Intercept Charge Question

[LuckyLeroy]

A couple of quick questions following some recent games which may have already been answered but I am unable to find on the threads so apologies in advance.

1. If shock mounted troops intercept shock impact foot, do the impact foot count as charging shock mounted.

2. In the above example my opponent took a CMT not to charge my LF with his impact foot. When he charged in, he indicated a wheel in his charge path to take it closer to a KN unit. My LF evaded but I was also able to intercept charge with the KN due to the wheel which had brought it into the ZOI of the Knights. The rules state that in this situation my opponent did not have to take a CMT and I wondered what the etiquette is in these situations. I allowed him to cancel his charge but wondered what the rule/etiquette in these situations is.

Regards

[hammy]

1. If shock mounted troops intercept shock impact foot, do the impact foot count as charging shock mounted.

Yes

2. In the above example my opponent took a CMT not to charge my LF with his impact foot. When he charged in, he indicated a wheel in his charge path to take it closer to a KN unit. My LF evaded but I was also able to intercept charge with the KN due to the wheel which had brought it into the ZOI of the Knights. The rules state that in this situation my opponent did not have to take a CMT and I wondered what the etiquette is in these situations. I allowed him to cancel his charge but wondered what the rule/etiquette in these situations is.

Firstly check the sequence of play. Interceptions happen before evades so unless the path of the charge crossed the zone of interception for the knights before the light foot ran away no interception would be possible.

If the knights are able to intercept i.e. the path of the charge ignoring bits after any potential evade crosses the ZoI then the foot could be intercepted so don't need to text not to charge.

There is no need for etiquette, either the charge could be intercepted so there is no roll or it can't in which case there is no intercept.

[philqw78]

In effect foot do not need to charge (test to charge) if they could be contacted or contact mounted. This is any permutation of charge.

[nikgaukroger]

In effect foot do not need to charge (test to charge) if they could be contacted or contact mounted. This is any permutation of charge.

This is debatable.

There was a long long discussion about this (although it was in relation to knights ending up in disordering terrain IIRC) a long time ago and I am not sure any firm conclusion was reached - although strong opinions were held on both sides.

[philqw78]

This is debatable.

There was a long long discussion about this (although it was in relation to knights ending up in disordering terrain IIRC) a long time ago and I am not sure any firm conclusion was reached - although strong opinions were held on both sides.

There was also debate about knights being intercepted by elephants. I think the consensus was the knights would not have to test or charge, and knights certainly do not test if they could end in disordering terrain. Thats in the rules.

[Polkovnik]

In effect foot do not need to charge (test to charge) if they could be contacted or contact mounted. This is any permutation of charge.

The question is, if a legal charge is possible by the impact foot that would contact the LF, but could not be contacted by the enemy mounted, do they have to test to charge ? I would say yes, they do. The charging player can't then devise a charge path that could be contacted by mounted and use this as a reason not to charge.

[hammy]

In effect foot do not need to charge (test to charge) if they could be contacted or contact mounted. This is any permutation of charge.

The question is, if a legal charge is possible by the impact foot that would contact the LF, but could not be contacted by the enemy mounted, do they have to test to charge ? I would say yes, they do. The charging player can't then devise a charge path that could be contacted by mounted and use this as a reason not to charge.

True but while it is difficult to tell from the inital question I suspect that the intercept may well have only been possible after the evade.

If a charge is possible without interception then a roll is required. If not then no roll is required. Either way ther infantry will not end up being forced to charge into a mounted interception.

[ShrubMiK]

That would be my interpretation - with the slight caveat that maybe it only applies if they can charge straight ahead without the possibility of being intercepted by the knights.

This is supposed to be simulating the possibility of certyain types of troops letting their impetuosity get the better of them, because they fancy a punch-up against particular types of opponent too much to listen to their officers.

Imagine the conversation:

Officer: "Hey chaps...I know you don't want to listen to me counselling restraint, 'cos you are a bunch of brave superheroes who know better...but if you are going to charge, why don't you wheel a bit and put yourself at more risk?"

Men: "That's a good idea, let's do it!...oh wait a minute, it's not a good idea after all, it's too risky, let's not do it. In fact, for no good reason, let's not do the thing we were originally going to do either."

[nikgaukroger]

This is debatable.

There was a long long discussion about this (although it was in relation to knights ending up in disordering terrain IIRC) a long time ago and I am not sure any firm conclusion was reached - although strong opinions were held on both sides.

There was also debate about knights being intercepted by elephants. I think the consensus was the knights would not have to test or charge, and knights certainly do not test if they could end in disordering terrain. Thats in the rules.

It has, in various guises, cropped up a few times - inevitably.

The disagreement always comes with whether wheels are taken into account when deciding if a charge can end in terrain/be intercepted, as is the case with this one.

That said in all the games I've played I think it has only cropped up once as a possible issue so I can't say I'm going to lose sleep over it

[deadtorius]

One would wonder if the chargers could have wheeled as one can only wheel if it would possibly bring more bases into contact with its charge target or not.

I agree that it does not sound like at the time the charge was declared that the knights were in an interception position so they could not have intercepted the charge.

[hammy]

One would wonder if the chargers could have wheeled as one can only wheel if it would possibly bring more bases into contact with its charge target or not.

I agree that it does not sound like at the time the charge was declared that the knights were in an interception position so they could not have intercepted the charge.

A wheel is allowed in a charge unless it reduces the number of bases that end up in contact. Not quite the same as what you said.

[deadtorius]

My mistake or mistaken interpretation, thanks for pointing that out. Old players old brains less retention...

[spikemesq]

One would wonder if the chargers could have wheeled as one can only wheel if it would possibly bring more bases into contact with its charge target or not.

I agree that it does not sound like at the time the charge was declared that the knights were in an interception position so they could not have intercepted the charge.

A wheel is allowed in a charge unless it reduces the number of bases that end up in contact. Not quite the same as what you said.

Agreed, but the question seem harder when the charge results from a failed CMT.

If the charging unit declares a charge, then it also declares a charge path that dictates charge targets, evades and intercepts. That path can include a wheel, provided it contacts => enemy bases.

So far, so good.

In the OP (assuming the intercept was not contingent on an evade) it sounds like a possible chicken-and-egg problem.

When you decide not to charge and have to roll a CMT, do you also have to declare a path? If you declare a path that would trigger an exception (mounted into elephants, etc.) does that eliminate the CMT? If your possible charges include 2 valid options -- one with exception and one without -- must you still CMT?

Spike

Lover of Impact Phase

[deadtorius]

If you pass the CMT its kind of a no charge regardless situation.

If you have to chargedue to failing the CMT then you look at possible intercept charges, which would depend on which enemy unit caused the CMT to begin with. Has to be closest enemy etc. Now you declare the charge path just as you would have if you had voluntarily charged and if possible then your opponent can declare an intercept charge on you.
Intercepts can't be declared until charges have been announced and move first before the chargers move.

In the OP it was a matter of whether a non-flank charge could intercept since the interceptors were not able to flank charge or cross the path of the chargers, but would have made non-flank charge contact with the side of the charging unit of knights.

[philqw78]

If you pass the CMT its kind of a no charge regardless situation.

If you have to chargedue to failing the CMT then you look at possible intercept charges, which would depend on which enemy unit caused the CMT to begin with. Has to be closest enemy etc. Now you declare the charge path just as you would have if you had voluntarily charged and if possible then your opponent can declare an intercept charge on you.
Intercepts can't be declared until charges have been announced and move first before the chargers move.

In the OP it was a matter of whether a non-flank charge could intercept since the interceptors were not able to flank charge or cross the path of the chargers, but would have made non-flank charge contact with the side of the charging unit of knights.

If you cannot contact all enemy in reach the enemy[s] closest to straight ahead become[s] the target. So it is chcken and egg. Maybe. IMO if a legal charge could be declared that would fulfil any of the 9 bullets on P58 they do not have to test

[hammy]

In the OP (assuming the intercept was not contingent on an evade) it sounds like a possible chicken-and-egg problem.

No. If the foot BG could be intercepted by mounted then there is no need to take a CMT not to charge. Where is the problem?

When you decide not to charge and have to roll a CMT, do you also have to declare a path? If you declare a path that would trigger an exception (mounted into elephants, etc.) does that eliminate the CMT? If your possible charges include 2 valid options -- one with exception and one without -- must you still CMT?

Ahh, I think I see the point you are trying to make.

I can charge BG A and not be able to be intercepted. If I charge BG B (with a valid wheel) I can be intercepted. Because I can charge BG A without intercept I take a CMT not to charge and fail. Then in a fit of lunacy I decide to charge BG B instead. I end up getting intercepted and it is just tough.

There is no requirement for the charge to go to the intercept area. The owning player makes that choice and has to live with it.

BTW I would like to see a scale diagram of this situation. Ideally posted in this thread by this time tomorrow Spike

[LuckyLeroy]

Thanks for all the discussion. I am not savvy enough to put diagrams in as yet but the situation for the impact foot was as follows

1. LF in charge reach directly in front.

2. Knights to the flank of the LF and with room etc to clear LF but with a ZOI that didnt reach the front of the LF or the charge path of the Impact foot if it charged directly at the LF.

3. My opponent elected to take a CMT not to charge the LF as required and failed.

4. He wheeled the four x 2 unit towards the Knights otherwise the Knights would have been able to charge his flank on my next turn.

5. The charge wheel meant that at 3 MU reach (ie without any VMD) it now entered the ZOI of the knights due to the angle, BTW the knights were 2x2.

6. The LF did evade as it was still in the charge path of the Impact even after the intercept charge.

I hope this helps clarify the discussion. My opinion now is that my opponent rightly took the CMT and as the wheel was his choice then he takes the consequences. In the end, facing the Knights rather than receiving a flank charge was probably the correct choice.

Regards

Leroy the Luckless.

[hammy]

Thanks Leroy,

That helps a bit.

The key question is would the charge of the foot have crossed the ZoI of the mounted if the light foot had not evaded.

Knights to the flank of the LF and with room etc to clear LF but with a ZOI that didnt reach the front of the LF or the charge path of the Impact foot if it charged directly at the LF.

I am not sure what you mean by a ZoI that didn't reach the front of the LF.

It may well be that sthe situation you ended up in was the one Spike was talking about i.e. BG can charge without crossing a ZoI but chooses to cross the ZoI for some reason or other. It is a fairly odd situation to create as wheeling significantly in charges is not that easy to do.

[LuckyLeroy]

Yes I agree it was an odd situation. If he charged straight ahead at the LF which were 3 x 2, he would contact the LF with a frontage of 3 bases. He choose to wheel 45 degrees and then charge forward the remaining 2 MU of his reach. This would still result in his contacting 3 bases of LF with echeloning. Because of the wheel and move this now meant that he entered the edge of the ZOI of the Knights for one base width or the overlap assuming the LF didnt evade. I declared the intercept charge and moved the knights the full distance. I then evaded with the LF which could still be contacted by at least two bases of the Impact foot. He then moved his Impact foot and contacted the two bases of knights. We agreed to return all units to their previous positions due to the question of whether the CMT was required or not. I hope the above was correct in terms of moves and sequence.


Regards

Leroy the Luckless

[hammy]

If that was the case then I believe that the foot should have charged.

There is nothing forcing them to wheel into the ZoI. They could charge ahead and avoid the ZoI. The player controling the foot chose to redirect his charge such that it crossed the ZoI so it is his problem.