This is a very old thread yet not dead; indeed I fear it is an incorruptible set of issues as they keep coming back afresh to create confusion regarding a key part of the game, e.g., the Charge redux thread
viewtopic.php?t=12478.
There is the question of what the rules say, the question of what the rules mean, and the question of what they ought to be. In the absence of direct authorial writ, we humble Impact Phaseologists must sift and dig through the rules and shifting forum sands and try to put the shards and fragments together in a way that makes sense and is internally consistent.
(P.S. I make every effort to keep my own post count down by making each one as LONG as possible to conserve space for others rankings; in that spirit I'll put my response to Spike's contribution below)
spikemesq wrote:Of course nobody enjoys discussing the Impact Phase more than I do.
If so, maybe you want to carry the flag and update this?
spikemesq wrote: The thread you linked indicates that a charge may not be legally declared against a target that the charger could not hit unless another BG cleared the path (i.e., a charge contingent on another charge). Your statement here is broader than that. Your rule would cancel charges where (a) routers escaped charge range; and (b) where an intercept (other than a flank) blocked the declared charge path. Both situations make the intended target no longer reachable. Do you really mean that such charges would be canceled?
In the thread cited, the design team was concurring with Lawrenceq's
"If you cannot do your charge, it is cancelled." which was raised earlier in this thread
Lawrenceq had also commented:
"It seems to me that if you can't do your charge move for any reason not otherwise covered, then your charge must be cancelled. This would be the simplest way to handle it and is consistent with the last sentence in the section on "Formation changes when charging" on p54.
(By the way, I can't find anything to say what happens when your fragmented target breaks and routs out of your reach.)"
The rout point was not followed up specifically, but under the general cancellation view I think the answer is that if your only charge target rolls its VMD (p100) and routs out of your charge range then it is cancelled. You don't roll a VMD for a rout - you only roll a VMD yourself if all targets evade out of range (see p68 and forum thread 9606). Since the charge is cancelled you can move to follow in the manoeuvre phase or, having seen the villains off, do something else. This also makes more sense to me than chasing after it into the blue. If uncontroversial, this should probably be mentioned in a note to the FAQ sequence above.
Agreed that it's not cancelled if the interception rules take over. The first paragraph on p64 is specific and says it may or many not contact the original target. A citation to this can be added to the sequence if helpful to avoid uncertainty.
spikemesq wrote:Wow. In the earlier threads, everyone told me that you could not deviate from the declared charge path except to pursue evaders, even when the declared charge path not longer met the "Base Hit Rule."
I don't think I was saying anything inconsistent with that in noting that events can change the direction and path. As noted later, it can change due to evaders or new targets. The key backdrop to this and the adjoining paragraphs is that in many cases there is no need to define the charge path until before the charge move is actually made, while with potential interceptors it is done at declaration.
spikemesq wrote:Is the Base Hit Rule tested only at declaration? Must it be satisfied when executing the charge move?
Sort of - since the permitted wheel choices are calculated assuming no evade, you might have to declare a charge that would contact 3 bases if no one evades but due to evasion only hits one non-evading base from another BG even though if you wheeled further you could have hit two of those non-evading bases. Does this answer your question?
spikemesq wrote:11. FRAGMENTED BGS which become a target because revealed by evasions now cohesion test and make an initial rout move if they fail.
This looks very wrong to me.
CTs for Fragged troops being charged happen first along with any resulting routs. These can reveal new targets, so the sequence is important.
Indeed. Declaration fragtests and rout happen at step 7. Step 11 fragtests and routs are for new revealed targets.
spikemesq wrote:From the other threads, an interception that blocks the path to skirmishers renders them no longer a target. Thus, they need not (and cannot) evade.
You hit on another knotty issue simplified in the draft FAQ above. The question is when are interceptions declared, and what difference does it make? This is something which would be nice to clarify. Looking at the sequence atop p52, on p168, and the second bullet on page 62, etc., it seems clear to me that it can't possibly be required until after the last charge is declared in STEP 4 (charging without orders) and must be before Interceptors move at STEP 9. Since, as you highlighted above, charges may be cancelled if the only target routs out of range at STEP 7, you don't know until then what charges are actually going to happen, therefore you can't REQUIRE someone to declare an interception until STEP 8.
The subtler question is how early someone may VOLUNTARILY declare an interception charge.
If the intercept counts as a flank or rear charge that will cancel the active player's charge and is declared at the last moment at STEP 8, can it retroactively undo undesired evade and fragtest results? I don't think so - s no basis for it in the rules and too cheesy - the old arguments about not getting a free peek at something supposed to be simultaneous and leaving things as they lie lrather than retroactively changing prior actions if a player delays apply.
An interceptor who can cancel a charge completely should be able to declare interception before those tests occur. How early? Doing so before the active player has finishing declaring charges and testing for skirmisher and uncontrolled charges is unnecessary and I think unfairly distracting. I think the earliest eligible point is right before the inactive player decides upon his evasions and does his evasion tests and then fragtests (i.e., between STEP 4 and STEP 5), and he can make the decision at any time up to STEP 8. However, if he delays to a later step, he is stuck with the results of the steps he waited - fragtesters may rout and evaders may evade if the player delays.
Other than possibly distracting people as to the sequence of play, I don't see anything preventing declaration of interceptions that do
not cancel a charge at any time that the cancelling interceptor can do so, as it makes no difference on the table. I don't see anything to indicate that it cancels, prevents or retroactively reverses any evade tests, fragtests, or resulting evades or routs. P64 specifically states that the charger charges and may or may not hit its original target. So the inactive player may decide to test to receive the charge based on his knowledge that the charge will be intercepted, but the charge on the target is not cancelled and it has its normal effects whether or not it contacts the target.
Spike, please let me know if you can relate to this and how you understand the rules and forum comments? As a fellow Impact Phaseologist, can you provide your conclusions and if possible references to the most recent thinking and design team conclusions on this?
spikemesq wrote:This is unclear. Are interceptors considered a "target"?
I don't think it matters since you must follow the path to hit them so the all-evade exception becomes irrelevant. This is trying to say that if there are no interceptors in your path, and no revealed targets in your path, and all your charge targets that were in the path have evaded out (my opinion is routers don't count for the reasons in the router discussion above), THEN you can think about changing your direction/path. Assuming this is uncontroversial, what wording would make this crystal-clear?
spikemesq wrote:but your reference to the Base Hit Rule seems off. That rule compares a wheel to a straight ahead move and requires >/= hits. I don't recall it making the same comparison of new wheels vs. original wheels. What if the evades make the declared wheel no longer valid under the Base Hit Rule? In the other threads, the collective wisdom was stick to the declared path.
You can always stick to the declared path if you wish. The Step 12 conclusions are pieced together from the FAQ and a number of forum threads giving meat to when and how you can use the "wheel in an attempt to catch them" option, which can be a cheesemaker in the wrong hands.
spikemesq wrote:13. Make all charge moves including contractions to avoid friends and stepping forward, but charges unable to make legal charge contact are cancelled.
Thanks, it should say the last part on charge contact applies unless Step 12 applies.
Shouldn't it be
Spike => punching holes in things 
