Interception Charges

[sagji]

2. become a "normal" charge in which case the LH have full "response" rights such as electing to evade rather than being forced to stand still and get hit in the rear?

Intercepts move before evades - so they sill be contacted before they can evade.
(as per the 'sequence of action' table)

No enemy interecptions move before enemy evades - a friendly evade in response to an enemy interception would be a sub part of the item interception moves

Also.... From the official FAQ:

What happens if charging skirmishers are themselves intercepted by non-skirmishers, can they evade?

An interception or evade is a response to a charge. It is not a response to an intercept charge. Troops therefore cannot evade from interceptors. They cannot halt 1 MU away from the interceptors either.

Rationale: Once skirmishers are committed to an all out charge they are committed.

This is missing the key fact that an intercept charge that contacts the flank or rear of the intercepted BG is treated as a charge (P63 last sentance) and thus an evade is a permitted response.

[terrys]

No enemy interecptions move before enemy evades - a friendly evade in response to an enemy interception would be a sub part of the item interception moves

There is no 'sub-part' involved.

Sequence is:
Declare all charges.
CMT for skirmishers or missile foot wishing to charge non-skirmishers.
CMT for shock troops wishing to avoid charging.
CMT for skirmishers not wishing to evade non-skirmishers.
Resolve cohesion tests for FRAGMENTED troops being charged. If they break: Resolve cohesion tests for seeing them break.
Make their initial rout move.
Make interception charges.
Make evade moves.
Resolve cohesion tests for FRAGMENTED troops being charged as a result of intervening friends evading. If they break:
Resolve cohesion tests for seeing them break. Make their initial rout move.
Make charge moves.

The 'Make interception charges' is deliberately BEFORE 'Make evade moves'
just as 'Make charge moves' is deliberately AFTER 'Make evade moves'
There is no 'friendly evade in response to an enemy interception'

Under the section 'Sequences of charges and responses' we have the following:

Each charge and any responses to it must be actioned in the order listed in the full turn sequence at the end of the book,

The FAQ is quite catagoric.

This is missing the key fact that an intercept charge that contacts the flank or rear of the intercepted BG is treated as a charge (P63 last sentance) and thus an evade is a permitted response.

The full text is:

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.

Note the first word of the text....'CONTACT' It is only treated as a charge once contact has been made - in which case it's too late to evade.

[stenic]

No enemy interecptions move before enemy evades - a friendly evade in response to an enemy interception would be a sub part of the item interception moves

There is no 'sub-part' involved.

Sequence is:
Declare all charges.
CMT for skirmishers or missile foot wishing to charge non-skirmishers.
CMT for shock troops wishing to avoid charging.
CMT for skirmishers not wishing to evade non-skirmishers.
Resolve cohesion tests for FRAGMENTED troops being charged. If they break: Resolve cohesion tests for seeing them break.
Make their initial rout move.
etc...
etc...

This shows that the test for seeing friends break happens immediately at the point the charged friends break. The QRS however only lists testing for seeing friends break as happening at the end of the current phase which would be at end of impact.

Is the QRS likely to be updated to reflect this difference in when to test?

Steve P

[hammy]

Skirmishers that have declared a charge CANNOT evade or otherwise avoid interception.

from the FAQ:

What happens if charging skirmishers are themselves intercepted by non-skirmishers, can they evade?
An interception or evade is a response to a charge. It is not a response to an intercept charge. Troops therefore cannot
evade from interceptors. They cannot halt 1 MU away from the interceptors either.
Rationale: Once skirmishers are committed to an all out charge they are committed

The QRS however only lists testing for seeing friends break as happening at the end of the current phase which would be at end of impact.
Is the QRS likely to be updated to reflect this difference in when to test?

The QRS is just that, a quick reference sheet. There is a full sequence of play on P168 of the rules. To get the full sequence of play on the QRS would be essentially impossible without reprinting the sequence of play in full and taking another whole page or more.

The downloadable QRS does not include a sequence of play for the very reason that people will look to the cut down sequence and get things wrong.

[stenic]

The QRS is just that, a quick reference sheet. There is a full sequence of play on P168 of the rules. To get the full sequence of play on the QRS would be essentially impossible without reprinting the sequence of play in full and taking another whole page or more.

The downloadable QRS does not include a sequence of play for the very reason that people will look to the cut down sequence and get things wrong.

That a no then ?

[hammy]

The QRS is just that, a quick reference sheet. There is a full sequence of play on P168 of the rules. To get the full sequence of play on the QRS would be essentially impossible without reprinting the sequence of play in full and taking another whole page or more.

The downloadable QRS does not include a sequence of play for the very reason that people will look to the cut down sequence and get things wrong.

That a no then ?

Yup.

To be honest even the full sequence of play is abbreviated. If for example you try to work out how many times in a turn a BG may have to take a cohesion test you will end up with a higher number than the total number of mentions of cohesion test on even the full sequence of play.

[sagji]

The FAQ is quite catagoric.

No it isn't - if it wanted to be categoric it would have just said "no".

Instead it makes a statement - that an evade is only a response to a charge, and then a false inference that you consequenlty can't evade an interception. The reason it is a false inference is that in some circumstances an interception charge can also be a charge.

[nikgaukroger]

1. in any way negate the LH declared charge on the fragmented MF forcing a CMT (it appears not - the MF still test)?

The MF still test - because intercepts are not declared until after the test.
(as per the 'sequence of action' table)

Bugger, means I've diddled somebody sometime by getting the order wrong

[zoltan]

Thanks

So we seem to be unanimous on one point but not the other:

1. The LH charge declaration forces the fragmented MF to test regardless of the HF interception charge (QED there is no interception charge unless there is first a charge)
1a. when are interception charges "declared" in the full turn sequence on page 168 - line two "declare all charges" or line 8 "make interception charges"

2. We disagree about whether or not the LH have "normal" options or must stand still and accept being contacted in the rear by the interception charging HF. In favour of the LH having full rights are statements such as an interception charge "...is treated as a normal flank/rear charge..." (page 63); "...skirmishers can choose to evade an enemy battlegroup's charge unless they are already in close combat..." (page 64), "When troops who can evade are charged, the player must decide whether or not they will evade." (page 66). Nothing about troops interception charges in the flank/rear must always stand and take it.

[kal5056]

I was under the impression that if LF declare a charge on another LF battle group 3 inches in front and slightly off center of them.
And the player being charges has a non- LF to the front of the LF that is charging then you can actually declare an intercept charge to your front.

The logic behind this is the statement that a BG that is a target of a charge cannot intercept. The original LF could not charge the non-LF BG therefore the non-LF BG can intercept the LF to the front. All this assumes open terrain.

This being said once a skirmisher has declared a charge I think they lose the right to evade if intercepted.

Gino
SMAC

[zoltan]

Well I'm still confused by the grey box that Terry included in a previous post (I dunno how to do that fancy clip and paste stuff):

He said (or quoted): "This is missing the key fact that an intercept charge that contacts the flank or rear of the intercepted BG is treated as a charge (P63 last sentance) and thus an evade is a permitted response."

This seems to say that an evade (if the troop type is one that can evade when a "normal" charge is declared on it) is a permitted response to an interception charge that contacts a flank or rear. But how do you evade if you've already been contacted - simply break contact?

Surely the rules should say, "an interception charge is patently NOT like a "normal" charge; it is a special case in that the targets of interception charges do NOT respond to it (as they would for a "normal" charge). They stand there and get hit"?

In my example the chargers were moving directly away from the interception chargers at over twice their speed so all that mumbo jumbo about "committed to the charge" is bollocks. If they were committed to the charge they would commit to an evade directly away from slow lumbering blokes charging them in the rear. Rather, it seems they freeze like a rabbit in a car's headlights and get stuffed up the Arras (colloquially speaking)! Slightly silly. And they don't like it up 'em.

[sagji]

Thanks

So we seem to be unanimous on one point but not the other:

1. The LH charge declaration forces the fragmented MF to test regardless of the HF interception charge (QED there is no interception charge unless there is first a charge)
1a. when are interception charges "declared" in the full turn sequence on page 168 - line two "declare all charges" or line 8 "make interception charges"

Interception charges are not declared, nor are they really charges. So they "happen" in the make interception moves.

This being said once a skirmisher has declared a charge I think they lose the right to evade if intercepted.

Skirmishers don't have a "right" to evade.
Skirmishers may respond to a charge by evading.
An interception charge is not, in and of itself, a charge so skirmishers can't evade from an interception charge.
An interception charge that contacts the flank or rear is treated as a flank charge, and cancels the skirmishers charge. In this case the skirmishers are nolonger chargeing, and are being charged, and aren't already in melee so can choose to evade.

[hammy]

The only situation I can think of where skimishers could evade from an interception charge would be if the interception was of another BG and hit it in the flank thus converting the interception charge into a real charge. As a result this may mean another BG would be able to be contacted if the chargers step forwards. If this stepping forwards meant a BG of skirmishers would be contacted then these skirmishers would be able to evade.

Skirmishers cannot evade an interception of thier own charge. This is clearly stated in the FAQ and I believe is what the rules say as well.

[hannibal]

I've been following this debate with some interest - thanks to everyone for the clarification!

A related question if I may!

Can the charging BG wheel in its charge so that it avoids being intercepted by an enemy battle group (obviously this would be an intercept into the charge path not into a flank or rear)? This happened against me and it seemed a bit cheesy. If legal, is there any obligation on the player with the charging BG declaring this before the intercept is declared?

Help appreciated!

Marc

[philqw78]

(If there are possible interceptions/multiple targets) the charge path must be declared. This path can then only deviate to follow evaders.

[petedalby]

An interception charge that contacts the flank or rear is treated as a flank charge, and cancels the skirmishers charge. In this case the skirmishers are nolonger chargeing, and are being charged, and aren't already in melee so can choose to evade.

This is not correct. You've had one of the authors reply on this already. It is also covered in the FAQs. Why would you persist with this?

Pete

[kal5056]

Skirmishers may not have a "Right" to evade but they lose the ability to evade any intercepting charge once they themselves have declared a charge.
Gino
SMAC

[sagji]

An interception charge that contacts the flank or rear is treated as a flank charge, and cancels the skirmishers charge. In this case the skirmishers are nolonger chargeing, and are being charged, and aren't already in melee so can choose to evade.

This is not correct. You've had one of the authors reply on this already. It is also covered in the FAQs. Why would you persist with this?

Pete

The FAQ doesn't cover it - the FAQ gives a reasoned argument as to what happpens, however the argument is based on the fact that an interception charge is not a charge, but the rules specifically state that in some circumstances an interception charge is treated as a charge.

Authors have been in the past be incorrect.

I think the authors need to clarify what they intended by "treated as a flank charge." I suspect that they only ment for turning to face, loss of cohesion level, and resolving combat.

I suspect they didn't consider it also permitted
Contacting other BGs
Stepping forward to contact more of the intercepted BG
Stepping forward to contact another BG
Contacting another BG and steppingforward into the intercepted BG
Allowing other targeted BGs to evade
Allowing the intercepted BG to evade

or to put it another way - they intended that the intercepted BG is considered to have been contacted by a flank/rear charge - instead of the intercepting BG making a flank/rear charge.

[kal5056]

To follow your logic to it's conclusion you would appear to be saying that a BG of Skirmishers or Single Rank Cav can evade if intercepted to the rear or flank but not if intercepted frontally (as the RAW do not say to treat this as a normal charge). Where is the logic (common sense) in that?

Gino
Agnelly

[hammy]

An interception charge that contacts the flank or rear is treated as a flank charge, and cancels the skirmishers charge. In this case the skirmishers are nolonger chargeing, and are being charged, and aren't already in melee so can choose to evade.

This is not correct. You've had one of the authors reply on this already. It is also covered in the FAQs. Why would you persist with this?

Pete

The FAQ doesn't cover it - the FAQ gives a reasoned argument as to what happpens, however the argument is based on the fact that an interception charge is not a charge, but the rules specifically state that in some circumstances an interception charge is treated as a charge.

Sorry Alan but the FAQ DOES cover exactly this

What happens if charging skirmishers are themselves intercepted by non-skirmishers, can they evade?
An interception or evade is a response to a charge. It is not a response to an intercept charge. Troops therefore cannot
evade from interceptors. They cannot halt 1 MU away from the interceptors either.
Rationale: Once skirmishers are committed to an all out charge they are committed.

The FAQ is an official document and what it says goes at every tournament I have played since the FAQ came into existence.