Direction of charge.

[nikgaukroger]

I also do not see in the rules a requirement to provide a direction before evasion is resolved.

You mean apart from the bit at the top of page 66? This applies before an evade move is made (but after the decision to evade has been taken).

[berthier]

And Evasion comes after Interception Charges per the turn sequence which again poses the issue of the charge direction.

Page 52 Does not state the charging player had to declare the target of the charge, it says that there has to be at least one enemy base that can be legaly contacted.

I think the issue that is being lost here (and the one Clay is trying to make) is why muddy the rules by making an exception to the charge declaration sequence. Why not have one rule to bind it all together?

Just my nickle's worth.

[rbodleyscott]

Why not have one rule to bind it all together?

One rule to rule them all and in the darkness bind them?

[jre]

I also do not see in the rules a requirement to provide a direction before evasion is resolved.

You mean apart from the bit at the top of page 66? This applies before an evade move is made (but after the decision to evade has been taken).

That is why I excepted it if there was an evasion to resolve.

As I see it (always a fallacy, but useful to accept a rule set) the group charges against a target, avoiding both target and foes. If an enemy tries to intercept either they charge headlong into them, or if the distance and the relative speeds favor them, avoid them and try to hit the original target.

If the target is evading, you are not aiming at a stationary target but a moving target, and that commits you more into a course of action, including potential secondary targets. Which is why rather than commit to a target, you commit to a direction.

All in my personal interpretation, of course.

José

[SirGarnet]

After reviewing a half dozen of the major threads on this topic, I will start a new thread specifically on writing a FAQ describing the rules for charges. I'll keep my plugs for changes in this thread.

Mike

[MkV]

In the above situation there had only been one previous charge and two evades.

And one interception

Both charges were along measuring sticks that had been placed after evade and receiving responses were declared and before VMDs were rolled. As described in the rule book.

This is the entire point of contention. The sticks were placed after the interception move. The interception that is required to cross the path of the charge. It creates a "Chicken or the Egg" scenario. You never would have modified the charge to go that direction had the interception not been moved into the path. The interception could not have been moved into the path had you declared the charge in that direction.

Then arguing started, a copy of the FAQ was found and Clay pointed out the exception requiring charge direction to be declared before responses when potential interceptors are around.

My point and others' was that even if the FAQ exception was pointed out by a player or Ref in the correct sequence of play the chargers would legally avoid the interceptors.

The thread is about exactly that point. According to the rule and the FAQ, You declared a charge that was going to cost you a LH unit. Clay then must stop you and point out your mistake by showing you the interception, thus allowing you to correct that mistake "in the correct turn sequence".

IMO it is MUCH cleaner to declare the direction at the time you declare the charge. It creates a "charge, reaction to the charge" turn sequence. Instead we currently have a "charge, reaction to the charge, reaction to the reaction" turn sequence.

[KingHassan]

My sticks were down before the chargers or interceptors moved and No actions or movements were contested until it was realized that even after stepping forward my LH did not contact the Cav attempting to intercept.

The interceptors started just a little too far away to insure prevention of a legal charge but it was a great response.

Mark,
You were aware of the FAQ exception requiring charge direction to be declared before responses and didn't mention it.
You asked me if the charge markers indicated direction and I stated openly that they did not and that the measuring sticks did.
The turn sequence was not being followed when evade moves were done before the intercept move.
You were supposed to be acting as a neutral referee and could have prevented all of the arguing and dramatics by pointing out proper rules and play instead of waiting.

I've chalked the experience up to lessons relearned and FoG is easily enjoyable enough to make up for any annoyances.

I apologize to Clay for my poor behavior.


JM

[MkV]

My sticks were down before the chargers or interceptors moved and No actions or movements were contested until it was realized that even after stepping forward my LH did not contact the Cav attempting to intercept.

The interceptors were moved first. Clay contested the movement when the LH wheeled to miss the interceptors. Had the LH moved directly forward they would have hit the cav and stepped forward into the original target.

The interceptors started just a little too far away to insure prevention of a legal charge but it was a great response.

Only a flank or rear interception can prevent a charge. The interceptors must break the path of the charge. These did until the path changed, or was clearly defined, depending on your point of view.

Mark,
You were aware of the FAQ exception requiring charge direction to be declared before responses and didn't mention it.

You placed Charge markers that are ARROWS to indicate your charges. I took those arrows to indicate direction. (apparently Clay did as well)

You asked me if the charge markers indicated direction and I stated openly that they did not and that the measuring sticks did.

Actually I didn't ask you anything. When you asked me to act as a referee and make a ruling, I said "The only thing I see to indicate your direction is your charge Arrows"
and you said, "those are only markers, the sticks indicate direction". I then asked where the sticks were for the rest of your charges. There were none.
A few minutes later you asked me to make a ruling and I said "You were intercepted".
You then accused me of "reaching" and asked Clay to step out side.

The turn sequence was not being followed when evade moves were done before the intercept move.

The interceptors were moved first. Then the the evader on the end was moved, the evader on the other end never moved at all because the game was called

You were supposed to be acting as a neutral referee and could have prevented all of the arguing and dramatics by pointing out proper rules and play instead of waiting.

I was not the referee. After about 10 minutes of arguing you asked me to make a call and I did. I was just watching the game while waiting for another opponent to show up. We don't have "Referees" on our Thursday Night pickup games.

I've chalked the experience up to lessons relearned and FoG is easily enjoyable enough to make up for any annoyances.

I agree.


As my last comment on this thread:

While I believe this thread is BECAUSE of your and Clay's game, it is not ABOUT your and Clay's game. It is about the sequence of play that leads to the situation.

I feel that the direction of the charge should be indicated at the time the charge is declared. That is not the way the rules and FAQ currently have it, and that should, IMO, be corrected.

Mark

[sagji]

Clearly we are playing differently. I do not see anywhere in the rules that the enemy charge must contact the intercept charge.

That is because there is no need of a rule - there is a rule that requires the interceptors to cross the path of the chargers.
This means that the interceptors must know the charge path before they intercept.
In other words the chargers don't wheel to avoid the interception, they simply say the interception is invalid as it doesn't cross their path.

An intercepting BG will allways be contacted by the charge - unless the charge is cancelled, or another interception prevents it being contacted.

[jre]

Now that I have seen the FAQ for the impact phase, I have to agree with you. However I dislike using a FAQ for what should be a rule addenda, because the solution is not obvious if you only use the book, as the current discussion shows.

José

[SirGarnet]

An intercepting BG will allways be contacted by the charge - unless the charge is cancelled, or another interception prevents it being contacted.

Agree, Sagji, but, just to lock down the logic and relevant rules:

- The interceptor is in the charge path so it necessarily will be contacted if the charge path does not change.
- The charge path only changes if all target BGs evade out of the original path of the charge and the charger decides to wheel "in an attempt to catch them." (p68)
- The interceptor may not have been an original target of the charge, but once it moves it is in the path of the charge it becomes a target. (p52)
- Therefore not all target BGs evaded out of the path of the charge so the charger may not change the charge path.
- Charger hits interceptor.

[sagji]

An intercepting BG will allways be contacted by the charge - unless the charge is cancelled, or another interception prevents it being contacted.

Agree, Sagji, but, just to lock down the logic and relevant rules:

- The interceptor is in the charge path so it necessarily will be contacted if the charge path does not change.
- The charge path only changes if all target BGs evade out of the original path of the charge and the charger decides to wheel "in an attempt to catch them." (p68)
- The interceptor may not have been an original target of the charge, but once it moves it is in the path of the charge it becomes a target. (p52)
- Therefore not all target BGs evaded out of the path of the charge so the charger may not change the charge path.
- Charger hits interceptor.

Correct - except the interceptor was not an original target of the charge as if it was it could not intercept.

The charger might not hit the interceptor - if evades, or other interceptors, block the charger it is possible the interceptor isn't hit, though this is very unusual.