Interception Charge (different one)

[ravenflight]

Hi Guys,

I had an interesting situation today.

It's difficult to explain, and I'm no good at drawing pictures, so I hope this makes sense.

In this scenario there are 5 BG's involved.

Letters are my troops, numbers are enemy troops.

A is the target of the charge of 1
B is the target of the charge of 2
B is able to intercept charge 1 into the flank.
C is able to intercept charge 2 into the flank.

The way I played it (and I think it's right) is that because my enemy declared charges against A with 1 and B with 2 I wasn't able to intercept charge with B because they were the target of a charge.

The difficulty is in the wording.

Page 63 says "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 (emphasis mine) and despite the fact that it happens in the enemy's turn, is treated as a normal flank/rear charge".

Now, I'm a bit perplexed. If it's cancelled then it didn't happen, so B isn't the target of a charge, even though I'd have only been able to charge with C into the flank of 2 if he declared a charge.

So, did I do it right?

[grahambriggs]

It depends which order your opponent chooses to do the charges in. Each charge and any responses to it must be actioned in the order listed in the full turn sequence at the end of the book, but if there is more than one charge the active player chooses the order in which they are actioned.

So, if the active player chooses to charge with 2 first, C can intercept from the flank. Next he does the charge of 1, and B intercepts that in the flank (as the charge of 2 was cancelled completely).

If the active player chooses to charge with 1 first, B cannot intercept (it is the subject of the charge by 2, which is not yet cancelled). Then 2 charges, and C can intercept.

So a sensible opponent would charge with 1 first!

[Lycanthropic]

Thats an interesting perspective. Even though charges are actioned in the order the active player chooses, all charge declarations are made before a single charge is actioned.
Therefore I would argue that any battlegroup that has a charge declared on them cannot intercept irrespective of the order that charges are "actioned" by your opponent.

[ravenflight]

Yeah, I kinda agree with the werewolf.

The trouble is (I feel) with the terminology. Using the term "Cancelled" to me is terminal, as if it never happened. However, earlier bullet points say "A battle group that is itself charged cannot intercept". Well, it HASNT' been charged. It's the TARGET of a charge, but hasn't actually BEEN charged. So, maybe that's the answer.

[bbotus]

Therefore I would argue that any battlegroup that has a charge declared on them cannot intercept irrespective of the order that charges are "actioned" by your opponent.

Agree except that if C is able to charge 2 in the flank, then the charge by 2 is 'completely cancelled' as per wording in the rules page 63. Since intercepts come before charge moves, the charge by 2 is 'completely cancelled'. So what does 'completely cancelled' mean and why would it be so stated in the rules? Why not just 'cancelled'? I read it as saying that B is now free to intercept.

The difficulty here is that we are reading page 68, SEQUENCE OF CHARGES AND RESPONSES and page 168 FULL TURN SEQUENCE differently as mentioned in previous threads. Some read it that you take one charge and do all the steps down to and including 'make charge moves' before you do the second charge. Some (including me) read it that you do each line in the FULL TURN SEQUENCE before moving to the next line. If there is more than one charge, then the active player gets to decide which units to move first in each step. There is your dilemma. Good luck on sorting it out to agreement.

P.S. If the authors really wanted an internal loop in the Impact Phase, they would have put it in the sequence chart.

[dave_r]

Therefore I would argue that any battlegroup that has a charge declared on them cannot intercept irrespective of the order that charges are "actioned" by your opponent.

Agree except that if C is able to charge 2 in the flank, then the charge by 2 is 'completely cancelled' as per wording in the rules page 63. Since intercepts come before charge moves, the charge by 2 is 'completely cancelled'. So what does 'completely cancelled' mean and why would it be so stated in the rules? Why not just 'cancelled'? I read it as saying that B is now free to intercept.

The difficulty here is that we are reading page 68, SEQUENCE OF CHARGES AND RESPONSES and page 168 FULL TURN SEQUENCE differently as mentioned in previous threads. Some read it that you take one charge and do all the steps down to and including 'make charge moves' before you do the second charge. Some (including me) read it that you do each line in the FULL TURN SEQUENCE before moving to the next line. If there is more than one charge, then the active player gets to decide which units to move first in each step. There is your dilemma. Good luck on sorting it out to agreement.

P.S. If the authors really wanted an internal loop in the Impact Phase, they would have put it in the sequence chart.

Page 68 makes this very clear surely?

"Each charge and any responses to it must be actioned in the order listed in the full turn sequence at the end of the book"

This means that each charge is moved through as per the FTS and then moves onto the next one. I am failing to understand where the difficulty is? There clearly must be a loop where there is interaction between charges and responses.

[ravenflight]

This means that each charge is moved through as per the FTS and then moves onto the next one. I am failing to understand where the difficulty is? There clearly must be a loop where there is interaction between charges and responses.

Ok... here is the difficulty (for me).

1 - Declare Charges (none are skirmishers etc).
2 - Make intercept charges.

So, IF (as Graham says above "a sensible opponent would charge with 1 first!" what is stopping me from intercepting? I can see the argument for 'but they are the target of a charge', but they AREN'T a target of a charge because their charge is going to be intercepted and therefore 'completely cancelled'.

[dave_r]

This means that each charge is moved through as per the FTS and then moves onto the next one. I am failing to understand where the difficulty is? There clearly must be a loop where there is interaction between charges and responses.

Ok... here is the difficulty (for me).

1 - Declare Charges (none are skirmishers etc).
2 - Make intercept charges.

So, IF (as Graham says above "a sensible opponent would charge with 1 first!" what is stopping me from intercepting? I can see the argument for 'but they are the target of a charge', but they AREN'T a target of a charge because their charge is going to be intercepted and therefore 'completely cancelled'.

Right, first off, charge declarations are in a different cycle - they aren't part of moving charges.

So ALL charges are declared and then each charge is actioned one at a time if they interact with each other.

So, if one charges first, then two can't intercept because it has a charge declaration against it by 2. If 2 charges first then it's charge is immediately cancelled by C intercepting it in the flank, which means when 1 charges B immediately intercepts in the flank.

[bbotus]

Page 68 makes this very clear surely?

No.

I can see where you could interpret it that way but it is not confirmed in the Turn Sequence Chart. If it was to be the way you have indicated then, surely, the authors would have said, "Repeat Impact steps x through y for each charge before going to the next charge." But they didn't specify which steps to repeat so we have to make assumptions and read into the rules which steps to repeat. That is a bit much for me to accept. It is not my place to make such a decision.

We have been through all this before. So unless someone can come up with a new idea or some other evidence for what the authors intended, I'll cede the last comment to you.

[dave_r]

Page 68 makes this very clear surely?

No.

I can see where you could interpret it that way but it is not confirmed in the Turn Sequence Chart. If it was to be the way you have indicated then, surely, the authors would have said, "Repeat Impact steps x through y for each charge before going to the next charge." But they didn't specify which steps to repeat so we have to make assumptions and read into the rules which steps to repeat. That is a bit much for me to accept. It is not my place to make such a decision.

We have been through all this before. So unless someone can come up with a new idea or some other evidence for what the authors intended, I'll cede the last comment to you.

So basically, because you don't like what the rules say you are just going to ignore them. I suppose that makes sense...

[grahambriggs]

Page 68 makes this very clear surely?

No.

I can see where you could interpret it that way but it is not confirmed in the Turn Sequence Chart. If it was to be the way you have indicated then, surely, the authors would have said, "Repeat Impact steps x through y for each charge before going to the next charge." But they didn't specify which steps to repeat so we have to make assumptions and read into the rules which steps to repeat. That is a bit much for me to accept. It is not my place to make such a decision.

We have been through all this before. So unless someone can come up with a new idea or some other evidence for what the authors intended, I'll cede the last comment to you.

So basically, because you don't like what the rules say you are just going to ignore them. I suppose that makes sense...

I think it's more that the rules are vague in this area. The Sequence of Charges and Responses rules says:

"Each charge and any responses to it must be actioned in the order listed in the full turn sequence at the end of the book, but if there is more than one charge the active player chooses the order in which they are actioned. Once all responses and all charge moves have been completed, impact combat is resolved."

The problem with the phrasing is it says that the active player chooses the order of the charges being "actioned" but it doesn't say whether you do the first charge and responses to it, then the second charge and responses to that, etc. Or do I just say what order the charges will go in, do ALL the responses, then do the charges in the order I've said. These will sometimes produce different results. This is because the "they" in the sentence might be referring to "Each charge and any responses" or might refer to "charge".

I think the former reading (do 1st charge and reactions to it, then move on) is the correct one but you could quite easily read it the other way.

[shadowdragon]

No.

I can see where you could interpret it that way but it is not confirmed in the Turn Sequence Chart. If it was to be the way you have indicated then, surely, the authors would have said, "Repeat Impact steps x through y for each charge before going to the next charge." But they didn't specify which steps to repeat so we have to make assumptions and read into the rules which steps to repeat. That is a bit much for me to accept. It is not my place to make such a decision.

We have been through all this before. So unless someone can come up with a new idea or some other evidence for what the authors intended, I'll cede the last comment to you.

So basically, because you don't like what the rules say you are just going to ignore them. I suppose that makes sense...

I think it's more that the rules are vague in this area. The Sequence of Charges and Responses rules says:

"Each charge and any responses to it must be actioned in the order listed in the full turn sequence at the end of the book, but if there is more than one charge the active player chooses the order in which they are actioned. Once all responses and all charge moves have been completed, impact combat is resolved."

The problem with the phrasing is it says that the active player chooses the order of the charges being "actioned" but it doesn't say whether you do the first charge and responses to it, then the second charge and responses to that, etc. Or do I just say what order the charges will go in, do ALL the responses, then do the charges in the order I've said. These will sometimes produce different results. This is because the "they" in the sentence might be referring to "Each charge and any responses" or might refer to "charge".

I think the former reading (do 1st charge and reactions to it, then move on) is the correct one but you could quite easily read it the other way.

It's clearer in FoG:R.

"Charges and any response to them must be actioned in the order listed in the FTS at the end of the book. The active player chooses the order of his charge moves. The non-active player chooses the order of his intercept moves. He also chooses the order (and direction) of his evade moves - before making any VMD rolls. Often, however, the results of charges declared in one area of the field cannot affect charges elsewhere, so it is usually convenient to fully resolve the sequence of pre-combat events in one area before proceeding to the next."

FWIW. Perhaps V2 will have such clarity.

[dave_r]

No.

I can see where you could interpret it that way but it is not confirmed in the Turn Sequence Chart. If it was to be the way you have indicated then, surely, the authors would have said, "Repeat Impact steps x through y for each charge before going to the next charge." But they didn't specify which steps to repeat so we have to make assumptions and read into the rules which steps to repeat. That is a bit much for me to accept. It is not my place to make such a decision.

We have been through all this before. So unless someone can come up with a new idea or some other evidence for what the authors intended, I'll cede the last comment to you.

So basically, because you don't like what the rules say you are just going to ignore them. I suppose that makes sense...

I think it's more that the rules are vague in this area. The Sequence of Charges and Responses rules says:

"Each charge and any responses to it must be actioned in the order listed in the full turn sequence at the end of the book, but if there is more than one charge the active player chooses the order in which they are actioned. Once all responses and all charge moves have been completed, impact combat is resolved."

The problem with the phrasing is it says that the active player chooses the order of the charges being "actioned" but it doesn't say whether you do the first charge and responses to it, then the second charge and responses to that, etc. Or do I just say what order the charges will go in, do ALL the responses, then do the charges in the order I've said. These will sometimes produce different results. This is because the "they" in the sentence might be referring to "Each charge and any responses" or might refer to "charge".

I think the former reading (do 1st charge and reactions to it, then move on) is the correct one but you could quite easily read it the other way.

I don't see how. It is quite clear - since all charges must be declared before moving any figures then that then makes it very easy - since the responses are either stand, evade or intercept and all these happen as the charge is moved then that is the order you do them. If there are multiple charges then you do them one at a time as described on page 68.

[grahambriggs]

I think the former reading (do 1st charge and reactions to it, then move on) is the correct one but you could quite easily read it the other way.

I don't see how. It is quite clear - since all charges must be declared before moving any figures then that then makes it very easy - since the responses are either stand, evade or intercept and all these happen as the charge is moved then that is the order you do them. If there are multiple charges then you do them one at a time as described on page 68.

you do the charges one at a time. Where does it say you do the charge responses one at a time in the same order and before the next charge?

[dave_r]

I think the former reading (do 1st charge and reactions to it, then move on) is the correct one but you could quite easily read it the other way.

I don't see how. It is quite clear - since all charges must be declared before moving any figures then that then makes it very easy - since the responses are either stand, evade or intercept and all these happen as the charge is moved then that is the order you do them. If there are multiple charges then you do them one at a time as described on page 68.

you do the charges one at a time. Where does it say you do the charge responses one at a time in the same order and before the next charge?

You don't need to - charge responses are completed before chargers are moved. Therefore if you do each charge one at a time then you don't need to state you complete responses one at a time because if you didn't you could move before your opponent evades.

[grahambriggs]

I don't see how. It is quite clear - since all charges must be declared before moving any figures then that then makes it very easy - since the responses are either stand, evade or intercept and all these happen as the charge is moved then that is the order you do them. If there are multiple charges then you do them one at a time as described on page 68.

you do the charges one at a time. Where does it say you do the charge responses one at a time in the same order and before the next charge?

You don't need to - charge responses are completed before chargers are moved. Therefore if you do each charge one at a time then you don't need to state you complete responses one at a time because if you didn't you could move before your opponent evades.

OK, so I'll do my charge responses before chargers are moved. I'll intercept with C first. That will completely cancel 2's charge. Thus B is not the target of a charge and can intercept 1 in the flank cancelling their charge as well. Which is particularly odd if you've stated that 1 will charge before 2.

Or do we do all the responses at once? You'd claim that B can't intercept.

All I'm saying is that it's sufficiently murky that it could be played either way. Could have been written a little better perhaps.

[bbotus]

All I'm saying is that it's sufficiently murky that it could be played either way. Could have been written a little better perhaps.

I'll second that comment.

It's clearer in FoG:R.

"Charges and any response to them must be actioned in the order listed in the FTS at the end of the book. The active player chooses the order of his charge moves. The non-active player chooses the order of his intercept moves. He also chooses the order (and direction) of his evade moves - before making any VMD rolls. Often, however, the results of charges declared in one area of the field cannot affect charges elsewhere, so it is usually convenient to fully resolve the sequence of pre-combat events in one area before proceeding to the next."

I don't have FoG:R and I don't know how similar the rules are; and, therefore, how applicable this quote is to this discussion. But, it is an interesting comment.

[shadowdragon]

All I'm saying is that it's sufficiently murky that it could be played either way. Could have been written a little better perhaps.

I'll second that comment.

It's clearer in FoG:R.

"Charges and any response to them must be actioned in the order listed in the FTS at the end of the book. The active player chooses the order of his charge moves. The non-active player chooses the order of his intercept moves. He also chooses the order (and direction) of his evade moves - before making any VMD rolls. Often, however, the results of charges declared in one area of the field cannot affect charges elsewhere, so it is usually convenient to fully resolve the sequence of pre-combat events in one area before proceeding to the next."

I don't have FoG:R and I don't know how similar the rules are; and, therefore, how applicable this quote is to this discussion. But, it is an interesting comment.

The core mechanisms are the same. The differences relate to period look and feel (e.g., multi-BG movement, POA, etc.), which makes me believe that the above is likely - but not certain - what was intended for FoG:AM.

[bbotus]

Well, I'm going to print off your quote of FoG:R and paste it onto page 68 for future discussion.

[bbotus]

I've been going though the old posts from the time the rules were first published in Feb 2008. I've found 3 references so far that speak to Sequence of Charges and Responses on page 68 and the Appendix 8 Full Turn Sequence on page 168.

viewtopic.php?t=6043 Where shall states: "Authors response....... The sequence of events in the rules is sacrasanct as per the table on page 168" (NOTE: Not discussing charges in this thread)

viewtopic.php?t=7273 This is a 4 page discussion on multiple charges and their implications where the authors did not reach a final conclusion. If you read it in detail, they talk about doing doing each of the different moves in the Turn Sequence Chart at each step before going to the next step.

viewtopic.php?t=7478 Where shall states: "3. You move all charges in the same sub-phase on the detailed sequence (see the table) but the charger chooses the order if it matters and here it does IMO. "

These references are in agreement with rules quote from FoG:R that was listed earlier in this thread.