Page 2 of 2

Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:59 pm
by donm
Pete,

I didn't take too much notice of the exact position of the troops in the picture, as it is so difficult to tell.

You do begin to wonder if Intercept moves are worth all those printed words in the rules :D

Don

Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:17 pm
by GuglielmoMarlia
...
Err the problem is that the knights do not have a whole base behind the flank of the cavalry and that the cavalry are partly infront of the knights...

Ahem,
Sorry but I feel the game should get rid of this sort of situations and arguments.
I would allow my opponents' knights to charge my cavalry in both positions. Simply because they would have done it.
Rgds/Guglielmo

Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:09 pm
by dave_r
Sorry but I feel the game should get rid of this sort of situations and arguments.
I would allow my opponents' knights to charge my cavalry in both positions. Simply because they would have done it.
Or because you didn't want the cavalry to charge you in the flank in their next turn ;)

Don't see a problem with this - whilst at the moment they can't intercept, the knights are very likely to get hit in the flank by one of the units in the very near future. The mechanism how this happens may be debatable - but the overall effect is likely to be some dead knights...

Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:51 pm
by rogerg
... or even tell your opponent, when he is moving them, to position the cavalry at a slight angle to permit the intercept.

Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:21 pm
by GuglielmoMarlia
... tell your opponent, when he is moving them, to position the cavalry at a slight angle to permit the intercept...

Well then I can as well play the game on his behalf.
My point of view (FWIW) is that a very minor detail (being or not exactly at 90° or exactly in front of the infantry) should not make the difference between charging or not since it would not matter in reality.
Anyway in my example my opponent was supposed to move the knights (those intecepting) not me.

Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:09 pm
by hammy
As things stand what you can and can't do in an intercept is pretty much clear. To allow the knights to intercept would require either allowing interceptions to be able to wheel for reasons other than the curent very specific one or to allow intercepts to contact enemy other than as a flank charge. I have not fully considered all the options but I suspect that allowing either of these would cause more problems and issues that they solve.

Has anyone ever not been able to intercept for the reason covered in this post? I certainly haven't

Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 6:15 pm
by philqw78
Well, if I was asked to rule on it, which I won't be, I would say move the interceptor to a nanoometer from contact, then immediately the chargers move contact is made.

Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:32 pm
by hammy
philqw78 wrote:Well, if I was asked to rule on it, which I won't be, I would say move the interceptor to a nanoometer from contact, then immediately the chargers move contact is made.
But in this case the interceptors can't actually reach the ZoI because the chargers are in the way :shock:

Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:21 am
by philqw78
hammy wrote:
philqw78 wrote:Well, if I was asked to rule on it, which I won't be, I would say move the interceptor to a nanoometer from contact, then immediately the chargers move contact is made.
But in this case the interceptors can't actually reach the ZoI because the chargers are in the way :shock:
Look, if I'm umpiring whatever you say is wrong Hammy, so don't bother.

Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 8:49 am
by hammy
philqw78 wrote:[quote="hammy]But in this case the interceptors can't actually reach the ZoI because the chargers are in the way :shock:
Look, if I'm umpiring whatever you say is wrong Hammy, so don't bother.[/quote][/quote]

Right....

remind me why we try to not let you umpire Phil ;)

I suppose that given the choice between you and Dave :roll:

Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:03 am
by dave_r
Yes, but I already umpire 8)

And list check for that matter. For which I have never yet made a mistake :)

Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:07 am
by hammy
dave_r wrote:Yes, but I already umpire 8)

And list check for that matter. For which I have never yet made a mistake :)
Sorry Dave, how many times did you get your list for Game 09 wrong?

Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:30 am
by nikgaukroger
That wasn't list checking ...

Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:31 am
by philqw78
nikgaukroger wrote:That wasn't list checking ...
But he got his own list wrong when he was checking.

Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:50 am
by dave_r
I most certainly did not. I didn't check my own list.....

Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:45 pm
by madcam2us
But what was your intent????

That's all that matters....

Madcam.

Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:00 pm
by dave_r
I didn't intend to get my list wrong if that is what you are implying!

Just sometimes happens that's all i'm saying....

Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 5:06 pm
by petedalby
I didn't intend to get my list wrong if that is what you are implying!

Just sometimes happens that's all i'm saying....
Methinks he doth protest too much!