Slitherine

C2 still gets hit, as a frontal contact.

E2 can't contact C2 (so doesn't step forward to it) because C2 is not being intercepted. See discussion on page 1 of this thread.

Mike

Interceptors hitting flank or rear step forward and can hit other enemy in doing so. See FAQ

philqw78 wrote:Interceptors hitting flank or rear step forward

I'm familiar with FAQ 5.01 entry:

"Where an interception catches a BG in the flank or rear this is a different situation. The chargers’ move is cancelled and
effectively the interceptors charge them instead. In this case it is the interceptors that are making contact so they do step
forward."

philqw78 wrote:and can hit other enemy in doing so. See FAQ

Not finding that.

Not finding that

Because that is in the main rules. BG that can step forward to contact must. And they can, so must.

Correct on the lsat point. Will look at diag later.

As for skimrishers we could of course let them get away but do not want to for two reasons:

1. To get intercepted in the flank you have made a mistake - its a game and we want mistakes to penalised npot forgiven or there will be no skill in it.

2. You are looking at the bases as they stand but tghe alternate move system is simply and abstraction of reality. Reality is not that they charge, get cancelled, see new opponents and turn around and run (alas they didn't play by stuttering rules like we do). Reality is more like. They are passing by trying to get target. Inrterceptors have them in their sights and are moving towards them to cut them off. LH ordered to charge thinking they can get past but rather misjudge the situation and find find the interceptors have got rather too close before they manage to get past them. They are then caught between charging, reorganising and running away.

" If I move 4 and you move 2 you'll never catch me - oh but I will if you move 2 towards me and two away!!"

This is more the reality of this situation and we therefore reflect it thus. If you want to evade don't get intercepted .... simples

Si

shall wrote:Correct on the lsat point. Will look at diag later. Si

The last point was Phil's. His view is that interceptors must step forward against the charger they are hitting in flank and to hit any other nearby enemy bystanders they can reach by stepping forward. I have an old note from some past thread that interceptors can't hit any BGs other than the charger, but I don't recall the situation there. Which is correct?

Mike

They can only step forward if they hit enemy in flank or rear, and then must. This means hitting enemy other than the one intercepted as they cannot hit any on the way to intercept, or change direction or anything. But once they hit in flank or rear they step forward which must mean they can hit other enemy as that is the only reason a step forward happens. Interceptors who are contacted by the front of enemy do not themselves (by their own movement) contact enemy and are not allowed to step forward.

No fair, the question was for Simon!

philqw78 wrote:They can only step forward if they hit enemy in flank or rear, and then must. This means hitting enemy other than the one intercepted as they cannot hit any on the way to intercept, or change direction or anything. But once they hit in flank or rear they step forward which must mean they can hit other enemy as that is the only reason a step forward happens. Interceptors who are contacted by the front of enemy do not themselves (by their own movement) contact enemy and are not allowed to step forward.

{Emphasis added}

I think "the only reason that step forward happens" would be to step forward into the intercepted BG to get more bases in Impact. The bullet says they contact the intercepted BG. There's nothing permitting them to charge into innocent bystanders - they'll have to use their own charge phase for that.

to step forward into the intercepted BG to get more bases in

Oh, sorry forgot about that. Probably 'cos I've never seen it happen on a flank intercept.

But step forward is still step forward.

And this was all going so well!

If an Intercept is only treated as a charge - (on the BG it's intercepting) - then how can it step forward into a different BG?

Sorry Phil - I agree with Mike - I think you're wrong.

But we need Si / the authors to give the definitive view - once again.

Pete

Well I have never ever seen it happen into another BG.

Hard to give a definitive answer right away need to consult Terry and RBS as we haven't considered it at all to be honest.

In our logic so far we have treated like a charge after contact as the intent - so if treated that way is suppose as step forward is after contact you could argue they do hit them.

My thoughts go back to the intent of the two scenarios;

(1) get in the way of charger frontally

(2) charge hell for leather into its flank

I suppose if you take those two at their most basic level you would have a decent argument that you would step forward into others for (2) but then would need to test to intercept if it meant you hit something you normally couldn't charge, and ever step forward for (1) at all. Seems consistent with the original premis. Given this my vote FWIW would be that you do step forward when hitting flank or rear, even if this means doing so into another target. But just a personal view for now.

Any serious downside of playing it this way that you pro-players and wording dismantlers can forseee?? I'll see what Terry thinks over the weekend (hoping to run him over with my chariots!)

Interesting indeed.

Si

The big downside for me of allowing the intercept to step forward goes right back to Sagi's original position.

If the other enemy BG, now being stepped forward into by the interceptors, is capable of evading - why can't it evade?

Of course, as you say, I've never seen this happen before either. So if this was a potential consequence you'd try pretty hard to avoid it wouldn't you.

Pete

Some ideas

Disturbing? Evasive BG bystanders get hit without a chance to evade.

Appropriate? If you earned the flank/rear position on a BG and get to intercept them, stepping forward is just a normal bonus/penalty (depending on what you hit), as the same thing would happen if you charged in your own turn.

Anti-Interceptors? If the second BG is something unpleasant, it acts as a deterrent to interception.

Nonconformists? Since it's the enemy turn, the contacted enemies must conform to the interceptors, rather different from chargers, who have to conform first. Since the interceptor moved into position its preceding turn, presumably some very dastardly conforms can be engineered, though as a trap it really only works well against shock troops who may be forced to charge.

Oddity? If, for example, behind the enemy line, you could step forward into the rear (or other side) of a second enemy BG if it is even with or slightly farther away than the target, but if that enemy rear is a little closer then you can't intercept at all.
I prefer reading the contact-the-charging-BG language as contact-only-the-charging-BG, which incidentally avoids this issue.

Is Interception a Charge? I still like the idea of saying it's not a charge, and the logic of saying it is treated as a flank charge against the charging BG(s) only (since it is possible to intercept multiple BGs).

punisher? If you didn't want to get interecpted you should have charged and your colleagues who got thimped can beat you up in the pub afterwards?

On a serious note I think we will need to take this one back to base as its a real oddity. And I haven't ever seen it. I guess we could stick to the no evade or if its charge after contact, then as the intercept precedes an evade you could argue a case for allowing it as Sagji suggests - not because the intercept is a charge, but because it converts into one after contact is made.

I suppose its up to us as you could play those words either way if you wanted to. Need to give it more thought.

Si

for Shall´s no 2, the interceptors surly should not move more than their normal interception move (2/4 MU) straight ahead, including the stepping forward. Thus the situation in Sagjis diagram (pike, E2, exactly at 2 MU from Kn, K1) would end with E2 in K1´s flank, and thats it, no more move for E2 to step forward with making it impossible to reach C2. The interception move severly limit the probablility to "snag a bonus BG" and thus the prohibition to evade could easily be explained by the interceptors beeing covered by the dustclouds and confusion of the BG actually trying to do the charging.

I have no problem with th LH/LF/Cv-in-line loosing their evade under those circumstances - to me it sounds that if someone managed do get themselves into that kind of crappy situation it would be an rather historical conclusion to be mauled. If you sit with your side/rear in someones ZOI, dont mess around...

Fulgrim wrote: If you sit with your side/rear in someones ZOI, dont mess around...

The bystander may well not be sitting in the ZOI as the intercepting player just moved his troops up in his turn.

May not be side or rear that is stepped forward into - could be front as well.

- - - -

If "charge" were removed from "interception charge" then, to limit attack to the target BG, the bullet might start

"Contact and step forward only into the flank or rear of the enemy battle group."

And at the other end "is treated as a normal flank/rear charge contact but is NOT a charge."

petedalby wrote:.........
If the other enemy BG, now being stepped forward into by the interceptors, is capable of evading - why can't it evade?

.........Pete

If it was charging it couldn't. if it wasn't it could

for Shall´s no 2, the interceptors surly should not move more than their normal interception move (2/4 MU) straight ahead, including the stepping forward. Thus the situation in Sagjis diagram (pike, E2, exactly at 2 MU from Kn, K1) would end with E2 in K1´s flank, and thats it, no more move for E2 to step forward with making it impossible to reach C2. The interception move severly limit the probablility to "snag a bonus BG" and thus the prohibition to evade could easily be explained by the interceptors beeing covered by the dustclouds and confusion of the BG actually trying to do the charging.

My sense is that as drafted the ZOI only applies until contact as that point is aub bullet within it. However I don't theink we will be voerbound by minor wording and would rather revert to what we prefer to happen here and calrify in FAQ. Its an oddball that i have never seen yet so hardly game breaking whatever we do.

I have no problem with th LH/LF/Cv-in-line loosing their evade under those circumstances - to me it sounds that if someone managed do get themselves into that kind of crappy situation it would be an rather historical conclusion to be mauled. If you sit with your side/rear in someones ZOI, dont mess around...

Exactly my view. In fact the reality is that we are basically deciding whether we allow someone to lose 2 BGs through such a mistake or limit it ti just 1 . Hardly game breaking as if you dont make the mistake you don't lose either! My sense is the debate is over its just for us to make a call so that everyone knows a single answer and whichever it is is fialry harmless frankly.

I am seeing Terry over the weekend I hope so we will kick it around together and see what our view is within the various options.

Si

Since the second non-charging BG that is hit by the interception has to be farther away than the initial target, it is quite likely to be outside the ZOI but stepped into. Carelessness lies in letting an enemy move into a double-intercept position on the charger's flank or rear and then choosing or being forced to charge.