Page 1 of 2
Advanceless charges
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:53 pm
by batesmotel
After the discussion in the thread on Interception Charges, perhaps it would be appropriate to issue an erratum for the rules noting that a charge may consist purely of a wheel into contact as a third option (or reword the second option to be a single wheel with or without an advance). In the long term this would seem to be much saner than arguing about whether a wheel with an advance of .00000000000001 gnat's todger is a legal charge and whether it can be intercepted.
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 1:27 pm
by philqw78
I don't think it is necessary. If BG are not in contact the space in between can be advanced into without contact, no matter how small it is*. So no rule change or errata necessary. Hasn't it also been mentioned on a number of other threads that bases are over deep anyway so that the figeures can fit and what type of troops they represent can be displayed.
* See Lawrence Greaves', PhD Quantum Physics, post about this
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:17 pm
by rbodleyscott
philqw78 wrote:I don't think it is necessary. If BG are not in contact the space in between can be advanced into without contact, no matter how small it is*. So no rule change or errata necessary. Hasn't it also been mentioned on a number of other threads that bases are over deep anyway so that the figeures can fit and what type of troops they represent can be displayed.
* See Lawrence Greaves', PhD Quantum Physics, post about this
Agreed. Had we intended the advance (straight) part to be compulsory we would have specified a minimum distance.
(There is no point in interpreting rules in ways that are geometrically unenforceable.)
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:05 am
by hazelbark
I agree the debate on the yahoo list is too pedantic. Note that i haven't been on time. The idea that a wheel isn't a charge blah blah is too figure oriented and not battle oriented.
I think in hind sight the whole an interception isn't a contact added some confusion but no big deal. It should have been it could contact but both the initial charger still steps forward, failing that it could just get in the way of the charge. But not significant.
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 6:54 am
by gibby
Maybe it is, however it must have been significant to the person on the receiving end. Thinking he could intercept and finding that because the enemy wheeled into contact with no advance forward meant he could not therefore intercept.
Also the argument for bases being over big goes both ways and it is only because we are using rectangular bases to represent the troops that it cannot interpose itself between the charging unit and the friends it thought it was protecting.
cheers
Jim
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:13 am
by hammy
I think that charges with no advance at all are really rather rare. Charges like the one being debated are even rarer. To me this really seems like arguing over angels on the head of a pin.
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:25 am
by sagji
rbodleyscott wrote:philqw78 wrote:I don't think it is necessary. If BG are not in contact the space in between can be advanced into without contact, no matter how small it is*. So no rule change or errata necessary. Hasn't it also been mentioned on a number of other threads that bases are over deep anyway so that the figeures can fit and what type of troops they represent can be displayed.
* See Lawrence Greaves', PhD Quantum Physics, post about this
Agreed. Had we intended the advance (straight) part to be compulsory we would have specified a minimum distance.
(There is no point in interpreting rules in ways that are geometrically unenforceable.)
In which case why did you write the rules so that the advance is not optional - the rules don't say that the wheel
may be combined with an advance, they say that
it is combined with an advance.
If a charge consists of only a wheel then it can't be intercepted if the point of "contact" would be the pivot point - please provide historical examples of this.
For example a BG that is 1mm out of position to charge the flank - because it just clipps the front corner can't intercept an advanceless charge - this is silly.
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:32 am
by philqw78
sagji wrote:If a charge consists of only a wheel then it can't be intercepted if the point of "contact" would be the pivot point - please provide historical examples of this.*
Sorry to be facetious but you can't prove it didn't happen.
*My emphasis
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:24 pm
by sagji
philqw78 wrote:sagji wrote:If a charge consists of only a wheel then it can't be intercepted if the point of "contact" would be the pivot point - please provide historical examples of this.*
Sorry to be facetious but you can't prove it didn't happen.
*My emphasis
True - but I am not an author, so don't need to justify the rules.
As I see it the only effect of allowing an advanceless charge is to introduce a geometric anomaly where the interception would otherwise contact the pivot point.
The justification for the interceptors not contacting the chargers is so that the chargers advance as both BGs are moving - however in the pure wheeling case the chargers aren't advancing. This results in the artificial rule (interceptors don't contact chargers) having an adverse effect.
I don't see a need for there to be a minimum distance of advance - it is sufficient that there be a notional advance.
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:16 pm
by lawrenceg
sagji wrote:
For example a BG that is 1mm out of position to charge the flank - because it just clipps the front corner can't intercept an advanceless charge - this is silly.
If you consider a BG C about to charge straight down the page and I to the right, facing exactly 90 degrees left, wanting to intercept:
then as you move I's starting position up and down the page you will pass through 5 regions in turn:
can't intercept: passes behind C, does not contact flank or cross path
can intercept: contacts flank in a flank charge
can't intercept: would contact flank of C illegally in a non-flank charge, blocked from crossing path
can intercept: crosses path
can't intercept: too far ahead of C, does not cross path
The middle "no intercept" zone seems not to make sense.
I know intercepts were discussed at some length in beta testing, but I can't remember if this anomaly was considered and accepted, or simply not discovered.
Either way, there are clearly a few odd situations that can arise with intercepts, whether with advances or not, and we'll just have to play with them until the rules get changed (if they get chaged).
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:51 pm
by philqw78
sagji wrote:philqw78 wrote:sagji wrote:If a charge consists of only a wheel then it can't be intercepted if the point of "contact" would be the pivot point - please provide historical examples of this.*
Sorry to be facetious but you can't prove it didn't happen.
*My emphasis
True - but I am not an author, so don't need to justify the rules.
As I see it the only effect of allowing an advanceless charge is to introduce a geometric anomaly where the interception would otherwise contact the pivot point.
The justification for the interceptors not contacting the chargers is so that the chargers advance as both BGs are moving - however in the pure wheeling case the chargers aren't advancing. This results in the artificial rule (interceptors don't contact chargers) having an adverse effect.
I don't see a need for there to be a minimum distance of advance - it is sufficient that there be a notional advance.
Your logic has already beaten me in this in the other thread. If there has to be an advance, no matter how small, it could have been intercepted as its path was known.
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:18 pm
by grahambriggs
lawrenceg wrote:sagji wrote:
For example a BG that is 1mm out of position to charge the flank - because it just clipps the front corner can't intercept an advanceless charge - this is silly.
If you consider a BG C about to charge straight down the page and I to the right, facing exactly 90 degrees left, wanting to intercept:
then as you move I's starting position up and down the page you will pass through 5 regions in turn:
can't intercept: passes behind C, does not contact flank or cross path
can intercept: contacts flank in a flank charge
can't intercept: would contact flank of C illegally in a non-flank charge, blocked from crossing path
can intercept: crosses path
can't intercept: too far ahead of C, does not cross path
The middle "no intercept" zone seems not to make sense.
I know intercepts were discussed at some length in beta testing, but I can't remember if this anomaly was considered and accepted, or simply not discovered.
Either way, there are clearly a few odd situations that can arise with intercepts, whether with advances or not, and we'll just have to play with them until the rules get changed (if they get chaged).
Surely the middle 'can't intercept' is more like "can declare an intercept charge. However this won't be of much use as it can't go far enough forward to touch C". So technically you could declare such a charge and it might be handy to move you forward a bit, but wouldn't actually impede the charge at all?
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:33 pm
by lawrenceg
grahambriggs wrote:lawrenceg wrote:sagji wrote:
For example a BG that is 1mm out of position to charge the flank - because it just clipps the front corner can't intercept an advanceless charge - this is silly.
If you consider a BG C about to charge straight down the page and I to the right, facing exactly 90 degrees left, wanting to intercept:
then as you move I's starting position up and down the page you will pass through 5 regions in turn:
can't intercept: passes behind C, does not contact flank or cross path
can intercept: contacts flank in a flank charge
can't intercept: would contact flank of C illegally in a non-flank charge, blocked from crossing path
can intercept: crosses path
can't intercept: too far ahead of C, does not cross path
The middle "no intercept" zone seems not to make sense.
I know intercepts were discussed at some length in beta testing, but I can't remember if this anomaly was considered and accepted, or simply not discovered.
Either way, there are clearly a few odd situations that can arise with intercepts, whether with advances or not, and we'll just have to play with them until the rules get changed (if they get chaged).
Surely the middle 'can't intercept' is more like "can declare an intercept charge. However this won't be of much use as it can't go far enough forward to touch C". So technically you could declare such a charge and it might be handy to move you forward a bit, but wouldn't actually impede the charge at all?
The point is, geometrically, I could go far enough forward to touch C. It can't cross the path because it will contact the flank of C first. It can't contact the flank, even if it starts at point blank, because of the prohibition on intercepts making contact. If the right flank of I was even a gnat's todger in front of the line extending C's front edge, it could intercept by not making contact .
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:32 am
by hazelbark
gibby wrote:Maybe it is, however it must have been significant to the person on the receiving end. Thinking he could intercept and finding that because the enemy wheeled into contact with no advance forward meant he could not therefore intercept.
I don't doubt it was annoying for one of the playerrs. I do sympathize with that unhappiness. However...
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:28 pm
by sagji
lawrenceg wrote:sagji wrote:
For example a BG that is 1mm out of position to charge the flank - because it just clipps the front corner can't intercept an advanceless charge - this is silly.
If you consider a BG C about to charge straight down the page and I to the right, facing exactly 90 degrees left, wanting to intercept:
then as you move I's starting position up and down the page you will pass through 5 regions in turn:
can't intercept: passes behind C, does not contact flank or cross path
can intercept: contacts flank in a flank charge
can't intercept: would contact flank of C illegally in a non-flank charge, blocked from crossing path
can intercept: crosses path
can't intercept: too far ahead of C, does not cross path
The middle "no intercept" zone seems not to make sense.
I know intercepts were discussed at some length in beta testing, but I can't remember if this anomaly was considered and accepted, or simply not discovered.
Either way, there are clearly a few odd situations that can arise with intercepts, whether with advances or not, and we'll just have to play with them until the rules get changed (if they get chaged).
So it can't intercept because it is slightly behind the flank - but not enough to do real damage.
I can think of some ways to address this.
a) Remove the "legal flank charge" constraint on interceptions contacting the flank or rear, and have them count as charges. The would still cancel the charge, and would count as a flank / rear charge is it met the conditions to do so. This solves this problem, but not the no advance problem
b) Remove all restrictions on interceptions contacting chargers. The ability to move to within 0.001mm effectively removes the charger's ability to move - all preventing contact does is introduce a few geometrical issues.
This solves both problems.
c) Allow the interceptor to wheel about the point of almost contact.
This solves this problem, and sometimes solves the no advance problem - depending on space.
d) Allow the interceptor to step forward into the path of the charge when it almost contacts the charger.
This solves this problem - but only if the advance of the charger would cross the front of the second base. It solves the no advance problem - but only if the intercepting BG has a base on the charger's side of the pivot point.
Only b really fixes the problems.
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:38 pm
by nikgaukroger
sagji wrote:
Only b really fixes the problems.
Typical wargamer - spots the solution but then has to come up with a load of additional stuff
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:16 pm
by rogerg
There is an alternative:
Read the rules. Learn how the intercept mechanism works. Discover it is not that difficult. Place BG's in the desired place.
Works for most of us.
Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 1:22 pm
by sagji
rogerg wrote:There is an alternative:
Read the rules. Learn how the intercept mechanism works. Discover it is not that difficult. Place BG's in the desired place.
Works for most of us.
So we should never ask for better rules, or for the authors to explain why an oddity exists?
The issue isn't with understanding how the interception rules work - but in understanding why they appear not to work "properly" in some circumstances.
It appears strange that a charge can't be intercepted if the first man contacted by the interception is turning in place, or if the intercepting unit is partially behind the flank but not fully so.
Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 7:25 pm
by rogerg
Whether the interception rules work properly is a matter of opinion. All rules have boundaries. Whatever the interception rule is, there will be a position where an interception cannot be made. Our discussion started when a player believed he could intercept, then found he couldn't. The answer is not to have more rules. This only leads to more 'boundary situations'. Anyone who followed the DBM rule amendments related to recoiling, the infamous 'elbow' and 'buttocks' manouvers as they were named, will be aware that changing the rules didn't solve any problems. The amendments just moved the boundary to new positions. This made the game more difficult to learn.
The interception rules are not the neatest part of FoG. Adding to their complexitiy would be a backward step. To get a satisfactory outcome, it is necessary to know the rules and position figures accordingly. Once one understands how BG's can wheel in a charge and avoid the interception zone, postitioning BG's to intercept is not particularly difficult.
Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:16 am
by sagji
rogerg wrote:Whether the interception rules work properly is a matter of opinion. All rules have boundaries. Whatever the interception rule is, there will be a position where an interception cannot be made. Our discussion started when a player believed he could intercept, then found he couldn't. The answer is not to have more rules. This only leads to more 'boundary situations'. Anyone who followed the DBM rule amendments related to recoiling, the infamous 'elbow' and 'buttocks' manouvers as they were named, will be aware that changing the rules didn't solve any problems. The amendments just moved the boundary to new positions. This made the game more difficult to learn.
The interception rules are not the neatest part of FoG. Adding to their complexitiy would be a backward step. To get a satisfactory outcome, it is necessary to know the rules and position figures accordingly. Once one understands how BG's can wheel in a charge and avoid the interception zone, postitioning BG's to intercept is not particularly difficult.
So why are you objecting to simplifying the rules?
My proposal doesn't involve adding any rules it involves:
a) Removing the restriction that an interception can't contact the charger.
b) Removing the restriction that a flank/rear contact must qualify as a valid flank/rear charge, and changing it so it counts "as a charge" rather than "as a flank charge". Note It will still count as a flank/rear charge if it qualifies.
As I see it this simplifies the rules, removes some non-historical restrictions on interception, and doesn't introduce any potential for confusion, or other non-historical side effects.