intercept charge

[hazelbark]

I feel like we discussed this one before but...


_EE

1122

every one is facing down. E is enemy in intercept range of two BGs. Both BGs are exactly same distance away and both parallel.

Since intercept charges only contact the charging unit, If "1" charges and "2" does not, is "E" allowed to intercept as if it contacts "1" it also contacts "2"

I feel there ought to be away to allow the intercept, but I am not certain the rules literally allow it.

[philqw78]

An intercept that cancels a charge is allowed to step forwards, but a flank or rear intercept can only initially contact the BG whose charge it cancelled. Seems odd.

[ShrubMiK]

If BG 2 was a mm closer to BG E, would you have a problem with the situation? i.e. the presence of second BG arguably legitimately shields the chargers from being intercepted, albeit it must worry about taking appropriate steps to avoid being charged in the rear itself next turn.

Thus I would say - don't get too hung up over it being odd that the same would apply on a literal reading of the rules when the 2 BGs are exactly* the same distance from the intercepters. There is going to have to be a line drawn somewhere between a situation where intercept is possible, and a situation where it is not.

* which also begs a question - what resolution are we measuring down to?

[grahambriggs]

I feel like we discussed this one before but...


_EE

1122

every one is facing down. E is enemy in intercept range of two BGs. Both BGs are exactly same distance away and both parallel.

Since intercept charges only contact the charging unit, If "1" charges and "2" does not, is "E" allowed to intercept as if it contacts "1" it also contacts "2"

I feel there ought to be away to allow the intercept, but I am not certain the rules literally allow it.

But the intercept charge does not contact either. It crosses the path of 1, then stops in a line. Then 1 does it's charge move, and hits EE.

So no, it doesn't step forward into 2.

[kevinj]

But the intercept charge does not contact either. It crosses the path of 1, then stops in a line.

That's in a normal intercept. The question here relates to where the interceptor is to the rear of the charger, when they do move into contact before the charger moves.

[grahambriggs]

But the intercept charge does not contact either. It crosses the path of 1, then stops in a line.

That's in a normal intercept. The question here relates to where the interceptor is to the rear of the charger, when they do move into contact before the charger moves.

Of course - I read too quickly. Intercepting into the flank/rear is covered in the FAQ: "Where an interception catches a BG in the flank or rear this is a different situation. The chargers’ move is cancelled and effectively the interceptors charge them instead. In this case it is the interceptors that are making contact so they do step forward."

[philqw78]

Of course - I read too quickly. Intercepting into the flank/rear is covered in the FAQ: "Where an interception catches a BG in the flank or rear this is a different situation. The chargers’ move is cancelled and effectively the interceptors charge them instead. In this case it is the interceptors that are making contact so they do step forward."

But they cannot contact the other BG unless stepping forward into it, and they hit the other BG before stepping forward

[kevinj]

Time for a better picture. Situation 1 above is the one covered by the FAQ. 1 tries to charge, A intercepts, stepping forward into 2. A supplementary question here, if 2 is of a type allowed to do so, can it evade?

Situation 2 is the question that Dan asked originally. If 1 charges, can A intercept as it will simultaneously hit 2?

[petedalby]

Personally I'd allow the intercept to hit both. Otherwise you're allowing a tiny point of detail to defeat the clear objective of the rules.

[grahambriggs]

Of course - I read too quickly. Intercepting into the flank/rear is covered in the FAQ: "Where an interception catches a BG in the flank or rear this is a different situation. The chargers’ move is cancelled and effectively the interceptors charge them instead. In this case it is the interceptors that are making contact so they do step forward."

But they cannot contact the other BG unless stepping forward into it, and they hit the other BG before stepping forward

Why not? It says effectively they are charging, which is why the step forward is allowed. If they are charging, they'd hit anything else in their path.

[philqw78]

Of course - I read too quickly. Intercepting into the flank/rear is covered in the FAQ: "Where an interception catches a BG in the flank or rear this is a different situation. The chargers’ move is cancelled and effectively the interceptors charge them instead. In this case it is the interceptors that are making contact so they do step forward."

But they cannot contact the other BG unless stepping forward into it, and they hit the other BG before stepping forward

Why not? It says effectively they are charging, which is why the step forward is allowed. If they are charging, they'd hit anything else in their path.

But if there is something else in the path of an intercepting BG the intercept is not allowed. Even if a flank or rear intercept.

[grahambriggs]

But they cannot contact the other BG unless stepping forward into it, and they hit the other BG before stepping forward

Why not? It says effectively they are charging, which is why the step forward is allowed. If they are charging, they'd hit anything else in their path.

But if there is something else in the path of an intercepting BG the intercept is not allowed. Even if a flank or rear intercept.

I can't find that in the rules. The ZOI can't go into disordering terrain. Enemy BG can't be hidden by terrain. Interceptor goes straight forward with no shifts, formation changes or interpenetrations. It's these last bits that usually mean other things in your path can block and interception. But none of them apply here?

[hazelbark]

Personally I'd allow the intercept to hit both. Otherwise you're allowing a tiny point of detail to defeat the clear objective of the rules.

That was my feeling. The game was decided before the units could even get to the impact phase. But I am not sure where the rules literally fall.

Also take situation 2 and nudge over or make it one column so a single base is the only thing in question so there is no step forward solution.

[petedalby]

Always nice to know someone agrees with me Dan. Fortunately these kind of issues don't come up that often - but when they do I think you have to go with commonsense (which opens a whole new debate) and ignore a previously unconsidered wrinkle in the rules which someone is trying to exploit to avoid getting caned.

[zoltan]

P63 last para says one option for an intercept charge is to contact the rear of an enemy BG; "...despite the fact that it happens in the enemy's turn, is treated as a normal flank/rear charge".

Thus, because BG A would be permitted to step forward if it declared a "normal rear charge" in it's own turn, it can similarly step forward during an intercept charge in the enemy's turn.

Similarly, because BG 1 or 2 (if capable) would be permitted to evade from a "normal rear charge" in A's turn, they can also chose to evade from A's rear interception charge.

[aventine]

Zoltan

They cannot evade from an intercept. Once they declare a charge that option is removed.

I would argue that the interceptors can only make contact in the rear or flank if their path is unobstructed. In this case their path is obstructed(by the presence of the second nonn charging BG) and therefore they cannot intercept.

Keith

[expendablecinc]

Zoltan

They cannot evade from an intercept. Once they declare a charge that option is removed.

I would argue that the interceptors can only make contact in the rear or flank if their path is unobstructed. In this case their path is obstructed(by the presence of the second nonn charging BG) and therefore they cannot intercept.

Keith

if someone wants to whack you in the head with a nerf bat and I stand next to you are still going to get hit as I am not obstructing the bat wielder. if I stand in front of you and I am in the way of the path of the bat you are safe.

[zoltan]

Zoltan

They cannot evade from an intercept. Once they declare a charge that option is removed.

I would argue that the interceptors can only make contact in the rear or flank if their path is unobstructed. In this case their path is obstructed(by the presence of the second nonn charging BG) and therefore they cannot intercept.

Keith

I certainly meant that where BG 1 had declatred a charge and was being intercepted to its rear BG 2 has full rights to evade (if capable) from the rear intercept charge on BG1.

My own view is that even a charging unit that is intercepted from the rear/flank should be able to evade (if capable). I think its ludicrous that LH/LF that declares a charge, and is intercept charged from the rear, would stand still and get arse whipped. Ludicrous!

[hazelbark]

Actually I am not certain Zoltan under the scenario you lay out the BG2 could evade. I think the FAQ is explict that a unit hit by an intercept cannot evade. Although i think its intent is to mention skirmishers who are charging, the language is broader. I think.

[kevinj]

I don't think the FAQ really covers this situation. In a "normal" intercept, where the interceptors have moved into the chargers' path, that's fine, the chargers are the ones initiating contact and an evade would not be appropriate. But where a Flank or Rear intercept occurs, the original charge has been cancelled and these BGs are now being charged, even though it's out of sequence. In the example I think that it is quite reasonable for BG2 to be able to evade as they are not part of the original charge anyway. Given that BG1's charge has been cancelled, I agree with Zoltan's logic, it seems wrong that they cannot then respond accordingly.