INTERCEPTION CHARGES

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:26 pm

My take on this is that if the corner that the wheel was made on started level with or past the front edge of the infantry BG then the path of the charge does not extend in any way forward of the wheel point. The path of the charge does not therefore cross the ZoI, hence the interception cannot happen.

If the corner the wheel is made from is in any way in front of the infantry then that corner must advance to contact and the path of the charge crosses the ZoI so the interception is OK.

donm · Post by **donm** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:39 pm

Hammy,

The charging battle group started within the ZOI of the intercepting unit. It was well within 4 inches.

So are you saying that as long as the nearest point of the charging unit does not move it is not counted as moving through the ZOI?

In this case it is only the point of the wheel that does not move, the whole of the element certain moves.

What concerns me here, is that by declaring a wheel, which you don't have to do at the time of charge declarations you can avoid enemy who are striaght infront of you.

See my note about page 52, charge declarations.

Don

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:39 pm

The attempted intercept does not cross the path of charge so does not happen. Its not a case of move it there and see if it does. It doesn't.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:43 pm

donm wrote:The charging battle group started within the ZOI of the intercepting unit. It was well within 4 inches.

So are you saying that as long as the nearest point of the charging unit does not move it is not counted as moving through the ZOI?

In this case it is only the point of the wheel that does not move, the whole of the element certain moves.

Don

But BG can move through zone of interception and not be intercepted. All of the conditions of intercept must be satisfied for an intercept to happen

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:44 pm

Now if you had wheeled whilst moving forward then you could have got your left front corner in the path of the charge.

donm · Post by **donm** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:54 pm

Now if you had wheeled whilst moving forward then you could have got your left front corner in the path of the charge.

They are not allowed to.

Don

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:58 pm

donm wrote:
phil wrote:Now if you had wheeled whilst moving forward then you could have got your left front corner in the path of the charge.
They are not allowed to.

Don

No they are not, and the interceptors must cross the path of the charge, which they did not.

Bugle999 · Post by **Bugle999** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:14 am

Hi All,
I was Dons opponent in this game...
The pictures as currently shown, although very helpful, are not quite right - in the correct position it is even easier to come to the conclusion Richard did.
The actual position of the charging Cavalry was closer than shown to the MF AND the Cav element on the far right (as we look at the picture) was well past a line extending from the front rank of the MF.
This means that when Don's Cav try to make an intercept move they stop just short of the far right front corner of the far right Cav element AND this position is well back from the extension of the front rank of the MF.
The charging Cav now has plenty of room to wheel (pivoting on the far right corner of the far right element - this pivoting corner remains stationary) and the potential interceptors end up well short of even coming close to interposing themselves along the charge path as there is no room for them to move into i.e. the gap between the front right edge of the charging Cav [the 'pivot point'] and the MF is only about 20cm - well short of the 40mm gap required for the potential interceptors to enter and actually interpose themselves across the chargers path.
Also, as I remember the challenge to the ruling at the time, it was actually based upon Don's belief that potential interceptors were allowed to actually contact the chargers rather than having to interpose themselves along the chargers path - hopefully Richard's ruling at the time and the supporting posts on this and the Yahoo group have clarified this for him.
Hopefully this helps clarify things for everyone and thanks for the input from all (especially the authors).
Ric

Bugle999 · Post by **Bugle999** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:33 am

further to my post above... to be more accurate on the pictures shown and to finish the story...
The charging Cav actually initially only hit the MF with the far right element (they were so close to the MF they couldn't physically wheel enough to line up) - the other Cav bases then stepped forward into contact at an angle - after the impact phase they subsequently all slid to THEIR left (shortest move). This would have left the far right element (as we look at it) in an overlap position (infront of the potential interceptors) BUT as they lost a base in the impact this was removed leaving 3 Cav bases perfectly lined up with the 3 front ranks of the MF. After the melee phase these 3 Cav bases broke off 5 inches straight back.
cheers...

Ghaznavid · Post by **Ghaznavid** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:37 am

As stated before I think the ruling on the intercept itself was correct, assuming a charge can be a wheel only move.
Re-reading the charge rules however it looks a bit like a charging BG must move forward in order to allow them to wheel. Both p. 53 (point 1 says move directly ahead and point two allows you to combine that forward move with a wheel) and p. 54 'To charge move your BG forward, making any wheels ...' suggest to me that the whole BG must move forward at least the infamous 'gnat's todger' instead of just wheeling to contact.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:39 am

Well the interceptor cannot contact and must leave a space, gnats thingummy, between. The charger then uses a smaller gnat to measure the distance he moves forward before wheeling and therefore does not get intercepted.

Ghaznavid · Post by **Ghaznavid** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:46 am

That's gamy though. I don't think FoG should allow arguing with subatomic distances. If I move to the closest possible distance there should not be a 50% of that a closest possible distance.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:56 am

Well you are either in contact or not. if you are not then there is distance to move in between. Your way creates more problems, the same as the DBM 6 inches debate.

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:04 am

Ghaznavid wrote:That's gamy though. I don't think FoG should allow arguing with subatomic distances. If I move to the closest possible distance there should not be a 50% of that a closest possible distance.

In FOG space is assumed to be continuous so there is no closest possible distance. Also, once distances become subatomic the positions become subject to quantum uncertainty and the chargers could still move forward even if the probability distribution functions overlap significantly.

If you compel (non-infinitesimal) straight forward movement in addition to a wheel, what happens if the interceptors are contacted during a wheel before the chargers reach the straight part of the charge path? Is the charge cancelled because it is now not legal? Then the intercept is no longer valid and we end in a paradox.

If there are going to be rule changes, I would vote for allowing interceptors to contact chargers with no step forward, but chargers would still step forward even if they were contacted.

shall · Post by **shall** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:02 am

PHILOSOPHY FIRST
The intercept rules are deisgned to allow you to set up a "good protected position" or to stop troops charging with threatened flanks and rears - not to allow 1mm either way to make a huge difference if possible (allowing for the fact that you can't avoid some millimetrics theminute you pick up a tape measure).
In the above situation, in reality, the foot get clobbered. Let us not be fooled by 4 bases and few tin figures - this is just an bastraction. The charging BG represents a whole load of cavalry units who are going to wheel around to line up to target and charge in. There is no way and intecept SHOULD stop such a charge and the rules therefore make sure they don't.
The solution to your porblem is therefore in the tactics not the rulebook - either a) set up the protected position better, or b) get there a bound earlier and charge them before they get to charge. So to me you are using the intercept as a means of last resort here and I hope you accept that we would not want an intercept to stop them getting into their target in such a situation.
If we did allow this to happen I cna draw you lots of millimterci problems that have not yet been mentioned that will occur ....

RULES DETAILS
The "not contact" is very important to allow the above to happen. What you are doing frontally is getting in the way of their movement. If you can great, if you can't you do not intercept. Their movement is a path which is area x distance = the groudn they physically pass over.
Clearly one has to draw the line somewere the minute we pick up a tape measure or base. Sc we have drawn it as not contacting, could have said stay 1cm away or 1 MU but all that adds complexity and was a pain in private testing.
Tecnically in the rules the wheel is on the right corner and what you should have done is an intermediate photo where the charge wheel only. They will then contact the target base before touching your propsed interceptors I believe Then the step forward creates an echeloned of contact. Only later do they conorm.
Shade the area now covered by the movement of the charging BG and you will see that, alas, it doesn't touch your base at all. Had the chargers been a bit further to the right then they may have hit you first. Complex siutation where the specifics matter. But in this case you couldn't intercept at all and RBS is quite right in both spirit and details as far as I can see.

There may be a gameplay issue . What really should happen is that ric should declare his charge path as there is potential interceptor. Then you shold have figured out no intercept was possible. If I don't declare direction I take it be dead ahead. But this is more personal practice than a rule.

Si

shall · Post by **shall** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:05 am

In millimetris it all happening bacause the attacking NG is partially behind the line extending the front of the main target - which I feel very haappy with as an effect of where we have chosen to draw the line.

So if you let an attacking BG dvance beyond this poiotn interception is'n possible - seems reasonable to me.

Si

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 9:11 am

donm wrote:Nik,

I think you have missed the point.

If an attacker has a legal interception charge declared on it, can it choose to not contact that interceptor?

Yes.

The bit in the FAQ about declaring direction of charges makes this quite clear.

expendablecinc · Post by **expendablecinc** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 9:13 am

philqw78 wrote:
donm wrote:
phil wrote:Now if you had wheeled whilst moving forward then you could have got your left front corner in the path of the charge.
They are not allowed to.

Don
No they are not, and the interceptors must cross the path of the charge, which they did not.

I think of this in laymans terms as getting in thier way or obstructing thier charge. If you cant do that then the only over viable options are to do a legal flank or rear charge.

Sometimes this leads to incorrect paraphrasing but in this instance seems to work.

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 9:18 am

This is a simple geometry problem. If the end corner of the chargers is on or behind the line extending the front of the foot, this corner remains stationary and its base will wheel into the foot. This stationary corner is the furthest point of advance of the chargers therefore the charge cannot be intercepted. The base never moves further forward of its current position so cannot possibly contact an interceptor

If the charger's corner is ahead of the line extending the front of the foot the interceptors can be moved ahead of such a line so must be contacted.

If the first situation is the correct one, which the umpires ruling would indicate it was, then the final contact picture is not correct. The chargers bases will be stepped froward into the foot. The chargers never wheel far enough to be actually parallel to the foot because their front corner begins behind them.

shall · Post by **shall** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:52 am

Indeed it is Roger and one I am happy with - see above.

As Roger says, and I mentioned above, you are missing the middle diag of how they catually look at impact. This is wheeled around until they make contact and stepped forwards so that 3 bases fight and the supposed interceptor (who was never there anyway) not contacted.

That's it. The rules are clear and get exactly the result we would want as far as I can see. The MF were clearly exposed and not well protected. Any poblems were, alas, tactical in nature ...

Si