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 

Canceled LC Charge
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Rules
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6032
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2022 5:38 pm    Post subject: Re: Charge

lilroblis wrote:
Last event _ had Scot rule that mu charge with LMI was cancelled - even though it was not in the opponents charge range or declared - and I had to take a waver test - so I would argue it depends on what the umpire had for breakfast


Really? That's your take on this?

I'm the one who shells out money to come back there with no expectation of playing simply so I can get shit comments like this one for attempting to bring a level of expertise, and not gamesmanship, to an event.

To say this pisses me off would be a massive understatement.

scott

_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


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

PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2022 5:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Charge

scott holder wrote:
lilroblis wrote:
Last event _ had Scot rule that mu charge with LMI was cancelled - even though it was not in the opponents charge range or declared - and I had to take a waver test - so I would argue it depends on what the umpire had for breakfast


Really? That's your take on this?

I'm the one who shells out money to come back there with no expectation of playing simply so I can get shit comments like this one for attempting to bring a level of expertise, and not gamesmanship, to an event.

To say this pisses me off would be a massive understatement.

scott


I'd agree that we shouldn't be insulting all the preparation and expense Scott puts forth in order to be able to referee our events. He has done a superb job over the years, often thankless and frustrating.

And again, as I noted, charges are complicated, cancellations especially so, and a 'recollection' in which you ended up on the losing side of a ruling is not helpful.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6032
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2022 6:07 pm    Post subject:

www.fourhorsemenenterprises.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14796

Frank, can you link to the exact, pertinent post, in that otherwise ungodly long and meandering thread?

I've been getting hit with player 'recollections' for decades now...some of which date back decades. Pro tip guys, if you ever mention your recollection of how I might have ruled on something, realize that everything that you say thereafter is white noise because I start up the white noise filter.

You'd think after all these years I wouldn't have to continue justifying what I do. It should be pretty clear that I attempt in every case, even those where it's obvious and the player comes across as grasping for some imagined advantage and take great umbrage when it isn't granted, to apply the rules *as I read them*.

Y'all realize that now at events I often refer back to the Forum. I spend quite some time making sure anything I rule on is consistent with how I remember doing things before, how we've potentially documented it here in the Forum, and again, how *I read the rules*.

I could in many of these cases simply say "STFU", make a ruling and proceed. I don't. But I get testy as shit when I get constant push back on something at the table and then see it followed up here in the Forum.

Over the years, we've managed to lose our dickish players, however, dickish moments, still bubble to the surface. I'm the poster child for that from the umpire's side and as I've gotten older, my tolerance for this, and thus resulting dickish umpire moments, are very easy to bring out.

I don't weigh in on a lot of stuff I get sent because quite frankly, I don't see it as an issue or a "hole". The same has been true for this particular thread. Looks like I might hafta rethink this particular thread.

scott

_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


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

PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2022 6:16 pm    Post subject:

scott holder wrote:
www.fourhorsemenenterprises.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14796

Frank, can you link to the exact, pertinent post, in that otherwise ungodly long and meandering thread?

I've been getting hit with player 'recollections' for decades now...some of which date back decades. Pro tip guys, if you ever mention your recollection of how I might have ruled on something, realize that everything that you say thereafter is white noise because I start up the white noise filter.

You'd think after all these years I wouldn't have to continue justifying what I do. It should be pretty clear that I attempt in every case, even those where it's obvious and the player comes across as grasping for some imagined advantage and take great umbrage when it isn't granted, to apply the rules *as I read them*.

Y'all realize that now at events I often refer back to the Forum. I spend quite some time making sure anything I rule on is consistent with how I remember doing things before, how we've potentially documented it here in the Forum, and again, how *I read the rules*.

I could in many of these cases simply say "STFU", make a ruling and proceed. I don't. But I get testy as shit when I get constant push back on something at the table and then see it followed up here in the Forum.

Over the years, we've managed to lose our dickish players, however, dickish moments, still bubble to the surface. I'm the poster child for that from the umpire's side and as I've gotten older, my tolerance for this, and thus resulting dickish umpire moments, are very easy to bring out.

I don't weigh in on a lot of stuff I get sent because quite frankly, I don't see it as an issue or a "hole". The same has been true for this particular thread. Looks like I might hafta rethink this particular thread.

scott


It's Jon's post, in that thread of 25 Jan 2006 18:57, which is on page 4 of that long thread. Let me see if I can link directly to it:

http://www.fourhorsemenenterprises.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14796&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45

That is, at least, the page containing it. You'll want to read the prior post of Jonathan...whereby pursuing LC come to an enemy pike unit and are able to drop back the elements that would have hit the pike, without a 'legal gap'...which Jon confirms in his post.

Jon's text, excerpted from there, is:
"1) I think your friend could benefit from reading the clarifications, which
state:

"6.161 (Pg 3Cool Add: "If a body of light troops encounters an illegal charge
target in the path of an otherwise legal charge, the light troops must wheel
and/or drop back elements to avoid the illegal 'target.' If the illegal
'target' is also charging this may not be possible and may result in the light
troops making contact with it."

Note that the above has nothing to do with gaps. But you were quite correct in your resolution."

Jon's text 'has nothing to do with gaps' is particularly important...lights that come upon an illegal target wheel and/or drop back elements, no gap necessary, to avoid the illegal target. As no specification is made, it would appear to be up to the controlling player as to how the lights wheel and/or drop back elements.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6032
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2022 6:30 pm    Post subject:

Thanks.

The way you set it out, again, this looks like a big nothing burger, totally governed by the rules even as you read em. Razz

There's another point on that particular Q/A that I'm still mulling over but don't want to go into it now. My fear is that I'll state something only to discover it contradicts a certain 'recollection' of a player and that our respective 'recollections' turn out to be very different. Shocked

Players should also know by now that gaps and how every player attempts to work them to his advantage and tries to bring me into it, is a sure fire way to set me off. I've ruled plenty on gaps over the years that every player who has been around long enough should know, in general, how they should be played.

Is this hard on new players? Sure but then this system is partially about mentoring and teaching. I know that's not what "the kids" want these days but that's the way it is for now.

scott

_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


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

PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2022 6:33 pm    Post subject:

scott holder wrote:
Thanks.

The way you set it out, again, this looks like a big nothing burger, totally governed by the rules even as you read em. Razz

scott


Yeah, in this case it's fairly clear as-is in the rules...the execution is tricky as imagine a light unit charging some target...which evades, and some other enemy unit is charging, which would be an illegal target for the lights.

So, the lights charging are trying to wheel and drop back elements to avoid the charging enemy illegal target and a referee has to have the players slowly step through movement to see what happens...but, often enough, given the lights can wheel and drop back to avoid...they will do so and not get hit and the enemy charger will just 'move through air'.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6032
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2022 6:46 pm    Post subject:

Sigh, I've got other stuff to do today and yet, here I am.

Okay, given what you and I have traded, and this is exactly as it would have played out if you and I were consulting face-to-face at a tourney, look back at Mark's comments and descriptions. You and I have basically invalidated Dave S's tactics. Now, if as Mark describes using Phil's example as the point of departure, there would be enough space for the HC (in Phil's case, in Dave's case as described it would be knights), then everything's golden.

Unless I'm missing something. And before anybody chimes in saying "But this cancels 20+ years of an integral tactic", I'm not trying to go there. I'm simply plodding thru a mental process that Frank and I are having, and would have had. We've come to a conclusion, then somebody points this out. We then scratch out heads and think some more. We're now in the "think some more" phase.

Getting back to meta for a moment, there's a part of me when this type of thing comes up that wants to figure out a way to so simplify the game so that it doesn't happen. It would reduce the tactical complexity by a mile.

But that's another discussion for another thread.

scott

_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


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

PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2022 9:51 pm    Post subject:

scott holder wrote:
Sigh, I've got other stuff to do today and yet, here I am.

Okay, given what you and I have traded, and this is exactly as it would have played out if you and I were consulting face-to-face at a tourney, look back at Mark's comments and descriptions. You and I have basically invalidated Dave S's tactics. Now, if as Mark describes using Phil's example as the point of departure, there would be enough space for the HC (in Phil's case, in Dave's case as described it would be knights), then everything's golden.

Unless I'm missing something. And before anybody chimes in saying "But this cancels 20+ years of an integral tactic", I'm not trying to go there. I'm simply plodding thru a mental process that Frank and I are having, and would have had. We've come to a conclusion, then somebody points this out. We then scratch out heads and think some more. We're now in the "think some more" phase.

Getting back to meta for a moment, there's a part of me when this type of thing comes up that wants to figure out a way to so simplify the game so that it doesn't happen. It would reduce the tactical complexity by a mile.

But that's another discussion for another thread.

scott


I love this stuff...and as I think we'll see, further discussion doesn't exactly invalidate Dave's old tactic. Thanks for the opportunity to discuss.

First, time has caused folks to evolve their game...Dave, and others, were able to 'surprise' kill enemy LC in the described manner. However, folks just stopped charging their LC at enemy lights if enemy lancers could charge them.

Also, over time, we have ended up with fewer pin-and-punch armies, to the extent that they rarely meet each other...fewer LC on LC exchanges, particularly with lancers nearby, occur.

Still, the fact that 'this situation' occurs less often is not a reason that we shouldn't know how it works.

Let's start with a set of images, and consider image 1: https://imgur.com/a/ioDjdNS

Here we see LC X opposite enemy LC A and HC B.

Let's say LC X declares a charge on enemy LC A. Enemy LC A evades. Enemy HC B declares a charge straight ahead of itself at LC X.

Applying the rule in the 'new' manner, we would end up with resolution 1 in image 2.


There you can see LC X, which would have hit HC B with itself, has dropped back an element to pass HC B by. HC B, which had no wheel declared, zoomed right on past. LC A of course evaded.

I read the rules in this matter as having the LC that would meet an illegal target wheel or drop back ONLY IF IT, THE LC, WOULD MEET THE ILLEGAL TARGET, ITSELF. That is, if the illegal target ends up hitting the flank of the LC, said LC did not, itself, meet the illegal target, but was hit.

So, HC B here should declare a wheel to its right if it wishes to hit LC X. What would that end up looking like? Resolution 2, image 3.

Here the HC has hit the side of the twice dropped back LC (as the LC forward elements that dropped back would have themselves run into the HC frontally, but the last LC element did/could not). The HC would then pivot/line up on the LC and we'd have a combat.

Some may wonder why LC X charge is not cancelled in this circumstance. That is because HC B does not invoke "a charge is declared against it by enemy not already in or moving into the path of the charge." HC B's charge is declared from within or moving into the path of LC X's charge.

We also have "Charges legally declared cannot be canceled by enemy charges that are already in or move into the charge path unless non-impetuous foot is charged by mounted." And again, HC B either starts in, or moves into LC X's charge path, which is why LC X drops back (it, itself, would have hit HC B otherwise).

Thoughts?

Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
theblackprince
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 21 Nov 2018
Posts: 20

PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2022 10:52 pm    Post subject:

It's interesting to see yourself referred to in the 3rd person. I actually don't specifically remember using this as a main tactic back over the years, although it certainly may have come situationally from time to time.

I would question exactly how lights can drop elements in these cases (as many as they want, only the minimum to avoid other units etc.). While it is likely no secret that I enjoy the competition that Warrior brings, I certainly did not mean to sleaze anyone or drive the proverbial truck through any rules hole.

I'd also like to thank Scott for his great service over the years. He's right that he has traveled great distances to run events that he mostly does not get to play in. I know I've pushed back hard in the heat of the moments over time and I meant no offense. I'm working to be more low key these days, not something that comes easily to me.

Live and learn.

Dave S
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: Sun Jan 09, 2022 11:13 pm    Post subject:

theblackprince wrote:
It's interesting to see yourself referred to in the 3rd person. I actually don't specifically remember using this as a main tactic back over the years, although it certainly may have come situationally from time to time.

I would question exactly how lights can drop elements in these cases (as many as they want, only the minimum to avoid other units etc.). While it is likely no secret that I enjoy the competition that Warrior brings, I certainly did not mean to sleaze anyone or drive the proverbial truck through any rules hole.

I'd also like to thank Scott for his great service over the years. He's right that he has traveled great distances to run events that he mostly does not get to play in. I know I've pushed back hard in the heat of the moments over time and I meant no offense. I'm working to be more low key these days, not something that comes easily to me.

Live and learn.

Dave S


The lights drop back in this case because:
6.161 "If a body of light troops encounters an illegal charge target in the path of an otherwise legal charge, the light troops must wheel and/or drop back elements to avoid the illegal ‘target.’ If the illegal ‘target’ is also charging this may not be possible and may result in the light troops making contact with it."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6032
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2022 11:40 pm    Post subject:

The drop back issue, as Frank describes, is a non-issue, covered in the rules as we've now repeatedly indicated.

Quote:
So, HC B here should declare a wheel to its right if it wishes to hit LC X. What would that end up looking like? Resolution 2, image 3.


That's true and basically indicates that any player who wants to do this, set things up, and know how to define the charge, to get his units at such a distance as to allow this to happen. But, I still need to muse over the original "fit" issue that has been referenced. So many of these examples assume static situations which as always been an issue in this game and attempts to write down a rule that's clear and covers every permutation. It's hard and quite frankly, impossible, in miniature games of this complexity. That's a side digression, more meta, ugh.

I'm not really sure I buy into the rest of Frank's narrative but haven't had time to ponder it more.

scott

_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


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

PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2022 11:43 pm    Post subject:

scott holder wrote:
The drop back issue, as Frank describes, is a non-issue, covered in the rules as we've now repeatedly indicated.

Quote:
So, HC B here should declare a wheel to its right if it wishes to hit LC X. What would that end up looking like? Resolution 2, image 3.


That's true and basically indicates that any player who wants to do this, set things up, and know how to define the charge, to get his units at such a distance as to allow this to happen. But, I still need to muse over the original "fit" issue that has been referenced. So many of these examples assume static situations which as always been an issue in this game and attempts to write down a rule that's clear and covers every permutation. It's hard and quite frankly, impossible, in miniature games of this complexity. That's a side digression, more meta, ugh.

I'm not really sure I buy into the rest of Frank's narrative but haven't had time to ponder it more.

scott


It's largely the dynamic situations that require working out, in specific, on table, case by case...which means a referee. Which is intended and a good thing.

Basically...if you have lights that could be charged by 'something else nearby'...generally don't have your lights charge. Also, if you really want to have a shot to catch and kill enemy lights, charge them with everything? Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
theblackprince
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 21 Nov 2018
Posts: 20

PostPosted: Mon Jan 10, 2022 12:01 am    Post subject:

It's interesting to see yourself referred to in the 3rd person. I actually don't specifically remember using this as a main tactic back over the years, although it certainly may have come situationally from time to time.

I would question exactly how lights can drop elements in these cases (as many as they want, only the minimum to avoid other units etc.). While it is likely no secret that I enjoy the competition that Warrior brings, I certainly did not mean to sleaze anyone or drive the proverbial truck through any rules hole.

I'd also like to thank Scott for his great service over the years. He's right that he has traveled great distances to run events that he mostly does not get to play in. I know I've pushed back hard in the heat of the moments over time and I meant no offense. I'm working to be more low key these days, not something that comes easily to me.

Live and learn.

Dave S
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 Jan 10, 2022 10:06 pm    Post subject:

Frank Gilson wrote:
scott holder wrote:
The drop back issue, as Frank describes, is a non-issue, covered in the rules as we've now repeatedly indicated.

Quote:
So, HC B here should declare a wheel to its right if it wishes to hit LC X. What would that end up looking like? Resolution 2, image 3.


That's true and basically indicates that any player who wants to do this, set things up, and know how to define the charge, to get his units at such a distance as to allow this to happen. But, I still need to muse over the original "fit" issue that has been referenced. So many of these examples assume static situations which as always been an issue in this game and attempts to write down a rule that's clear and covers every permutation. It's hard and quite frankly, impossible, in miniature games of this complexity. That's a side digression, more meta, ugh.

I'm not really sure I buy into the rest of Frank's narrative but haven't had time to ponder it more.

scott


It's largely the dynamic situations that require working out, in specific, on table, case by case...which means a referee. Which is intended and a good thing.

Basically...if you have lights that could be charged by 'something else nearby'...generally don't have your lights charge. Also, if you really want to have a shot to catch and kill enemy lights, charge them with everything? Wink


Of course my 'take' on this also depends crucially on how we interpret charge cancellation.

Particularly we have in the relevant case:
6.163K "a charge is declared against it by enemy not already in or moving into the path of the charge."

'path of the charge' must refer to Charge Path, 6.163H, which "a zone as wide as the charging body extending out to its charge reach."

Charge reach does NOT include illegal targets...so...we could interpret all this that your lights charge, should said lights be charged by a target illegal for them, is cancelled...which would seem to make things simpler, BUT, would make the 'old Dave tactic' fail in a different way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6032
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2022 1:25 pm    Post subject:

Quote:
Particularly we have in the relevant case:
6.163K "a charge is declared against it by enemy not already in or moving into the path of the charge."

'path of the charge' must refer to Charge Path, 6.163H, which "a zone as wide as the charging body extending out to its charge reach."

Charge reach does NOT include illegal targets...so...we could interpret all this that your lights charge, should said lights be charged by a target illegal for them, is cancelled...which would seem to make things simpler, BUT, would make the 'old Dave tactic' fail in a different way.


This is good. It's where I've been heading as I've thought more about this. Lemme see if I can step thru how this would work.

We use Phil's original example:

HCLC
HCLC

LCLC
LCLC

As usual, what happens "depends" on which units are moving. The easiest is the 4E of LC charging ahead with the intended target being the 2E LC unit. The HC stands, the LC either stands or evades. Per the rules discussion earlier, the 4E of LC then drops back elements to avoid the HC and either hits the 2E LC where it's standing or runs after it when it evades.

But, let's say the HC also declared a charge, straight ahead, no wheel. That changes everything per what you just posted. If I take that approach, then yes, the 4E LC's charge is cancelled, it then has responses.

But, again per previous discussion, some will say "but the 4E LC drops back elements". True but the question then becomes precisely when does that happen. That's somewhat easy to adjudicate in that we can extrapolate how we "drop back" when passing gaps, namely you drop back when the elements hit the gap, not before.

The same would apply here. The 4E LC initiates the charge but wouldn't drop back elements until they were to come into contact with the HC, again assuming the HC stood. The instant the HC moves forward (it's declared a charge), then the 4E LC has something ineligible in it's path (I'm probably not explaining this as precisely as I need to), thus the charge is now cancelled and the 4E LC responds.

As you say, this is simpler and it's how I could go. The main thing is trying to suss out any second and third order effects from this approach.

scott

_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Rules All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
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