ZOI behind other BG

[philqw78]

Variable die is only rolled if all possible targets evade, an interceptor in your path isn't evading so no variable die is rolled.

But an interceptor is not a target of any charge. The rules state that targets of charges cannot intercept.

[kevinj]

But an interceptor is not a target of any charge. The rules state that targets of charges cannot intercept.

Now this is getting silly. The interceptor is not a target of the charge when it is declared but it becomes one when it moves into the path.

[gozerius]

Agreed, but it doesn't get to count the distance stepped forward by the charger as part of the path, because at the moment the charge was declared, there was no step forward possible. Therefore, the interceptor must reach a point which is part of the original charge path, not part of a modified charge path based on the interceptor moving into charge range and the original target evading.

[zoltan]

Agreed, but it doesn't get to count the distance stepped forward by the charger as part of the path, because at the moment the charge was declared, there was no step forward possible. Therefore, the interceptor must reach a point which is part of the original charge path, not part of a modified charge path based on the interceptor moving into charge range and the original target evading.

Well the rules don't actually define the "charge path" (original or subsequent) and clearly there are differences of opinion on what it is in different on-table circumstances.

[ravenflight]

I've been having a bit of a read of this, and I'm not sure I agree with Phil, but can understand where he's coming from.

Let's say there was a situation where a BG of cavalry would like to charge a BG of light foot. If the light foot were able to stand, the 'path of the charge' would include impacting a BG of knights in the flank 5 1/2 inches in front of the cavalry, so would contact only after stepping forward (or in the case of a VMD - but we're not there yet)

Now, a second (separate) charge is also declared which the BG of knights would like to intercept, but doing so would take the knights OUT of the charge path of the cavalry.

Now, my question is:

Are the knights the target of the charge? They are outside of 5" of the cavalry, so cannot be, but if the charge actually happens the cavalry have a chance of impacting the knights in the flank.

I think the above scenario would help clarify the issue that was bought up in this thread.

If the knights are not the target of a charge there is nothing to stop them intercepting and I would agree with Phil that the 'step forward' would be wrong to be added.

IF, however, the knights ARE deemed to be the target of the charge and thus cannot intercept, I would disagree with Phil.

Interested in opinions on the above.

[kal5056]

I think we will need pictures to answer this one.

Gino
SMAC

[ravenflight]

Ok, here we go - don't mind the poor quality photographs:



The above is the overall scenario.

The cavalry at the bottom are charging the light foot half way up the page on the left hand side. A second BG of cavalry are charging the foot at the top right. The knights in the middle wish to intercept charge the second BG of cavalry.

Can they do it?

I think they either can or can't dependent on the outcome of the discussion on this thread. ARE the knights subject to a charge by the first cavalry unit? If the light foot were heavy foot, would they be subject to a charge?

The cavalry are >5" from the knights, but just at 5" of the light foot. Meaning that if the light foot (or another BG that is effectively in the same place) were contacted by the charge, the cavalry would step forward into the flank of the knights.

Here are some close ups:



and

[dave_r]

OK - those knights are the target of a charge as they would be contacted by chargers in the impact phase.

As an aside - those knights can't intercept anyway (unless it is a flank intercept) as they dont' cross the path of the charge as the base nearest to the bottom has to stop prior to contacting the cavalry and thus when the cavalry move forward they dont' hit the knights.

[petedalby]

I think the first example is debatable.

The Cav only charge 5 MU and the LF must evade. So unless the Cav throw a VMD of 5 or 6 the Knights will not be contacted. If I were asked to rule on this as an umpire I would say they could intercept as at the point of declaration they are not the subject of a charge. But that is just my opinion and I could easily be wrong.

If the target BG was a unit of HF then the Cav would clearly step forward into the Knights and they could not intercept.

In the second example, the Knights appear to be behind the flank of the chargers? If so, they would cancel the charge and hit the Cav in the flank.

Unfortunately this is just muddying the waters. We still haven't resolved the original OP. As has been noted by others, the fact that skirmishers must evade from non-skirmishers has subtlety changed the charge / intercept interaction. I don't believe this was an intended change by the authors so a bit of clarification is required to get us back to where we were in V1.

[zoltan]

OK - those knights are the target of a charge as they would be contacted by chargers in the impact phase.

As an aside - those knights can't intercept anyway (unless it is a flank intercept) as they dont' cross the path of the charge as the base nearest to the bottom has to stop prior to contacting the cavalry and thus when the cavalry move forward they dont' hit the knights.

The rules mechanism is that BGs declare that they are charging (they don't declare that they are charging this or that target). Once a charge is declared, everything in the charger's charge path is a target of its charge. The charge path is a thing that varies with the specific tabletop circumstances. Sometimes the charge path is the distance to the first point of impact; sometimes it includes stepping forward; sometimes the charge path includes a variable move distance.

I think the rear right knight base is behind the flank of the second charging cav bg, so if the knights could intercept they would contact the cav's flank. But like Dave I think the knights are a target of the first cav's charge (and therefore not permited to intercept) because they will be contacted by the cav stepping forward into them. The knights are in the charge path of the first cav bg and the circumstances are such that the knights can (no, must) be contacted.

[ravenflight]

OK - those knights are the target of a charge as they would be contacted by chargers in the impact phase.

As an aside - those knights can't intercept anyway (unless it is a flank intercept) as they dont' cross the path of the charge as the base nearest to the bottom has to stop prior to contacting the cavalry and thus when the cavalry move forward they dont' hit the knights.

Did you even LOOK at the photographs or read the accompanying notes??

Oh, of course you didn't - you're Dave Ruddock...

1- the knights are NOT subject to charge... unless you count stepping forward.
2- interceptions happen PRIOR to charge moves
3- the Knights ARE doing a flank charge intercept.

[dave_r]

OK - those knights are the target of a charge as they would be contacted by chargers in the impact phase.

As an aside - those knights can't intercept anyway (unless it is a flank intercept) as they dont' cross the path of the charge as the base nearest to the bottom has to stop prior to contacting the cavalry and thus when the cavalry move forward they dont' hit the knights.

Did you even LOOK at the photographs or read the accompanying notes??

Oh, of course you didn't - you're Dave Ruddock...

1- the knights are NOT subject to charge... unless you count stepping forward.
2- interceptions happen PRIOR to charge moves
3- the Knights ARE doing a flank charge intercept.

So you just throw the toys out of the cot because I say something you don't agree with? Always nice to have a discussion with an adult.

I'll say that although interceptions happen before charges, they don't happen prior to charge declarations. Look at page 178 full turn sequence.

[ravenflight]

I think the first example is debatable.

The Cav only charge 5 MU and the LF must evade. So unless the Cav throw a VMD of 5 or 6 the Knights will not be contacted. If I were asked to rule on this as an umpire I would say they could intercept as at the point of declaration they are not the subject of a charge. But that is just my opinion and I could easily be wrong.

If the target BG was a unit of HF then the Cav would clearly step forward into the Knights and they could not intercept.

In the second example, the Knights appear to be behind the flank of the chargers? If so, they would cancel the charge and hit the Cav in the flank.

Unfortunately this is just muddying the waters. We still haven't resolved the original OP. As has been noted by others, the fact that skirmishers must evade from non-skirmishers has subtlety changed the charge / intercept interaction. I don't believe this was an intended change by the authors so a bit of clarification is required to get us back to where we were in V1.

No Peter, I don't think it does muddy the waters... it's designed specifically to get an answer.

Firstly, do you do the VMD BEFORE the knights do their intercept?

As I see it intercepts come before anything is moved, therefore the knights move first BEFORE a vmd is rolled.

Secondly, what if they were Heavy Foot instead of light foot ? Would the step forward cause contact and thus put the knights in the 'path of the charge' - IF the answer to that is YES then (going back to the OP) the step forward is counted as 'in the path' a d thus an intercept INTO the 'step forward zone' and thus 'cross the charge path'

[ravenflight]

So you just throw the toys out of the cot because I say something you don't agree with? Always nice to have a discussion with an adult.

I'm not throwing anything out - except your comment - which isn't worth very much.

[dave_r]

So you just throw the toys out of the cot because I say something you don't agree with? Always nice to have a discussion with an adult.

I'm not throwing anything out - except your comment - which isn't worth very much.

Here's what I said

OK - those knights are the target of a charge as they would be contacted by chargers in the impact phase.

Where did I say the Knights were within the initial charge range? Or did you not understand what I wrote?

Just because you don't like what I say, that doesn't mean to say it isn't valid.

[petedalby]

Secondly, what if they were Heavy Foot instead of light foot ? Would the step forward cause contact and thus put the knights in the 'path of the charge' - IF the answer to that is YES then (going back to the OP) the step forward is counted as 'in the path' a d thus an intercept INTO the 'step forward zone' and thus 'cross the charge path'

I thought I answered that?

If the target BG was a unit of HF then the Cav would clearly step forward into the Knights and they could not intercept.

[dave_r]

Secondly, what if they were Heavy Foot instead of light foot ? Would the step forward cause contact and thus put the knights in the 'path of the charge' - IF the answer to that is YES then (going back to the OP) the step forward is counted as 'in the path' a d thus an intercept INTO the 'step forward zone' and thus 'cross the charge path'

I thought I answered that?

If the target BG was a unit of HF then the Cav would clearly step forward into the Knights and they could not intercept.

And that's why I don't like taking into account that the LF must evade. It would mean that in one circumstance you treat chargers in one way and in another circumstance you treat them differently. If the LF were in terrain what would you do?

[kal5056]

Yes that is the crux of this particular issue.
Must we treat the light foot as if they stood to calculate the charge path (Including the step forward)?
Do we consider the possible Variable Move Distance as part of the charge path?

Does either of these definitions of the "Target or the Charge" also define the "Path of the Charge" for non-rear / flank Intercepts.

Gino
SMAC

[dave_r]

Yes that is the crux of this particular issue.
Must we treat the light foot as if they stood to calculate the charge path (Including the step forward)?
Do we consider the possible Variable Move Distance as part of the charge path?

Does either of these definitions of the "Target or the Charge" also define the "Path of the Charge" for non-rear / flank Intercepts.

Gino
SMAC

I would say you don't take variable distance into account - as the VMD won't have been taken at the time you move interceptors.

The bit about chargers also means you don't normally take into account VMD's to see if you can't charge.

[kal5056]

So Dave,
You are saying that if a BG of Knights has Light foot to the front with Elephants at a total of 5 mu's away that they have to roll not to charge the LF and if they fail and roll up on the VMD that they MUST hit the Elephants?

Gino
SMAC