INTERCEPTION CHARGES

[Bugle999]

rogerq's post above explains the situation well...
my previous posts tried to explain that the far right corner of the rightermost Cav element (as we look at it) was indeed well past the extended front line of the MF (i.e. behind it) AND in this specific case the Cav did hit with just the rightermost element and then step forward (not wheel) with the other elements into contact - as I again tried to point out above the picture shown is innaccurate in its original positioning and the way it shows all the Cav elements wheeling into contact.

In relation to Simon's comments above I totally agree with them...
In this stuation there was no cheese - the Cav unit had been stationary for two turns and the MF and potential interceptors had moved up to this very close position over these two turns. The mistake that was made was the MF getting to close to the Cav. If the MF had held back so that the Cav's righter most element was not behind an extension of it's front line then there would have been space for the potential interceptors to intercept, by moving so close the MF actually created the problem that there was no space for an interception.

In relation to the wider issue of reality..
I again have no problem as this issue only occurred because of the very close distance between charger and target. It seems perfectly reasonable to assume the chargers make contact with the target before the interception can take place and this is 'modelled' by the potential interceptors not having the room to interpose themselves into the charge path. The lesson to be learned I suppose is to leave enough room for interceptors to intercept.

All very interesting and hopefully has helped to clarify for all. Just like to say this forum is a great resource for us all to learn directly from the authors and with very little delay!

Cheers,

ric

[shall]

And thus the tea cup storm calms .....

Si

[sagji]

One issue that doesn't appear to have been covered is can you wheel into contact.

The rules say that a charge is made in one of two ways

1. Advance directly ahead ... to legally contact ...
2. Combine such an advance with a single wheel at any stage ...

This imposes a requirement that a charge that includes a wheel also includes an advance directly forward that legally contacts the target. This in turn requires that the weel can't contact the BG as that would end the charge which would not then include an advance directly forwards to legally contact a target.

In otherwords a charge can't end with a wheel, the wheel must be followed by an advance directly forwards however small. This minute advance is however enough to permit the interception as the chargers will now advance and contact them.

[philqw78]

One issue that doesn't appear to have been covered is can you wheel into contact.

The rules say that a charge is made in one of two ways

1. Advance directly ahead ... to legally contact ...
2. Combine such an advance with a single wheel at any stage ...

This imposes a requirement that a charge that includes a wheel also includes an advance directly forward that legally contacts the target. This in turn requires that the weel can't contact the BG as that would end the charge which would not then include an advance directly forwards to legally contact a target.

In otherwords a charge can't end with a wheel, the wheel must be followed by an advance directly forwards however small. This minute advance is however enough to permit the interception as the chargers will now advance and contact them.

This has been covered. If there is space move forward a tiny bit less than that space. There must be space as the interceptor cannot contact.

Also combine advance with wheel. I advance the Right hand end of the unit but keep the left stationary. This is a combination.

[ethan]

Possibly not operative here, but I can see it in other scenarios.

Does stepping forward into interceptors count as contact for the purpose of making a legal intercept?

[philqw78]

Possibly not operative here, but I can see it in other scenarios.

Does stepping forward into interceptors count as contact for the purpose of making a legal intercept?

If the interceptors could be stepped forward into they would be a target of the charge so could not intercept.

[nikgaukroger]

Possibly not operative here, but I can see it in other scenarios.

Does stepping forward into interceptors count as contact for the purpose of making a legal intercept?

FWIW I have always assumed that it does - as stepping forward is not optional. However, I wouldn't bet my mortgage on it

[nikgaukroger]

Possibly not operative here, but I can see it in other scenarios.

Does stepping forward into interceptors count as contact for the purpose of making a legal intercept?

If the interceptors could be stepped forward into they would be a target of the charge so could not intercept.

I believe Ethan is considering the situation where the stepping forward would only contact after the interceptors had made their intercept move forward and thus brought them into range to be stepped forward into.

[nikgaukroger]

And thus the tea cup storm calms .....

Si

I'd await the Don-meister's possible further comments before counting that chicken

[philqw78]

Possibly not operative here, but I can see it in other scenarios.

Does stepping forward into interceptors count as contact for the purpose of making a legal intercept?

If the interceptors could be stepped forward into they would be a target of the charge so could not intercept.

I believe Ethan is considering the situation where the stepping forward would only contact after the interceptors had made their intercept move forward and thus brought them into range to be stepped forward into.

But the path of the charge would not go there if the interceptors where not there, so opens up another dilemma.

[ethan]

I believe Ethan is considering the situation where the stepping forward would only contact after the interceptors had made their intercept move forward and thus brought them into range to be stepped forward into.

Correct.

[hammy]

If the interceptors could be stepped forward into they would be a target of the charge so could not intercept.

I believe Ethan is considering the situation where the stepping forward would only contact after the interceptors had made their intercept move forward and thus brought them into range to be stepped forward into.

But the path of the charge would not go there if the interceptors where not there, so opens up another dilemma.

No it doesn't open any dilemma, if the path of the charge does not cross the ZOI then there is no possibility of interception. If the only way a charge could contact an interceptor would be by stepping forwards beyond the path of the charge then interception would not be allowed.

If of course someone manages to arrange things so the charging BG will step forwards into a non intercepting BG then the path of the charge would include that step forwards and thus potentially allow an interception in the gap between the initial target and the target of the stepping forward.

[sagji]

One issue that doesn't appear to have been covered is can you wheel into contact.

The rules say that a charge is made in one of two ways

1. Advance directly ahead ... to legally contact ...
2. Combine such an advance with a single wheel at any stage ...

This imposes a requirement that a charge that includes a wheel also includes an advance directly forward that legally contacts the target. This in turn requires that the weel can't contact the BG as that would end the charge which would not then include an advance directly forwards to legally contact a target.

In otherwords a charge can't end with a wheel, the wheel must be followed by an advance directly forwards however small. This minute advance is however enough to permit the interception as the chargers will now advance and contact them.

This has been covered. If there is space move forward a tiny bit less than that space. There must be space as the interceptor cannot contact.

Except the path of the charge is known before interception. This means that when the intercepting BG moves it already knows how far the charging BG will advance, and thus can allways choose to advance far enough to be closer than this.

Also combine advance with wheel. I advance the Right hand end of the unit but keep the left stationary. This is a combination.

But not a combination of a wheel of the entire BG, with an advance directly forward by the entire BG, which is what the rules require. The only change of formation permitted to a BG in a charge move is dropping back bases, thus when the BG wheels it must all wheel, and when it advances directly forward it must all advance directly forward the same distance.
Once the charger contacts a legal target the charge move stops, and steps forward. However stepping forward is not part of the charge move as defined on p53, it is something that happens afterwards.

[sagji]

Possibly not operative here, but I can see it in other scenarios.

Does stepping forward into interceptors count as contact for the purpose of making a legal intercept?

I would say - sort of.

The interceptors have to advance so they cross the path of the charge.
This is the path of the charge before the interceptor moves, and includes any stepping forward that would occur if the interceptor doesn't intercept. It is not sufficient to move to a position where it will be contacted.

Thus if the interceptor is contacted only by stepping forward then at least one of those files must have been going to step forward into something else.

[steveh]

As Dons partner in the game I feel I should make some comment on the situation.
It would seem that most people think the ruling was correct - and if so fair enough, I certainly will not have sleepless nights about it. In reality the situation is unlikely(but not impossible) to crop up again.
However, to me it just does not look or"feel" right.
I thought that Dons pictures were accurate enough, but if the chargers were behind the flank of our infantry I dont think it makes much difference. Whether they wheeled and/or advanced they must have gone through the ZOI of our cavalry. That presumably made them a eligable target for an interception. Having made their move our cavalry were then at least partly between the chargers and our infantry.(At least on a direct path)
The fact that no contact was made was down to the geometry of the situation - and I thought one of the ideas of FOG was that it tried to avoid that sort of thing.
Presumably if our infantry had been lined up paralell with the chargers there would have been no problem with the interception. If so the chargers could have started even closer to our infantry. This at least partly contradicts the idea that the decision can be justified in "reality" by saying that they were too close.
O well - roll on 25mm at Britcon!

[Bugle999]

Hi Steve,
My point about 'reality' and closeness was in relation to the closeness and angle of the 'pivoting corner' to the MF's flank - actually so close and at such an angle that the gap available was not large enough for any element to enter and make an interception charge.
If the MF could have moved forward even closer and lined up paralell with the chargers (so that the Cav was not partially behind their flank) then there would be no problems with gaps and the right hand Cav element would have been positioned straight infront of the potential interceptors and the interception charge would have been fine - as Simon says (and I agree with him) an issue of tactics and forward planning not an oversight or problem with the rules.
I think you are right regarding the liklihood of a reoccurance (unlikely) and if you remember it only happened in this case when my partner suggested the move (expecting to have to break off after melee) instead of waiting for a charge and evade in your turn.
Interesting his suggestion has caused so much chat - it should amuse him as it was his first FOG tournament!
Cheers,
Ric

[nikgaukroger]

The fact that no contact was made was down to the geometry of the situation - and I thought one of the ideas of FOG was that it tried to avoid that sort of thing.

It does try and, IMO, succeeds in the vast majority of cases - however, with this sort of game with toy soldiers on rectangular bases it is, IMO, impossible to remove them all. I think the fact that so many, compared to some other rules, have been removed makes the ones that occur all the more apparant.

[philqw78]

Except the path of the charge is known before interception. This means that when the intercepting BG moves it already knows how far the charging BG will advance, and thus can allways choose to advance far enough to be closer than this.

You win

[sagji]

The fact that no contact was made was down to the geometry of the situation - and I thought one of the ideas of FOG was that it tried to avoid that sort of thing.

It does try and, IMO, succeeds in the vast majority of cases - however, with this sort of game with toy soldiers on rectangular bases it is, IMO, impossible to remove them all. I think the fact that so many, compared to some other rules, have been removed makes the ones that occur all the more apparant.

Except the rules as printed don't permit the artifiality - but RBS appears to be trying to alter the meaning to allow a charge without an advance - the only benefit of which appears to be to create the artificiality.

[viperofmilan]

Please forgive what is probably a stupid question, but why did not the chargers step forward bases to contact the would be interceptors? I can accept that pivoting on a corner would not require that base actually to move forward, but I thought the requirement to step forward was absolute.