Slitherine

So

A

F__/L

So Austrian "A'" is assaulting French "F'. "/L" is a 2nd French infantry that can intercept as its at an angle.

The core of the question is Does "L" fire in assault phase?

p 24.
Austrian declares assault.
F declare stand a fire
L declasres and then makes an intercept move
A now moves to close range of F and receives fire.
Based on p32 rigth column 2nd paragraph it sorta kinda suggests that only units (ignoring artillery for momemnt) that stand and fire actually fire.
1) So L does not defensive fire correct?
2) If F does the serious hits and -2 cohesion and drives back A, does L still stay in its new intercept position?
3) If A moved to close range of F, but that put it in contact with L, can F still fire?

I think all the answers to your questions are in the ''Intercept Moves' on page 31 & 32.

Attacker can only contact the intercepter and original target is not allowed to fire.

I'll leave you to read the section for the exact wording.

Don

Now i get it.

So the interceptor essentially totally replaces the target of the charge. Except the interceptor cannot react in any other way.

And even if the intercept was designed to have the assaulting unit strike both the original target and itself the orginial target still could not fire.

My reading of it is, that there is not an option for the attacker to contact the original target.

Don

donm wrote:My reading of it is, that there is not an option for the attacker to contact the original target.

Don

Do you see that explicitly? I realize I am bringing the view point of other rules. Up on page 20. last line left column does say "units(s)". I took that to mean 1 could contact two.

I get normally the wheel requirements make it hard. But the obvious situation is two lines of slightly offset troops each with their front edge flush would allow 1 unit to assault 2.

The intercepting being able to choose "up to" the full intercept range and being able to wheel makes it relatively easy to engineer the assaulter striking two bases. I suppose if the assaulter can choose a new wheel path to hit the interceptor then they could avoid that.

The sixth point on page 32, last line, 'The assaulting unit will then move into contact with the interceptors.'

No mention of the original target.

Don

But does 'moving onto contact with interceptors' mean you cannot move into contact with another unit at the same time? Can't see why not if the unit positions are set up just right.

Hi Alan,

My interpretation, based on the current wording, would be that you can only move into contact with the interceptors, because that is what is says you can do. After all, they are "intercepting" the attacking unit.

However, I am in 2 minds over what it should be. In one sense, if you think you can take on both units, then why not. This could be seen as the interceptors not quite blocking the assaulting unit, but joining the fray.
The down side to this (for the target unit) is that the target unit may be already Wavering and the slightest contact will cause it to become Broken, leaving the assaulter only fighting the original target. And the Broken unit may cause a Cohesion loss on the interceptors. Could be a game winner.
You could argue that the interceptors did not make it in time to stop the rout, or you could argue that the interceptors should be distracted by the new unit and fight them first as a greater threat.

Be interested in other opinions as I have not convinced myself one way or the other yet.

TERRY, any official take on this?

Regards,
John Shaw

Hi Alan/John

The last bullet point under intercept moves on page 32 says:

"The original target of the assault does not have to make any of the otherwise compulsory tests for being asaulted if all of the assaulting units fail to make contact because of the interception" [italics added]

There would be no need for the part in italics if the assaulting unit was not allowed to contact both the original target and the interceptors - assuming the position of the troops on table allow it to contact both by a assault legal move.

I would imply from this that contacting both interceptor and original target is allowed.

Cheers
Brett

BrettPT wrote: The last bullet point under intercept moves on page 32 says:

"The original target of the assault does not have to make any of the otherwise compulsory tests for being asaulted if all of the assaulting units fail to make contact because of the interception" [italics added]

There would be no need for the part in italics if the assaulting unit was not allowed to contact both the original target and the interceptors - assuming the position of the troops on table allow it to contact both by a assault legal move.

I would imply from this that contacting both interceptor and original target is allowed.

Well it could equally be 2 chargers but 1 is blocked by interceptor. But I wonder why that wording for that example.

Well it could equally be 2 chargers but 1 is blocked by interceptor.

Definately.

Not clear wording as you say.

I don't however remember this circumstance ever coming up in playtesting, however. Perhaps because the wheeling before charging makes it hard to set up? Also, usually an attacker who was gping to have to fight an intercepting unit would presumably prefer not add additional enemy units (ie dice) into the fight, so maybe desn't choose to go after the original target.

However it the original target was wavering, I can see how you would still want to get at it.

Cheers
Brett

Hi,

BrettPT wrote:Hi Alan/John
"The original target of the assault does not have to make any of the otherwise compulsory tests for being assaulted if all of the assaulting units fail to make contact because of the interception" [italics added]
There would be no need for the part in italics if the assaulting unit was not allowed to contact both the original target and the interceptors - assuming the position of the troops on table allow it to contact both by a assault legal move.
I would imply from this that contacting both interceptor and original target is allowed.

Brett, as hazelbark suggests, my impression is that it refers to the situation where the interceptor stops one unit and another assaults the original target. I don't think it is meant to imply the other, because I remember that bit being added early on in playtesting when there was confusion over whether the target unit tested or not.

I think it is a situation that wasn't thought of in playtesting and needs a ruling. As you say, I have not seen it come up in a game yet, but can see how it could. It could make all the difference in a tournament game and I pity the poor referee who would have to make a decision. There would be no problem if there is a clear ruling. I don't really care which way it goes, although if a unit can legally hit both interceptor and original target, then why not.

Cheers,
John Shaw

Also I think the important bit is to get these into an FAQ or even better point to the published rule book for an answer.

The answer to interceptions lies in the "Wheeling during an assualt move" sections and the "intercept moves section2.

If you read the "Wheeling during an assualt move" section it describes (along with the diagram) exactly how much you can wheel - and that you can't wheel 'away' from your intended target - which in most cases stops you wheeling towards the interceptors.

The interceptors must:
"end its move infront of the assaulting unit"
"where they will be contacted by the assaulting unit."
and
"A unit being intercepted may not be fired upon by the original target of the assault."

If the target if infantry, it is unlikely, but just about possible to arrange an intercept so that the assaulting unit contacts both the original target and the interceptor.
For cavalry, it is more likely, since the target must still counter-charge the assaulting unit unless it is blocked by the intercepting unit.
There is liitle that the assaulting unit can do to arrange for either to happen.

Sorry Terry but you state in your post above that "A unit being intercepted may not be fired upon by the original target of the assault."

Is this still the case even if the unit being intercepted gets with 2" of the original target?

Regards
Andy

Sorry Terry but you state in your post above that "A unit being intercepted may not be fired upon by the original target of the assault."

Is this still the case even if the unit being intercepted gets with 2" of the original target?

Yes. If you want to fire then don't intercept.
We introduced this rule because of a cheesy tactic of doing just that. Players were intercepting a minimum distance with an adjacent unit and still getting full effect firing from the unit originally charged.

terrys wrote:If the target if infantry, it is unlikely, but just about possible to arrange an intercept so that the assaulting unit contacts both the original target and the interceptor.
For cavalry, it is more likely, since the target must still counter-charge the assaulting unit unless it is blocked by the intercepting unit.
There is liitle that the assaulting unit can do to arrange for either to happen.

Does this mean that after intercept moves are made all response moves are made (including formation changes, evades etc...) regardless of whether the original target can still be contacted or does this only occur in cases where the original target can still be contacted by the assaulting unit?

Also. just to note that whilst it might be possible for an interceptor to give the assaulting player the option to hit two units, it would be very difficult to force them to do so, since they always have the some latitude in the path of their charge (unless the were already pointing directly at the centre of the target). With no "stepping forward" in FOG-N it would only take a small deviation in the angle of the assault to hit one unit without contacting the other (with the risk the intercepting unit would not be contacted and the intercept cancelled). In practice, I expect its likely to be difficult for either player to do anything too "cute" with intecepts, which is a good thing IMO.

Andy D

panda2 wrote: Also. just to note that whilst it might be possible for an interceptor to give the assaulting player the option to hit two units, it would be very difficult to force them to do so, since they always have the some latitude in the path of their charge (unless the were already pointing directly at the centre of the target). With no "stepping forward" in FOG-N it would only take a small deviation in the angle of the assault to hit one unit without contacting the other (with the risk the intercepting unit would not be contacted and the intercept cancelled). In practice, I expect its likely to be difficult for either player to do anything too "cute" with intecepts, which is a good thing IMO.

This would allow the charger to change direction after the intercept has moved. But that does not appear to be allowed. Also the wheel to charge is pretty restrictive in what you are permitted.

Assault moves come after responses including intercepts on the Full Action Sequence on p 24. Since the assaulting unit may wheel as part of the move so that it aligns the path of the charge with the front centre of the original target and must wheel as far a possible to line up the path of the charge with the nearest front corner of the original target, then a wheel must be possible, even when an intercept has occured. I think the point of Terry's post is that the target of the assault does not change, so the assaulting unit can't wheel towards the interceptor deliberately creating a situation in which they hit both targets. They must wheel within the narrow arc between the nearest front corner and the front centre of the original target (and never away from the front centre). This still allows a small amount of descretion for the assaulting unit as long as they were not already lined up with the centre of the target or don't have enough move to wheel further than the nearest corner. However, since the assault move stops when contact is made with a unit and there is no stepping forward, only a small shift in angle will be required to avoid hitting both the original target and the interceptor, should the interceptor try to set up a situation where the assault might hit both. Nevertheless, given the narrow range of angles through which the wheel is allowed, it should still be easy for the interceptor to block the assault. regardless of the path, which I think should be the point of an intecept move, rather than setting up "cheesy" two on one situations.

Andy D

Terry,

Thanks for the reply, I certainly don't consider myself a cheesy player I just wanted clarification, although others might disagree with me there!?

Regards
Andy