Interception Charges

[SirGarnet]

How about

Chargers who are intercepted may not evade.

Nah. Just takes us back to the argument that they are no longer chargers. However, take the charger part out and maybe "A battle group that is intercepted may not evade."

[philqw78]

Yep, works for me. But again you may have to add:

Nor change direction, stop short, turn around, do the hokey cokey, etc

[sagji]

"It cancels the enemy battle group's charge and any evasions to it that have not yet occured. The enemy battle group is treated as if it had been contacted by a flank/rear charge.

I wouldn't think evasions would need to be mentioned since they only occur after interceptions.

I don't think a normal interception that blocks a charge precludes other BGs evading.

How about something to nail down the contact part (to precludes evasion) like "It cancels the enemy battle group's charge. The interceptors contact the enemy battle group. This is treated as a flank/rear charge." ?

The only real difference from the current wording is the loss of the completely. The pharse " This is treated as a flank/rear charge." is what is causing the problem in the first place - this is what is permitting the intercepted BG to evade, and also allows the intercepting BG to contact other non-charging BGs.

[shall]

Just back from hols and catching up.

This is a long a complicated one so will need to look at more fully when time permits.

just an observation on starting assumptions... to me inercepts come in two forms:

1. Frontal intercepts - essentially the intercepting troops are getting themselves in the way by blocking a chargers path to target in whatever means serves them best. So if knights, their way of dealing with that would be to get in the way and countercharge, but if defensive spearmen they would go forward getting the way and dig in to be charged. However this is not the same as receiving a charge without moving so we FAQed the POA interaction part away. (note EDITED after I woke up at 4am having remembered where and when we did this - as a few had done already thank you).

2. Side or rear interceptions - here the charger has left themselves exposed and the interceptors, seeing a fine opportunity, go hell for leather for the chargers who are busy stopping an reorganising to survive the unexpected assault (hence cancelled charge).

This lay description of what is really happening is why we consider (2) to be treated a a normal flank or rear charge, and (1) is not a charge (as it may well be a "get in the way and stand and take it on behalf my mates as best I can" but has relevant POa penalties).

Hope that helps add context first - and will no doubt create another page of discussion

technical answers to follow once I have cleared my desk and have time to study 4 pages of issues.

Si

[philqw78]

PS the chap who asked about defensive spearmen getting their POA take a star - good spot as indeed they would if blocking, this is exactly a move forward and get in the way and hunker down. They do not lose a POA for charging, they are still receiving a charge. The sequence is just and abstraction of simulatneous movement in real life.

Run that by me again. Are you saying a BG that intercept charges does not count as charging?

[MCollett]

PS the chap who asked about defensive spearmen getting their POA take a star - good spot as indeed they would if blocking, this is exactly a move forward and get in the way and hunker down. They do not lose a POA for charging, they are still receiving a charge. The sequence is just and abstraction of simulatneous movement in real life.

The rules are not clear on this point. But the FAQ currently says:

Do interceptors use the POAs for their troop type as if charging?
Yes. These factors are designed to represent their physical momentum of movement forward. So lancers intercepting
have the benefit of this. Certain foot intercepting mounted will find this difficult and lose POAs they would have if they
were instead receiving a mounted charge stationary.

Best wishes,
Matthew

[shall]

Bah humbug ...

Yes realised in middle of night that we had fixed the PS previously somehow somewhere after a a debate about intercepts. It was biugging me and keeping me awake. Got up to correct that bit. Unsurprisingly a couple of you got there first and indeed we fixed it in the FAQ a long time ago.

Posting above on the original concept edited. We have a stream as authors on intercepts just to double check our communal intent and clarify if necessary. Although after discussion above not sure its needed at present.

Si

[shall]

Have read it all in detail now. Basically "what Terry said".

If we made a mistake I think it was titling the section INTERCEPTION CHARGES. We should have just called it INTERCEPTIONS. Let's start from the principle and rationale rather than argue over micro wording - at least first.

1. They are not charges per se - these are declared and happen in your own impact phase. They are one of 3 specified responses to a charge when BGs are in free space and can help. We want to allow such responses where there is a clear case for it, but restrict such options where the interceptors have confusing additional items to deal with. This is why the intercept is only allowed directly ahead with no changes of formation.
2. You cannot contact enemy as a frontal intercept charge. If enemy block the path you can only move forward to the limit of your physical movement without contacting them. The ICharge section says what you can do period - there are no inferences. This is intentional to restrict intercepts to relatively simple situations and limit their effect where other enemy are around to interfere with their interference. So in the original example, yes you can move forward to the limit of your move WITHOUT contacting other enemy, and if this gets in the way nice block. And skimishers keeping enemy busy while charges go in is a good tactic.
3. If you can intercept flank or rear then the enemy has to stand and take the charge in flank or rear. The charge is cancelled so they stay where they are and they are hit in the flank and treated as a flank charge once contact has been made. You can't evade from an interception as you are not responding to a charge - this section has 3 responses, "recieving the charge, interception charges, evade moves". There is no such response under interception charges - the tree does not continue to a third level. On evades our consistent principle is that you give up your option to evade once you commit troops to a charge. Imagine the "charge charge.. run away run away" sequence of orders required to do this, rather than a simple "under attack run away boys". This is why we remove the option.

If you want or play the inference game then we should look at all such inferences not a subset. Why are you not also infering that a flank intercept can also wheel as it is a "normal flank or rear charge"? But we clearly state that you can only go directly ahead! Or that you might be able to intercept interceptors now, as if this is now a charge, surely you can also make that response as well. We clearly say you cannot by restricting them to the non-active player!. So it's very clear in the words that an interception charge is NEVER a normal CHARGE with all its options and responses.

The order of play is carefully designed to handle many things - use it rigorously as TS suggested adn you will sort most other things out. I think the FAQ is pretty clear personally.

But just to be doubly sure - IF YOU DECLARE A CHARGE, YOU HAVE FOREGONE YOUR OPTION TO EVADE FOR THAT IMPACT PHASE WHATEVER HAPPENS THEREAFTER. Of course this rewards forethought and good play too! If you want to get away with your light horse don't confuse them by charging.

Si

[shall]

And to deal with the detailed wording issue...

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.

It says IS TREATED AS A CHARGE ... if you like add the word "thereafter" to it ... but also to "treat something as" is not the same as saying "it is now". As Terry says this is a sub-point after contacting so you use the mechanisms thereafter - you can step forward, they turn, you get a ++, they get DISRed etc. We haven't said it is a charge, just that it is treated as such; in the same way that one may treat someone as a gentleman while in reality they are a murderer.

All the above inferences are assuming it says something more like:

"It cancels the enemy groups charge completely and the intercepting BG is now considered to be charging" ... which it does not.

Hope all that helps. I can see where confusion can arise and we use this and the FAQ to deal with the inevitable mis-interpretations or ambiguous drafting that is bound to occur. But hopefully the FAQ and all the rest here has resolved it.

In vs 2 I would be tempted to change the title to just INTERCEPTIONS and that last line to "is thereafter treated as a flank charge" and add an early line "An interception is NOT a charge".

Si

[SirGarnet]

"An interception is NOT a charge".[/b]

Si

Clearer dropping "charge" from interception and freeing up line space.

How about having the sentence kill 2 birds as

"An interception uses charging POAs but is NOT a charge"?

[shall]

Yep could be useful for 1.2 whenever we get there.

Si

[sagji]

And to deal with the detailed wording issue...

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.

It says IS TREATED AS A CHARGE ... if you like add the word "thereafter" to it ... but also to "treat something as" is not the same as saying "it is now".

Theoretically yes it is different - The rules also tell us how it is different - you can't intercept it, and there are some obvious differences - it isn't declared in the charges declaration step, and it doesn't move in the charge moves step. There is nothing to say it isn't treated as a flank charge for evading, just as there is nothing to say it isn't treated as a flank charge for dropping a cohesion level.

As Terry says this is a sub-point after contacting so you use the mechanisms thereafter - you can step forward, they turn, you get a ++, they get DISRed etc. We haven't said it is a charge, just that it is treated as such; in the same way that one may treat someone as a gentleman while in reality they are a murderer.

All the above inferences are assuming it says something more like:

"It cancels the enemy groups charge completely and the intercepting BG is now considered to be charging" ... which it does not.

Hope all that helps. I can see where confusion can arise and we use this and the FAQ to deal with the inevitable mis-interpretations or ambiguous drafting that is bound to occur. But hopefully the FAQ and all the rest here has resolved it.

In vs 2 I would be tempted to change the title to just INTERCEPTIONS and that last line to "is thereafter treated as a flank charge" and add an early line "An interception is NOT a charge".

Si

All the adding of thereafter does is rule out the case of contacting another BG and stepping forward into the intercepted BG. The extra sentance doesn't help - without a statement as to the difference in treatment between the interception treated as a charge, and a real charge. Or to put it another way in what way is it not treated as a charge?

What about other BGs contacted by the interceptor?
Do they have the right to evade? If so when?
Is this still true if they have declared a charge, but are outside the intercepting BGs ZOI?
Is this still true if they have declared a charge, are inside the intercepting BGs ZOI, but the interceptor isn't eligible for a flank/rear interception?
If contacted frontally by the intercepting BG are they still counted as being hit by a flank charge?

This is why I prefer the wording "the intercepted BG is treated as if contacted by a flank/rear charge"

The alternative is to add exception to how it is treated as a charge, such as:
"It is treated as a flank/rear charge except:
It can't contact enemy BGs it can't intercept by contacting the rear or flank of.
It can't be evaded."

[shall]

This is why I prefer the wording "the intercepted BG is treated as if contacted by a flank/rear charge"

Well except that its wrong and not our intent at all. The "thereafter" would mean everything after contact is treated as if charging which is what we intend and consistent with the initial philosphy of the two scenarios entirely. Seems perfectly clear to me.

Anyway as someone said earlier you've had an authorts view ad lots of others, and now you've 2 authors views ... No need to try to "flog a dead horse" to try to justify why you had a different view. Perfectly understandable but perhaps now time to take the 2 authors and FAQ at face value eh?

Si

[sagji]

I am willing to accept it can't evade, however I am trying to understand how the rules produce that effect, and what other effects they have. Can you explain which phrases in the rules prevent it from evading?

I would also like you to say what you think happens in the following circumstance.

BG A has declared a charge, it would be contacted in the flank by enemy BG E that is intercepting BG B and will stepped forward into A. However A was not in E's ZOI, and E was not eligible for a flank charge on A.

Can A evade?
Is A's charge cancelled - it hasn't been intercepted.
Is A treated as being contacted by a flank charge - it isn't a charge it is simply treated as a flank charge.

[shall]

Put it up as a diagram and I will glady explain.

As for where in the rules it says you can't evade, it doesn't need to. The rules tell you where you can evade, and this is as a response to a charge or if impacted by a pursuit - end of story.

Si

[petedalby]

BG A has declared a charge, it would be contacted in the flank by enemy BG E that is intercepting BG B and will stepped forward into A. However A was not in E's ZOI, and E was not eligible for a flank charge on A.

Enemy BG E may only contact BG B. Interceptors may not step forward into another enemy BG.

Is A's charge cancelled - it hasn't been intercepted.

No

Is A treated as being contacted by a flank charge - it isn't a charge it is simply treated as a flank charge.

No

A completes it's charge as normal.

PS - Delighted to see we got there in the end!! Thanks Si!

Pete

[zoltan]

Now that Terry has explained what the author was really trying to say (and made a tiny concession) I return yet again to one of my original points -admitedly probably an infrequent exception,except that it happened in my game!

If LH are charging directly away from would-be interception chargers, it defies logic to say they stop still because they decide to react to a charge into their rear (in this case by taking it up the Aras). I think in reality they would be spurred on (huh!) to run away even harder and faster from heavier troops swapping a charge into an evade. Cripes, Bill, have you seen what's lumbering up behnind us? Let's vamoose! Nah, let's freeze and let them shaft us big time. Doh!

I fully accept Terry's "put themselves in the way of the chargers" logic for type 1 interception chargers. However for type 2 interception chargers (catch the enemy in the flank or rear) I submit that there should be an exception for skirmishers thus:

"Skirmishers who declared a charge but would otherwise be caught in flank or rear by interception chargers automatically have their charge cancelled and must evade directly away from the interception chargers. All rules that normally apply to a "voluntary" evade move (i.e. avoiding obstacles in the evader's path/bursting through etc) also apply to a mandatory evade move caused by an interception charge that would otherwise contact flank or rear".

[sagji]

Put it up as a diagram and I will glady explain.

Code: Select all

      E1E1E1


E2    K1K1K1K1
E2            E3E3E3E3
E2       C2C2
         C2C2

K1 are friendly knights that charged E1 without orders.
C2 are friendly Light horse that charged E3 - can drop back a base to avoid K1.
E2 is enemy pike 2 MU from K1.
C2 2 base depths back from K1 and the line extending C2's front edge passes through the end base of E2.

The result is that E2 is not eligible to intercept C2 - it is not in its ZOI, and it is not in a position for a flank charge - it doesn't have a base completely behind the front edge of C2.

When E2 intercepts it moves forward and contacts K1 and then steps forward into C2.
What then happens?

As for where in the rules it says you can't evade, it doesn't need to. The rules tell you where you can evade, and this is as a response to a charge or if impacted by a pursuit - end of story.
Si

The only time the rules say you can step forward is as a result of a charge.
The only time the rules say you fight impact combat is as a result of a charge.
The only time the rules say you evade is as a result of a charge, or being contacted by pursuit.

An interception that contacts the flank/rear is treated as a flank/rear charge, but I don't see how you can deduce it is treated as a charge for the first two, but is not treated as charge for the third. As I see it you can either have all three or none. Compare with interception, while you can intercept a charge there is a specific clause saying you can't intercept an interception. Thus there is a specific exception for responding to the "charge" by intercepting, but no such exception for responding with an evade.

[EDIT] Removde "without orders" on C2's charge, and changed them to light horse.

[philqw78]

E2 intercepts then steps forward. It is then counted as a frontal contact on C2. C2 can then complete its charge, moving its right hand bases forward into E3.

Although I can't see why C2 must drop a base back

[sagji]

E2 intercepts then steps forward. It is then counted as a frontal contact on C2. C2 can then complete its charge, moving its right hand bases forward into E3.

Although I can't see why C2 must drop a base back

The gap between it and K1 is only 2 base depths, and it can't wheel enough to hit E3 before hitting K1.