Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Doug]

The combat sequence is from the left.
All charges are "revealed" at the same time.

IIII is Mittani infantry
CCCC is Mitanni LCh
RRRR is Mitanni LC, in rout and facing up the page

XXXX is Egyptian infantry
ZZZZ is Egyptian LCh

........CCCCcccc
IIIIiiiiCCCCcccc
IIIIiiiiCCCCcccc
........CCCCcccc.RRRRrrrrRRRRrrrr
.................RRRRrrrrRRRRrrrr
....................
XXXXxxxxXXXXzzzzZZZZ
XXXXxxxxXXXXzzzzZZZZ
............zzzzZZZZ
............zzzzZZZZ

Note that IIII is set back from CCCC a little bit, but half the
distance from IIII to XXXX is beyond the front of CCCC.

IIII charges XXXX, who responds with a Countercharge
For ASCII art purposes, they meet at the middle line of "......"

We believe that these figures are moved to their final position PRIOR
to moving any other figures, because the combat sequence must be
followed. Is this correct?

Then, what we did is...

ZZZZ charges RRRR, who evade, exposing CCCC who Countercharges.

We wondered if XXXX should have its Countercharge made illegal
because of CCCC. We decided that it would not, but are in a dilemma
because we can't reconcile:

1) We had already moved the infantry in accordance with the Combat Sequence

2) IIII might have its Charge cancelled because a friendly Mounted
unit was "charging" the same target.(This is a rule I "recollect"
from TOG; if it is the same in Warrior where is it?) But actually it
was charging a _different_ target and just ended up hitting both.

3) We presume the various items discussed in Section 6.163 Charges
also apply to Countercharges.

4) Looking at Section 6.163, XXXX is _not_ "cancelled" due to CCCC
because it _was_ "already in..the path."

5) The discussion in Section 6.163 of Canceled Charges is somewhat
hard to digest because many of the assertions are made in the
negative, and I'm trying to count the negations to see when it
becomes positive.

The first bullet item seems to be contradicted by the first sentence
in the paragraph below the bullets. I have a feeling you are trying
to express a special case in that sentence, but the fact that the
bullet item is expressed as a positive ("is cancelled if"), whereas
the sentence is expressed in the negative ("cannot be canceled by"),
makes it extremely hard to figure out.

6) In this instance, should CCCC's Countercharge be "declared"
against everyone who is in the charge path, instead of only the unit
Charging it? [See 7) below]


ANYWAY, THE WAY WE DID IT:
CCCC ends up contacting XXXX before it moves half the distance to
ZZZZ. So the end result was:

IIIIiiiiCCCCcccc....
XXXXxxxxXXXXzzzzZZZZ

The odd distances between the two lines of troops resulted in
everyone being lined up evenly and all four units counting as
charging.

7) Should we have counted XXXX as needing a Waver test (LMI
responding to a charge by mounted)? After spending some time
flipping thru the rules, I suppose so. I found Section 6.166,
sub-section "Counter-Charge Responses," second bullet which says
"charged by two enemy bodies that cannot counter-charge both" So I
figure the LMI can be interpreted as charge/counter charging both the
infantry and the chariots.
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at
present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come
in it's turn, but it will be at a remote period." James Madison, 15
March 1798 (_Papers of J.M._ vol 12, p.14; LC call no. JK.111.M24)

[joncleaves]

Doug

Countercharges are NOT declared and never cancel other charges.

I think I understand the ascii art and given that, the final disposition of the
troops involved is correct.
Jon

[Doug]

>Doug
>
>Countercharges are NOT declared and never cancel other charges.
>
>I think I understand the ascii art and given that, the final
>disposition of the troops involved is correct.
>Jon

In my example, a "countercharging" LMI unit was contacted by a
mounted unit which was countercharging a _different_ unit. So should
the LMI have taken a Waver Test for being "charged by mounted?"

In other words, I guess, does a unit which is contacted by a unit
engaging in "countercharging" (against anybody) count as being
"charged by" that unit?

The thing about this is that we weren't sure that we were _starting_
in the right place WRT what rule is applied. Then we tried to follow
a "flow chart" from one rule to the next to figure out all the
interactions happening; but we were not sure if we had completely
missed something etc. After seemingly reading _everything_ I tried
to put it into what seemed to be the correct sequence.

There's gotta be a heirarchy and the rules need to have a simple page
showing it.
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at
present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come
in it's turn, but it will be at a remote period." James Madison, 15
March 1798 (_Papers of J.M._ vol 12, p.14; LC call no. JK.111.M24)