Interception

[philqw78]

But an intercepting BG cannot it self be intercepted - P64.Yes I know it's not an intercepting BG now, but the rules say it is treated like a normal charge

Wouldn't this also mean that a BG of skirmishers intercepted from flank or rear could then evade if it was treated as a normal charge.
If not its a case of all charges are equal but some more equal than others.
And no matter how long you wish to discuss this its better to find out now than argue/debate for an hour during a game

[petedalby]

In my simple view of the world, when an intercept charge or a pursuit is treated as a charge - it means exactly that - but it is still an intercept charge or a pursuit.

So when we have a statement in the FAQs that an intercept charge can only wheel to avoid being hit in the flank themselves that looks pretty clear to me.

[peterrjohnston]

However, an additional question, can an interceptor also contact another enemy BG as part of its intercept?

I think the rules are silent on this.

I don't think they can - but I can't find anything in the rules or the FAQs to support my view

Damn, I was hoping I missed something A FAQ addition, perhaps. Not potentially a rare event, I would have thought.

And FWIW I agree with Phil - interceptors can't wheel other than to avoid being hit in the flank.

I would agree too. The meaning "treated as a charge" refers to the charge effects of a flank/rear charge (cohesion loss, base turning, POAs etc). Otherwise, for example as Phil points out, skirmishers could then evade.

[david53]

The applicable statement on page 63 is that "An interception charge must be directly forward (except as below). It cannot include any shifts, changes of formation or interpenetration. It must either:

It then lists two possibilities.

1) It must cross the path of the charge. It specifically allows a wheel to avoid being hit in the flank.

2) It must contact the flank or rear in which case it is treated as a normal flank/rear charge. I and Lesley who was watching interpreted this treatment as a normal charge as happening post contact and therefore not allowing a wheel prior to contact. The conversion to a normal charge would allow a step forward (which didnt help in this case). Dave read it that the intercept charge became a normal charge immediately and as such he could wheel prior to contact.

I think it can be read either way and as such needs clarification.

Incidently the knights turned around and a unit of LH hit the cav in the side. However, the Kn gen was killed on a 12 which destroyed their chances of beating the cav before the kn were hit again in the back by another unit of cav. Dave won a fun battle.

Paul

It was a fun game all went well Paul till you failed that test not to charge.....and your general dying did'nt help.....great fun afternoon.

[david53]

However, an additional question, can an interceptor also contact another enemy BG as part of its intercept?

I think the rules are silent on this.

I don't think they can - but I can't find anything in the rules or the FAQs to support my view

Damn, I was hoping I missed something A FAQ addition, perhaps. Not potentially a rare event, I would have thought.

And FWIW I agree with Phil - interceptors can't wheel other than to avoid being hit in the flank.

I would agree too. The meaning "treated as a charge" refers to the charge effects of a flank/rear charge (cohesion loss, base turning, POAs etc). Otherwise, for example as Phil points out, skirmishers could then evade.

Not sure I agree.

It does say a interception that catchs the flank or rear is 'treated as a charge'

It does'nt say just for POA loss(?) ect.

In that case since you can wheel in a charge why not in this case.

If it was ment to say you could'nt wheel should'nt it have said so while withdrawing the treated as charge piece.

[petedalby]

In that case since you can wheel in a charge why not in this case.

Because the FAQs state that an intercept charge can only wheel to avoid bing hit in the flank itself?

It is still an intercept charge.

[Petefloro]

I can see the point that in this case "treated as a normal charge" refers to the flank/ rear charge,the POAs etc.

What troubles me is calling it a normal charge when apparently it turns out it's not.It can't wheel.

May be "a normal interception charge" would have been clearer,with "the enemy takes the drop in one cohesion level as normal for a flank/rear charge"or some thing like that.

The stepping forward of bases is explained in the FAQ so no probs with that.

It probably doesn't matter now, but if it was a proper normal charge onto skirmishers(who's charge would have been cancelled)and they could evade, what's the problem with that?

They do that when a pursuing BG contacts them and becomes a charge don't they?

[gozerius]

Part of the problem stems from the wording "interception charge". To me an interception is the act of moving a BG into the path of a charger. An interception charge is one that actually hits the enemy BG in flank or rear. We assume that all interceptions can only move straight ahead except to wheel to avoid being hit in the flank. An interception charge that contacts the enemy can only step forward to get more bases into contact. Something for the rules writers to consider in their V2.0 rerwite.

[SirGarnet]

However, an additional question, can an interceptor also contact another enemy BG as part of its intercept?

See Simon's statement that "In the FAQ we will be clarifying that no Flank or Rear Interceptions can contact anything other than the target BG, but can step forward to get more into these." on page 7 of Thread 10099 from April 2009, where you will find this horse flogged to a pulp. viewtopic.php?t=10099

BTW in FOGR this is accordingly addressed by the change "Contact the flank or rear of the charging enemy battle group only." and the addtion "The intercepting battle group steps forward as it would in a normal charge."

[petedalby]

However, an additional question, can an interceptor also contact another enemy BG as part of its intercept?



See Simon's statement that "In the FAQ we will be clarifying that no Flank or Rear Interceptions can contact anything other than the target BG, but can step forward to get more into these." on page 7 of Thread 10099 from April 2009, where you will find this horse flogged to a pulp. viewtopic.php?t=10099

BTW in FOGR this is accordingly addressed by the change "Contact the flank or rear of the charging enemy battle group only." and the addtion "The intercepting battle group steps forward as it would in a normal charge."

Thanks Mike - and presumably still no wheeling either?

[petedalby]

It probably doesn't matter now, but if it was a proper normal charge onto skirmishers(who's charge would have been cancelled)and they could evade, what's the problem with that?

Because 'evade capable' BGs whose charge is cancelled by an intercept cannot evade - that's the problem and that's why Phil is highlighting it.

[SirGarnet]

That they can't evade is in the FAQ, and it's not a problem - as they said, the charging lights are committed.