Slitherine

<sings>I second that emotion.

philqw78 wrote:Right

Ugh. Please review this thread: viewtopic.php?t=20414&highlight=intercept where Phil seems to be giving the opposite answer to the same question. I know that the thread I've cited above ended up turning on a different question (the step forward that triggered the intercept shouldn't have happened) but I had thought based on this that step forwards do trigger intercepts.

I understand that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a narrow mind, but which is it guys?

Just as you cannot base eligibility to intercept on the likelihood of a target BG evading, you cannot claim eligibility based on the final positions of the enemy bases should the potential interceptor move. The charge path is the space between the front edge of the charger and the end position of the charger at the conclusion of its charge. Just as you cannot declare charges by BGs that are behind other charging BGs unless a valid charge path exists at the moment of the declaration, so too an intercept must cross the path of the charger as it exists at the moment the intercept is announced so that the charge is interrupted before it concludes its planned move.

gozerius wrote:Just as you cannot base eligibility to intercept on the likelihood of a target BG evading, you cannot claim eligibility based on the final positions of the enemy bases should the potential interceptor move. The charge path is the space between the front edge of the charger and the end position of the charger at the conclusion of its charge. Just as you cannot declare charges by BGs that are behind other charging BGs unless a valid charge path exists at the moment of the declaration, so too an intercept must cross the path of the charger as it exists at the moment the intercept is announced so that the charge is interrupted before it concludes its planned move.

The rules are ambigous on this point, and there is some logic to either answer (which presumably is why Phil has given both). In the end I actually don't really care what the answer is, as long as it doesn't flop back and forth on a month-to-month basis. I just want to know what I should plan on when I play. In the long term this likely needs to get specified in 2.0, but in the short term it would be helpful to get as definitive a statement as possible so that folks can point to it when necessary.

iversonjm wrote:

philqw78 wrote:Right

Ugh. Please review this thread: viewtopic.php?t=20414&highlight=intercept where Phil seems to be giving the opposite answer to the same question. I know that the thread I've cited above ended up turning on a different question (the step forward that triggered the intercept shouldn't have happened) but I had thought based on this that step forwards do trigger intercepts.

I understand that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a narrow mind, but which is it guys?

To put it more simply, if the chargers step forward against their original target (without the interceptors being present) would enter the intercept zone, then you can intercept. You cannot intercept if they would only step forward into the intercept zone due to the interceptors being there. This is a consistent interpretation between both these threads.

Chris

batesmotel wrote: To put it more simply, if the chargers step forward against their original target (without the interceptors being present) would enter the intercept zone, then you can intercept. You cannot intercept if they would only step forward into the intercept zone due to the interceptors being there. This is a consistent interpretation between both these threads.

Chris

Ah hah. That I get.