Interception Question

Sorry if this covered elsewhere, I used the search but wasn't able to find an answer.

Can a model, who is standing directly behind a model that is being charged, intercept that charge?

Open to interpretation. RAW, yes you can. According to the 'clarifying' illustration, maybe, maybe not.

For what it is worth, in my group we allow that you can intercept from behind and it hasn't made things any less fun.

We on the other hand play with folks who would abuse that tactic for all they are worth. In the original hard copy rules it was pretty obvious that the tactic was not allowed, but the graphic published with the 2005 online rules doesn't explain anything. Needless to say the core players of our group all have their old rulebooks handy for any question like that.

Edited to add... Welcome to the forum!!

Here is the image from the original printed rulebook which unfortunately was corrupted in the PDF version of the rulebook.



This image makes it very clear that the interception are is only along the direct route between the two warriors. Intercepting from behind the warrior being charged is not allowed. Forcing warriors to be along the direct route forces more tactics into the game and I believe that allowing a warrior to intercept from behind the warrior is quite cheesy and open to abuse.

Of curiosity, assuming the most abusive circumstances, what abuse do you see happening?

For us it has generally been folks who decided on their own that the interception rule worked for warriors behind the target and didn't come forward to say 'hey fellas, are you sure we are playing interception right?' Instead they spring their interpretation on their opponent AFTER he has charged them. Usually into a well prepared trap. This always either stops play for their game and for my game and eventually ALL our games while we sort it out or results in some badly beaten player who says later in the evening or the next day or the next week 'hey, I didn't know you could intercept from behind a guy getting charged."

Well that scenario is definitely a dick move. I haven't come across it myself (probably because we all play with that interpretation) but surprise revelations like that are not cool, especially not to someone learning.

In our games we found that, being a skirmish game, Mordheim already harshly punishes unluck or mistakes and having an interception zone that only needed a ruler to measure it (and *didn't* need a protractor) led to swifter movement phases and more cinematic "Get behind me!" and "I'll save you!" moments.

I think intercepting from behind takes out the strategy of careful placement of warriors and the need to think ahead of time planning formations that either benefit shooters or a defensive placement.
Sticking a bunch of shooters in front of a troll or possesed then moving the creature in front to protect your shooters if they get charged will become the only tactic used if you allow interceptions from the rear

See, that's the thing - if you want to protect your tough and expendable troll with your squishy shooters, more power to you - go right ahead.

Whether it is just in front or just behind your shooters, your troll is still going to absorb exactly 1 charger before the rest plow into the shooters. And most often if you *don't* choose to intercept the first charger then the troll either a) won't have room to intercept or b) won't be able to block as many charge paths.

Thanks for all the input. People play it both ways. Sounds like we should just agree as a group.

Rulebook wrote:

If an unengaged (ie, not in hand-to-hand combat) enemy model lies within 2" of the charge route, that model may choose to intercept the charger if he wishes. This ‘interception area’ is shown in the diagram above. Only one enemy model may attempt to intercept each charger. If the intercepting warrior would normally require a Fear test to engage the charger then he must pass one in order to be allowed to intercept. Failure means he will not move. If the intercepting warrior causes fear then move the models into contact and then take a Fear test for the original charger (assuming he would normally do so) as if he was the one being charged. Regardless of the results of this test it is still the original charger who counts as charging in the subsequent round of combat, not the intercepting warrior.

The rules clearly state the interception happens in a charge route. I bolded it above, and quoted the rulebook directly. A charge route is the distance between the charger and the model being charged. The charger takes the most direct route to the model being charged.

Denzak wrote:

Rulebook wrote:

If an unengaged (ie, not in hand-to-hand combat) enemy model lies within 2" of the charge route, that model may choose to intercept the charger if he wishes. This ‘interception area’ is shown in the diagram above. Only one enemy model may attempt to intercept each charger. If the intercepting warrior would normally require a Fear test to engage the charger then he must pass one in order to be allowed to intercept. Failure means he will not move. If the intercepting warrior causes fear then move the models into contact and then take a Fear test for the original charger (assuming he would normally do so) as if he was the one being charged. Regardless of the results of this test it is still the original charger who counts as charging in the subsequent round of combat, not the intercepting warrior.

The rules clearly state the interception happens in a charge route. I bolded it above, and quoted the rulebook directly. A charge route is the distance between the charger and the model being charged. The charger takes the most direct route to the model being charged.

The reason that this has been a point of contention is because the route of a object, in this case the charge rout,  technically has an area past the target of two inches as well.  The reason I thought the interceptor must be in-front is the picture diagram in the book.  But the counter argument (made by another member of the group) of the charge route going all the way up to the target, would mean the 2" area extends past the target.  Which is a logical thought.

Using the argument that the charge route extends 2" past the warrior being charged means the charge route also extend 2" BEHIND the warrior that starts charging. However, I don't see anyone arguing for that. That is why it doesn't make sense to me to extend 2" past either warrior. However, Mordheim is open to house rules and so there is no problem choosing to extend it 2" past either warrior of desired.

Furry wrote:

The reason that this has been a point of contention is because the route of a object, in this case the charge rout,  technically has an area past the target of two inches as well.  The reason I thought the interceptor must be in-front is the picture diagram in the book.  But the counter argument (made by another member of the group) of the charge route going all the way up to the target, would mean the 2" area extends past the target.  Which is a logical thought.

Yea, I see now where everyone is coming from. The rulebook doesn't clearly state in words that the model doing the intercepting must be in between the charger and the model being charged. However, the diagram picture implies this. As well as the intention of having models being able to intercept another model charging past them.

I suppose I would add "At least part of the model's base doing the intercepting must be in between the charger and the unit being charged" to my house rules to avoid confusion... Or something like that...

Furry, the conclusion reached by the other member of your group matches mine. They are therefore obviously a person of high intelligence and distinction .

RationalLemming, that is *exactly* what we do in my group and your extension was so obvious to us I didn't bother to point it out. To us it made perfect sense that if I am in your face and turn my back to you, so I can charge your friend behind me, then *of course* you would have the opportunity to charge me in the back. You might not *want* to for a variety of reasons, but it is perfectly reasonable that you should have the opportunity.

Here is a rough sketch that will (hopefully) clarify things a little.

The solid red area is the intercept area accepted by everyone. The red semicircle outlines indicate the additional *true* borders of the interception path. Note that it does mean you have to be *pretty* close if you want to intercept from behind, but that seems reasonable.

Welcome Denzak! Thanks for the quote from the rulebook. That always helps in rule discussions.

@Lord 0... You have made some good supporting arguments for why your group extends the 2" beyond both warriors. It is obvious that this is a grey area when previously I thought it was pretty clear. We'll continue to keep playing that the interception area is only in the charge route that exists between the two warriors. However, I can understand why some other groups might play differently.

I must admit that my problems with this rule began when the online rules appeared and the diagram provided online was no longer quite as clear as it is in the printed rulebook.  I do not understand what is unclear about the diagram RL has posted above.  The 'interception area' is labeled and dimensioned. The corrupted diagram from the online rulebook lacks the shading of the original but it is still labeled and dimensioned like the original.  Perhaps since I use technical drawings for my work, I find it hard to find ambiguity.  The drawing clearly shows that the 2" interception zone is measured perpendicular to the charge path, in other words it extends 2" to either side of the path.  The arrows connect the charger and his target, they do not extend past either.  An argument that they do ignores the rule's injunction that "This ‘interception area’ is shown in the diagram above."

Do the players that argue that the interception area extends past the target play that the area extends 2 inches from the shaded area in the diagram?  If not, why not?  The area is clearly dimensioned as being 4" wide, so by the logic of 'my guy is only 2" behind the target model' folks, the drawing is showing you the area you need to be within 2" OF not the area you need to be within.  How such players explain the rest of the diagrams is a mystery to me, but I would love to be enlightened.

Now as a house rule I would not vote for extending the interception area, but if someone else's group wants to its not my circus or my monkeys.

To Furry I would say that you are right, getting a group consensus is the way to go.  I don't think the rulebook supports a change, but I am a big fan of fun and cinematic moments. (Just not in this instance, for my lads.)

Just being the devils advocate for a second.
If you allowed Warrior C "the interceptor" to be up to 2" from the path and point of impact between Warrior A and B including being behind Warrior B (the non shaded part), because the wording of the are rules are ambiguous. Does this mean that Warrior C could be to the left of warrior A (behind warrior A) and still intercept so long as they are within 2" from the charging path.



I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade if your house rule works for you don't change it, I'm just looking at it from a critical perspective.

For me, it depend on your group ''options''.

I'd say that if you admit that models can ''go through'' friendly models you can intercept from behind.

However, if your group chose to do not let models pass through other you can't.

But basically its a hard question to handle and is (like tons of rules from the badly written Mordheim rulebook) that need interpretation as much as judgment and this can really need to many variations.

We do accept this in our group as we also accept non-straight charge lines and friendly-model ''goes through''.

Woot! Goglutin is back! (I don't agree much of what he says in this post, but he's back.)

Good to see you are still around.

HIYA Von Kurst !!!

Its been a while huh??

I've lost my gaming group and I did not play for a while... One of my friend is back sooo ...

The diagram makes it clear. Some confusion could be understood if that wasn't there, but the diagram makes it clear.

You don't let somebody intercept 'from behind' when a person charges away at another model because that isn't intercepting. That's not even counter-charging - that's just saying the first model that declared a charge is being charged instead by somebody else.