charging / interception complication

paulcummins · Post by **paulcummins** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:52 am

Unit A declares a charge on unit Z. Sadly for A there is unit Y sitting on its flank. Luckily for Y unit B is sitting on Y's flank and declares a charge on Y. This stops Y from doing the flank intercept. So far so good for the early roman letters, but confusion is caused by unit X declaring a non flank interception on B.

We took it that Y cannot intercept A as it is the *target of the charge*, even though it doesnt reach it because of X's interception. So A gets to stuff Z even though Y is sitting there and watching.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 7:29 am

I'd agree with that since the charge is not cancelled so it is still a target and targets of a charge cannot intercept. (the letters got a bit confusing tho)

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:49 am

An interesting theoretical question but actually irreleant....

Only the non phasing player can intercept. As Y and Z are BGs belonging to the phasing player and presumably X is too then X cannot intercept B as non phasing BGs can't intercept.

If you allowed interceptions of interceptions things could get very silly very quickly.

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:14 am

A and B are the phasing BGs.

A charges Z

B charges Y preventing Y from doing a flank intercept on A

X intercepts B preventing it from contacting Y.

Does this mean Y is no longer the target of a charge and can intercept A ? (IMO no it can't )

Confusion increased becase Paul wrote "Luckily for Y" in his original post when he meant "Luckily for A"

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:20 am

Doh!

I agree then that Y can't intercept as it was the target of a charge. There is no requirement for B to actually be charged, just to be the target.

[edited to save further confusion]

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:22 am

hammy wrote:Doh!

I agree then that B can't intercept as it was the target of a charge. There is no requirement for B to actually be charged, just to be the target.

You mean "Y" not "B", right?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:30 am

Pictures are so much easier than letters

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:32 am

I am really only half here this morning....

My close shave at the bowling alley last night has addled my brain. It was the first week of the new league season so nobody has any handicap and your score on the night will set your handicap for the next week. My first game started with nine straight strikes and with my heart pounding like a really pounding thing I went for the tenth, got the ball in what I felt was the pocket and left the 10 pin wobbling in the corner of the set laughing at me

I went on to miss the darned 10 pin and only got a 267

paulcummins · Post by **paulcummins** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:51 am

this may make it more clear

paulcummins · Post by **paulcummins** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:56 am

oh, and A and B declared all thier charges before any intercepts, the idea of Bs charge being to stop A getting flanked by Y, and not really worrying about having to fight X.

The big payof for all this risky business was to hit a BG of LB (Z) from behind with a BG of Dailami (A)

sagji · Post by **sagji** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:06 am

Y can't intercept as at the point of declaring interceptions X hasn't yet moved to block the charge, thus Y is still the target of B's charge. The same rule also covers that Y would still be eligible to evade, or have to test if fragmented - i.e. at the point of decision/test it is a target.

paulcummins · Post by **paulcummins** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:08 am

just as I thought

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:09 am

Cheers Paul,

I am possitive that B's charge cancels any potential intercept by Y. Y is the target of a charge even if that charge will not make it into contact with Y as a reuslt of a further intercept.

Actually if your diagram is fully to scale I suspect that B could still hit Y with a wheel towards the left but that is only bases on the size of the blocks in the picture.

berthier · Post by **berthier** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:45 pm

Hammy,

If B wheels to the left would that not allow for fewer bases of B to contact Y than would if it moved straight ahead? Don't have the rules in front of me so can't give you the exact page number.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:56 pm

It is the number of bases fighting at impact that cannot be reduced by wheeling - it doesn't matter which enemy they are fighting.

berthier · Post by **berthier** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:28 pm

Well then. Charge on. Thanks for that clarification, Nik.

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:48 pm

Nice drawing Paul!

Pete

paulcummins · Post by **paulcummins** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:29 pm

ahh, the advantages of being a teacher - whiteboards are great for drawing diagrams, you can even look like some kind of master strategist if you get carried away

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 10:08 am

It is worthwhile noting that the result changes if X was doing a flank interception rather than a non-flank interception, in which case the flank interception cancels target B's charge completely (Rules p 63 col 2) so Y would no longer be the target of a charge and Y would be able to intercept after all.

Mike