legal target for the LC.

6.163 Canceled Charges: a legally declared charge ( LC on lights is a
legal charge) is not canceled unless it is non-imp foot charged by
mounted.

One gives and the other takes away.


Ed

________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com

[Mark Mallard]

In our case the confusion was greater because the LC were in skirmish.

mark mallard


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Mark Mallard]

Jon,

would the following clarication be useful.

"skirmishers not themselves declaring a charge, must evade if charged"

mark mallard


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/11/2003 07:15:27 Central Daylight Time,
markmallard77@... writes:

> would the following clarication be useful.
>
> "skirmishers not themselves declaring a charge, must evade if charged"
>

I don't believe so, since we have this in 6.166:

"Troops in skirmish formation (6.45) MUST evade. Note that troops in skirmish
formation that declare a charge successfully (meaning it is not cancelled)
revert to a block formation and do not have to evade in this case. Light
troops may be required to evade
based on orders or on the results of options chosen during preparatory
shooting (11.1). "


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Mark Mallard]

Jon,

ok thx

i will relay your comments to our group.

mark mallard


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Don Coon]

Right. I totally agree with you. I was only feeding you his reasoning. I
showed hin that even though a charge was not declared on an opponent it was
possible to wind up in HTH withthat opponent even though you are charging
(albeit at something else). Just trying to illustrate the confusion part.
Maybe I confussed you. Again, I am and always have been in 100% agreement
with your original post to the query.

Don
----- Original Message -----
From: <JonCleaves@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] LC charges/ contacts HC


> In a message dated 4/10/2003 17:20:37 Central Daylight Time,
> jjendon@... writes:
>
> > He countered with
> > any target in your charge path (or moving into your charge path) is
counted
> > as having had a charge declared on it by you. Sounds like he has a
> > reasonable point of view.
> >
>
> Except that isn't quite the rule. The rule is "Charges count as declared
on
> all *legal* targets in or moving into the charge path."
>
> The last sentence of 6.163 is also important here.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/11/2003 21:06:11 Central Daylight Time,
eforbes100@... writes:

> Could you expand on "legal
> targets may be contacted by the charger" and define legal in this contex.
>

Legal targets are targets the charger is allowed to contact through its own
charge move in a charge phase.

I don't know how to 'expand' that, but what has seemed to be the issue is
that some folks apparently have the notion that all illegal charge targets
charging you somehow cancel your own legal charge. This is not the case.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Ed Forbes]

Hi Jon,

6.163 Charge Path: enemy bodies in the path (whether they started there
or moved into it during charge resolution) that are legal targets may be
contacted by the charger.

I do not understand the point to 6.163 Charge Path if you are allowed to
contact an "illegal" target in a charge. Could you expand on "legal
targets may be contacted by the charger" and define legal in this contex.

Ed

________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com