Slitherine

A question arose at our club the other day. Is interception movement limited by terrain as in normal movement?
eg can HF only intercept 1 MU in difficult terrain or does the terrain not matter. We ruled that terrain rules do apply.

No troops can intercept through terrain that would disorder them. So intercept moves are not affected by movement loss due to terrain.

We worked out that troops whose ZOI would pass through disordering terrain don't actually have a ZOI, so that's clear enough.

But what about troops at the edge of a piece of terrain? Their ZOI does not cross disordering terrain, so they do have one, and the text says that they move "up to the limit of their ZOI"

So does this over-ride the normal movement rules, or are Interceptors slowed by terrain they start in?

johno

They cannot move through disordering terrain, whether they start in it or not. So their move can never be altered in an intercept as if you are disordered you cannot intercept. (note disordered not disrupted)

It makes no difference that you are in terrain that slows you down, because you can't intercept.

That may be the way it is played Phil, but it isn't what the text says!

The text says that the Zone of Interception does not extend through terrain that disorders or severely disorders the BG.

If the BG is on the edge of the terrain, so that the ZOI does not pass through the terrain, then the raw text does not prevent the BG having a ZOI, and thus being able to declare an Intercept

In such cases, does the Intercepting BG move up to the ZOI limit (which is what the text says), or only as far as they can in the terrain (which is implied in the general movement rules)?

After discussion Andy ruled that terrain move distances applied, and both players agreed with him.


Johno

yep, i suppose if you had exactly square terrain or your front edge was out of the terrain you could intercept, and it would be 2 or 4MU. I've been playing it wrong.

I've been playing it wrong.

It takes a good man to admit when he's wrong.

It takes a better man to convince everybody else to play it wrong

It takes a better man to convince everybody else to play it wrong

Is that the dodgy crowd you're mixing with these days?

Hammy and Ruddock.. Reigate would never ever ever have done anything cheesy.

Thanks for the confirmation, Phil: I was starting to wonder whether we'd missed some important errata, or something.

So, if the Intercept move is 2 or 4 MU regardless of the terrain the BG starts in, what other movement situations override the general movement rules, which limit BG's to their maximum move in the terrain they are passing through?

johno

Interpenetrations, if you haven't been paying attention. It's only taken 18 months for someone to identify the biggest hole in the rules.

It takes a better man to convince everybody else to play it wrong

Or a rules author. See dodge of Conform/ unable to conform examples of play by said new groom.

Several of the Plymouth club have been watching the interpenetration discussion with some alarm: we find it difficult to believe that this didn't get exposed during the playtests, which leads us to the conclusion that it may have been left in the rules on purpose, a concept we find disturbing.

Luckily, whilst local players are happy to benefit from the bonus when it happens in normal play, even the most competitive club member has decided he won't stoop to setting up situations that take advantage of it.


Back On Topic: I note that Interceptions are clearly labelled as Interception Charges, which leads to the question, why aren't they limited to the movement distance dictated by the terrain, like other charges?

Otherwise, a flank or rear interception that needs the whole 4 mu to contact its target, might suddenly be unable to reach when, having cancelled the target's charge, it reverts to being a "normal" flank/rear charge, and must account for the terrain...

johno

I suspect that in playtest noone realized that the wording could be interpreted to mean that troops starting in disordering terrain could be allowed to intercept out of terrain if the ZOI was completely outside of the terrain. Just as noone really looked closely at the extreme abuses possible with the interpenetration wording. If everyone plays under the same assumptions of fair play, it's not an issue. But once in the competion circuit, the ultra-competitive "gamesmen" start dissecting the rules and finding ways to exploit loopholes. Writing rules is a tricky business. Once the rules are published, the author loses control of the game and is bound by whatever errors or ommisions exist in the published rules. Or you can spend years playing "whack -a mole" trying to patch things while the gaming community finds new loopholes to exploit.

Nope, I found this prior to publication. It actually came to light when some Cavalry evaded and ended up popping miles through a wood.

We then realised this could have happened from an interpenetration.

It was only discovered, just prior to publication so nothing was done about it as I think it was too close to the publishing deadline.

Otherwise, a flank or rear interception that needs the whole 4 mu to contact its target, might suddenly be unable to reach when, having cancelled the target's charge, it reverts to being a "normal" flank/rear charge, and must account for the terrain...

I mainly play in competitions Johno and in my experience it's quite hard to exploit Intercept Charges - whatever the terrain.

In all the games I've played - which is quite a few now - I've never seen a BG intercept out of slowing terrain.

So the problem you describe is possible - but in reality unlikely. I would never claim to speak for the authors but I believe they tried to avoid legislating for every possibilty - to have done so would have doubled / trebled the size of the rules.

Thanks for the comments, Pete, which are reassuring. Discovering the apparent anomaly for Flank/Rear intercepts had left me feeling like the boy who could see the Emperor's parts - am I going mad, or is it there and no-one else can see it?

I realise that the authors have tried to avoid micro-legislating, and I applaud that. I remember having a conversation with RBS at one of the South West DBM doubles weekends some years ago about the problems it was causing for DBM.

I also realise that it is not the sort of thing that's likely to happen often, and I'm not actually worried about exploitation, per se.

I think the portion that bothers me most is that I had assumed from the opening of the movement rules section that everything that wasn't explicitly altered in one of the later Phase sections would apply to anything that was a move - including terrain restrictions - and I'm clearly wrong.

Which leads me to wonder what others of my assumptions are wrong...

johno

Im not sure it could amount to exploitation anyway - yes you can get an extra inch of move if you have put yourself in a very difficult situation.

well done.

if you have managed to manouvere so you are in the cacky with out it blocking your intercept zone, then your opponent ignores you and lets you jump out on them, well done.

more likely they are going to see your severly disorded HI and give them a good kicking