Where do we go from here?

[spikemesq]

So a side riddle from the two fun-filled threads about the impact phase is this.

Phil/Hammy - if you need to take some blood pressure medication, now is the time.

First, I get that we need to specify that the declaration of a charge should include the charger's path. I get that the "any BG that can be legally contacted" language does not really mean all possible contacts because some BGs cannot be contacted unless the charger declines to charge other BGs (e.g., 2 enemy BGs to either side of the charging unit).

Also, despite the text suggesting that the charger need only designate a direction to assist with evade decisions, interceptions occur before evades and cannot be determined without the charge path.

So your declaration must include the path of your charge.

Here is where it gets tricky.

The charge move rules restrict charges to directly ahead but permit a single wheel if (a) needed avoid friends; or (b) if the charger would end up with =/> bases in combat.

The "legal contact" rules and target rules do not refer to these restrictions and suggest that any BG that could be "legally contacted" within the normal move of the charger can be the target. Thus, the target scope encompasses more moves than may ultimately be possible under the actual charge move limitations.

Previously, I understood the sequence to mean that you identified targets and declared a charge without regard to the restrictions of charge moves. The targets responded, enemies intercepted, evaded, etc. Then you carried out the charge move according to the special limitations based on the results of the response moves.

For instance, if your original target evades and an interception presents new enemy, you could carry out a charge move that wheeled to engage the interceptor (provided that resulted in =/> impact bases).

Now that we are firming up the idea that charge declaration must include a charge path, consider these questions:

1. Must the declared path conform to the charge move restrictions - defaulting to straight forward unless a wheel yields =/> combats?

2. If so, can the charger use the single wheel to skirt potential interceptions?

3. If yes to No. 1, is the charger locked into that specific path regardless of the responses to that charge - no wheeling to address new interceptions or to add bases to non evading targets after other targets evade?

4. If yes to No.1, is a declared charge that incorporates a wheel to engage =/> bases in combat still valid as a charge move if that wheel no longer results in =/> bases because of routs/evades/intercepts, etc.?

Spike

The puzzler

[lawrenceg]

Now that we are firming up the idea that charge declaration must include a charge path, consider these questions:

1. Must the declared path conform to the charge move restrictions - defaulting to straight forward unless a wheel yields =/> combats?

2. If so, can the charger use the single wheel to skirt potential interceptions?

3. If yes to No. 1, is the charger locked into that specific path regardless of the responses to that charge - no wheeling to address new interceptions or to add bases to non evading targets after other targets evade?

4. If yes to No.1, is a declared charge that incorporates a wheel to engage =/> bases in combat still valid as a charge move if that wheel no longer results in =/> bases because of routs/evades/intercepts, etc.?

Spike

The puzzler

My take on this is that:

1 and 2 are both obviously "yes".

3 is obviously "yes" except that you can wheel to follow evaders.

4 is also obviously "yes" and has to be "yes" to avoid a paradox. Otherwise you could have a situation where you declare a path with a wheel that contacts skirmishers instead of a smaller target straight on, the skirmishers evade where you can't reach, you now can't wheel, therefore your path misses the skirmishers original position, so the skirmishers can't evade after all.

This is essentially how most of us play it now and is also the simplest way of doing it.

[philqw78]

Phil/Hammy - if you need to take some blood pressure medication, now is the time.

I DON'T NEED NO F***** MEDICATION

The "legal contact" rules and target rules do not refer to these restrictions and suggest that any BG that could be "legally contacted" within the normal move of the charger can be the target. Thus, the target scope encompasses more moves than may ultimately be possible under the actual charge move limitations.

Legal Contact is about contact only. Not the move. Target rules refer to who is target. Charging with a battle group is what is allowed in the charge move.

For instance, if your original target evades and an interception presents new enemy, you could carry out a charge move that wheeled to engage the interceptor (provided that resulted in =/> impact bases).

No. The interceptor must move into your charge path and does not alter the direction of your charge. You must contact him or it is not an intercept.

Now that we are firming up the idea that charge declaration must include a charge path, consider these questions:

1. Must the declared path conform to the charge move restrictions - defaulting to straight forward unless a wheel yields =/> combats?

Yes. Charging with your battle groups paragraph contains that.
continued next post as I can't see what I am typing now

[philqw78]

Phil/Hammy - if you need to take some blood pressure medication, now is the time.

LOOK I SAID I DIDN'T NEED MY MEDICATION TODAY

2. If so, can the charger use the single wheel to skirt potential interceptions?

Providing the charge is in accordance with the rules for charging with your battle groups. So its skirting path must still hit at least as many bases.

3. If yes to No. 1, is the charger locked into that specific path regardless of the responses to that charge - no wheeling to address new interceptions or to add bases to non evading targets after other targets evade?

There can be no new interceptions. They happen before any other charge responses. Wheeling cannot be done to add extra contact to those that stand*, the charge may only change direction to follow evaders who have wheeled or moved out of the original path of the charge, which may bring in, again more 'new' targets if the eveaders drop back bases to avoid or burst through friends.

4. If yes to No.1, is a declared charge that incorporates a wheel to engage =/> bases in combat still valid as a charge move if that wheel no longer results in =/> bases because of routs/evades/intercepts, etc.?

It is considered such, but the phrasing and writing here is the worst bit of the charge rules, and you are right to question them, should say "

continued next post

[philqw78]

should say " A wheel cannot be made if it would result in less bases being elgible to fight in the impact phase combat than would occur if the battle group moved straight ahead." The number of bases eligible to fight in the impact phase combat is only considered for this wheel at charge declaration, not after targets of the charge have responded.

*(from post above.) Choosing your direction of charge and charge targets is one of the key skills in playing the game I believe. A number of times I have cursed myself for chasing things that can't be caught instead of helping against something that needs to be fought.

[philqw78]

WHERE'S MY PILLS

[spikemesq]

By "new interceptions" I meant new enemy in front of the charger because of interceptions.

It seems odd that the charger cannot wheel to better engage interceptors, especially if their original target is gone.

Spike

[gozerius]

That occurs in the manuever phase when you conform, feed in more bases. The interceptors are interrupting your charge, catching you at a tactical disadvantage, so you don't get to respond. Otherwise the impact phase would go on forever.
I'm charging.
I'll evade and I'll intercept with these guys.
Oh, I'll wheel to face the interceptors.
Well now my cav don't have to evade because they are no longer targets.
Yes they do because I declared a charge on them.
But then you decided to charge my interceptors instead.
Wait, if I charge the interceptors, they can't intercept because they are charge targets.
But you didn't declare a charge on the interceptors. They weren't in the original charge path.
Dice, then figures start flying.
Not good.

[danikine74]

The creators/publishers should create a definitive rules explanation. it is a very weak point of the rules. In a tournement allways trouble

[graym]

I've always had trouble with this area of the rules but I'll try to keep this simple.

If you are charging somebody who evades , you follow , and his evade takes you within intercept range of a unit on your flank [ who wasnt in range at the start ].

Supposedly a flank intercept is done before you even start your own charge. But you need to start your charge to get within intercept range.

I'm assuming the intercept wont be done because you started outside range. But flank intercepts are different because you negate the other guy even moving rather than just block him.
.
The crux of this is does a wheel into intercept range enable an intercept which, if a flanker , freezes the flankee even if you started outside range.

[philqw78]

The crux of this is does a wheel into intercept range enable an intercept which, if a flanker , freezes the flankee even if you started outside range.

I don't see how this can happen but:

No. Intercepts must be moved before charges. Follow the turn sequence.

The charge needs to be a legal flank charge before the charger moves to cancel the charge. Since the interceptor must move in front of the charge path this would mean the interceptor being hit in the flank, if not for second last para P63

[graym]

Not that hard. You swing [ shooty ] LH in at an angle so that a reverse evade takes them across the path of supporting Cv/Kn.

If charged and you have a mundane evade you intercept frontally which is straight forward enough.

But if you have a line that has been outflanked and you have an element BEHIND your front line but outside charge range at the onset before the LH back tracks do you
1. Intercept first [ i think not]. Outside range despite being on the flank.
2. intercept when in eventual range [ started behind flank. impacted behind flank . ] is that a flank? Yes it is but it cant negate the charge. Can it?

As has obviously been picked up across this web site and the wargames community the charge/path/target/ evade aspects of these rules are the weak points.

An official ruling despite the printing costs etc may save a lot of heartache.

[philqw78]

But intercepts must happen before evades so this cannot happen.

[danikine74]

in declaration of charges it is written:
...to be allowed to declare there must be a visible enemy base that can be "legaly" contacted within its NORMAL move

does "normal" move inclodes a wheel? and a 90º turn and move?? ( thats a normal move and simple for some kind of troops)

does normal move refers then a charge move?? ( just straight fwd or with a single wheel? )

it is also writen:

...a BG can declare charges on as many enemy BG as can be legaly contacted within this move ( again question, a charge move or a normal move???)

why declere a charge on an enemy i can legaly contact with my normal move if a charge move will not allow it to contact

[rogerg]

I keep reading these threads about interception and evade problems. Counting club and competition games I must be playing at least 80, probably closer to 100, games of FoG in a year. These games do not have problems with interceptions and evades. One might get the impression from reading this discussion group that these rules do not work.
It may be it is possible there are some unusual situations where interpretation is difficult, but either I have been very fortunate or these incidents are very few and far between.

[batesmotel]

in declaration of charges it is written:
...to be allowed to declare there must be a visible enemy base that can be "legaly" contacted within its NORMAL move

does "normal" move inclodes a wheel? and a 90º turn and move?? ( thats a normal move and simple for some kind of troops)

does normal move refers then a charge move?? ( just straight fwd or with a single wheel? )

it is also writen:

...a BG can declare charges on as many enemy BG as can be legaly contacted within this move ( again question, a charge move or a normal move???)

why declere a charge on an enemy i can legaly contact with my normal move if a charge move will not allow it to contact

In this case a "normal move" would be a normal move as defined for charges in the impact phase with no VMD included. Wheeling as defined as allowed for charge moves would be included.

Chris

[graym]

Ok so let me get this straight. If a friend evades backwards and is pursued you cant intercept as they ride past your front because intercepts are done before evades.
Is that right ?
I thought after a charge direction is announced [ yeah, the other big issue ] you can intercept that charge.
But not if the evade hasnt been announced because you cant finalize the charge and a potential intercept until then.

I know this topic is going around in circles but the swirling nature of the cav / lh armies these rules favor mandates a cup of tea and a long think.

[philqw78]

It means a normal move subject to P53 and 54. The rules writers must have assumed the use of some common sense when using the rules. P53/54 gives the only formation changes and changes of direction allowed in a charge.

[nikgaukroger]

I keep reading these threads about interception and evade problems. Counting club and competition games I must be playing at least 80, probably closer to 100, games of FoG in a year. These games do not have problems with interceptions and evades. One might get the impression from reading this discussion group that these rules do not work.
It may be it is possible there are some unusual situations where interpretation is difficult, but either I have been very fortunate or these incidents are very few and far between.

No, I think you are spot on - I have had the same experience as you.

In fact, IIRC, we had a case in our game on Saturday that was similar to some of those brought up as a problem in one of these interminable threads and it was sorted to our mutual satisfaction (and by the rules) in about 10 seconds.

[philqw78]

Ok so let me get this straight. If a friend evades backwards and is pursued you cant intercept as they ride past your front because intercepts are done before evades.

No you can't because they are.

Is that right ?
I thought after a charge direction is announced [ yeah, the other big issue ] you can intercept that charge.

Yes, providing you move directly forwards into the path of the charge at declaration

But not if the evade hasnt been announced because you cant finalize the charge and a potential intercept until then.

Evades take place after intercept moves so direction of evade is not taken into account. In fact before the evade the path of the charge only reaches as far as the possible evader, no further. So any intercept must come between the charger and evader, or cancel the charge by being behind the flank of the charger at declaration.

I know this topic is going around in circles but the swirling nature of the cav / lh armies these rules favor mandates a cup of tea and a long think.

???????????????