Interception Charges

[ottomanmjm]

It seems that the general consensus is that an intercept charge is not a charge and so cannot contact enemy BG's (exceptin flank or rear). I'm stirring the pot a little here, but does this mean that Defensive Spearmen that perform an intercept charge towards an enemy's front get to count their defensive spear POA in the impact phase?

Regards
Martin

[SirGarnet]

I'm stirring the pot a little here, but does this mean that Defensive Spearmen that perform an intercept charge towards an enemy's front get to count their defensive spear POA in the impact phase?

From the FAQ:

Do interceptors use the POAs for their troop type as if charging?

Yes. These factors are designed to represent their physical momentum of movement forward. So lancers intercepting
have the benefit of this. Certain foot intercepting mounted will find this difficult and lose POAs they would have if they
were instead receiving a mounted charge stationary.

[sagji]

Sorry Alan but the FAQ DOES cover exactly this

What happens if charging skirmishers are themselves intercepted by non-skirmishers, can they evade?
An interception or evade is a response to a charge. It is not a response to an intercept charge. Troops therefore cannot
evade from interceptors. They cannot halt 1 MU away from the interceptors either.
Rationale: Once skirmishers are committed to an all out charge they are committed.

The FAQ is an official document and what it says goes at every tournament I have played since the FAQ came into existence.

The key point it that the part in red draws an incorrect conclusion from the previous facts - because both states can apply at the same time.

To rephrase
If unengaged LH are charged they can evade.
An interception charge doesn't enable a unit to evade, nor does it preclude it evading.

Thus if a unengaged LH is charged as part of an interception charge, then it can respond to the charge with an evade {as permitted by part one of the FAQ entry}. This is not a response to the interception charge {thus part two of the FAQ entry isn't relevant}

[philqw78]

To rephrase
If unengaged LH are charged they can evade.
An interception charge doesn't enable a unit to evade, nor does it preclude it evading.

Thus if a unengaged LH is charged as part of an interception charge, then it can respond to the charge with an evade {as permitted by part one of the FAQ entry}. This is not a response to the interception charge {thus part two of the FAQ entry isn't relevant}

To say that responding to the interception charge is not a response to the interception charge is utter bollocks

[hammy]

Sorry Alan but the FAQ DOES cover exactly this

What happens if charging skirmishers are themselves intercepted by non-skirmishers, can they evade?
An interception or evade is a response to a charge. It is not a response to an intercept charge. Troops therefore cannot
evade from interceptors. They cannot halt 1 MU away from the interceptors either.
Rationale: Once skirmishers are committed to an all out charge they are committed.

The FAQ is an official document and what it says goes at every tournament I have played since the FAQ came into existence.

The key point it that the part in red draws an incorrect conclusion from the previous facts - because both states can apply at the same time.

To rephrase
If unengaged LH are charged they can evade.
An interception charge doesn't enable a unit to evade, nor does it preclude it evading.

Thus if a unengaged LH is charged as part of an interception charge, then it can respond to the charge with an evade {as permitted by part one of the FAQ entry}. This is not a response to the interception charge {thus part two of the FAQ entry isn't relevant}

I give up

The plain and simple fact is that light troops that have declared a charge cannot intercept. That is what the FAQ says and also IMO what the rules say. It is also the way any umpire who uses the FAQ will rule.

[petedalby]

I agree with Hammy & Phil - in my view it couldn't be clearer and it is the way that it has been played at every comp I've been to.

Pete

[sagji]

To say that responding to the interception charge is not a response to the interception charge is utter bollocks

Good thing I don't say that then.

What I say is.
An evade is a permitted response to a charge.
The LH in question are being charged, and meet all the requirements to be permitted to evade
Nothing in the rules, nor the FAQ, revokes the ability to evade a charge when that charge is also an interception charge.
The rules don't grant the ability to evade to targets of interception charges - but the LH isn't getting the entitlement from the interception charge, it is getting it from the charge.
The FAQ clarifies this by pointing out that the rules don't grant the ability to evade to targets of interceptions.

[nikgaukroger]

I think AlanWorld has now been invented

[BillMc]

Well if you are making the argument (which as others above have clearly pointed out is not valid) that the LH can always evade from a charge (and therefore can evade from an Intercept Charge), that is a load of poo by your logic as well. Since the Intercept Charge is not allowed by definition (unless a flank charge) to impact the chargers. Intercepters move into their path and the Chargers plow into them. So when you launched your LH on a charge path, they are not evading from the intercept they are plowing into them.

[philqw78]

OMG (in the words of teenage girls)

To say that responding to the interception charge is not a response to the interception charge is utter bollocks

Good thing I don't say that then.

...........(blah, blah)............

I have translated your above into the only thing it can otherwise say then

[SirGarnet]

I think it best to change the answer "The chargers' move is cancelled and effectively the interceptors charge them instead" to something like

The chargers' charge movement is cancelled; they remain in position and are contacted by the flank/rear charge.


This deals directly with Saj's argument that saying the initial charge is completely canceled and the interception is "treated as a normal flank/rear charge" means it is no longer an interception. (Of course, if canceling the charge means it is void and never happened, then the interception couldn't happen either - and that makes no sense.)

Possible other errata would be to add to the last line of Interceptions on p64 the words "or evaded", and the FAQ could be improved by just taking "therefore" out, leaving "Troops cannot evade from interceptors." This will satisfy 99%+ of people.

Mike

[sagji]

Well if you are making the argument (which as others above have clearly pointed out is not valid) that the LH can always evade from a charge (and therefore can evade from an Intercept Charge), that is a load of poo by your logic as well. Since the Intercept Charge is not allowed by definition (unless a flank charge) to impact the chargers. Intercepters move into their path and the Chargers plow into them. So when you launched your LH on a charge path, they are not evading from the intercept they are plowing into them.

That isn't my argument.
My argument is that you can evade from a charge.
Under some circumstances an interception charge is treated as a flank/rear charge and the initial charge is cancelled. When that happens you can then evade from that charge.

I think it best to change the answer "The chargers' move is cancelled and effectively the interceptors charge them instead" to something like

The chargers' charge movement is cancelled; they remain in position and are contacted by the flank/rear charge.

You appear to be removing the rule that says to treat the interception charge as a flank/rear charge, and replacing it with wording that depends on it still being there.

This deals directly with Saj's argument that saying the initial charge is completely canceled and the interception is "treated as a normal flank/rear charge" means it is no longer an interception. (Of course, if canceling the charge means it is void and never happened, then the interception couldn't happen either - and that makes no sense.)

I never said the interception is no longer an interception - it is still an interception, my point is that while it is an interception it is also a charge, and the charge can be evaded, and that fact that the charge is also an interception does not prevent the charge being evaded.

I have never noticed that the charge is completely cancelled, and I have concerns over what effects that has, over and above just cancelling, as to me it implies some potentially bizare effects:

• The interception ceases to be an interception, and becomes purely a charge - which possibly should happen in the move chargers step. All the restrictions on interception would cease to apply, so it could wheel, and contract to pass friends. All the arguments that you can't evade an interception wouldn't apply as it is no longer an interception.
  
  Any routs that it caused are cancelled - what happens if the routed BG was blocking the interception, thus without the rout there is no interception?
  
  What if the intercepted BG is shock troups that were ordered to charge, if the charge is completely cancelled that then implies that they have to test to charge without orders, and what if the consequental restrictions on targeting mean that have to target the interceptors - thus removing their eligability to intercept?

[SirGarnet]

You appear to be removing the rule that says to treat the interception charge as a flank/rear charge, and replacing it with wording that depends on it still being there.

The rules are in the book. The FAQ is to explain clearly how it should be played.

I never said the interception is no longer an interception

It's implicit in your argument since it's the only way to avoid being blocked by the FAQ entries that refer to interception.

The question I have for you is this: what wording in the FAQ would conclusively fix the problem you are identifying?

[petedalby]

I never said the interception is no longer an interception - it is still an interception, my point is that while it is an interception it is also a charge, and the charge can be evaded, and that fact that the charge is also an interception does not prevent the charge being evaded.

I can see why you're continuing with this line of reasoning. In the sequence of play evades follow intercepts.

The rules say that a flank or rear intercept charge is treated as a normal flank / rear charge. But it doesn't become a flank / rear charge - it is still an intercept charge - it can't be both as charges are made at a different point in the sequence of play.

So there is ambiguity which, for most of us, has been addressed by the FAQ. This is where I get confused by your refusal to accept it.

Pete

[aventine]

I can see where the problem lies, page 63 last point "It cancels the enemy battle group's charge completely and despite the fact that it happens in the enemy's turn, is treated as a normal flank/rear charge."

This of course refers only to an interception by of a flank or rear charge and not an interception by placing of a battle group into the path.

By stating that the enemy's charge is cancelled completely and that it should be treated as a normal flank/rear charge, it therefore implies that any response to a normal charge would also be permitted.

I understand the point that has been made ie if a battle group has declared a charge it cannot evade and I would have played it so. But as I read this thread I have changed my point of view. I will however still play as before as it appears the majority of players don't agree.

KB

[SirGarnet]

if Sagji can help come up with some wording impervious to attack, then the wording glitch shall be fixed forevermore.

[sagji]

So there is ambiguity which, for most of us, has been addressed by the FAQ. This is where I get confused by your refusal to accept it.

Because the FAQ was not intended to answer the question "can you evade from an interception charge that is being treated as a charge?"
It was intended as a simple answer to a simple question "if the chargers in the example on p62 were LH could they evade the interception charge?"

if Sagji can help come up with some wording impervious to attack, then the wording glitch shall be fixed forevermore.

I have already made one such suggestion, along with a list of assumptions I made about other unintended consequences of the interception being treated as a charge. However that doesn't address the issue of the charge being completely cancelled.

What I suspect should be done is:
Replace the last sentance of P63 with "It cancels the enemy battle group's charge and any evasions to it that have not yet occured. The enemy battle group is treated as if it had been contacted by a flank/rear charge.

However this assumes that the only effects of the flank/rear interception are:
The intercepted BG doesn't move.
The intercepted BG charge is cancelled so it can't be evaded from.
The intercepted BG turns to face the intercepting BG(s).
The intercepted BG drops a cohesion level.
The intercepted BG fights the impact at --.
The intercepted BG may be fighting in multiple directions if intercepted from multiple directions.

I don't believe the problem can be fixed by changing the FAQ entry as there are other issues to fix than the ability to evade.

Ideally I would like to see the phrase "interception charge" replaced with "interception" as that removes the implication that it is a charge which is the source of the question. But that won't happen anytime soon.

[zoltan]

Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?

I think I can justifiably lay claim to setting off this recent spat (no you didn't!). Remember my example was where the HF interception chargers were behind the rear of the charging LH. The charging LH declared a charge at fragmented MF directly away from the HF. Remember I also asked at the outset whether or not the original charge declarers had to move into/across a zone of interception and what happened if they actually were charging out of a ZOI (as was the case with the HF positioned exactly 2MUs from the LH rear)?

So all the comments about the LH crashing into the interception charging HF don't apply to my example as the LH were going in completely the opposite direction to where the HF interception chargers were.

I also asked if the rules meant what they said: contact to flank or rear, "...cancels the enemy battle group's charge completely and.....is treated as a normal flank/rear charge." i.e. that a flank or rear interception charge is treated as a (normal) charge implying that all the other things that happen when a (normal) charge occurs (such as charged skirmishers opting to evade) also apply.

I understood one of the authors to say: No, the only thing we meant by "treated as a normal flank/rear charge" was "treat LH hit in the flank/rear by an interception charge exactly the same way as you would treat them if they opted to stand and receive a (normal) charge in their flank/rear".

In the game from which my example came my opponent and I concluded (perhaps erroneously) that "treated as a normal flank/rear charge" along with other rules such as "skirmishers can chose to evade an enemy BG's (normal) charge", "skirmishers must pass a CMT not to evade from (normal) charging non skirmishers" (p64), meant the LH had "normal" options in response to being interception charged (now that their charge had been cancelled).

So Sagji is not the only one interpreting this the same way we did 12,000 miles away!

[SirGarnet]

"It cancels the enemy battle group's charge and any evasions to it that have not yet occured. The enemy battle group is treated as if it had been contacted by a flank/rear charge.

I wouldn't think evasions would need to be mentioned since they only occur after interceptions. How about something to nail down the contact part (to precludes evasion) like "It cancels the enemy battle group's charge. The interceptors contact the enemy battle group. This is treated as a flank/rear charge." ?

[philqw78]

How about

Chargers who are intercepted may not evade.