Slitherine

As I understand it to make an intercept you have to be able to get the interceptors between the charger and the original target so that the chargers hit the interceptors first not the original target or in this case the original targets location, so I would agree that no intercept was possible in this situation.

zoltan wrote:At this year's Worlds in NZ, if I am asked to rule on this matter my ruling will be:

To be able to make an intercept move, the potential interceptor must be within the "normal" charge reach of the charger (i.e. not within a step forward or plus VMD move).

But if he's within the normal charge range, he is a target and cannot intercept.
To be able to intercept, the BG in question cannot be a target of the charge and has to be able to "cross the path" of the charging BG. You can't assume the path extends past an evade capable target, nor does it extend past the initial line of contact exept to step forward to get more bases into contact with enemy. At the point of decision for intercepts the charge path of the charging BG extends only to the initial point of contact with the target and any stepping forward to bring additional bases into contact. In your example, the HF cannot cross the path of the charger because they are behind the LF, and the charge path does not extend beyond the front edge of the LF. You cannot intercept based on the charge path being modified by the final position of the potentially intercepting BG. (Unless you can intercept in his flank or rear, but that is another story.)

gozerius wrote:

zoltan wrote:At this year's Worlds in NZ, if I am asked to rule on this matter my ruling will be:

To be able to make an intercept move, the potential interceptor must be within the "normal" charge reach of the charger (i.e. not within a step forward or plus VMD move).

But if he's within the normal charge range, he is a target and cannot intercept.
To be able to intercept, the BG in question cannot be a target of the charge and has to be able to "cross the path" of the charging BG. You can't assume the path extends past an evade capable target, nor does it extend past the initial line of contact exept to step forward to get more bases into contact with enemy. At the point of decision for intercepts the charge path of the charging BG extends only to the initial point of contact with the target and any stepping forward to bring additional bases into contact. In your example, the HF cannot cross the path of the charger because they are behind the LF, and the charge path does not extend beyond the front edge of the LF. You cannot intercept based on the charge path being modified by the final position of the potentially intercepting BG. (Unless you can intercept in his flank or rear, but that is another story.)

I suspect Zoltan means after the intercept has been / would have been moved

dave_r wrote:[I suspect Zoltan means after the intercept has been / would have been moved

Dave is right.

In my photo the HF can not intercept as they are positioned outside the MF's 'normal' charge of 4MUs. As you correctly point out, if they were inside 4 MUs they would themselves be a target of the charge and again could not intercept.

In a situation like that depicted in my photo I do not think the possibility of the MF rolling a plus VMD should be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not the HF can intercept.

I was thinking of a situation where the HF might be to the side (not directly in front of the MF). In this case, the HF can not declare an intercept unless its 2 MU intercept charge move would intersect with the MF's 4 MU 'normal' charge move. Again, the MF's potential for an add VMD should be ignored when considering the HF's potential for intercept.

Time to change my signature

zoltan wrote:

dave_r wrote:[I suspect Zoltan means after the intercept has been / would have been moved

Dave is right.

In my photo the HF can not intercept as they are positioned outside the MF's 'normal' charge of 4MUs. As you correctly point out, if they were inside 4 MUs they would themselves be a target of the charge and again could not intercept.

In a situation like that depicted in my photo I do not think the possibility of the MF rolling a plus VMD should be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not the HF can intercept.

I was thinking of a situation where the HF might be to the side (not directly in front of the MF). In this case, the HF can not declare an intercept unless its 2 MU intercept charge move would intersect with the MF's 4 MU 'normal' charge move. Again, the MF's potential for an add VMD should be ignored when considering the HF's potential for intercept.

Moreover, if the HF were clear of the side of the LF and were close enough to be a valid intercept, then the chargers would not get a VMD. The interceptors become an additional target of the charge, so not all targets will have evaded, leaving no VMD for the MF.

zoltan wrote:

dave_r wrote:[I suspect Zoltan means after the intercept has been / would have been moved

Dave is right.

In my photo the HF can not intercept as they are positioned outside the MF's 'normal' charge of 4MUs. As you correctly point out, if they were inside 4 MUs they would themselves be a target of the charge and again could not intercept.

In a situation like that depicted in my photo I do not think the possibility of the MF rolling a plus VMD should be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not the HF can intercept.

I was thinking of a situation where the HF might be to the side (not directly in front of the MF). In this case, the HF can not declare an intercept unless its 2 MU intercept charge move would intersect with the MF's 4 MU 'normal' charge move. Again, the MF's potential for an add VMD should be ignored when considering the HF's potential for intercept.

Right. When determining eligibility for intercept, you only consider how far the charger will go if the target does not evade. Using your example again, if the HF were offset enough to clear the LF, they could intercept if they were at just over the depth of the MF from the front edge of the LF. This is because the MF could not step forward enough to break contact with the adjacent file.

Also, as I understand, a step forward only occurs if it allows more stands to contact the original target or a new enemy.
In this example I cannot see any justification for the chargers to step forwards at any point.
The only additional contact they could make would be "if" the heavy foot made the intercept charge, and if part of the premise is that the HF might be made eligible to intercept by the MF stepping forwards, then the whole argument becomes a bit redundant.

I agree that the HF (if clear of the LF) could intercept if that put the HF beyond the front of the LF. If they come up short, then you have a chicken-and-egg situation on step-forwards. I think that a step-forward contingent on an intercept should not extend the charge path to allow that intercept. But I don't have the rules handy to confirm.

Similarly, do the rules clarify the boundary of the charge path for the third option? Namely, if the HF's 2MU intercept puts them just in line with the original charge target, such that the MF would contact both, is that a valid intercept? I think it is, but without the rules cannot confirm.

spikemesq wrote:I agree that the HF (if clear of the LF) could intercept if that put the HF beyond the front of the LF. If they come up short, then you have a chicken-and-egg situation on step-forwards. I think that a step-forward contingent on an intercept should not extend the charge path to allow that intercept. But I don't have the rules handy to confirm.

Similarly, do the rules clarify the boundary of the charge path for the third option? Namely, if the HF's 2MU intercept puts them just in line with the original charge target, such that the MF would contact both, is that a valid intercept? I think it is, but without the rules cannot confirm.

I think the chargers have to enter to "intercept zone" so if the front edge of the zone is exactly even with the front of the LF then I believe the HF aren't allowed to intercept.

Chris

Sorry for the emotes but at work and can't upload a photo

In the below situation, ignore arrows they are just to get spacing.

Devil faces are a unit of HF, facing down page
Smiley faces are a unit of LF, facing down page

HF are 1mu behind LF

So my question is does the HF's ZOI stop behind the LF (the exclamation marks) like you were rolling out a carpet.

Or does it extend past the LF (the question marks), like a wave breaking, the LF stop part of the ZOI wave but the rest spills past.

I am talking ZOI, not where the HF can physically intercept.

I am talking ZOI, not where the HF can physically intercept.

Nothing blocks the ZOI afaik - other than maybe impassable terrain? It extends through both friends and enemy bases.

Nothing blocks the ZOI afaik - other than maybe impassable terrain? It extends through both friends and enemy bases.

The rules (page 62) do say that the ZOI does not go into terrain that disorders the potential interceptor. It is silent on extending through friendly/enemy bases.
And it doesn't matter. Page 63 says the interception charge must be directly forward up to the limit of the BG's ZOI. It cannot include any shifts, formation changes, or interpenetrations. And, it must cross the path of the charging enemy BG or contact the enemy BG in flank/rear.

So the HF cannot intercept in this case. The LF block their actual intercept move such that they cannot reach the charge path.

Nothing stops pinning in 2 MU. Where things can physically intercept is not the same.

Okay - I think we're at cross purposes.

I took ZOI to mean Zone of Influence - as in its Restricted Area.

Did you mean Zone of Interception?

If you consider the question where the LF were a BG of troops that could not evade then could the HF intercept? I would argue that the answer is "no" as they could not cross the charge path of the chargers.

The fact that the LF can evade should not affect the ability of the HF to make an interception charge. It may be argued that the VMD may take the chargers into contact with the HF but then again it may not.

Evade moves have nothing to do with determining interception moves. Interception moves happen before any evade moves. Read pages 62 and 63.

bbotus wrote:Evade moves have nothing to do with determining interception moves. Interception moves happen before any evade moves. Read pages 62 and 63.

This is what I argued. If evade moves have nothing to do with interception charges then the fact that the LF can evade should have no bearing on whether the HF can intercept. If the LF did not evade then the chargers would not contact the HF even if they had "intercepted" to a position behind the LF, so the interception should not be allowed.

zoltan wrote:At this year's Worlds in NZ, if I am asked to rule on this matter my ruling will be:

To be able to make an intercept move, the potential interceptor must be within the "normal" charge reach of the charger (i.e. not within a step forward or plus VMD move).

Ha, ha. This came up 3 times at the Worlds in Wellington. Mercifully, I ruled as I said I would! I did not allow an enemy who was relying on the charger to step forward/VMD up into their ZOI, to intercept. Was I right or wrong?

Right