ZOI-1

[ShrubMiK]

Yup. I think it can be argued either way, "bases are over-depth etc." is a valid comment - but apart from anything else it would be easier to remember the rules if different parts of them were consistent with one another.

[Scruff]

I tend to think of it as they have moved up to edge of woods and are ready to pounce on the unwary, having checked the path out of the woods is clear while waiting ... as in Sir Knight reaches down with his lance and flicks a branch out of the way

cheers

[ravenflight]

I tend to think of it as they have moved up to edge of woods and are ready to pounce on the unwary, having checked the path out of the woods is clear while waiting ... as in Sir Knight reaches down with his lance and flicks a branch out of the way

cheers

And 30 seconds later, when there is nothing to pounce on... they take forever to clear the edge of the forest because... (is that crickets chirping in the background?).

Look, there is no problem with the bases being overdeep. I understand that. I think EVERYONE understands that. The rules COULD have been written to take that into account by saying 'reduced movement until the front of the base is clear' but they didn't say that. So, somehow the bases are 'in the woods' when moving. They are 'in the woods' when charging. They are 'in the woods' when being shot at. They are 'in the woods' when being charged. They somehow AREN'T 'in the woods' when intercepting... which to my mind is the time when they WOULD have the least reaction time to amble out of the woods.

"One of these things is not like the other one".

Consider this.

If the front edge of a BG of Knights that is in a 2x2 formation is 1mm out of a forrest, they can legally intercept charge 4". If they didn't intercept charge that same BG would take 3 turns to clear the forest, and on the third turn would only be moving 1" so would have their rear edge only just over 1/2 an inch from the forest.

As I said, if correct (and I don't doubt that it is) it's *expletive* stupid.

I honestly think it is something that was missed and not intended. If it was intended, then I cannot for the life of me see the rationale behind it.

Either bases are over deep or they're not. They can't be overdeep most of the time, but in one specific circumstance they aren't deep any more.

[kevinj]

I don't think it's at all unreasonable to use a quirk to rationalise an inconsistency.

[grahambriggs]

Look, there is no problem with the bases being overdeep. I understand that. I think EVERYONE understands that. The rules COULD have been written to take that into account by saying 'reduced movement until the front of the base is clear' but they didn't say that. So, somehow the bases are 'in the woods' when moving. They are 'in the woods' when charging. They are 'in the woods' when being shot at. They are 'in the woods' when being charged. They somehow AREN'T 'in the woods' when intercepting... which to my mind is the time when they WOULD have the least reaction time to amble out of the woods.

Just to clarify, cover from shooting normally means the base being shot at has to be entirely within the terrain. And if the front edge pokes out it's not quite as bad in melee (if you win the melee, the enemy cohesion test will have a minus 1 for losing to mounted in the open).

But effectively, this is surely due to trying to keep the intercept rule reasonably straightforward. If you see one game in a hundred where this quirk might occur you'd be lucky. It's only been a factor for me when I've had cavalry taking a short cut across, say, rough going.

[ravenflight]

Just to clarify, cover from shooting normally means the base being shot at has to be entirely within the terrain. And if the front edge pokes out it's not quite as bad in melee (if you win the melee, the enemy cohesion test will have a minus 1 for losing to mounted in the open).

But effectively, this is surely due to trying to keep the intercept rule reasonably straightforward. If you see one game in a hundred where this quirk might occur you'd be lucky. It's only been a factor for me when I've had cavalry taking a short cut across, say, rough going.

Good point about the shooting.

[paullongmore]

Graham said

Just to clarify, cover from shooting normally means the base being shot at has to be entirely within the terrain. And if the front edge pokes out it's not quite as bad in melee (if you win the melee, the enemy cohesion test will have a minus 1 for losing to mounted in the open).

Just to be clear the -1 for losing to mounted in the open applies if the enemy you lose to are mounted in the open. If you are MF who are just poking out of cover and you lose to mounted entirely in the open you get the minus. If the mounted are just poking out of cover and MF entirely in the open charge them and lose they don't get the minus.

[grahambriggs]

Oh right - thanks Paul. It's bee a while since I'd had one of those combats and forgot the detail.

[paullongmore]

No problem Graham

I am sure the Immortals will be relieved that your refamiliarisation with this particular rule foible was not to their detriment.