Warrior Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules
A Four Horsemen Enterprises Rules Set
 
  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups AlbumAlbum   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

charge through case, question

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Rules
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 5:56 pm    Post subject: charge through case, question

Ok...trying to make little text graphics here to illustrate the issue that came up.

First a unit description:
Unit A is a mounted lancer unit, 2 elements, in column
Unit B is an impetuous mounted lancer unit, 2 elements, in column, pursuing unit X
Unit X is a routing regular loose order infantry unit, 3 elements, in column, being pursued by unit B.
Unit Y is a mounted lancer unit, 2 elements, in column

Before the graphic, the intent of unit Y is to charge through unit X (as it is permitted via the interpenetration rules) to hit unit B. The intent of unit A is to charge the flank of routing unit X.

Here's my attempt to use text characters to display the case:

....A

Y XB

Direction - X is routing away from B, currently towards Y. Y is facing X and B. A is facing the flank side of X.

So, Y wants to charge through X and hit B while A wants to charge X. What happens?

Does A hit the flank of Y? That doesn't seem possible, as that would cancel Y's charge. Do Y and A instead hit? If so, where?

Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:34 pm    Post subject:

I have no idea.

X will have to rout to its table edge, which I can only assume is "west". Maybe A, now treated as charging vs an evader, may reach Y before Y gets into X - although if it has a choice at all, it must hit X as it is impetuous. Y's charge does not look canceled, but its hard to tell if it is in the path of A at start.

My guess is - both hit. But as the diagram is completely out of scale and the question extremely specific and exacting in what is required to answer, all I have is a guess.

_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:10 pm    Post subject: more info...but perhaps...

X can't perform a rout move yet (at charges) as it is in contact with enemy (B). So Neither X nor B move at all, only Y and A.

Perhaps Mark Stone and I should fish up a digital camera, lay down figures and a ruler, and attach the resulting image.

Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:27 pm    Post subject:

Ah, that part is my fault as I read pursuing as the movement and not the combat action.

If X is stationary, it looks to me like Y will hit B and A will hit Y. You certainly can have a unit hit in the flank during a charge that did not have its charge initially cacneled.

Is Y in A's charge path to start?

_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:12 pm    Post subject: No...

Y is not in A's charge path at declaration. Y's declared charge would move it into A's charge path at resolution of charge movement, after Y has moved into and replaced some of the elements of X...which would seem to mean it needs to replace all of the elements of X, and contact B, at which point then you have:
X placed beyond Y, will rout move at the appropriate time
Y charging impetuously into the front of B
A charging the flank of Y
B, as originally (and still) impetuous pursuers, contacting Y frontally.

Is that correct in this case? Let me know if you would benefit from a photograph.

Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:16 pm    Post subject:

That is correct.

It begs the question what on earth the player who owns Y is doing, but it is correct rules-wise.

_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2102
Location: Buckley, WA

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:16 pm    Post subject:

joncleaves wrote:
That is correct.

It begs the question what on earth the player who owns Y is doing, but it is correct rules-wise.


The player who owns Y is routing the last unit (B, in this case) needed to put his opponent's command into retirement. Seems like an imminently worthwhile goal to me.

Here's what bugs me about this: I've had a "rule of thumb" I've followed for a number of years, dating back to TOG, that if you could be charged in the flank your charge was cancelled, and if your charge couldn't be cancelled then you couldn't be charged in the flank.

This example is the second instance in recent months (the previous one came up at Cold Wars) that is an exception to that rule of thumb. In other words this is an example where a unit can both make a charge and get charged in the flank. So let me make that an explicit question:

Can it ever be the case that a unit both makes a charge and simultaneously gets charged in the flank?


-Mark Stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:54 pm    Post subject: units Y and B

In the actual battle:
Unit Y (our about to be flank charged unit) is SHK L,Sh.

Unit B (our pursuers) is EHC L.

Y should thus rout B at contact, regardless of being hit in the flank by A, and put A's command (A is a general with EHC L) into retreat. This is why Y really wants to charge B.

Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 2:36 pm    Post subject:

Well, that's one darned good reason for Y to charge.

Mark, don't know what to tell ya about your "rule of thumb". It certainly is possible to get off a charge and end up getting hit in your flank.

_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2021 11:50 pm    Post subject:

Dredging up old rules concerns again...

This case should actually be impossible by an application of 6.163K.

That is, in K we have "a charge is declared against it by enemy not already in or moving into the path of the charge." as a source of the cancellation of a charge.

So, A's charge cancel's Y's charge.

And A's charge is declared upon Y as we have 6.163G "Charges count as declared on all legal targets in or moving into the ‘charge path’, see below."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Rules All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group