Slitherine

grahambriggs wrote: In this example had the knights advanced in the previous bound to be 4MU from the cavalry an intercept would be possible.

Then they would have been a target of the charge so no intercept. If the owner of the cavalry was sensible, the charge would not have happened in that case. Not that this is relevant to the original question

grahambriggs wrote:Yes i think Zoltan's last post correctly captures the situation. Per my earlier post, step forward can trigger intercept; that's fairly clear in the rules. it's just that in this case it doesn't.

Well it's not all that clear, or the question wouldn't have arisen. The rules specifically say that stepping forward can make a potential interceptor a target of the charge, rather than include the step forward as part of the definition of the path of the charge. Your interpretion makes sense, but I would I like to see confirmation from a rules writer, and a note in the FAQ, because it's likely that people are getting it wrong.

Like me.

philqw78 wrote:

grahambriggs wrote: In this example had the knights advanced in the previous bound to be 4MU from the cavalry an intercept would be possible.

Then they would have been a target of the charge so no intercept. If the owner of the cavalry was sensible, the charge would not have happened in that case. Not that this is relevant to the original question

Well, not by a straight ahead charge at least, as you can only stagger forward 2MU. Not sure whether there is a position for the knights to put them in intercept range but where a cavalry charge including a wheel can't stagger into them.

Still, I doubt the knight would worry too much about 4 cavalry bases hitting 8 infantry and 4 knights...

Bad choice for the cav alright, either way its horse flesh time.
I still think the biggest problem with using stepping forward to trigger an intercept is that the intercept has to occur before the chargers move, normally I am not even aware of any stepping forward potential until I make first contact and then physically see it. The reason why I don't think a step forward could trigger an intercept but then who really knows for sure

Good thread. I picked up a new (for me) and I think valid ruling/interpretation.

Thanks,

Bill

I can see the argument either way.
But as far as precedent goes, I recall a recent thread that pointed out that you can't intercept a charge if the target evades and as a result the chargers now enter the intercept zone. I see this as being a similar situation, especially as to the point in the sequence when intercepts are declared.

That's a very different case.

Look at the turn sequence: interceptors move before evaders, who move before chargers.

So in most cases where chargers would enter a ZOI after their target evaded, the evaders are in the way of the would-be interceptors, which therefore become wouldn't-be interceptors.