Broken Intercept?

donm · Post by **donm** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:59 pm

Pete,

I didn't take too much notice of the exact position of the troops in the picture, as it is so difficult to tell.

You do begin to wonder if Intercept moves are worth all those printed words in the rules

Don

GuglielmoMarlia · Post by **GuglielmoMarlia** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:17 pm

...
Err the problem is that the knights do not have a whole base behind the flank of the cavalry and that the cavalry are partly infront of the knights...

Ahem,
Sorry but I feel the game should get rid of this sort of situations and arguments.
I would allow my opponents' knights to charge my cavalry in both positions. Simply because they would have done it.
Rgds/Guglielmo

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:09 pm

Sorry but I feel the game should get rid of this sort of situations and arguments.
I would allow my opponents' knights to charge my cavalry in both positions. Simply because they would have done it.

Or because you didn't want the cavalry to charge you in the flank in their next turn

Don't see a problem with this - whilst at the moment they can't intercept, the knights are very likely to get hit in the flank by one of the units in the very near future. The mechanism how this happens may be debatable - but the overall effect is likely to be some dead knights...

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:51 pm

... or even tell your opponent, when he is moving them, to position the cavalry at a slight angle to permit the intercept.

GuglielmoMarlia · Post by **GuglielmoMarlia** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:21 pm

... tell your opponent, when he is moving them, to position the cavalry at a slight angle to permit the intercept...

Well then I can as well play the game on his behalf.
My point of view (FWIW) is that a very minor detail (being or not exactly at 90° or exactly in front of the infantry) should not make the difference between charging or not since it would not matter in reality.
Anyway in my example my opponent was supposed to move the knights (those intecepting) not me.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:09 pm

As things stand what you can and can't do in an intercept is pretty much clear. To allow the knights to intercept would require either allowing interceptions to be able to wheel for reasons other than the curent very specific one or to allow intercepts to contact enemy other than as a flank charge. I have not fully considered all the options but I suspect that allowing either of these would cause more problems and issues that they solve.

Has anyone ever not been able to intercept for the reason covered in this post? I certainly haven't

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 6:15 pm

Well, if I was asked to rule on it, which I won't be, I would say move the interceptor to a nanoometer from contact, then immediately the chargers move contact is made.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:32 pm

philqw78 wrote:Well, if I was asked to rule on it, which I won't be, I would say move the interceptor to a nanoometer from contact, then immediately the chargers move contact is made.

But in this case the interceptors can't actually reach the ZoI because the chargers are in the way

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:21 am

hammy wrote:
philqw78 wrote:Well, if I was asked to rule on it, which I won't be, I would say move the interceptor to a nanoometer from contact, then immediately the chargers move contact is made.
But in this case the interceptors can't actually reach the ZoI because the chargers are in the way

Look, if I'm umpiring whatever you say is wrong Hammy, so don't bother.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 8:49 am

philqw78 wrote:[quote="hammy]But in this case the interceptors can't actually reach the ZoI because the chargers are in the way

Look, if I'm umpiring whatever you say is wrong Hammy, so don't bother.[/quote][/quote]

Right....

remind me why we try to not let you umpire Phil

I suppose that given the choice between you and Dave

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:03 am

Yes, but I already umpire

And list check for that matter. For which I have never yet made a mistake

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:07 am

dave_r wrote:Yes, but I already umpire

And list check for that matter. For which I have never yet made a mistake

Sorry Dave, how many times did you get your list for Game 09 wrong?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:30 am

That wasn't list checking ...

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:31 am

nikgaukroger wrote:That wasn't list checking ...

But he got his own list wrong when he was checking.

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:50 am

I most certainly did not. I didn't check my own list.....

madcam2us · Post by **madcam2us** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:45 pm

But what was your intent????

That's all that matters....

Madcam.

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:00 pm

I didn't intend to get my list wrong if that is what you are implying!

Just sometimes happens that's all i'm saying....

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 5:06 pm

I didn't intend to get my list wrong if that is what you are implying!

Just sometimes happens that's all i'm saying....

Methinks he doth protest too much!