Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/3/2004 09:10:50 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

Now, consider that a body facing only routers it is pursuing gets
charge responses (as stated by Jon in the whole long HtH replacement
rules question - and I recall actually looking it up too).

So why is LC going impetuous after LI really so terrible? >>
Well, it is up to the player to decide the terribleness of it, but the rules
issue here is that only NONIMPETUOUS pursuers of only broken troops get
charge responses.
Jon


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

[John Murphy]

I am posting this because the issue has come up from some other
folks lately.

Several statements have been made by really good players (Mark &
Ewan among others) that using LC against LI is problematic in a few
ways.

Principally this involves LI that can, if they pass their waver,
stand and avoid breaking to non-impetuous LC on the first bound.
Hence the LC is stuck and heavier types behind the LI can replace in
HtH and catch the LC.

And the statement was also made that by going impetuous the LC will
probably break the LI but will then have to pursue and still be
caught by whatever is supporting the LI.

That's the background. And, indeed, when put forth I suppose I
simply accepted it without question.

Now, consider that a body facing only routers it is pursuing gets
charge responses (as stated by Jon in the whole long HtH replacement
rules question - and I recall actually looking it up too).

So why is LC going impetuous after LI really so terrible? Sure you
have to pursue a bunch of turns but as LC in contact with only
routers you are pursuing don't you always get an evade when heavier
types charge you through the routing LI (or even from outside your
own front)?

Am I just missing something else in the rules or is this a subtler
tactics issue I am for some reason blind to?

[Ewan McNay]

John -

- there are other elements, but the key is the statement 'non-impetuous
pursuers get normal charge responses.' Note the 'non-impetuous' there.
Impetuous pursuers just keep on pursuing, and that's the first problem - the
second being that if you don't rout the oppo, then opposing cav comes through
the LI at you, as you note.

Ewan

Quoting John <jjmurphy@...>:

> I am posting this because the issue has come up from some other
> folks lately.
>
> Several statements have been made by really good players (Mark &
> Ewan among others) that using LC against LI is problematic in a few
> ways.
>
> Principally this involves LI that can, if they pass their waver,
> stand and avoid breaking to non-impetuous LC on the first bound.
> Hence the LC is stuck and heavier types behind the LI can replace in
> HtH and catch the LC.
>
> And the statement was also made that by going impetuous the LC will
> probably break the LI but will then have to pursue and still be
> caught by whatever is supporting the LI.
>
> That's the background. And, indeed, when put forth I suppose I
> simply accepted it without question.
>
> Now, consider that a body facing only routers it is pursuing gets
> charge responses (as stated by Jon in the whole long HtH replacement
> rules question - and I recall actually looking it up too).
>
> So why is LC going impetuous after LI really so terrible? Sure you
> have to pursue a bunch of turns but as LC in contact with only
> routers you are pursuing don't you always get an evade when heavier
> types charge you through the routing LI (or even from outside your
> own front)?
>
> Am I just missing something else in the rules or is this a subtler
> tactics issue I am for some reason blind to?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

[John Murphy]

Okay, my omission. Got it. Suspected it would be something like that
I was missing.

Thanks Jon & Ewan.