Rules for Review.

[marioslaz]

Either the diagram is wrong or the rules are imprecise. In retrospect the diagram being wrong is less likely than loose wording so I am now in the camp that the shortest conform is the one that needs to be made and if that is not possible then the longer one doesn't happen.

I understand your opinion, but I think this is a too legal way to look at the problem. My way to look at the problems which arise with rules it's always to look for a solution which I feel logical (I think in many cases to look for an historical solution is not possible because we cannot even imagine what could be the behaviour of warriors in a such particular situation). This of course has a drawback: you could resolve similar situation in different ways (I mean situations which refer to the same rule, but with different positions, or everything else which could influence).
In the particular case of conforming, my opinion is that if we accept the mechanism of feeding bases in melee, and I certain do it, we cannot refuse to conform because shortest move isn't possible. Conform is a form of approximation due to the fact we use bases and not single miniature (which would be anyway just a slightly better form of approximation). If we accept a base of troops not still involved in a melee will not stay to look but it will take part in fight, how can we justify the prohibition to a conform move, that is anyway shorter of a base width?

[philqw78]

But we need to play by the same rules otherwise we can't play each other. And the rules are all we have to go by

[gozerius]

Mario,
The rules say that if you can't conform, then you fight as if you had conformed, as shown on page 87. So you would still be fighting with all bases that would have conformed. What isn't logical to me is the notion that if you can't completely line up with the base you mostly line up on, you move to the next one. Or more importantly, that the base that is just touching an enemy base can push it's neighbor, which is nearly completely conformed, off.
I agree that the illustration on page 87 presents the unfortunate situation of a BG that, since it can't conform, cannot also feed bases in. And as a consequence, will probably be contacted on his far flank by the enemy BG touching it. If only he had angled his charge more to the left he could have avoided the whole mess.
Nevertheless, I think that adopting a convention of conforming to the nearest physically possible conformed position, as opposed to what is shown in the rules, will lead to much DBM-like cheesy deployments. For example, kinked lines, angling toward impassible terrain or the table edge to guarantee an uncontested overlap. We are already seeing these things like the "buttocks of death" in play in regards to interfering with break offs. Do you really want more? I don't. I like outcomes to resemble reality, not be based on artificial geometry.
And yes, the horrifying realization of the way the interpenetration rules can be abused has me shaken to the core.

[marioslaz]

Mario,
The rules say that if you can't conform, then you fight as if you had conformed, as shown on page 87. So you would still be fighting with all bases that would have conformed. What isn't logical to me is the notion that if you can't completely line up with the base you mostly line up on, you move to the next one. Or more importantly, that the base that is just touching an enemy base can push it's neighbour, which is nearly completely conformed, off.

Sorry, I didn't understand what you mean. In particular the last part about push neighbour.

Nevertheless, I think that adopting a convention of conforming to the nearest physically possible conformed position, as opposed to what is shown in the rules, will lead to much DBM-like cheesy deployments. For example, kinked lines, angling toward impassible terrain or the table edge to guarantee an uncontested overlap. We are already seeing these things like the "buttocks of death" in play in regards to interfering with break offs. Do you really want more? I don't. I like outcomes to resemble reality, not be based on artificial geometry.
And yes, the horrifying realization of the way the interpenetration rules can be abused has me shaken to the core.

I understand your position, and I share your worry about cheesy play, but I play only with a restricted group of friends, who never would think to make a cheesy tactic intentionally, and if we would meet by chance in a such situation we would invent a solution to play such situation in an historical way.

[philqw78]

........ and if we would meet by chance in a such situation we would invent a solution to play such situation in an historical way.

But the rules are made for international play Mario. So that we all play to the same standard when we meet up. If we just make things up that is fine when we are playing at our own club, but no 2 clubs will play the same situation in the same way.

Its like building a car, or for the Americans a space shuttle, and saying you can build it to the standards you use and when we put it together all will be fine. It won't.

[gozerius]

Right. If the rules say one thing, but I choose to do something else, and my opponent agrees it's OK, then we are playing by convention, a mutually acceptable arrangement. If I am playing someone else and choose to not follow the rules, but he doesn't agree, I'm cheating. Keep in mind that how we conform our troops has a direct bearing on the ensuing Melee. If you were the guy being told that the troops that shouldn't conform are just going to conform the other way anyway, you have been cheated out of your overlap that the rules say you deserve, and your other BG won't meet the requirements to turn onto his flank.
The rules for fighting are predicated on the fact that all bases conform according to an exclusive formula. There is only one way to correctly conform a given base in a given situation. If that idea is relaxed, then it becomes impossible to define where a base that cannot conform fights in the melee phase. The rules (page 86) say that "If it is not possible for battlegroups in contact to line up, they continue to fight in an offset position with the same number of bases counting as 'in front edge contact' or 'overlapping as if they had conformed'. Using the convention that conforming BGs is contingent on what is physically possible strips this of any meaning. If conforming is physically impossible, you can't treat any bases as in front edge contact or overlap.

[OldenTired]

........ and if we would meet by chance in a such situation we would invent a solution to play such situation in an historical way.

But the rules are made for international play Mario. So that we all play to the same standard when we meet up.

there's also a convention called "when in rome".

if you're a rules lawyer about highly specific, ahistorical technicalities, then you'll find yourself upset when the local umpire rules against you.

this is a historical ruleset after all. if people wanted to play rules alone then they should wander off and find a suitable, fantasty, ruleset.

[philqw78]

........ and if we would meet by chance in a such situation we would invent a solution to play such situation in an historical way.

But the rules are made for international play Mario. So that we all play to the same standard when we meet up.

There's also a convention called "when in rome".

?????????????????? So when the IWF is played in Greece we must play to the Greek version of the rules, when in USA, the American version, etc.

I am sure the FIA like to bend, well break really, the rules to suit every race but I don't think that is done in any other competetive sport or pastime.

Mario is lucky he can get enough games in his group and so does not play in competitions so does not need to worry about playing the same as the rest of the world.

if you're a rules lawyer about highly specific, ahistorical technicalities, then you'll find yourself upset when the local umpire rules against you.

I would find myself upset if I did not know how the rules were supposed to be interpreted because it was interpreted that way in only that location. I would especially be upset if a rule was played differently just because they liked playing it that way in that location, even though it went against what the rules said. Different clubs have different styles.

this is a historical ruleset after all. if people wanted to play rules alone then they should wander off and find a suitable, fantasty, ruleset.

I don't want to play alone, so we all need to understand the rules and interpret them in the same way.

[Ghaznavid]

this is a historical ruleset after all. if people wanted to play rules alone then they should wander off and find a suitable, fantasty, ruleset.

I don't want to play alone, so we all need to understand the rules and interpret them in the same way.

Well if you and gozerius feel it's that big an issue I'm sure the two of you can come up with a suitable bribe to Richard or Terry to get them away from their current projects long enough to look and comment on this issue.

[OldenTired]

I don't want to play alone, so we all need to understand the rules and interpret them in the same way.

sounds sensible to me.

i say we use mario's interpretation. sounds a lot more reasonable.

anyone else with me? seen as this is about consensus.

[hammy]

I don't want to play alone, so we all need to understand the rules and interpret them in the same way.

sounds sensible to me.

i say we use mario's interpretation. sounds a lot more reasonable.

anyone else with me? seen as this is about consensus.

I am not sure which way is Mario's interpretation. All I can say is that this thread has made me take another look at the rules on the conforming issue specifically with respect to blocked conforms and I have to say that my opinion has changed simply because the diagram is clear and confirms that a BG will only conform one way and should that way be blocked by enemy then it does not conform.

[marioslaz]

I am not sure which way is Mario's interpretation.

Very simple: to conform you must make the shortest possible move. If a BG cannot conform right hand due to a block of any type, this BG is moved of the shortest space needed to conform left hand (of course in the above example conforming to the right, in absence of any block, would be shortest than to the left and to conform to the left is not blocked in any way).

[gozerius]

I'm beginning to realize that I've failed to take the great philosopher's advice on arguing. Please present to me either a page number that specifically says what you are asserting, or an example of play which supports it, either in the rulebook or an official errata. I showed my work, you show yours. I stand by the official examples of play in the rulebook. If you don't, you're not playing by the rules. Period.
The rules say (p. 70) "...the active player's battle groups already in close combat with the enemy must (unless otherwise stated or physically impossible) pivot and or slide the minimum necessary to conform to the enemy bases in contact." The only exeption to conforming the minimum necessary to the enemy bases in contact is when a BG has contacted the flank of the enemy by a charge that did not qualify as a flank charge. What happens when it is physically impossible to conform by the minimum necessary to line up each base in full front edge to front edge contact with an enemy base or an overlap position? (P. 71) You DO NOT MOVE!!!!! As illustrated on page 87. You have correctly identified the minimum move necessary to line up ( to the right). You have correctly identified that it is physically impossible. Why do you not accept what the rules tell you to do when this occurs?

I'm tired of this argument. For all those who disagree with me I ask: Give me something to work with to convince me I'm wrong. So far all I've heard in this entire debate is an assertion that I am wrong with nothing more to back up the claim than, (and this was the best response, mind you) "Well, I think that's not what we intended, let me get back to you." If you want me to change my mind, give me some credible evidence to support what you are saying.
You can't, because it's not there. All you can do is tell me I'm wrong.
This argument is over.[/b]

[marioslaz]

I'm beginning to realize that I've failed to take the great philosopher's advice on arguing. Please present to me either a page number that specifically says what you are asserting, or an example of play which supports it, either in the rulebook or an official errata. I showed my work, you show yours. I stand by the official examples of play in the rulebook. If you don't, you're not playing by the rules. Period.

As I said hundred of times, I play only with a restricted group of friends, who share my desire to historical play. So, I think at my home I can play as I want, can't I?

I respect your opinion, and I don't feel offended nor I get angry because you didn't agree with me. Do you want to play it in a different way than mine? Do it! Where is the problem?

[dave_r]

The problem occurs when one of your friends decides to play outside of your own little group and suddenly discovers that you have been playing the rule incorrectly.

He then comes back and has a massive argument with somebody at your club when he knows how the rest of the world plays the game. I have seen this happen hundreds of times. It is better to get it right for everybody than have lot's of groups using different interpretations - that just leads to arguments during the game.

FWIW I agree with Gozerius - the rules state that you must make the minimum possible move to conform. This doesn't state it must be the shortest move, just that you make the minimum move possible to conform.

[philqw78]

FWIW I agree with Gozerius - the rules state that you must make the minimum possible move to conform. This doesn't state it must be the shortest move, just that you make the minimum move possible to conform.

This is not what the diagram shows or the rules imply. If you cannot make the shortest move you do not move. And I think you are disagreeing with Mr G there. This also creates less cheese, kinking lines can force BG to move much further and put the enemy into positions where they would not go if you do shortest possible conform.

[hazelbark]

Crikey I am away for two weeks and you all go crazy!

[gozerius]

The problem is that people have been reading "MUST(unless physically impossible)" pivot, etc. the minimum necessary" as: "MUST pivot, etc., the minimum physically possible". These are not synonymous. The examples of play are there to demonstrate the proper application of the rules. Anyone who chooses to ignore the examples of play is not playing according to the rules. There are exactly two reasons that you do not move the minimum necessary to conform to the enemy in contact. The first is when the move is physically impossible, in which case you don't line up (see pages 71 and 87). The second is when you have hit the enemy on the flank and must conform to the front of the file contacted instead. The wording on that particular bullet is very confusing and there is no example of play to show what to do if the move is physically impossible. I believe it is far less drastic than some of the ideas I've seen posited here.

[lawrenceg]

Suppose your BG charges and makes front edge to front edge contact with another BG.

In the absence of obstructions, there are two ways you could conform: to the left and to the right.

Let us suppose the move to the right is shorter. If there are no obstructions then the move to the right is the minimum necessary.

Now suppose the move to the right is obstructed.

To conform it is now necessary to move to the left. Therefore the move left is the minimum necessary. This is fully consitent with the wording in the "conforming" section.

The diagram in the "melees that cannot line up" section on p87 says that this is not how it works. It implies you go to the right and if this is not possible then you stand still.

One author has stated on this forum that the diagram on P87 is wrong. As yet, no formal erratum has been issued, therefore we have to play as if p87 is correct.

[gozerius]

There seems to be a tendancy with some people to want to make conforming more complicated than it is. When identifying the minimum move necessary to line up, you first determine what the shortest potential move would be to line up with the bases in contact. Then, if physically possible, you move there. If it is not, you remain in place. This is what is depicted in all examples of play demonstrating conforming. I keep hearing the same statements being repeatedly regurgitated, that the rules on conforming demand that only those moves which are physically possible should be considered. This is not supported by the wording of the rules and is directly contradicted by the diagram on page 87. Furthermore, the rules for fighting melees when not conformed are dependant on fighting "as if conformed", which implies that we must consider physically impossible moves to determine who fights whom.