Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Mark Stone · Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:54 pm Post subject: imetuous charge requirements

A couple of rules questions came up during Cold Wars. Here's one:

Unit 1 declares and impetuous charge on Unit A. Unit B, which is beyond the charge reach of Unit 1, declares an impetuous charge on Unit 1. Unit B moves into the path of Unit 1's charge, and they make contact before Unit 1 reaches Unit A. With elements not in contact with Unit B, Unit 1 could step to contact to reach Unit A, its original charge target.

Question: Does impetuousity require Unit 1 to step to contact it's original charge target, Unit A?

-Mark Stone

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

Assuming "step to contact" is echeloning - 6.18 - echeloning is always optional. Always.

J

Tim Grimmett · Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 7:06 pm Post subject:

Jon--

Followup, please.

When is the decision to echelon made? At the time of declaring or when lining up?

Example: A unit of LMI declares an impetuous charge on enemy LI (40 paces away) and another target not behind the LI but 120 paces away.

If the LI stand, the chargers will have to echelon forward more than 40 paces and become disordered.

Must the chargers echelon forward since the non-LI target is within 120p of the charger at the time the charge is declared? Or can the charger, once the LI stands, decide to only to hit the LI?

Tim

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

The decision is made as the charging unit is moved.

The charger can do either.

browntj007 · Recruit Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 21 Location: NY

Jon,

Under the very first paragraph 6.163, charge targets are declared. You have to write down what you're charging. Easy. Last sentence: players may not make assumptions about what the situation may be during the actual charge move. More on that in a sec.

So...a unit declares a charge against two units like the example above. The LI chose to stand - the charger can decide to cancel his charge on his own so as not to step forward? Yes, I understand your ."..optional. Always. " comment. I'm betting then if the charger were mounted both targets would have to take a waver check ( assume targets are required to take these tests), even though NO actual charge is made against the other unit. After all - the charge is declared and the charge isn't cancelled - the charger just decides not to move fully. This isn't fair - can't have it both ways. I think I know your intent, however.

I also think I understand what you're getting at - the charger is not required when writing charges to force himself to be disordered by having to charge both units. Fine. The answer should be: He chooses to charge just the one unit. BUT...if the charge is DECLARED against both, then he should be required to make every effort to contact both if possible. This is where the player can't make assumptions, etc, etc comes into play in 6.163. I believe you told me that once a player decides to eschelon, he can't decide to take it back based on what the target response is.

Just to make light of this situation:

" Boys - we're going to kill both units over there ! CHARGE! NO! WAIT! Hold up, everyone! They're not acting like we thought they would - just get the first unit!!! Pass the word down the line whle we're running across the field!"

One further: two Roman units side by side both 120 paces from a Samurai unit. The Japs charge. The Romans stand with one and countercharge with the other. Prorating the distance, the countercharging Roman is about 55 paces ahead of the unit standing. The charge was already declared against both targets. Since it's now an eschelon situation, are you now saying the charger can suddenly decide not to charge both units? And if so - how correct is that? Isn't breaking up the enemy line during a charge a viable tactic? Why would we punish that?

If I were to correct this rule - I think I would amend it to read something like = Escheloning is optional, unless a charge is declared that requires eschloning to make contact against all declared targets, then it is mandatory.

Tim Brown

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

No, the charger cannot cancel his charge voluntarily. ECHELONING is always optional. I said nothing about charges being optional.

As he could indeed not make assumptions about the LI standing, the only target he could declare on is the LI.

As you know, a charge can hit things that it did not declare on.

scott holder · Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:57 pm Post subject:

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

Echeloning is always optional.

6.163G:

"A body may echelon (6.18 ) to hit one or more additional targets."

There is no requirement to echelon after one target has been hit.

6.18 confirms this option:

"When charging or making a combat results move forward,
a body may echelon elements so that elements may contact
more enemy."

Both paras clearly contain the word *may*.

Is there some rule section, Tim, that you found that I am not aware of that requires contact with every body in the charge path no matter what? I am not aware of such a rule.

Mark Stone · Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:58 pm Post subject:

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

I'm not trying to be difficult. I just don't see the issue.

Additional in that sentence is additional to the first body contacted. It pretty much has to be that way as there is no mandatory requirement for a body to contact its target. It has to make the charge move, but such things as evasions may make it impossible to contact *any* target, including targets declared against - therefore there is no rule requiring a charger make contact with all targets the charge was declared upon. Never has been.

Now it *seems* that Tim is assuming that there is a rule in Warrior that if he writes down a target in his declaration that is beyond the first body he would contact but within echelon "range" that he is required to echelon to hit that target too. But there is no rule like that in Warrior and there has not been.

Is there some rule I am missing that makes you (Mark) or Tim think such an echelon is mandatory?

Ambrose Coddington · Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 6:29 pm Post subject:

So to take this a step further Jon.

The Samurai are allowed to choose not to contact the second non charging Roman unit?

In other words as soon as you contact anything in your charge path you may choose to stop charging regardless of the situation?

I believe that is what you are saying.

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

I am not saying that, exactly. I am saying that echeloning is always optional. Not precisely the same thing, although they may seem similar in this case.

But yes, once the Samurai hit the first target, the echeloning after that was optional.

Ambrose Coddington · Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 6:40 pm Post subject:

To follow up on that then...

The charge is declared against both units and written down. The Samurai charge and contact the countercharging Roman unit.

Is the charge against the second Roman unit is treated like it did not happen as no contact is mandatory?

The sticking point here is that if the non charging unit were shaken then they would have had to test waver and the Samurai won't even contact them.

Obviously if the Samurai decided to echelon then there is no issue.

I guess that they "Could be contacted" is enough to cause a waver in this case?

The problem then becomes what does this do to uncovered targets?

There seem to be a lot of rule holes in this situation.

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

Yes, there is a waver test if that body is shaken. Bodies often are required to waver from chargers that do not contact them. For example, an LMI B unit in skirmish in the open charged by mounted takes a waver and then evades out of reach. Waver taken, no contact. Happens all the time.

Another example - a 2E wide K charges both a K and an LMI B. the K countercharge (or are already charging). But the LMI B test, even though after responses and tests the enemy K don't reach them because they contact the countercharging K first.

Can't tell ya where the hole might be because I have not been shown there is a rule in Warrior that requires a body make contact with all bodies declared against.... It sure looks to me like what is going on here is the assumption of a rule that does not actually exist. That is not a "rules hole", that would be a bad assumption.

Tim Grimmett · Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:49 pm Post subject:

Jon--

For background.

This came up in my game with Tim Brown last year at the NICT; if I've mischaracterized it Tim can chime in.

According to what you've written so far, we misplayed it. I assumed that since the Romans were within 120p at the time of charge declarations, and hence a legitimate charge target, I had to hit them.

When we measured out the charge, Brown realized that by not evading his LI--they were not in skirmish-- he could disorder my Japanese.

I recalled the situation when you stated echeloning is always optional.

Tim and I worked through it, apparently to the conclusion the umpire (Scott) would have ruled, but not the way you would have.

I thought it a good use of LI by Tim at the time and stored it away in the memory banks to avoid in the future.