The Agema were on the bench, but still Alex lost!

[verybizzyb]

That said. My personal view is that:

1. Broken down movement is an exercise in false accuracy as alternate bounds themselves are an abstraction that conflicts with this concept. To me it only applies in simultanous movement rules - which are hard work to play, and we therefore avoided.

2. I am for making things look as sensible and real as possible within any game abstraction. So I would favour the idea that their charge is cancelled but they are allowed to step forward. Then anything close like this results in a frontal contact which looks more real.

So I'm sort of with you Dave - we'll have to see if there is a consensus amongst the 3 authors and a way.

Just as an aside though - in this example the cavalry to the front actually rode up to the companions knowing that they couldn't get charged. This was to limit the move of the companions if they chose not to charge and just move. If the interceept step forward was allowed they would have stayed over 2MUs away.

Si

I totally agree with Point 1. Nothing more to be said as far as I'm concerned. Others will clearly feel differently and that's perfectly ok with me.

In respect of Point 2, when intercept charges occur other than from a flank, the original chargers may 'step forward' to contact their original target (an example is nicely demonstrated on pages 63/64 of the rules). Would it not be more consistent to allow this to all chargers who are 'intercepted'? Disaster may well (and I think will almost certainly) result for the chargers anyway so they will receive their due punishment for being caught in the flank BUT it will give that asthetic appearance of greater 'realism'?

The tactic of the Indian cavalry moving forward and actually halting in front of the Companions, knowing that they could not be charged due to the other Indian cavalry moving up onto the flank just seems totally wrong to me, however the explanation is dressed up. The game rules create a situation where Cavalry advance directly in front of, and within a MU, of Lancers (whose tactical function is to charge the enemy) knowing that the Lancers can't charge them because there is another cavalry unit on the flank of the lancers, although this flanking unit is 4 times further away! As I've said before, this is silly. Others disagree and that's fine.

For me, this type of intercept manouevre would feel totally at home in a DBM game. Everyone at my club, stopped playing DBM because of the silly manouevres players were carrying out which killed the enjoyment of the game for us all. I'm currently trying to arouse interest in FoG as it has presented itself as something new and totally different to DBM. Upon my first reading I believed it was but if manouvres such as this are going to be encouraged then I think I'm going to be up against a brick wall.

[shall]

Its more the result of choosing any alternate move system I would say.

Realism all depends on what one considers the real situation to be....

Si

[shall]

If you need to rely on such a change to win a game you are probably "missing the wood for the trees" as they say.

It takes a while to get the hang of tactical implications of new rules and that is the main issue Dave had - he just hasn't repogrammed himself into FOG mode yet (mind you that situation would look almost as ugly in DBM though).

Si

[verybizzyb]

If you need to rely on such a change to win a game you are probably "missing the wood for the trees" as they say.
Si

From my own point of view I think the Companions were pretty much doomed in that situation come what may (as I stated in an earlier posting), so I certainly haven't been arguing for any change in the rules that would see them sweep to victory! I believe Dave is of a similar opinion. I have also played enough wargames rules systems to be able to discern 'the woods for the trees' as well as that which appears sensible and that which appears silly. My argument has consistently been that what happened in this situation was silly and could be easily fixed without any major reworking of the rules. In fact such a fix would actually make the section on intercept charges more consistent.

Whilst some will believe the intercept rules as they stand are fine, others appear to accept that all is not well, though, considering the newness of the rules, reluctance to change something at this early stage is understandable. In this regard I am very surprised that, considering the massive amount of playtesting the rules appear to have undergone prior to publication, someone didn't raise this issue before.

For myself, Nik is correct in that this particular flaw will not stop me playing the rules. I do not intend playing in competitions anyway so a 'house-rule' will solve the problem. My initial enthusiasm may be a little dampened but it will take more than one silly event to extinguish it! It will also make club meetings quite interesting as a couple of players who are less than supportive of FoG will no doubt be raising the subject. (As an aside why do people who state they have no interest in a particular ruleset avidly follow debates about those rules...perhaps I'm just naive!)

It will be interesting to see how cavalry commanders react to the tactical possibilities offered by the intercept charge. I'm sure that there are a substantial number out there who would never have given the subject little real consideration had not Dave's Companions so gallently sacrificed themselves...

I don't intend continuing this thread (unless something new is raised by someone else) as I've stated my position and received an appropriate response. Thanks to all.

[davem]

If you need to rely on such a change to win a game you are probably "missing the wood for the trees" as they say.
Si

From my own point of view I think the Companions were pretty much doomed in that situation come what may (as I stated in an earlier posting), so I certainly haven't been arguing for any change in the rules that would see them sweep to victory! I believe Dave is of a similar opinion. I have also played enough wargames rules systems to be able to discern 'the woods for the trees' as well as that which appears sensible and that which appears silly. My argument has consistently been that what happened in this situation was silly and could be easily fixed without any major reworking of the rules. In fact such a fix would actually make the section on intercept charges more consistent.

Whilst some will believe the intercept rules as they stand are fine, others appear to accept that all is not well, though, considering the newness of the rules, reluctance to change something at this early stage is understandable. In this regard I am very surprised that, considering the massive amount of playtesting the rules appear to have undergone prior to publication, someone didn't raise this issue before.

For myself, Nik is correct in that this particular flaw will not stop me playing the rules. I do not intend playing in competitions anyway so a 'house-rule' will solve the problem. My initial enthusiasm may be a little dampened but it will take more than one silly event to extinguish it! It will also make club meetings quite interesting as a couple of players who are less than supportive of FoG will no doubt be raising the subject. (As an aside why do people who state they have no interest in a particular ruleset avidly follow debates about those rules...perhaps I'm just naive!)

It will be interesting to see how cavalry commanders react to the tactical possibilities offered by the intercept charge. I'm sure that there are a substantial number out there who would never have given the subject little real consideration had not Dave's Companions so gallently sacrificed themselves...

I don't intend continuing this thread (unless something new is raised by someone else) as I've stated my position and received an appropriate response. Thanks to all.

Very succinctly put, I think you're reading my mind

Can I make one thing clear _I am not advocating pro-rata movement_ I cited it as an example of how this sort of thing was dealt with before (some might say badly).

As you and Simon have pointed out, moving the Indian Cv up because they "knew" they couldn't be charged, is....well it could be a number of things, but silly will do

Yes, I know my Companions were doomed and that is was my fault, but in dying they have highlighted this point which I predict will be a bone of contention when experienced players perform this on less experienced.

Wrong may be a strong word to use to descibe this, Simon. What do you suggest?

Regards

Dave M

BTW if anyone pulls this on me down the club tonight, Ray and his chair won't have nothing on me!!

[nikgaukroger]

BTW if anyone pulls this on me down the club tonight, Ray and his chair won't have nothing on me!!

If you screw up and let it happen again you deserve a Ray projected chair aimed at you

[shall]

Now calm down clam down (said with liverpulian accent)

Its only a game - its not real!

Si

[hazelbark]

But isn't the right answer in this situation for the Agema to charge both mounted units?

Then they can't intercept and its all good.

Those bow back there may complicate things.

Probalby also suggests that when you go hunting like this you start expanding to avoid these problems and home your POA ++ and elite status sees you through the day.

[shall]

He couldn't Dan.

The flank cavalry are shown having intercepted but they were safely a couple of MUs away when he charged.

But if they had been close he could have got away with it - except then the bowmen would have charged him instead. Mind you those companions are a bit tough - there was no easy killing them even then.

Si

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

I've gone through this thread in some detail - more for consideration as to home games than for any suggestion for a change to the published rules (see richard's post above).

Let's assume a 'house rule' of allowing an intercepted unit to 'step forward' even if charged in flank or rear (presumably one would have to allow rear intercept chargers to step forward as well??).

Adopting this rule would probably have meant that Simon kept his Indian cavalry unit in front of the agema just out of 2 MU range. One upside is that this would allow the agema more freedom to manouevre if they chose not to charge as they'll be outside ZOI. Mind you I am not sure if this would have done them any good as it looks like they would still have been charged by all and sundry in Simon's next move.

If the agema elected to charge anyway, then even if Simon's Indian cavalry to the front had been 2 and a bit MU away, the flanking Indian cavalry are very unlikely to have been able to be a valid target for the charge [I think they'd have to be about 1 MU for that] hence they would still get to intercept charge, still cancel the agema's charge and there would be no target within 2 MU for the agema to step forward into? The only upside - in this particular situation - is that it might look a bit better?

Or am I missing something?

Regards

[dave_r]

As far as I can see from the situation a unit of Cavalry became isolated and were then hit in the flank. In game terms this meant the Companians moved up as close as they could and then got hit in the flank when they charged.

From my understanding of ancient warfare, when formed bodies of "heavies" got hit in the flank (by other heavies) they were dead. As a formation they simply ceased to exist.

The commanders on the ground new this and once enemy had gotten behind them they either stopped or ran away. Is this not what happened here?

[Katsu]

Dave,

How far away were the Indian Cav when they started their intercept?

[nikgaukroger]

The maximum they can have been is 4MU as that is the limit of the intercept zone.

Thus in their own move the Indians could have been 9MU away, moved 5 MU and been 4 MU away from the Agema. IMO in game terms Dave's mistake (at a guess) was not appreciating this distance and (possibly) not realising the implications of the cancellation of a charge when you are intercepted in the flank or rear - the sort of things we all are doing as we learn FoG

Obviously his thoughts and comments as to the correctness of the rules representation is a different matter.

[WhiteKnight]

Hi all

Have thought long and hard about the varoius viewpoints put forward about this one!

I do agree with all those that say no rule changes at this stage. For competition play, its essential that we all live with the rules as written and clarify "odd" situations in line with the letter of the rules and official FAQ, so even if we dont agree, we all know where we stand!

However, in a "friendly" game, where all concerned agree, I wouldn't have a problem with "odd" situations being played out as those involved wish or decided on a dice roll, with the proviso that its wise to check the letter of the rules for future reference, not guess what the rules might say!

After all , going back to the origins of this post, what the Companions or their commander might think or do could be rationalised in a number of ways, like those near the flank threat panicking whilst those at the other end of a very large group of squadrons steam on in unaware of the threat!

Martin

[verybizzyb]

As a couple of new posts have been made I just thought I would reply.

Regarding the tactical wisdom of allowing the Companions to stray into this position, I am not going to say anything other than that which both Dave (the original poster) and I have maintained throughout - neither of us have requested any change in the rules that would allow the Companions to charge to glorious victory. Our (I believe) main bone of contention is that the Companions started their move with 1 MU of the Indians directly to their front but were not allowed to contact them at all because a unit at least 4 times that distance away (quite legally) cancelled their charge. I believe this is just silly, however you may wish to dress it up. I accept that the Indians should be allowed to carry out their intercept charge BUT that (as with other intercept charge rules) the Companions should be allowed to step forward into the Indians to their front, which would reflect the far more plausible scenario described by Martin. This would still result in their (almost certain) destruction but would satisfy the aesthetics of the game, which for me is certainly a very big factor, as well as relecting what I believe to be the most realistic outcome.

I have not read any ancient sources describing the event of a body of heavy cavalry attacking another body of heavy cavlry in the flank so I cannot comment, other than to say that my common sense tells me the distinct advantage would be with the flank attackers. That would remain the situation on the tabletop if the Companions were allowed to step forward so I'm uncertain of the point being made. However, I'm certain that there is no historical reference to Companions halting directly in front of, and a very short distance from, enemy cavalry because other enemy cavalry threatens their flank from a distance four times greater that of their target. Their situation is dire but, for cavalry of this type of tactical doctrine, standing still is simply not on the agenda. They would either continue their charge in the hope of cutting their way out of a very bad place or they would run like hell (unlikely for this troop type I think but would not discount it entirely). For me, the most likely scenario by far is that the squadrons seeing the coming flank attack would try and counter it whilst the others charged on in total ignorance - a situation easily reflected on the table by the stepping forward procedure.

[davidandlynda]

But as Simon has said the Indians wouldn't have been there had the rules allowed stepping forward,he moved to them

[jdm]

I thought it just worth clarifying a point here. It’s always dangerous to say never, but the official position is that we will not be changing the rules from that written in the rule book, at least not anytime soon.
The purpose of the FAQ is to clear up and clarify any points that need extra explanation.
This was always going to be a function of the web site. The alternative would have been a much more legalistic and detailed approach to the main rule book and whilst we wanted the book to be “precise” we felt that a balance needed to be struck. The luxury of a dedicated web site and forum makes these things possible

Regards
JDM

[hammy]

As I have played more games of FoG this kind of silly situation has cropped up less and less. I suspct that as I learn the game I make sure that I don't get into the mess in the first place.

Everyone who played DBM surely remembers leaving a base at an angle behind another base and recoiling to just touch it thue preventing the recoil and both elements being destroyed as a result. The angled element blocking a recoil is a game mechanism much like the intercept charge.

Personally I would far rather have a black and white intercept charge rule like we do than have to get the dividers out and measure everything in fractions of a move. Not stepping forwards is perhaps the only slight odd thing but it is in the rules so lets play the game that way for a while and see how often this issue crops up.

The long and the short of it is that the companions in this game were in an untennable possition. I suspect that whatevere they did they would be charged in the flank by either the bow or one or other cavalry BG. Perhaps not exactly when they did but it would have happened eventually. When players are more experienced with the game they will see this kind of posstion developing and react accordingly.

[benny]

As a complete FoG newbie this has been an intriguing thread to follow with some thought provoking viewpoints being shared.

However, what strikes me is that this sort of thing could well become the sort of maneuver that 'ruthless' veterans pull on unsuspecting novices. On the one hand you can justify it as the sort of 'tough love' that such people need while they learn the ropes. On the other it could easily become the something that turns new comers off the rules - the comparison with blocking recoils in DBM being very apt in this case.

It's a fine line that the design team are going to have to tread if they want the system to retain its intuitive 'user friendly' reputation.

cheers

Benny

[verybizzyb]

But as Simon has said the Indians wouldn't have been there had the rules allowed stepping forward,he moved to them

Which is one of the main threads of the argument. By allowing or actively encouraging such a tactic I feel the rules are creating a 'credibility' problem. If the Indians had been forced to stay away or face being hit by stepping forward then the distance ratio would have been much less and the whole incident appear less absurd. As it stands the frontal Indians can move to within 1mm of the Companions and remain perfectly safe as the Companions cannot touch them. Sorry but this just doesn't seem right and, as I stated previously, I'm amazed that this wasn't brought up during the play-testing these rules have undergone. From what I've read (much of it on this website) these rules must be some of the most playtested rules ever written. Perhaps the problem is that too many of the play testers were experienced competition gamers and therefore such difficulties didn't arise? Obviously I don't know everyone who playtested the rules, though those I do know were all competitive DBM players so perhaps the rule testing focussed more on trying to eliminate the problems that those rules had run into?