Interception - who counts as charging for impact POA?

[Klaudius]

Hi!

I have a question about interceptions and impact POA where there is some disagreement in our gaming group on how to handle it correctly.

Take the example shown in the rulebook (page 67 in the printed one, or section 9-11 in the electronic one). The principes charge, and the Cavalry intercept. Now the rule is that interceptors are treated as charging for the purpose of determining impact POAs, but does that supersede the "charging" status of the original chargers? Let's say the cavalry are lancers, and since the principes get their (+) in the impact phase for being impact foot only if they're not charging shock mounted, they would obviously prefer not to count as charging. So, do the principes in this example count as charging the cavalry, or does the fact that the cavalry counts as charging also mean that the principes are recieving a charge and thus don't themselves count as charging?

In other words: is it possible that during impact combat, both BGs count as charging when determining the POA they have against each other?

[bbotus]

In other words: is it possible that during impact combat, both BGs count as charging when determining the POA they have against each other?

Yes. Ref last bullet on page 68. "Interceptors are treated as charging for the purpose of determining Impact Phase combat POAs."

The original chargers are still charging unless the interceptors hit them with a valid flank/rear charge before they start their charge move, in which case, their charge is cancelled.

[Klaudius]

Thank you! That was my interpretation, too.

The question came up after I discussed a battlereport from a friend from our club, concerning the situation in the attached image, which was very similar to the example in the book. The defensive spearmen (bottom) charged the light foot (top left), and the knights (top right) intercepted (the picture was taken after the interceptors were moved, but before the LF evaded and the spearmen were moved into contact with the knights).

What made me doubt my interpretation was that this was played at a tournament in Berlin between the guy from my club and a player from britain, and both of them as well as the german referee ruled that there can be only one BG counting as charging, and since the knights are treated as charging as with the rule in the bullet you quoted, they ruled that the spearmen are consequently not treated as charging. Thus, the knights fought at (-) in the impact since they did not get their + for being lancers (since they treated them as fighting against non-charging spearmen), and the defensive spearmen got their + (since they treated them as non-charging defensive spearmen).

The whole thing seemed quite odd to me, but with at least three players from three different countries, all of them with lots of experience from international tournaments (in contrast, I play only in my local club, no tournaments), arguing in favor of the interpretation that only one of the BGs can be treated as charging, I was starting to question my sanity

[dave_r]

Thank you! That was my interpretation, too.

The question came up after I discussed a battlereport from a friend from our club, concerning the situation in the attached image, which was very similar to the example in the book. The defensive spearmen (bottom) charged the light foot (top left), and the knights (top right) intercepted (the picture was taken after the interceptors were moved, but before the LF evaded and the spearmen were moved into contact with the knights).

What made me doubt my interpretation was that this was played at a tournament in Berlin between the guy from my club and a player from britain, and both of them as well as the german referee ruled that there can be only one BG counting as charging, and since the knights are treated as charging as with the rule in the bullet you quoted, they ruled that the spearmen are consequently not treated as charging. Thus, the knights fought at (-) in the impact since they did not get their + for being lancers (since they treated them as fighting against non-charging spearmen), and the defensive spearmen got their + (since they treated them as non-charging defensive spearmen).

The whole thing seemed quite odd to me, but with at least three players from three different countries, all of them with lots of experience from international tournaments (in contrast, I play only in my local club, no tournaments), arguing in favor of the interpretation that only one of the BGs can be treated as charging, I was starting to question my sanity

With me being the player from Britain - that wasn't how we played it. The knights were at plus in the impact phase.

They still managed to contrive to lose 2-0 in the impact, disrupted and lost a base

[bbotus]

With me being the player from Britain - that wasn't how we played it. The knights were at plus in the impact phase.

They still managed to contrive to lose 2-0 in the impact, disrupted and lost a base

Ah, yes. Playing crusades, I once had a BG of knights charge in and rout in melee. My general followed them all the way across the board and they never came back. Wasn't my day.

[dave_r]

With me being the player from Britain - that wasn't how we played it. The knights were at plus in the impact phase.

They still managed to contrive to lose 2-0 in the impact, disrupted and lost a base

Ah, yes. Playing crusades, I once had a BG of knights charge in and rout in melee. My general followed them all the way across the board and they never came back. Wasn't my day.

Did I forget to mention that in the subsequent melee phase they broke and lost another base meaning they were removed from play in the JAP. I _think_ the general died as well. I lost two generals that game, one was on the right, I think the other was with that BG.

[Klaudius]

@Dave: Thank you for the clarification! Maybe Harry remembered it incorrectly because of the result of the impact combat. In any case, we talked about it at length and he was convinced that he was at + with the spears, and a week after we discussed it he said that he had asked one of the german players (I think one of the referees of the tournament) and got his interpretation confirmed. I guess I'll bring it up again with him, and at least I don't have to feel like a lunatic for doing so since apparently I'm not the only one thinking that both BGs can simultaneously be treated as charging.

Oh, and I just noticed that I can now post a link to the original battle report (I couldn't post a link to an external site in my first and second posts due to the anti-spam-policy of the forum), along with Harry's comment that started our discussion in the first place :
Battle report

I think these knights only lost one base and the commander lived (see here) but your other BG of knights lost two bases, a commander and fled in a similar situation.

(I love these battle reports, everything's well documented )

[HarryR]

What I understood:

A declares a charge on B
C declares a countercharge on A

So C gets the charging POAs against A (written in the rules), therefore C is the charger here, and A the defender (there is always a charger and a defender in a fight), but A is still charger against B.

If the countercharge of C is in the flank or rear, the charge a against B is canceled, and B has no effekts, no evade, no CT for beeing fragmented. A is defender against C.

But:
The convention in this situation is: Its possible to have two charger in a fight and no defender, and A also counts as charger against C, even he couldn't charge C, and C gets charger POAs, right?

[grahambriggs]

What I understood:

A declares a charge on B
C declares a countercharge on A

So C gets the charging POAs against A (written in the rules), therefore C is the charger here, and A the defender (there is always a charger and a defender in a fight), but A is still charger against B.

If the countercharge of C is in the flank or rear, the charge a against B is canceled, and B has no effekts, no evade, no CT for beeing fragmented. A is defender against C.

But:
The convention in this situation is: Its possible to have two charger in a fight and no defender, and A also counts as charger against C, even he couldn't charge C, and C gets charger POAs, right?

It is not true that there is always a charger and a "defender" in a fight. In many fights there are, but not all. In this circumstance the knights are charging because it is an interception charge. That charge crosses the path of the spears. The spears then carry out their charge, and the charge hits the knights.

[RobKhan]

HI Klaudius,

Don't worry about your sanity - you are like the rest of us - you play dice games with toy soldiers - look out, here comes nurse Ratchet

Robkhan

[petedalby]

This is covered in the FAQs although it could probably be clearer.

Do interceptors use the POAs for their troop type as if charging?
Yes. These factors are designed to represent their physical momentum of movement forward. So lancers intercepting
have the benefit of this. Certain foot intercepting mounted will find this difficult and lose POAs they would have if they
were instead receiving a mounted charge stationary.

Dave R has confirmed that it was played correctly and the Knights were on a +.

[philqw78]

Dave R has confirmed that it was played correctly and the Knights were on a +.

And still contrived to lose

Oh how I laughed

[HarryR]

Do interceptors use the POAs for their troop type as if charging?
Yes. These factors are designed to represent their physical momentum of movement forward. So lancers intercepting
have the benefit of this. Certain foot intercepting mounted will find this difficult and lose POAs they would have if they
were instead receiving a mounted charge stationary.

Yes, thats clear. But if the interceptors are now "flagged" as charging, then the origin charging BG counts as non-charging against the charging BG, because, the situation has changed now, as the origin charge was intercepted?

(its clear when intercpetors chargs flank or rear, then the origin charge is canceled anyway)
This situation is not common.

[bbotus]

But if the interceptors are now "flagged" as charging, then the origin charging BG counts as non-charging against the charging BG, because, the situation has changed now, as the origin charge was intercepted?

No, both BGs count as charging for determining POAs. The original charge is only cancelled if it is a flank/rear interception charge against them. (Hope I understood your comment correctly).

Remember, the original chargers are still making their charge move even though they are intercepted.

[dave_r]

An easy way to work out if you are charging or not is if your BG moved. If it moved you are charging, if it didn't you are not.

[HarryR]

Yes, my interpretation was that only one BG is charging, and the other one is non charging, and the origin charging stops (not beeing canceled like at rear/flank interception), when a charging BG is intercepted. My confusion was still about, to have two chargers.
But I think you have convinced me now

Anyway. I'll try ro roll 5s and 6s in the future, then it doesn't matter who is charging, and who not. (This does work Dave, doesn't it? *runandhide*)

[dave_r]

Anyway. I'll try ro roll 5s and 6s in the future, then it doesn't matter who is charging, and who not. (This does work Dave, doesn't it? *runandhide*)

It certainly worked in that particular instance...