Interception Charges

[rbodleyscott]

Various possible anomalies with interception charges have been pointed out by Lawrence and others.

In particular we want to prevent interception chargers being themselves charged in the flank. Hence the rules have been altered to give them a limited ability to wheel to meet the chargers.

Please check out the following re-worked rules:

An interception charge can be up to the limit of the battle group’s ZOI. It cannot include any shifts, changes of formation or interpenetrations. It must either:
• Cross the path of the charging enemy battle group. In this case it can include a wheel, but this cannot exceed the battle group’s normal movement distance and no part of the front edge of the intercepting battle group can advance out of its original ZOI. Interceptors move before chargers.
• Contact the flank or rear of the enemy battle group without wheeling. This is only permitted if the intercepting battle group started in a position to charge the flank or rear of the enemy battle group as described previously. It cancels the enemy battle group’s charge completely and despite the fact that it happens in the enemy’s turn, is treated as a normal flank/rear charge.

Any problems?

[lawrenceg]

Various possible anomalies with interception charges have been pointed out by Lawrence and others.

In particular we want to prevent interception chargers being themselves charged in the flank. Hence the rules have been altered to give them a limited ability to wheel to meet the chargers.

Please check out the following re-worked rules:

An interception charge can be up to the limit of the battle group’s ZOI. It cannot include any shifts, changes of formation or interpenetrations. It must either:
• Cross the path of the charging enemy battle group. In this case it can include a wheel, but this cannot exceed the battle group’s normal movement distance and no part of the front edge of the intercepting battle group can advance out of its original ZOI. Interceptors move before chargers.
• Contact the flank or rear of the enemy battle group without wheeling. This is only permitted if the intercepting battle group started in a position to charge the flank or rear of the enemy battle group as described previously. It cancels the enemy battle group’s charge completely and despite the fact that it happens in the enemy’s turn, is treated as a normal flank/rear charge.

Any problems?

The first bullet constrains the wheel to take place only AFTER all forward movement is completed (otherwise the BG would advance out of the side of the ZOI). This is not a major problem, although it would seem more logical to allow a wheel at the start of the interception charge. The constraint would be changed to :

...no part of the front edge of the intercepting battle group can advance beyond the far edge of its original ZOI.

I think there may be cases when:
The charger starts in the ZOI
The interceptor's straight ahead move contacts the charger's flank
The interception charge does not qualify as a flank charge
Even with a wheel it is impossible to get a base into the charger's path.

This one would be coped with by changing the last sentence of the second bullet to:

It cancels the enemy battle group’s charge completely and despite the fact that it happens in the enemy’s turn, is treated as a normal flank/rear charge if it qualifies as such.

There are still situations in which a BG could charge into the path and still expose a flank or rear. In (I think, all)these situations, if the interceptors moved second, they would hit the flank or rear of the chargers. Rather than legislate for this, it may be simpler just to let the player decide if he wants to intercept and get hit in the flank, or wait until his turn and charge the rear/flank of the now frontally engaged enemy. There is, however, the risk that the enemy will break its opponents in one turn and have pursued out of range. I think this is quite easy to rationalise: timing a charge such that you let the enemy go past and still catch them before they hit their target would be a very difficult thing to do in practice.

[rbodleyscott]

The first bullet constrains the wheel to take place only AFTER all forward movement is completed (otherwise the BG would advance out of the side of the ZOI).

This is not a major problem, although it would seem more logical to allow a wheel at the start of the interception charge.

Indeed, but I don't really see it as a problem. At least I could not think of any cases where it would cause a problem.

The constraint would be changed to :

...no part of the front edge of the intercepting battle group can advance beyond the far edge of its original ZOI.

We wanted to be fairly restrictive, and specifically not to allow the interceptors to go haring off too much to the side - in case it allowed some as yet undiscovered cheese.

I think there may be cases when:
The charger starts in the ZOI
The interceptor's straight ahead move contacts the charger's flank
The interception charge does not qualify as a flank charge
Even with a wheel it is impossible to get a base into the charger's path.

Are you sure? In such a case can you not always move forward until you are 1mm away from the enemy then wheel a few degrees to obstruct his path?

This one would be coped with by changing the last sentence of the second bullet to:

It cancels the enemy battle group’s charge completely and despite the fact that it happens in the enemy’s turn, is treated as a normal flank/rear charge if it qualifies as such.

We don't want it to cancel the enemy charge unless it is a bona fide flank/rear charge. (And also straight ahead - if they have to wheel to hit the flank/rear the enemy has plenty of time to be gone by the time they get there!)

There are still situations in which a BG could charge into the path and still expose a flank or rear.

Only, as far as I can see, if the interceptor chooses to do this. Surely the wheeling allows it to be avoided in every case? (If not, then perhaps the situation is such that an intercept charge might be regarded as historically unfeasible anyway). Do we need to prohibit players from doing it deliberately?

[lawrenceg]

The first bullet constrains the wheel to take place only AFTER all forward movement is completed (otherwise the BG would advance out of the side of the ZOI).

This is not a major problem, although it would seem more logical to allow a wheel at the start of the interception charge.

Indeed, but I don't really see it as a problem. At least I could not think of any cases where it would cause a problem.
We wanted to be fairly restrictive, and specifically not to allow the interceptors to go haring off too much to the side - in case it allowed some as yet undiscovered cheese.

I don't see it as much of a problem either, it just seemed slightly illogical. Thanks for explaining the reasoning behind it.

I think there may be cases when:
The charger starts in the ZOI
The interceptor's straight ahead move contacts the charger's flank
The interception charge does not qualify as a flank charge
Even with a wheel it is impossible to get a base into the charger's path.

Are you sure? In such a case can you not always move forward until you are 1mm away from the enemy then wheel a few degrees to obstruct his path?

Example C = charger, T = Target, I = Interceptor (ZOI shown to I's front)

This one would be coped with by changing the last sentence of the second bullet to:

It cancels the enemy battle group’s charge completely and despite the fact that it happens in the enemy’s turn, is treated as a normal flank/rear charge if it qualifies as such.

We don't want it to cancel the enemy charge unless it is a bona fide flank/rear charge. (And also straight ahead - if they have to wheel to hit the flank/rear the enemy has plenty of time to be gone by the time they get there!)

There are still situations in which a BG could charge into the path and still expose a flank or rear.

Only, as far as I can see, if the interceptor chooses to do this. Surely the wheeling allows it to be avoided in every case? (If not, then perhaps the situation is such that an intercept charge might be regarded as historically unfeasible anyway). Do we need to prohibit players from doing it deliberately?

Example in which wheeling would not avoid the flank charge:

In most cases players wouldn't want to do this, but it might be worth it for heavies intercepting skirmishers, for example, or to prevent a camp being looted. I think the player should be permitted to do it if he really wants to.

[rbodleyscott]

Agreed. In this case, with the proposed wording, 'I' cannot intercept.

Do you see that as a problem, or can we happily live with it?

It seems to me that in "real life" 'I' would have to work quite hard to intercept in these circumstances, and it is not unreasonable that it should not be able to do so.

Example in which wheeling would not avoid the flank charge:

Clearly you don't see this as a major problem. Does anyone?

Once again it seems to me that in "real life" 'I' would have its work cut out trying to intercept in this situation.

The main situation we were aiming at was as follows

Code: Select all

     X
AA   X
  BB

B ought to be able to prevent X from attacking A in the flank. (And not get itself charged in the flank)

It can do so with the proposed rules.

[lawrenceg]

Agreed. In this case, with the proposed wording, 'I' cannot intercept.

Do you see that as a problem, or can we happily live with it?

It seems to me that in "real life" 'I' would have to work quite hard to intercept in these circumstances, and it is not unreasonable that it should not be able to do so.

If 'I' was really close to 'C' it would not have to work hard. Also, we could have a situation where if 'I' was a few mm left it could intercept in front, if it was a few mm right it could intercept with a flank charge, but in between it cannot intercept at all. That just feels wrong.

If an interceptor was a long way from the charger and the ZOI only just clipped the path of the charge right at its start, it would have to work hard in real life to get there before the charger had gone past. With the mechanism you use, you allow intercepts that would be impossible if you did the moves simultaneously. I think this will be accepted because it is a simple mechanism.

The situation where the enemy is in front of me, and within the critical distance, but sometimes I can intercept and sometimes not, is not very acceptable IMO.

Example in which wheeling would not avoid the flank charge:

Clearly you don't see this as a major problem. Does anyone?

Once again it seems to me that in "real life" 'I' would have its work cut out trying to intercept in this situation.

I agree with you this one. It is unlikely that the interceptor would be able to charge on to C before it had hit its target. It is, however, not unreasonable for it to be able to interpose itself and get hit on the flank, at least in the context of other intercept moves that are allowed.

[rbodleyscott]

Agreed. In this case, with the proposed wording, 'I' cannot intercept.

Do you see that as a problem, or can we happily live with it?

It seems to me that in "real life" 'I' would have to work quite hard to intercept in these circumstances, and it is not unreasonable that it should not be able to do so.

If 'I' was really close to 'C' it would not have to work hard. Also, we could have a situation where if 'I' was a few mm left it could intercept in front, if it was a few mm right it could intercept with a flank charge, but in between it cannot intercept at all. That just feels wrong.

If an interceptor was a long way from the charger and the ZOI only just clipped the path of the charge right at its start, it would have to work hard in real life to get there before the charger had gone past. With the mechanism you use, you allow intercepts that would be impossible if you did the moves simultaneously. I think this will be accepted because it is a simple mechanism.

The situation where the enemy is in front of me, and within the critical distance, but sometimes I can intercept and sometimes not, is not very acceptable IMO.

This being the case, can you offer an alternative wording that would have the desired effect, without allowing BGs to hare off sideways?

(One possibility would be to simply limit the intercept move to 4 MUs for mounted and 2 MUs for foot, and make no mention of leaving the original ZOI. It would, of course, mean that if you wheel you won't be able to reach the far side of the ZOI).

Perhaps:

An interception charge can be up to the limit of the battle group’s ZOI. It cannot include any shifts, changes of formation or interpenetrations. It must either:
• Cross the path of the charging enemy battle group. In this case it can include a wheel, but the total move cannot exceed 4 MUs for mounted or 2 MUs for foot. Interceptors move before chargers.
• Contact the flank or rear of the enemy battle group without wheeling. This is only permitted if the intercepting battle group started in a position to charge the flank or rear of the enemy battle group as described above. It cancels the enemy battle group’s charge completely and despite the fact that it happens in the enemy’s turn, is treated as a normal flank/rear charge.

[lawrenceg]

This being the case, can you offer an alternative wording that would have the desired effect, without allowing BGs to hare off sideways?

(One possibility would be to simply limit the intercept move to 4 MUs for mounted and 2 MUs for foot, and make no mention of leaving the original ZOI. It would, of course, mean that if you wheel you won't be able to reach the far side of the ZOI).

Perhaps:

An interception charge can be up to the limit of the battle group’s ZOI. It cannot include any shifts, changes of formation or interpenetrations. It must either:
• Cross the path of the charging enemy battle group. In this case it can include a wheel, but the total move cannot exceed 4 MUs for mounted or 2 MUs for foot. Interceptors move before chargers.
• Contact the flank or rear of the enemy battle group without wheeling. This is only permitted if the intercepting battle group started in a position to charge the flank or rear of the enemy battle group as described above. It cancels the enemy battle group’s charge completely and despite the fact that it happens in the enemy’s turn, is treated as a normal flank/rear charge.

That would not solve the issue as it will not always be possible to wheel in front of the chargers, plus it risks the loophole that you originally wanted to close with the restriction on wheeling.

I suggest:

Interceptors always move before chargers. The intercepting battle group's front edge cannot go outside its original ZOI. The interception charge cannot include any shifts, changes of formation or interpenetrations. It must either:
• Cross the path of the charging enemy battle group. In this case it can include a wheel, but this cannot exceed the battle group’s normal movement distance. In some circumstances the chargers may now qualify for a flank or rear charge on the interceptors. This is judged after the interceptors have moved.
• Contact the flank or rear of the enemy battle group without wheeling. It cancels the enemy battle group’s charge completely. If the interception charge qualifies as a flank or rear charge as described in the section CHARGING A FLANK OR REAR above, it is treated as a normal flank/rear charge.

This gives you three levels of interception depending on where you start relative to the enemy flank:

No threat to enemy flank, wheeling allowed, you get in front, enemy charges and hits you.
You are aiming at the flank but are not behind it, no wheeling, enemy charge is cancelled.
You qualify for flank/rear charge, no wheeling, enemy charge is cancelled and it's a flank/rear charge.

[rbodleyscott]

This being the case, can you offer an alternative wording that would have the desired effect, without allowing BGs to hare off sideways?

(One possibility would be to simply limit the intercept move to 4 MUs for mounted and 2 MUs for foot, and make no mention of leaving the original ZOI. It would, of course, mean that if you wheel you won't be able to reach the far side of the ZOI).

Perhaps:

An interception charge can be up to the limit of the battle group’s ZOI. It cannot include any shifts, changes of formation or interpenetrations. It must either:
• Cross the path of the charging enemy battle group. In this case it can include a wheel, but the total move cannot exceed 4 MUs for mounted or 2 MUs for foot. Interceptors move before chargers.
• Contact the flank or rear of the enemy battle group without wheeling. This is only permitted if the intercepting battle group started in a position to charge the flank or rear of the enemy battle group as described above. It cancels the enemy battle group’s charge completely and despite the fact that it happens in the enemy’s turn, is treated as a normal flank/rear charge.

That would not solve the issue as it will not always be possible to wheel in front of the chargers,

Sorry to doubt, but are you sure? Can you show an example that would not be reasonable? (I don't include your second example as we both think that is fair enough).

plus it risks the loophole that you originally wanted to close with the restriction on wheeling.

Is there really much of a loophole if move is restricted to 4"/2"?

I suggest:

Interceptors always move before chargers. The intercepting battle group's front edge cannot go outside its original ZOI. The interception charge cannot include any shifts, changes of formation or interpenetrations. It must either:
• Cross the path of the charging enemy battle group. In this case it can include a wheel, but this cannot exceed the battle group’s normal movement distance. In some circumstances the chargers may now qualify for a flank or rear charge on the interceptors. This is judged after the interceptors have moved.
• Contact the flank or rear of the enemy battle group without wheeling. It cancels the enemy battle group’s charge completely. If the interception charge qualifies as a flank or rear charge as described in the section CHARGING A FLANK OR REAR above, it is treated as a normal flank/rear charge.

This gives you three levels of interception depending on where you start relative to the enemy flank:

No threat to enemy flank, wheeling allowed, you get in front, enemy charges and hits you.
You are aiming at the flank but are not behind it, no wheeling, enemy charge is cancelled.
You qualify for flank/rear charge, no wheeling, enemy charge is cancelled and it's a flank/rear charge.

Problem is that we don't want a non-flank-charge flank-charge to cancel the charge. Nor do we want to encourage non-flank-charge flank-charges at all, they are untidy.

[lawrenceg]

Sorry to doubt, but are you sure? Can you show an example that would not be reasonable? (I don't include your second example as we both think that is fair enough).

plus it risks the loophole that you originally wanted to close with the restriction on wheeling.

Is there really much of a loophole if move is restricted to 4"/2"?

Not much, no, but you seemed quite reluctant to relax your original restriction. I actually prefer the more permissive version.

Problem is that we don't want a non-flank-charge flank-charge to cancel the charge.

Why not? A front intercept can effectively cancel the charge (at least, restrict it to 1 mm) if it gets close enough.
How about stopping the charge of the intercepted bases, but allowing bases not intercepted to step forward?

Nor do we want to encourage non-flank-charge flank-charges at all, they are untidy.

Untidy? Is this a game of ancient battle, or 18th century formal dancing?

[rbodleyscott]

Why not? A front intercept can effectively cancel the charge (at least, restrict it to 1 mm) if it gets close enough.

Only if it blocks the charge's entire front, otherwise the charge can still step forward 2 MUs.

How about stopping the charge of the intercepted bases, but allowing bases not intercepted to step forward?

It's a thought.

Nor do we want to encourage non-flank-charge flank-charges at all, they are untidy.

Untidy? Is this a game of ancient battle, or 18th century formal dancing?

Not untidy in an aesthetic sense. Untidy in a "not fighting in 2 directions" and "conforming to the enemy front" sense. The sequelae are untidy.

[rbodleyscott]

I am somewhat concerned that in the search to cover every anomalous situation, we risk going too far.

For example, do we really want to make it easy for troops to wheel across the friends they are protecting, ignoring (as they can) an enemy a bit further away to their front? To me that smacks a bit of the worst excesses of 7th edition.

-------------------

I am wondering if we should revert to the old straight ahead rule (except as below).

1) It has the virtue of having been play-tested (extensively).
2) I have never yet in a real game seen a situation where a BG that ought to be able to intercept would be hit in flank by the chargers. (Perhaps the players subconsciously avoided such situations - see points 3 and 4 below).
3) If players are aware of the straight ahead rule, they can position their flank-protecting BG in such a way they they won't get hit in flank if they intercept.
4) FoG is an alternate move system. All the above cases can be solved by correctly positioning your interceptors in your turn. If you cannot do so because you failed a CMT, tough, that is what you pay drilled points for.

----------------------

The main glaring anomaly we were aiming at was as follows

Code: Select all

     X
AA   X
  BB

B ought to be able to prevent X from attacking A in the flank. (And not get itself charged in the flank).

We would be happy to prevent this anomaly and leave the others to the players to prevent by correctly positioning their intercepting battle group in their turn.

Something like this:

An interception charge must be directly forward (except as below) and can be up to the limit of the battle group’s ZOI. It cannot include any shifts, changes of formation or interpenetrations. It must either:
o Cross the path of the charging enemy battle group. Interceptors move before chargers. If this would result in the enemy chargers contacting its flank, the intercepting battle group can and must wheel towards them to avoid this, its total move distance not exceeding 4 MUs if mounted, 2 MUs if foot. If it cannot avoid being contacted in the flank, the interception is cancelled.
o 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 as previously described. It cancels the enemy battle group’s charge completely and despite the fact that it happens in the enemy’s turn, is treated as a normal flank/rear charge.

[lawrenceg]

Not untidy in an aesthetic sense. Untidy in a "not fighting in 2 directions" and "conforming to the enemy front" sense. The sequelae are untidy.

The need to conform to the enemy front is a fundamental flaw in the system and you should address it directly, rather than try to artificially prevent moves that it can't cope with.

I also feel that "A BG fighting in two directions is not fighting in two directions, except in these special circumstances when we say it is fighting in two directions..." is not entirely satisfactory, although I'm prepared to live with it. It's usually possible to remember when a BG is not fighting in two directions, and no great problem to make a "not fighting in 2 directions" marker if necessary.

[lawrenceg]

I am somewhat concerned that in the search to cover every anomalous situation, we risk going too far.

For example, do we really want to make it easy for troops to wheel across the friends they are protecting, ignoring (as they can) an enemy a bit further away to their front? To me that smacks a bit of the worst excesses of 7th edition.

-------------------

I am wondering if we should revert to the old straight ahead rule (except as below).

1) It has the virtue of having been play-tested (extensively).
2) I have never yet in a real game seen a situation where a BG that ought to be able to intercept would be hit in flank by the chargers. (Perhaps the players subconsciously avoided such situations - see points 3 and 4 below).
3) If players are aware of the straight ahead rule, they can position their flank-protecting BG in such a way they they won't get hit in flank if they intercept.
4) FoG is an alternate move system. All the above cases can be solved by correctly positioning your interceptors in your turn. If you cannot do so because you failed a CMT, tough, that is what you pay drilled points for.

----------------------

The main glaring anomaly we were aiming at was as follows

Code: Select all

     X
AA   X
  BB

B ought to be able to prevent X from attacking A in the flank. (And not get itself charged in the flank).

We would be happy to prevent this anomaly and leave the others to the players to prevent by correctly positioning their intercepting battle group in their turn.

Something like this:

An interception charge must be directly forward (except as below) and can be up to the limit of the battle group’s ZOI. It cannot include any shifts, changes of formation or interpenetrations. It must either:
o Cross the path of the charging enemy battle group. Interceptors move before chargers. If this would result in the enemy chargers contacting its flank, the intercepting battle group can and must wheel towards them to avoid this, its total move distance not exceeding 4 MUs if mounted, 2 MUs if foot. If it cannot avoid being contacted in the flank, the interception is cancelled.
o 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 as previously described. It cancels the enemy battle group’s charge completely and despite the fact that it happens in the enemy’s turn, is treated as a normal flank/rear charge.

That would probably be acceptable, although I'd prefer something like:

1. This option must be taken if possible. Interceptor moves first. Interceptor must end in a position where it's front edge is contacted by the charge. It can wheel but its front ege cannot go outside the original ZOI.

2. No wheels. Interceptor does not qualify for a flank/rear charge. The charger moves first. If the charger is now outside the ZOI, interception is cancelled. If not cancelled, judge whether the intercept now qualifes as a flank/rear charge.

3. No wheels. Interceptor qualifies for a flank/rear charge. Charge is cancelled. Interceptor charges instead.

[rbodleyscott]

An interception charge must be directly forward (except as below) and can be up to the limit of the battle group’s ZOI. It cannot include any shifts, changes of formation or interpenetrations. It must either:
o Cross the path of the charging enemy battle group. Interceptors move before chargers. If this would result in the enemy chargers contacting its flank, the intercepting battle group can and must wheel towards them to avoid this, its total move distance not exceeding 4 MUs if mounted, 2 MUs if foot. If it cannot avoid being contacted in the flank, the interception is cancelled.
o 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 as previously described. It cancels the enemy battle group’s charge completely and despite the fact that it happens in the enemy’s turn, is treated as a normal flank/rear charge.

That would probably be acceptable

I think we'll settle for acceptable.

[rogerg]

I have not followed all this thread, however, I support the view that this is getting very complicated. Every rule creates alternatives. I would probably be quite happy to have no interception charges at all. With regard to the A,B,X diagram, if the player owning A and B did not want A charged in the flank he should have advanced with B and hit X first.

One of the failings of DBM was the problem of getting into contact with the myriad of 'crossing the front' rules. The best answer is to play more skilfully, not manipulate the rules. If you do not want the enemy to cross a piece of ground, then put your troops there, that's what they are for.

Roger

[lawrenceg]

In the example below, B can intercept C but A cannot.
In real life, A would be able to charge C before it had moved far, whereas C would have a good chance of advancing out of B's path before they arrive.

In FoG, in most cases, the player could have moved A into a position where it could intercept, so your proposed rule is probably acceptable.

It would be better if the player did not have to worry about the exact requirements for intercepting when he positions A.

I think it would be possible to allow A to intercept without giving rise to any cheese.

It also seems a bit strange (if not cheesy) that C cannot be intercepted as positioned, but if C was closer to its target (not shown, assumed to be at the bottom of the picture) it could be intercepted.

[lawrenceg]

An interception charge must be directly forward (except as below) and can be up to the limit of the battle group’s ZOI. It cannot include any shifts, changes of formation or interpenetrations. It must either:
• Cross the path of the charging enemy battle group. Interceptors move before chargers. If this would result in the enemy chargers contacting its flank, the intercepting battle group can and must wheel towards them to avoid this, its total move distance including the wheel not exceeding 4 MUs if mounted, 2 MUs if foot. If it cannot avoid being contacted in the flank, the interception is cancelled.
• 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 as previously described. It cancels the enemy battle group’s charge completely and despite the fact that it happens in the enemy’s turn, is treated as a normal flank/rear charge.

In the example below, the only difference between A an B is that A has advanced straight ahead from the position equivalent to B. If B intercepted, it would pass through the position equivalent to A during its interception move. B can intercept C but A cannot, even though A is closer to C, at the same angle and on the same path. This just doesn't make sense.

If A had started a full move back from its position shown below, and was undrilled, it would need to pass a CMT in order to stop at the point equivalent to B.

If C was closer to its target (not shown, assumed to be at the bottom of the picture) A could intercept it as it would now be able to do a flank charge. Consider the move made by C to arrive at the position shown. It seems a bit cheesy that C can do a short move to arrive at the position shown (resulting in its subsequent charge being longer), which has the effect of preventing A from getting into an intercept position without a CMT, when a full move straight ahead by A would leave it on the same intercept path and closer to its intercept target (C).

I think it would be possible to allow A to intercept without giving rise to any cheese.






(edited to correct an error in the original diagram)