When a flank charge isn't

[nikgaukroger]

One from Dave Allen from Britcon - can't recall it being posted yet so here goes.

To qualify as a flank charge the rules say you cannot wheel if the charge starts within 1MU.

Therefore, if you start within 1MU and wheel it is not a flank charge and so the impact is worked out as if hitting the front rank base. (Dave managed to engineer a situation where it was to his advantage to wheel a potential flank charge so as to hit two enemy BGs but he started within 1MU of one!)

I believe this is correct but as it seemed to stump Terry when I mentioned it I thought I'd mention it here as well

[lawrenceg]

I note that it says ..."at least 1 MU away fromthe battlegroup being charged ".

This implies it would be a flank charge on the further target, but not on the one that was less than 1 MU away.

[shall]

Yes that's correct nick. The fight against the one inside 1MU would be fought as a frontal charge, and therefore conform to front as well if possible.

The second BG complicates it and is a new one. Indeed it would count as a flank charge onthe one that was outside 1MU as far as I can see. Hitting the second BG would I imagine make it impossible to conform so it would be fighting target 1 as if fighting the front in Melee and Target 2 as if fighting flank. Cool.

Interesting one that.

Si

[madcam2us]

Very timely,

Played yesterday and had the same situation. One BG pinned the enemy frontally (not yet in combat as my opponent knew what was coming and didn't want to charge; allowing me to intercept) I was 2x2, expanded out to 4x1 getting two bases completely behind his front at appx a 45 degree angle. Next turn, he failed his CMT (love that quality rolls don't matter) and had to charge. I declare intercept and since I get to move first (the angle was so if he moved first, I would have been within 1 inch) I'm able to wheel in order to get my front edge on his side. Without wheeling, I would have hit his front corner.

Glad to see we worked it out correctly much to my opponents chagrin.

Madcam.

[hammy]

Very timely,

Played yesterday and had the same situation. One BG pinned the enemy frontally (not yet in combat as my opponent knew what was coming and didn't want to charge; allowing me to intercept) I was 2x2, expanded out to 4x1 getting two bases completely behind his front at appx a 45 degree angle. Next turn, he failed his CMT (love that quality rolls don't matter) and had to charge. I declare intercept and since I get to move first (the angle was so if he moved first, I would have been within 1 inch) I'm able to wheel in order to get my front edge on his side. Without wheeling, I would have hit his front corner.

Glad to see we worked it out correctly much to my opponents chagrin.

Madcam.

That sounds wrong to me. Intercept charges can only wheel if they themselves would be hit in the flank if they didn't wheel. I think you should have charged directly forwards and hit the front corner thus making it a frontal charge.

[philqw78]

Intercepts can only hit a flank if they are in a position to hit the flank legally before the charging unit moves, this then cancelling the charge completely.
And also see hammy's comment below

[hammy]

Intercepts can only hit a flank if they are in a position to hit the flank legally before the charging unit moves, this then cancelling the charge completely.

I think in the example mentioned this was the case but it required a wheel to hit the flank and avoid the front corner. Intercept charges cannot wheel for this purpose. The only wheel allowed is to avoid the intercept charge itself being hit in the flank.

[madcam2us]

I disagree...


Pg 63...

An InterCharge must be directly forward (EXCEPT AS BELOW)... It must either:

-first bullet not applicible as it describes allowing a wheel if the directly forward move makes the Intercepting BG's flank open up to the chargers.

-Contact the flank or rear of the enemy battle group. This is only permitted if the intercepting BG started in a position to charge the flank or rear of the enemy BG as previously described.

It _PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBES_ legal flank/rear attack on pg 56.

2nd bullet - For a charge to qualify as a flank charge, it cannot include a wheel _UNLESS_ starting at least 1 MU away with its nearest pont.


Wheels are allowed in Intercept Charges under the RAW as long as the start outside the 1 MU require, have 0 bases to the front of the target and at least one base wholly behind a line extending from the targets front.

Madcam.
The RAW makes it clear one can InterCharge on the flank with a wheel.

[hammy]

I disagree...


Pg 63...

An InterCharge must be directly forward (EXCEPT AS BELOW)... It must either:

-first bullet not applicible as it describes allowing a wheel if the directly forward move makes the Intercepting BG's flank open up to the chargers.

-Contact the flank or rear of the enemy battle group. This is only permitted if the intercepting BG started in a position to charge the flank or rear of the enemy BG as previously described.

It _PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBES_ legal flank/rear attack on pg 56.

2nd bullet - For a charge to qualify as a flank charge, it cannot include a wheel _UNLESS_ starting at least 1 MU away with its nearest pont.


Wheels are allowed in Intercept Charges under the RAW as long as the start outside the 1 MU require, have 0 bases to the front of the target and at least one base wholly behind a line extending from the targets front.

Madcam.
The RAW makes it clear one can InterCharge on the flank with a wheel.

You are not the only person to think this and I was going to point you to the FAQ which I believed covered the issue but after checking it isn't covered

The problem is that this part of the rules is not particularly well worded. There are two possible types of interception charge: one that crosses the path of the charging enemy BG and one that hits the flank. An interception charge cannot hit the front of an enemy BG. These are the two types of interception charge described on P63. There is only mention of wheeling in the first of the two and then only to wheel towards the enemy so as to avoid being hit in the flank. The second type of interception charge makes no mention of wheeling at all.

To presume that being allowed to wheel to avoid being hit in the flank also allows any other wheeling is IMO adding 2+2 and getting 5 or more.

I am sure there is a thread about this on the forum and I am sure that my way is the way it should be played. Your interpretation is not unique and as such I think there should be an FAQ entry to cover it.

[madcam2us]

I disagree...


Pg 63...

An InterCharge must be directly forward (EXCEPT AS BELOW)... It must either:

-first bullet not applicible as it describes allowing a wheel if the directly forward move makes the Intercepting BG's flank open up to the chargers.

-Contact the flank or rear of the enemy battle group. This is only permitted if the intercepting BG started in a position to charge the flank or rear of the enemy BG as previously described.

It _PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBES_ legal flank/rear attack on pg 56.

2nd bullet - For a charge to qualify as a flank charge, it cannot include a wheel _UNLESS_ starting at least 1 MU away with its nearest pont.


Wheels are allowed in Intercept Charges under the RAW as long as the start outside the 1 MU require, have 0 bases to the front of the target and at least one base wholly behind a line extending from the targets front.

Madcam.
The RAW makes it clear one can InterCharge on the flank with a wheel.

You are not the only person to think this and I was going to point you to the FAQ which I believed covered the issue but after checking it isn't covered

The problem is that this part of the rules is not particularly well worded. There are two possible types of interception charge: one that crosses the path of the charging enemy BG and one that hits the flank. An interception charge cannot hit the front of an enemy BG. These are the two types of interception charge described on P63. There is only mention of wheeling in the first of the two and then only to wheel towards the enemy so as to avoid being hit in the flank. The second type of interception charge makes no mention of wheeling at all.

SJ: I disagree. RAW is clear and written perfectly understandable. Whether the intent is what was acheive is immaterial as the rules are out there. (See, Shermans have FA7!)The second type of intercept charges specifically mention wheeling thru the manner in which a legal charge can be achieved. All one has to due is satisfy page 56.


To presume that being allowed to wheel to avoid being hit in the flank also allows any other wheeling is IMO adding 2+2 and getting 5 or more.

SJ: Only if you went to public school. I've met you and am confident that doesn't apply to you. However, IMO you are going by intent. Intent is not in the rules. You have the benefit of being involved from the get-go. This, unlike FA7 shermans is not a typo. I'm confident i'm not performing an interpretation either. Just going by the logic spelled out in the RAW.


I am sure there is a thread about this on the forum and I am sure that my way is the way it should be played. Your interpretation is not unique and as such I think there should be an FAQ entry to cover it.

SJ: Doesnt' matter if the FAQ changes the RAW, as not everyone downloads such things and would counter what is spelled out quite clearly. I challenge you to find me where it specifically says Intercept charges ONLY move directly forward. We both know there are two instances where they don't have to. The first we agree upon. The second, you introduce intent. I play RAW.

Madcam.

[hammy]

Doesnt' matter if the FAQ changes the RAW, as not everyone downloads such things and would counter what is spelled out quite clearly. I challenge you to find me where it specifically says Intercept charges ONLY move directly forward. We both know there are two instances where they don't have to. The first we agree upon. The second, you introduce intent. I play RAW.

Well I would argue that the rules don't allow a wheel during a interception charge that is hitting a flank.

The rules state that:

 An interception charge must be directly forward (except as below) and can be up to the limit of the battle group’s ZOI. It cannot include any shifts, changes of formation or interpenetrations. It must either:
o Cross the path of the charging enemy battle group. Interceptors move before chargers. If this would result in the enemy chargers contacting its flank, the intercepting battle group can and must wheel towards them to avoid this, its total move distance including the wheel not exceeding 4 MUs if mounted, 2 MUs if foot. If it cannot avoid being contacted in the flank, the interception is cancelled.
o 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 and despite the fact that it happens in the enemy’s turn, is treated as a normal flank/rear charge.

The only mention in this section about wheeling (i.e. as below) is in the first of the two options and states when you can and must wheel. There is no mention in the second option of wheeling and as that is the one you are talking about to get a flank charge I believe you are missreading the rules.

[madcam2us]

Doesnt' matter if the FAQ changes the RAW, as not everyone downloads such things and would counter what is spelled out quite clearly. I challenge you to find me where it specifically says Intercept charges ONLY move directly forward. We both know there are two instances where they don't have to. The first we agree upon. The second, you introduce intent. I play RAW.

Well I would argue that the rules don't allow a wheel during a interception charge that is hitting a flank.


SJ: Then you are ignoring the second bullet completely as it specifically allows one to do so, in the same language that page 56 allows you to do so.

The rules state that:

 An interception charge must be directly forward (except as below) and can be up to the limit of the battle group’s ZOI. It cannot include any shifts, changes of formation or interpenetrations. It must either:
o Cross the path of the charging enemy battle group. Interceptors move before chargers. If this would result in the enemy chargers contacting its flank, the intercepting battle group can and must wheel towards them to avoid this, its total move distance including the wheel not exceeding 4 MUs if mounted, 2 MUs if foot. If it cannot avoid being contacted in the flank, the interception is cancelled.
o 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 and despite the fact that it happens in the enemy’s turn, is treated as a normal flank/rear charge.

SJ:Question "....as previously described" in relation to flank/rear charges is in reference to what on page 63? Answer, the manner in which a flank or rear may be contacted during an interception charge. One must then refer to page 56 and the manner in which one can acheive such contacts. If one can satisfy all of page 56 with all its restrictions then one can do so in intercepts..

The only mention in this section about wheeling (i.e. as below) is in the first of the two options and states when you can and must wheel. There is no mention in the second option of wheeling and as that is the one you are talking about to get a flank charge I believe you are missreading the rules.

SJ:NO, and you are ignoring my point. At no time did I say wheeling was mentioned in the second case. I point out that the RAW allows one to contact a flank/rear during a interception charge if it can satisfy page 56 (the place where legal flank/rear charges are discribed). ON page 56 it allows one to wheel as long as you start 1 MU away and you have no bases the the front of the target and one full base is wholly behind the front of the target.

[madcam2us]

We at this point have express our views. I don't think either will change the veiw of the other.

You have access to RBS/TS/Si

Ask them. Post their responce, if you would.

Scott

[hammy]

We at this point have express our views. I don't think either will change the veiw of the other.

You have access to RBS/TS/Si

Ask them. Post their responce, if you would.

Scott

I have posted this to the authors for comment. I genuinely think you are reading something into the rules that is plainly not there. To consider (except as below) to include a reference to a previous page is IMO pushing it but as I said earlier you are not the first person to have thought this way.

[lawrenceg]

It is true that the only explicit permission to wheel is for non-flank interception.

On the other hand, for a flank intercept it says it "is treated as a normal flank/rear charge", and a normal flank/rear charge is allowed to wheel. This could therefore be taken as implicit permission to wheel. If wheeling is not allowed, then it is not being treated as a normal flank/rear charge. Therefore wheeling must be allowed. QED

IIRC the authors have stated on this forum that they intended only the explicit permission to count.

Cue FAQ or erratum.

[madcam2us]

My concern with errata and other downloads, is the opening of pandora's box to what it leads. I play competitively (ie tournaments). I hate having something apparently contradictory (to me at least) to the RAW being available to those that follow this sort of thing on various internet outlets.

Many bemoan the days with a certain rules set that had many "answers directly from the mouth" photocopied ready to produce.

And thank you Larry for summarizing my point more simply than I was able.

Madcam.

[ethan]

I hate having something apparently contradictory (to me at least) to the RAW being available to those that follow this sort of thing on various internet outlets.

At this point in the life of the internet I don't think having things like FAQs "only" being avaialble on the internet is unacceptable. Competition organizers should probably note that the comp will use the FAQ avaialble at www.whatever.com but that is not unacceptable for me at least at this point. Yes, I suppose some people will get caught out, but really how many people have no access to the internet at this point? Does that outweigh the benefit of having an author supported official FAQ? The FAQ wins out IMO.

Let's face it, even finding out about tournaments without the internet is difficult these days...

[philqw78]

www.whatever.com

Hmm no FAQ there

[expendablecinc]

I disagree...


Pg 63...

An InterCharge must be directly forward (EXCEPT AS BELOW)... It must either:

-first bullet not applicible as it describes allowing a wheel if the directly forward move makes the Intercepting BG's flank open up to the chargers.

-Contact the flank or rear of the enemy battle group. This is only permitted if the intercepting BG started in a position to charge the flank or rear of the enemy BG as previously described.

It _PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBES_ legal flank/rear attack on pg 56.

2nd bullet - For a charge to qualify as a flank charge, it cannot include a wheel _UNLESS_ starting at least 1 MU away with its nearest pont.


Wheels are allowed in Intercept Charges under the RAW as long as the start outside the 1 MU require, have 0 bases to the front of the target and at least one base wholly behind a line extending from the targets front.

Madcam.
The RAW makes it clear one can InterCharge on the flank with a wheel.

You are not the only person to think this and I was going to point you to the FAQ which I believed covered the issue but after checking it isn't covered

The problem is that this part of the rules is not particularly well worded. There are two possible types of interception charge: one that crosses the path of the charging enemy BG and one that hits the flank. An interception charge cannot hit the front of an enemy BG. These are the two types of interception charge described on P63. There is only mention of wheeling in the first of the two and then only to wheel towards the enemy so as to avoid being hit in the flank. The second type of interception charge makes no mention of wheeling at all.

SJ: I disagree. RAW is clear and written perfectly understandable. Whether the intent is what was acheive is immaterial as the rules are out there. (See, Shermans have FA7!)The second type of intercept charges specifically mention wheeling thru the manner in which a legal charge can be achieved. All one has to due is satisfy page 56.


To presume that being allowed to wheel to avoid being hit in the flank also allows any other wheeling is IMO adding 2+2 and getting 5 or more.

SJ: Only if you went to public school. I've met you and am confident that doesn't apply to you. However, IMO you are going by intent. Intent is not in the rules. You have the benefit of being involved from the get-go. This, unlike FA7 shermans is not a typo. I'm confident i'm not performing an interpretation either. Just going by the logic spelled out in the RAW.


I am sure there is a thread about this on the forum and I am sure that my way is the way it should be played. Your interpretation is not unique and as such I think there should be an FAQ entry to cover it.

SJ: Doesnt' matter if the FAQ changes the RAW, as not everyone downloads such things and would counter what is spelled out quite clearly. I challenge you to find me where it specifically says Intercept charges ONLY move directly forward. We both know there are two instances where they don't have to. The first we agree upon. The second, you introduce intent. I play RAW.

Madcam.

But if youre opponent reads it the other way what do you do? If the RAW can be interpreted differently you are stuck. You dont need to find where is says what interception sharges cant do - only what it can do.... and what they can do is wheel to avoid getting hit in the flank or go straight ahead.

[shall]

My concern with errata and other downloads, is the opening of pandora's box to what it leads. I play competitively (ie tournaments). I hate having something apparently contradictory (to me at least) to the RAW being available to those that follow this sort of thing on various internet outlets.

FAQs

Having played for 15 years now on the comp circuit I think some sort of FAQ/clarry is a good thing and needed however hard you try. It is simply that in friendlies people tend to give way easily or chuck a dice for something, but in the heat of the last round of a comp people are more inclined to stand their ground in the hunt for glory. However hard you try, one person can always interpret something differently to another - its human nature.

The good news on FOG is that there have been relatively few clarries and FAQs needed - so far we have it pretty short cf any others I know. So anyone concerned of a mass of interps they won't be aware of need not lose too much sleep if playing FOG.

WHEELS AND INTERCEPTS

On the above specific issue, the wheel is limited to the first bullet point only. The principle was always that intercepts go directly forward and either block a charge or hit a flank or rear by doing so. We found one exception needed where a BG could ride in front of enemy, blocking a charge, but in doing so have their flank hanging out and this wasn't logical. We therefore allowed a wheel in this specific case only, so that they could intercept putting themselves so that they would be hit forntally by the chargers.

Put an intercepting BG at 90 degrees to a charge but positioned 1mm ahead of the front line of the chargers and you will see this in action. Without this rule the intercept runs right across the front of the chargers 1mm from them, with its flank exposed. With the rule it wheels slightly towards the charger so that its front corner will be hit.

That's it. Otherwise its dead ahead with interceptors.

Si