Question: can a 'step forward' trigger an intercept?

This forum is for any questions about the rules. Post here is you need feedback from the design team.

Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8842
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 »

grahambriggs wrote: In this example had the knights advanced in the previous bound to be 4MU from the cavalry an intercept would be possible.
Then they would have been a target of the charge so no intercept. If the owner of the cavalry was sensible, the charge would not have happened in that case. Not that this is relevant to the original question
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
peteratjet
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 254
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:36 am

Post by peteratjet »

grahambriggs wrote:Yes i think Zoltan's last post correctly captures the situation. Per my earlier post, step forward can trigger intercept; that's fairly clear in the rules. it's just that in this case it doesn't.
Well it's not all that clear, or the question wouldn't have arisen. The rules specifically say that stepping forward can make a potential interceptor a target of the charge, rather than include the step forward as part of the definition of the path of the charge. Your interpretion makes sense, but I would I like to see confirmation from a rules writer, and a note in the FAQ, because it's likely that people are getting it wrong.

Like me.
grahambriggs
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3081
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Post by grahambriggs »

philqw78 wrote:
grahambriggs wrote: In this example had the knights advanced in the previous bound to be 4MU from the cavalry an intercept would be possible.
Then they would have been a target of the charge so no intercept. If the owner of the cavalry was sensible, the charge would not have happened in that case. Not that this is relevant to the original question
Well, not by a straight ahead charge at least, as you can only stagger forward 2MU. Not sure whether there is a position for the knights to put them in intercept range but where a cavalry charge including a wheel can't stagger into them.

Still, I doubt the knight would worry too much about 4 cavalry bases hitting 8 infantry and 4 knights...
deadtorius
Field Marshal - Me 410A
Field Marshal - Me 410A
Posts: 5290
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am

Post by deadtorius »

Bad choice for the cav alright, either way its horse flesh time.
I still think the biggest problem with using stepping forward to trigger an intercept is that the intercept has to occur before the chargers move, normally I am not even aware of any stepping forward potential until I make first contact and then physically see it. The reason why I don't think a step forward could trigger an intercept but then who really knows for sure :?
BillMc
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:40 am
Location: US of A

Post by BillMc »

Good thread. I picked up a new (for me) and I think valid ruling/interpretation.

Thanks,

Bill
IanP
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 8:27 am

Post by IanP »

I can see the argument either way.
But as far as precedent goes, I recall a recent thread that pointed out that you can't intercept a charge if the target evades and as a result the chargers now enter the intercept zone. I see this as being a similar situation, especially as to the point in the sequence when intercepts are declared.
ShrubMiK
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 824
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:37 am

Post by ShrubMiK »

That's a very different case.

Look at the turn sequence: interceptors move before evaders, who move before chargers.

So in most cases where chargers would enter a ZOI after their target evaded, the evaders are in the way of the would-be interceptors, which therefore become wouldn't-be interceptors.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”