ZOI behind other BG

[dave_r]

Here's a fuller illustration (from memory both Andre and I have had this applied to us or at least witnessed it played).

Rules 9-12,13, & 14 (summarised)
To intercept, the knights:
1. must be able to interfere with the charge - check
2. must be able to see the chargers - check
3. can move up to 4 MUs - check
4. must not be a target of the charge - check (over 7 MUs from LH)
5. must move straight ahead without any formation changes - check
6. must cross the path of the chargers - check (the LH's charge path is straight ahead trying to catch the LF)
7. must stop short of the chargers - check

Once the Light Foot has evaded the Light Horse completes its charge move. Under no circumstances can they stop short or halt to avoid contacting interceptors.

Right - here's the issue

6. must cross the path of the chargers - check (the LH's charge path is straight ahead trying to catch the LF)

Because you move intercepters _before_ chargers. The path of the intercept only reaches the back of the Light Foot BG.

At that time the path of the Light Horse charge only reaches the front of the Light Foot Battle group - therefore the intercept move does not cross the path of the charge.

I've also got to disagree with Rob's interpretation of the Light Horse as pg 68 states "Under no circumstances can chargers evade or halt to avoid contacting interceptors"

[dave_r]

Can I make a suggestion here:

In order to avoid Southern Hemisphere mis-interpretations, you send a team annually to the ITC to learn how the game is played

Zoltan and Andre would be made most welcome

[Robert241167]

Why disagree Dave?

I said they could stop short as the knights are not an intercept.

Obviously if this whole scenario was talking about a legal intercept then I'd be quoting differently.

And off to bed I go.

Rob

[dave_r]

And off to bed I go.

Lightweight.

[zoltan]

And off to bed I go.

Lightweight.

Exactly, I awoke at about 2.39am my time and composed my first post and diagram!

[zoltan]

Can I make a suggestion here:

In order to avoid Southern Hemisphere mis-interpretations, you send a team annually to the ITC to learn how the game is played

Zoltan and Andre would be made most welcome

Feel free to pull Shaun's leg at Britcon then.

[zoltan]

Right - here's the issue

6. must cross the path of the chargers - check (the LH's charge path is straight ahead trying to catch the LF)

Because you move intercepters _before_ chargers. The path of the intercept only reaches the back of the Light Foot BG.

At that time the path of the Light Horse charge only reaches the front of the Light Foot Battle group - therefore the intercept move does not cross the path of the charge.

Looks like for the original example I gave (LH charging LF) you've defined the charger's path as only that portion of the LH charge move that takes them up to the LF, I guess because in theory the LF could opt to stand.

Swap the LH for Cav. Against cav the LF must evade. So is the cav's charge path only that portion of its move up to the LF position (because they have not yet evaded) or is the charge path the full extent of the cav's move (including variable die roll)?

[zoltan]

Can the knights opt to intercept (by moving straight ahead say 1.5 MUs) in this example?

[petedalby]

I don't believe so - no.

How can the intercepting BG move past the LF ?

[dave_r]

I don't believe so - no.

How can the intercepting BG move past the LF ?

That particular scenario is a bit more tricky. in that scenario, if the Knights intercepted, the Cavalry who are charging would step forward - and therefore be in the charge path. I would deem that a genuine interception.

However, if the chargers were light horse they can't step forward, therefore the interception would not be legal as they are still not crossing the chargers path.

[zoltan]

So Dave and Pete you appear to be saying that 'the path' through which an interceptor must pass (in order to declare an intercept) is the area between a charger's starting point and the target's starting point. In other words 'the path' is not the total area between a charger's starting point and their final point (i.e. their total charge move in MUs).

In my last picture, what if I move the LF a further base to its left so that it is not in front of the knights; can the knights intercept then?

[dave_r]

As long as the Knights have the distance to move in front of the Light Foot - and therefore cross the path of the charge, then yes.

[davidandlynda]

So going back to cav charging LF, what if the LF were completely in front of the knights,do the KN move as far as poss to the rear of the LF knowing that they will evade or not
David
PS I 'm not commenting on anything as I will probably get it wrong

[petedalby]

Definitely not David.

[zoltan]

So Dave and Pete, in the illustration below the "charge path" is limited to that distance that would bring the cavalry into contact with the light foot at the point the charge is declared. It does NOT include the maximum distance the cavalry may go (i.e. anywhere up to 7 MU if they get to do a variable move).

I understand you to say that the knights in B can chose to intercept (moving forward anything from a gnat's todger to 4 MUs) but the knights in A can not intercept at all. Intuitively it seems wrong to me that the knights in B could opt to intercept (say) 2 MU yet the knights in A do not have the same option.

[Robert241167]

Oh no, are we still here?

My next two-penneth.

The knights in B have to intercept by moving to a point inside the charge path between the cavalry and light foot.

Therefore a gnats todger will not be enough.

Rob

[zoltan]

Oh no, are we still here?

My next two-penneth.

The knights in B have to intercept by moving to a point inside the charge path between the cavalry and light foot.

Therefore a gnats todger will not be enough.

Rob

Yeah that just dawned on me. So by definition an intercept charge must reach a position (before charge and evade moves are made) where the interceptor is positioned (even by a gnat's todger) between the charger and original charge target.

[Robert241167]

Correct.



Rob

[petedalby]

Hurrah!

[dave_r]

Only the rest of New Zealand and Australia to convince now...