Where do we go from here?

[philqw78]

I keep reading these threads about interception and evade problems. Counting club and competition games I must be playing at least 80, probably closer to 100, games of FoG in a year. These games do not have problems with interceptions and evades. One might get the impression from reading this discussion group that these rules do not work.
It may be it is possible there are some unusual situations where interpretation is difficult, but either I have been very fortunate or these incidents are very few and far between.

No, I think you are spot on - I have had the same experience as you.

In fact, IIRC, we had a case in our game on Saturday that was similar to some of those brought up as a problem in one of these interminable threads and it was sorted to our mutual satisfaction (and by the rules) in about 10 seconds.

If the move sequence is followed these problems do not occur.

[spikemesq]

That occurs in the manuever phase when you conform, feed in more bases. The interceptors are interrupting your charge, catching you at a tactical disadvantage, so you don't get to respond. Otherwise the impact phase would go on forever.
I'm charging.
I'll evade and I'll intercept with these guys.
Oh, I'll wheel to face the interceptors.
Well now my cav don't have to evade because they are no longer targets.
Yes they do because I declared a charge on them.
But then you decided to charge my interceptors instead.
Wait, if I charge the interceptors, they can't intercept because they are charge targets.
But you didn't declare a charge on the interceptors. They weren't in the original charge path.
Dice, then figures start flying.
Not good.

As much as I find the impact phase to include logic loops, this is not one of them.

Intercepts happen before evades and can only be triggered if the charge path would cross the ZOI if no BGs evade.

The actual charge move does not happen until all evades/routs/intercepts have been resolved. So the idea that either side can change their minds about declarations is not really a problem.

The oddity I note, however, is simply that a charge declared without a wheel cannot be executed with a single wheel where a successful intercept and/or evade presents greater opportunity for impact combats. Not saying that this is wrong; it just strikes me as odd.

For some more specific puzzlers, consider the following:

The interception rules are clear as to intercepts that result in a legal flank contact -- the charge is canceled (except for enemy BGs that routed after testing for be charged while fragged). The rules also state that enemy BGs revealed by evades/routs become additional targets of the charge that can evade, test if fragged, etc.

What the rules do not state is what happens to enemy BGs in the path of a declared charge once an interception blocks that path -- namely, can they (or must they) evade if they are of the evading type? Many have said that they do not because they are no longer targets of the charge, but I don't see that in the rules. It makes some difference because if they are removed from the "target of the charge" concept, then they need not evade and their failure to evade does not affect the "all targets have evaded" part of the VMD rule (to the extent that a VMD would affect the result, such as where the charger might hope to roll short to avoid contacting the intercepting BG).

Spike

[philqw78]

What the rules do not state is what happens to enemy BGs in the path of a declared charge once an interception blocks that path -- namely, can they (or must they) evade if they are of the evading type? Many have said that they do not because they are no longer targets of the charge, but I don't see that in the rules. It makes some difference because if they are removed from the "target of the charge" concept, then they need not evade and their failure to evade does not affect the "all targets have evaded" part of the VMD rule (to the extent that a VMD would affect the result, such as where the charger might hope to roll short to avoid contacting the intercepting BG).

I would assume this is the reason evades are moved after intercepts. So that A BG that now cannot be contacted does not evade. Whether this is right or not in a historical, realism or game context I cannot say. But it does simplify and speed things up. And as you said the charger does not roll VMD as he now must hit the interceptor in his path

[batesmotel]

What the rules do not state is what happens to enemy BGs in the path of a declared charge once an interception blocks that path -- namely, can they (or must they) evade if they are of the evading type? Many have said that they do not because they are no longer targets of the charge, but I don't see that in the rules. It makes some difference because if they are removed from the "target of the charge" concept, then they need not evade and their failure to evade does not affect the "all targets have evaded" part of the VMD rule (to the extent that a VMD would affect the result, such as where the charger might hope to roll short to avoid contacting the intercepting BG).

I would assume this is the reason evades are moved after intercepts. So that A BG that now cannot be contacted does not evade. Whether this is right or not in a historical, realism or game context I cannot say. But it does simplify and speed things up. And as you said the charger does not roll VMD as he now must hit the interceptor in his path

As far as I can tell, the intercept mechanism in the rules is an artifact to compensate to some degree for use of alternate player turns rather than being simultaneous. So it doesn't make a lot of sense to worry about whether it directly simulates something realistically other than from the overall question of whether FoG overall provides historically plausible results and games.

Chris