Slitherine

My sense is that as drafted the ZOI only applies until contact as that point is aub bullet within it.

Hmm.. this, if i understand your or the books english correct, istnt was the rule says. Page 63, bullet 5, row 2+3: the only exeption to movement that differs from "straight ahead up to the extent of ZOI" is turns wich is adressed under the first sub-bullit. Movement distance is never subject for an exemption as ruled by the first sentence of b. 5. This means that ZOI applies during the full intercept, and thus including stepping forward.

You may be right. To be honest I would rather spend the time working out with Terry what we want to happen and an effective FAQ for it, than debating the detailed wording. I am sure it can be spuin ither way at present and you spin is as good as any other.

Terry and I are getting together Tuesday so we can work this one and a couple of others and get back to you.

Si

Fulgrim, the stepping forward is specifically stated as additional to normal movement, which the 2 or 4 MU here either is or isn't. Guess we'll wait on the FAQ. Stepping forward into the target itself seems substantively uncontroversial since it is mechanically simple and the functional purpose, just as for normal charges, is to eliminates artificial geometric issues if the target side is not perfectly facing the interceptor. All we really need clear is whether we do or don't do it (until now it seemed perfectly clear).

The area that is stickier is whether the interceptor can hit other BGs and whether it can step forward the same way as for a normal charge. The tactics to exploit or counter this depend on what the exact rule would be.

Cheers,

Mike

@shall: any progress about this? I am quite intrigued by now

@MikeK: interception is never "normal movement". There nothing that says that stepping forward during a interception charge supercedes that. But I agree, lets see the FAQ before going further.


BTW, the first sentence in the "Interception charges" states what the rule is about, check it out ("portal paragraph" in a direct translation from swedish law). If read strict it answers all about the possibility to engage another, non-target, BG with an interception.. There is none.

Terry and I are of like mind. If we back to the intent we intended that an intercepting BG would step forward ONLY into its target. This essentially makes it the same for both type of intercept as in the blocking one the other side steps forward. Both times the principle is to get maximum dice into the IMPACT.

We are likely to officially state that the step forward cannot contact a different BG. So there are 2 possibles:

1) blocking interception. Move up to limit. Don't touch any enemy BG at all. Charger moves and steps forward to ma dice at impact.
2) flank interception. Cancells enemy cahrge. Cannot hit any other BG. Stesp forward into target BG to max dice at impact.

Any major issues with this? Another example of where we should have simplified to treated as a charge. What we really mean is: 1) target drops to DISR if if would do so by a flank charge, 2) fight on ++ as per flank charge.

Si

shall wrote: 2) flank interception. Cancells enemy cahrge. Cannot hit any other BG. Stesp forward into target BG to max dice at impact.

Any major issues with this? Another example of where we should have simplified to treated as a charge. What we really mean is: 1) target drops to DISR if if would do so by a flank charge, 2) fight on ++ as per flank charge.

Si

Stepping forward is already required for chargers.

For interceptions, how about changing the flank intercept bullet to read (changes bolded):

Flank intercept bullet: "Contact and step forward (to maximize Impact dice) into the flank or rear of the enemy battle group only. This is only permitted if the interceptor started in a position to charge the enemy flank or rear <deletion>. It cancels the enemy battle group's charge and resulting effects completely, and is NOT a charge but is treated as if a flank/rear charge for causing enemy cohesion loss on contact and for POAs.

I think this implements your thoughts above and addresses other issues discussed and the resolution neatly avoids other questions - e.g., does a flank interception on disrupted chargers treated as a charge cause a charged-while-fragmented test when the target drops to fragmented on contact?

(Good idea to not call an interception an interception charge at all.)

Cheers,

Mike

Yep that does it when we get round to rewriting the book one day.

Si

Just a matter of curiosity.

I have followed this discussion on and off over the last week or so and it strikes me that while it is technically correct that there can be a situation where a flank intercept actually ends up contacting more than one BG has it actually ever been even possible never mind actually happened?

Flank intercepts in my experience only happen when shock troops fail a test not to charge and as a result are quite rare. To have a flank intercept that can step forwards into another BG is well very very unusual indeed.

hammy wrote: Flank intercepts in my experience only happen when shock troops fail a test not to charge and as a result are quite rare. To have a flank intercept that can step forwards into another BG is well very very unusual indeed.

Probalby a few "potential" situats

1) the failed test to charge is bursting through something so the flank charge gets the charger and the person who is disr for the burst through now but caught by the intercept.
2) something evaded back through the failed test charger
3) Something in rear support of the failed charger
4) The interceptor is coming up behind the failed charger at an angle oroverlapping parallel so the intercept "could" step forward into an adjacent BG -- maybe even another one who passed not to charge.

all uncommon but not fantasy

hazelbark wrote:

hammy wrote: Flank intercepts in my experience only happen when shock troops fail a test not to charge and as a result are quite rare. To have a flank intercept that can step forwards into another BG is well very very unusual indeed.

Probalby a few "potential" situats

1) the failed test to charge is bursting through something so the flank charge gets the charger and the person who is disr for the burst through now but caught by the intercept.
2) something evaded back through the failed test charger
3) Something in rear support of the failed charger
4) The interceptor is coming up behind the failed charger at an angle oroverlapping parallel so the intercept "could" step forward into an adjacent BG -- maybe even another one who passed not to charge.

all uncommon but not fantasy

I am not suggesting that it is an impossible situation, just one that I have never seen and where changing rules or issuing an FAQ is potentially more likely to cause confusion than cure anything.

BTW, your points 1 and 2 are impossible. Point 1 would not happen as a flank intercept would cancel the charge so there would be no burst through (although the BG that could potentially have been burst through may still be in a place to be hit). Point 2 is impossible as intercepts happen in your impact phase and your troops will never evade in your own impact phase (unless you can think of a particularly contrived way it could happen).

Point 3 is possible as is point 4 but I have never seen anything even remotely like this in three years of FoG.

I mean 1 would have been burst through and disr now not but hit in the flank.

I agree not common.

But clearly you need to play more FoG.

And don't forget the specific example I gave of MF sneaking up behind LH and declaring an interception when the LH sought to charge directly away from them.

The interception charge FAQ should be written in the plural just in case (in an extremely rare case) more than one enemy BG is able to be intercepted by the interceptor.

shall wrote:1) blocking interception. Move up to limit. Don't touch any enemy BG at all. Charger moves and steps forward to max dice at impact.

I also think this would be good to include. Last game there were differing views on the interceptor not touching the enemy BG. True that since it is not authorized therefore it is not allowed, but apparently it's counter-intuitive that an interception charge would not contact and step forward if in range.

Cheers,

Mike

MikeK wrote:

shall wrote:1) blocking interception. Move up to limit. Don't touch any enemy BG at all. Charger moves and steps forward to max dice at impact.

I also think this would be good to include. Last game there were differing views on the interceptor not touching the enemy BG. True that since it is not authorized therefore it is not allowed, but apparently it's counter-intuitive that an interception charge would not contact and step forward if in range.

The problem as I see it is that people will read the interception rule and then conclude that a normal charge can only contact one BG or some other silliness.

hammy wrote:

MikeK wrote:

shall wrote:1) blocking interception. Move up to limit. Don't touch any enemy BG at all. Charger moves and steps forward to max dice at impact.

I also think this would be good to include. Last game there were differing views on the interceptor not touching the enemy BG. True that since it is not authorized therefore it is not allowed, but apparently it's counter-intuitive that an interception charge would not contact and step forward if in range.

The problem as I see it is that people will read the interception rule and then conclude that a normal charge can only contact one BG or some other silliness.

Also you can use neigbours to prevent an interception

eg

two BGs A and B facing up the page side by side. Enemy to their rear (C).

C cannot intercept if either A or B charge as C will contact the other group as well.

AABB
AABB

CCCC
CCCC

MikeK wrote:

shall wrote: 2) flank interception. Cancells enemy cahrge. Cannot hit any other BG. Stesp forward into target BG to max dice at impact.

Any major issues with this? Another example of where we should have simplified to treated as a charge. What we really mean is: 1) target drops to DISR if if would do so by a flank charge, 2) fight on ++ as per flank charge.

Si

Stepping forward is already required for chargers.

For interceptions, how about changing the flank intercept bullet to read (changes bolded):

Flank intercept bullet: "Contact and step forward (to maximize Impact dice) into the flank or rear of the enemy battle group only. This is only permitted if the interceptor started in a position to charge the enemy flank or rear <deletion>. It cancels the enemy battle group's charge and resulting effects completely,

So all routs are moved back - can be difficult if the rout moved off table to put it back in the correct place - especially if it was a rout caused by seeing a rout

and is NOT a charge but is treated as if a flank/rear charge for causing enemy cohesion loss on contact

There is no cohesion loss on contact - see sequence of play for when the cohesion loss as a result of contact actually occurs

and for POAs.

Should it not also count for turning to face?

I think this implements your thoughts above and addresses other issues discussed and the resolution neatly avoids other questions - e.g., does a flank interception on disrupted chargers treated as a charge cause a charged-while-fragmented test when the target drops to fragmented on contact?

(Good idea to not call an interception an interception charge at all.)

Cheers,

Mike

This assumes that you are only intercepting 1 BG.

Interestingy enough last night just as the store was closing we had a situation where a flank intercept charge would indeed have hit another BG that was not charging. I don't recall if it needed to step forward to do this.

Well I think that does it pretty much unless there are any other issues in this one - phew 6 pages!

Just to tidy up ..

Sagji its still not a charge so it would take effect immediately in any reword. Wrong but of sequence.

Mike we wouldnl;t cancl all effects but rather keep any breaks from being charges - so stick with the order as is. No putting back of routs.

Just stick to the two parts I put above and the RAW and it is fine.

We will rewrtie it proeprly later when we get round to a new version.

Si

FWIW at the Challenge we had a situation where BG A wanted to intercept charge BG X in the rear but it's immediate path is blocked by enemy BG Y. However, if it contacts Y it can step forward into the rear of X.

Can it intercept?

Paul

pbrandon wrote:FWIW at the Challenge we had a situation where BG A wanted to intercept charge BG X in the rear but it's immediate path is blocked by enemy BG Y. However, if it contacts Y it can step forward into the rear of X.

Can it intercept?

Paul

IMO definitely no.

The ZoI cannot go through friend or enemy even if the enemy would potentially be forced to evade.