CanCon query 1

ravenflight · Post by **ravenflight** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:03 pm

Hi All,

I was asked for an interpretation of a rule (intercept) yesterday, and I have to admit I could see both sides of the argument. I've got to say that it was a joy to see that neither party were objectionable and could also see both sides of the argument, which made being in the place of the argument easier, but not the resolution. Unfortunately, I don't have access to draw a picture at this stage, so hopefully discription will do:

Here's the situation.

The active player is about to charge a BG of knights (KA1) into the front of the inactive player's foot (FI1) ( (I think). On the KA1's right flank at about 3.5MU's is a BG of inactive player's knights (KI1).

KA1 is 'directly in front of KI1. If KI1 was to move directly forward 3.5MU KI1 would definitely have a flank charge as it was at almost perfectly 90 degrees to the KA1's front.

The trouble is interpretation of the word 'path'.

According to the rules (paraphrased, they are in a box and it's raining - yes, rain in Australia - who'd have thunk it? - so I'm not going to get it out) a BG can only intercept if they cross the path of the charge (or words to that effect).

SO... here's the rub.

The question is whether the 'path' (as described in the rules) includes the BG itself. If KI1 moved directly forward it would indeed hit KA1. If the path included only that part directly in front of the BG, then KI1 wouldn't have crossed that area. IMHO the path has to included the BG, as there is part of the BG 'crossing that area'... in other words only the very front part of the BG is following the path of the charge, from the perspective of the guys in the rear the path includes the bits of the ground where the guys in front were, and thus KI1 would be able to hit the rear guys path... if that makes sense.

I hope it does... I don't think I've explained it particularly well, but will include diagrams if it helps later.

fgilson · Post by **fgilson** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:37 pm

I can see the units in question in my head...and KI1 should be able to intercept.

On page 63 of the rules 'path' is only one half of permitting an intercept...the other case is:
"Contact the flank or rear of the enemy battle group. This is only permitted if the intercepting battle group started in a position to charge the flank or rear of the enemy battle group..."

Polkovnik · Post by **Polkovnik** » Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:17 am

If KI1 has any base behind a line extending the front of KA1 then it is in a flank charge position and can intercept. Otherwise it can't as it cannot get into a position to cross the path of the charging BG.

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:41 pm

This has been discussed before. The path is the area the BG will move over. It does not include the area it is currently on.
There is an unusual position (diagrams somewhere on the list) where a BG to a flank cannot move into the path of the charger, nor does it have a base entirely behind the frontage line of the chargers to do a flank intercept and cancel the charge.

If I recall correctly, the general feeling about this was that, on the face of it, being unable to intercept looks unreasonable. However, the rules are clear and the player has the remedy in his own hands. If, during his bound, the player is moving a battle group he wishes to be used as an interceptor, he should think about placing it carefully. If a base cannot be positioned behind the enemy front, then leaving it at 85 degrees rather than 90, so that a small fraction of a corner can get into the path is the thing to do.

There are possible situations where an undrilled BG might not be able to wheel. However, I think the general consensus was that the exceptional cases are so unlikely, we are better off with the rules as they are. Some people still seem to struggle with the interception rules. Adding more rules or FAQ entries is unlikely to improve the situation.

marioslaz · Post by **marioslaz** » Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:15 pm

rogerg wrote:There are possible situations where an undrilled BG might not be able to wheel. However, I think the general consensus was that the exceptional cases are so unlikely, we are better off with the rules as they are. Some people still seem to struggle with the interception rules. Adding more rules or FAQ entries is unlikely to improve the situation.

I can understand your position, but in this way it seems more a game for surveyor rather than a game for history fans.

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:55 pm

If history fans want to play a game then they will have to learn a few rules. I would suggest FoG gets the best history with the fewest rules. If it didn't we would play something else. All offers to make it a better game, but with fewer rules, will no doubt be greatfully accepted.

If it makes you happier, I promise that if my opponent is a history fan and he puts a BG in a position as discussed above, I will teach him how to do it right even if it will cost me the game.

ShrubMiK · Post by **ShrubMiK** » Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:12 am

Generals made careless mistakes in history too. Or units didn't always charge when the general wanted them to.

There are all sorts of possible "unrealistic" or "unhistorical" outcomes possible under the rules. Many to do with the ability of intercept charges to pre-empt other activity. Intercepts are I think one of the more interisting mechanisms in FoG, gameplay wise. And there are all sorts of places where 1 degree or 1mm either way can radically change an outcome. That 1mm might be the difference between a valid flank charge and not. And the 1 degree might enable the almost-flank-charge to jsut get in front to intercept, or not.

IMO there is no point getting too hung up about the low-level details of what happens on the table. The question is, viewed from a high level does it feel like a reasonable simulation of a battle, with plausible outcomes based on the situation and the interaction of the troop types involved.

marioslaz · Post by **marioslaz** » Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:15 am

rogerg wrote:I would suggest FoG gets the best history with the fewest rules.

Really? A book with over 100 pages (I exclude appendixes) for you can qualify for "the fewest rules"?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:19 am

marioslaz wrote:
rogerg wrote:I would suggest FoG gets the best history with the fewest rules.
Really? A book with over 100 pages (I exclude appendixes) for you can qualify for "the fewest rules"?

"best history with the fewest rules" is not the same thing

marioslaz · Post by **marioslaz** » Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:07 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
marioslaz wrote:
rogerg wrote:I would suggest FoG gets the best history with the fewest rules.
Really? A book with over 100 pages (I exclude appendixes) for you can qualify for "the fewest rules"?
"best history with the fewest rules" is not the same thing

It wasn't my intention to be controversial, but because you put it in this terms, are you talking of a mathematical objectivity, or perhaps just of your preference?

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:20 pm

marioslaz wrote:It wasn't my intention to be controversial.......

What's the point in posting then?

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:23 pm

If you were a 'history fan', wanting to wargame and get the most historical outcome with the fewest game rules to remember, FoG would be the choice I would recommend.

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Wed Jan 27, 2010 11:17 am

rogerg wrote:If you were a 'history fan', wanting to wargame and get the most historical outcome with the fewest game rules to remember, FoG would be the choice I would recommend.

I'd recommend DBA.

marioslaz · Post by **marioslaz** » Wed Jan 27, 2010 11:50 am

lawrenceg wrote:
rogerg wrote:If you were a 'history fan', wanting to wargame and get the most historical outcome with the fewest game rules to remember, FoG would be the choice I would recommend.
I'd recommend DBA.

Yes, because he wrote 'history fan' with lower case. If he had written 'History Fan' with capitals, likely you would recommend something else, something more Historical

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:07 pm

lawrenceg wrote:
rogerg wrote:If you were a 'history fan', wanting to wargame and get the most historical outcome with the fewest game rules to remember, FoG would be the choice I would recommend.
I'd recommend DBA.

DBA is probably the most concise set of wargame rules out there. Sadly while the actual rules are perhaps 8 pages long there is a 70+ page guide to what the rules actually mean

For me FoG delivers historical results with a historical narative. So if a BG of Crusader knights charges Arab cavalry and light horse the Arabs dodge, turn round and come back shooting. DBA (and DBM) deliver historical results but sometimes the way they get there is a touch perverse and distinctly non intuitive or narative.

Both systems have their advantages. Without DBA and then DBM I suspect I would not be playing Ancients at present.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:10 pm

hammy wrote:.. Without DBA and then DBM I suspect I would not be playing Ancients at present.

Something else they must be blamed for

marioslaz · Post by **marioslaz** » Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:20 pm

I play Ancient today despite DBA and DBM (which I played just few times many years ago).

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Jan 27, 2010 2:31 pm

hammy wrote:
lawrenceg wrote:
rogerg wrote:If you were a 'history fan', wanting to wargame and get the most historical outcome with the fewest game rules to remember, FoG would be the choice I would recommend.
I'd recommend DBA.
DBA is probably the most concise set of wargame rules out there. Sadly while the actual rules are perhaps 8 pages long there is a 70+ page guide to what the rules actually mean

And gets it wrong in some places ...

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Jan 27, 2010 2:32 pm

philqw78 wrote:
hammy wrote:.. Without DBA and then DBM I suspect I would not be playing Ancients at present.
Something else they must be blamed for

I see trying to carry Hammy through a doubles comp has left its mark