Conforming big units in melee

graym · Post by **graym** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:37 pm

A unit with a front of 6 [ 2 deep ] hits a unit of 1 base front in the impact on the oblique..
In the melee phase the 6 front conforms and swings forward to hit another unit.

This cant be impact phase but is it melee ?

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:46 pm

If the charger could not step forwards on impact, which would be unusual but possible, yes they would then be in melee after conforming. Although skirmishers would eg the chance to evade IIRC

graym · Post by **graym** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:49 pm

phil , very possible so that means i swing a nasty big 12 into a sad unit.

So, if this is an archer unit does it get a shoot.? My reading is it does not.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:00 pm

Yes, the BG must conform if possible, but moving the minimum necessary to conform. This is where the argument could start as you may not conform absolutley with the second BG. And if you cannot conform you don't.

No it would not shoot as shooting is only in impact.

Good move if you were the charger, bad position if you own the bow, cheesy if you are me.

graym · Post by **graym** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:07 pm

Phil, not trying to be cheesy but I am doing some big unit trials in these rules and an oblique hit with a mandatory SWING can do some damage which frankly I think has not been fully envisaged by the makers.
Obviously archers are the worst out of this.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:11 pm

No you're not the cheesy one I am. If an inexperienced player does this its OK.

graym · Post by **graym** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:16 pm

I dont follow that. Why is it better for an inexperienced player?
The more I think about that statement I'm even more perplexed.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:20 pm

You have missed my criminal part in the 2 most popular threads at the moment. I am to be taken to the Hague and tried for war (game) crimes soon.

graym · Post by **graym** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:36 pm

Mate I'm sorry but I've just had my second boy in 16 months and I'm trying to stay at competitive level with bugger all warm up games to the major Australian comps.
Can I just say this.
The conforming rules do throw up some weird situations which , if you think really HARD about it , can throw an oblique attack into a poor bloody bow line with no support fire.
And forget the bow. Why charge a defensive spear line if you can swing in the boys on the conform with HA v def spear. [ and likely S ]
Giving away my " insights " but I doubt I can even get to the comps.

Conforming needs some work but I doubt it can be done in these confines.

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:38 pm

philqw78 wrote:Yes, the BG must conform if possible, but moving the minimum necessary to conform. This is where the argument could start as you may not conform absolutley with the second BG. And if you cannot conform you don't.

No it would not shoot as shooting is only in impact.

Good move if you were the charger, bad position if you own the bow, cheesy if you are me.

It's not necessarily to the bow BG's disadvantage. For example it the big unit is protected impact foot/sword and the bow is protected bow/sword it's best for the archers to avoid the impact.

And I don't think it's cheesy even if the bow are disadvantaged. If you advance as far as the close combat troops, don't be surprised if you get into close combat.

graym · Post by **graym** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:44 pm

Graham, I'm agreeing if you meander close to dangerous infantry u get your right whack.

But were they meant to cop it without support fire to give them a chance?

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:48 pm

graym wrote:Graham, I'm agreeing if you meander close to dangerous infantry u get your right whack.

But were they meant to cop it without support fire to give them a chance?

Swings and roundabouts.

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:53 pm

graym wrote:Graham, I'm agreeing if you meander close to dangerous infantry u get your right whack.

But were they meant to cop it without support fire to give them a chance?

Support fire is nice but doesn't make a huge amount of difference. And I think this is a case where the additional complexity required to cater for a rare situation isn't worth it.

graym · Post by **graym** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:06 pm

Boys, I know you know your business but I'll be Great Fred approaching with more swing than a Pommie bowler with a pocket full of sweets on a humid day.

De impact the rules and see what u get.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:12 pm

graym wrote:Boys, I know you know your business but I'll be Great Fred approaching with more swing than a Pommie bowler with a pocket full of sweets on a humid day.

And opening up your flank to charge or intercept.

graym · Post by **graym** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:21 pm

You just need one anchor phil..

You may not always get one. But even a little one will do.

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:23 pm

Did you remember that you can't wheel in a charge if it would result in fewer bases fighting than if you went straight ahead?

This makes it hard to engineer a such an angled attack without telegraphing it a move ahead.

graym · Post by **graym** » Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:36 am

lawrence this is not earth shattering stuff but the main point is u dont need to wheel in a charge if melee friendly troops wheel in sans support fire on the conform before melee.
This really only works with big units but when u see it in action it looks pretty odd.

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:41 pm

graym wrote:lawrence this is not earth shattering stuff but the main point is u dont need to wheel in a charge if melee friendly troops wheel in sans support fire on the conform before melee.
This really only works with big units but when u see it in action it looks pretty odd.

I understand what you mean.

What I was trying to express was:

If you are more or less parallel to the enemy, then you will have to charge without wheeling and step forward into all the shooters.

If you want to charge at an angle then you need to set yourself up the previous turn by coming in from the side or wheeling until you reach the restricted area. This means:

You expose a flank in the general direction of the enemy. They could bring up another BG for a flank intercept.

If you are close to the enemy, they shoot you after your move, then shoot again in their turn.

The enemy can wheel to face you (and shoot), then when you charge you still hit all the bases and they all get their supporting shots in impact.

Now, if you can get yourself into such a position that you can prepare for an angled charge and in his turn the enemy can't do anything to counterract it, then you have outmanoeuvred him and I don't have a problem with your getting an advantage from that.

If you have a net + at impact then the advantage of doing an angled charge is marginal anyway (assuming the support shots need 5 and 6 to hit).

6 dice needing 4+ vs 9 dice needing 5+: the 6 dice win 40%, lose 39%
2 dice needing 4+ vs 3 dice needing 5+: the 2 dice win 33%, lose 31%.

So a 1% edge is converted into a 2% edge (but the whole combat becomes less dangerous to both parties).

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Thu Sep 03, 2009 2:12 pm

I have played between 100 and 200 FoG games, many in competition. So far this problem has never occurred.
I would suggest that when players get past the novice stage, one of the first things they pick up on is to be aware of how conforming will occur. It is a sense in FoG to always look at how any charges will conform and not get caught in a bad position. Much better than adding unnecessary rules.