Active Player Conforming - Subsequent Moves

pcelella · Post by **pcelella** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:15 pm

I know that once you charge your opponent, in the movement phase you then conform to their position. If you cannot conform due to positioning or interference problems, then the melee is fought essentially as if you had conformed. Subsequently, during your opponent's next turn, since he is now the active player, and if it is now possible for him to conform to your troops, do they now do so, being pulled out of the position they were in?

Thanks

Peter C

peterrjohnston · Post by **peterrjohnston** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:23 pm

gozerius · Post by **gozerius** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:01 am

Had this very thing happen this weekend. A BG of cav lancers charged and hit a bg of knights and stepped forward into the side of a BG of MF crossbows, not counting as a legal flank contact. The Melee was fought with the X-bows fighting with the contacted file counting as in front edge contact, the adjacent file counting as in overlap. In my own manuever phase, the entire X-bow BG had to pivot and and slide back, then shift to conform to the cav. This caused the line to swing about 45 degrees.

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:58 am

The conform rules can be a source of tactical traps for the thoughtful and guileful player. I remember fondly when I walked into the first one. Undrilled impetuous types make the best victims. Of course the effort involved in setting up a trap may create inattention and weaknesses elsewhere that derail a battle plan.

pcelella · Post by **pcelella** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 11:37 am

Thanks, guys. This is the way that I interpreted the rules on conforming, but I have come up against opponents who have said once I charged them, and then couldn't conform due to the geometry, then in the subsequent turn they would not be forced to conform if it was disadvantageous to them. They felt the fight would continue as if we had conformed, just like in the previous move. I'm glad to see that it seems everyone agrees that once the charged player becomes the active player, they would then have to conform to the combat, even though they did not initiate it.

Peter C

gozerius · Post by **gozerius** » Wed Nov 11, 2009 4:54 am

Which is why conforming properly, or in some cases, properly remaining unconformed is important. What may be physically impossible for the phasing player may not be for his opponent.

deadtorius · Post by **deadtorius** » Wed Nov 11, 2009 6:23 pm

Which could force your opponent into a position he does not want to be in if his battleline has to shift away from adjacent friends, but that is the cost of battle I guess.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:55 am

deadtorius wrote:Which could force your opponent into a position he does not want to be in if his battleline has to shift away from adjacent friends, but that is the cost of battle I guess.

and that is part of playing the game. How to break up your opponent.

ShrubMiK · Post by **ShrubMiK** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 12:32 pm

Isn't the the avoidance of "geometric ploys" one of the most quoted reasons for why FoG is preferable to another series of rulesets?

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 1:35 pm

The on-table geometry is a fact of not playing on a marked out square or hex board. FoG has very little of this type of geometry. Although it might be theoretically possible to set up a very disadvantageous conform, it is difficult in practice.
In last night's game, we both blocked an enemy conform move in one direction by pushing the corner of another group ahead of a base to block the space ahead front of it. This is a relatively minor bit of geometric play and is so obvious that it cannot really be described as a 'ploy'. The effect is only to have the bases shift right and not left or vv. (Please, no replies from the minimalist conformers who reject this interpretation.)

gozerius · Post by **gozerius** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:48 am

The linchpin of the system is that you can fight even when you can't conform. This eliminates a lot of the goofy geometric traps of a lot of other games. It doesn't eliminate all of them. But they are greatly reduced.

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:52 am

Life would be simpler without conforming, or if troops conformed partially without the requirement of fully lining up (so that blocking part of the front of a BG would not prevent moving towards a fully conformed position against it).

deadtorius · Post by **deadtorius** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:04 pm

Would be much easier if it said you just conform to all enemy you contacted or were contacted by during a charge, int his case it would allow the charging cats to slide left to line up fully with the Inf unit and then shifted up against the cat unit they did not contact but the battle group that was charged would still be in melee, if any of that makes sense.
Then in this case in your opponents turn both units would line up with you regardless of which stand was contacted and it would make a nice straight two battle group line fighting the cats.

Just a thought because does it really matter which stand was contacted or that you are still fighting the battle group you charged and made contact with?

gozerius · Post by **gozerius** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 12:11 am

It does. If I choose to wheel slightly to the right when charging a line of troops directly ahead and then only conform to the bases I hit in the charge, I would line up on the bases touched by the left corner of each base. This could mean that I slide %99 of a basewidth. If I conform by pivoting into front edge contact, then sliding the shortest distance to line up, I fight the base that is most directly in front of each base. A shift usually of less than %50 of a basewidth. It could mean a lot, especially if it changes the POAs and CT modifiers based on what your opponent in melee is. Or whether you are overlapping or overlapped. Or subject to breaking off or not.

Ghaznavid · Post by **Ghaznavid** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 4:20 am

gozerius wrote:It does. If I choose to wheel slightly to the right when charging a line of troops directly ahead and then only conform to the bases I hit in the charge, I would line up on the bases touched by the left corner of each base. This could mean that I slide %99 of a basewidth. If I conform by pivoting into front edge contact, then sliding the shortest distance to line up, I fight the base that is most directly in front of each base. A shift usually of less than %50 of a basewidth. It could mean a lot, especially if it changes the POAs and CT modifiers based on what your opponent in melee is. Or whether you are overlapping or overlapped. Or subject to breaking off or not.

And that's different from the current situation how? Right now I 'control' how I conform by aiming for the left or the right half of a base. With deadtorius suggesting it then becomes aim for this or that corner. If anything the suggestion from deadtorius would make it more difficult to control how you conform in some situations due to the 'must hit at least as many bases' requirement for wheeling in a charge. All in all it would be highly dependant on the actual situation which rule would offer more advantages or disadvantages.

ShrubMiK · Post by **ShrubMiK** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 10:01 am

gozerius wrote:It does. If I choose to wheel slightly to the right when charging a line of troops directly ahead and then only conform to the bases I hit in the charge, I would line up on the bases touched by the left corner of each base. This could mean that I slide %99 of a basewidth. If I conform by pivoting into front edge contact, then sliding the shortest distance to line up, I fight the base that is most directly in front of each base. A shift usually of less than %50 of a basewidth. It could mean a lot, especially if it changes the POAs and CT modifiers based on what your opponent in melee is. Or whether you are overlapping or overlapped. Or subject to breaking off or not.

This is true, but I don't see the amount shifted by each base as being a particular concern. That's just game mechanics.

If I wheel to to the right in my charge such that each of my bases contacts 1% away from the edge of the base directly in front, and the conform rules were such that I then slide back to line up with the directly-in-front bases, and I am unhappy with that result...then it is my fault for not wheeling a bit more! If for any reason it was not possible for me to achieve this, well there has to be some sort of cutoff point beyond which I cannot slide my whole front line along to seeking better matchups, starting from a position so close to enemy. And personally I feel that charging very obliquely across the front of the units facing you is a bit gamey. Being able to slide along by one base feels about right. Personal opinion of course

Amra · Post by **Amra** » Sun Nov 29, 2009 8:50 pm

There is the other trap . Not to pull the enemy out of the line but to have a wide unit of yours conform to an end and thus swing in a big arc contacting others who didn't want to be .

expendablecinc · Post by **expendablecinc** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:46 am

philqw78 wrote:
deadtorius wrote:Which could force your opponent into a position he does not want to be in if his battleline has to shift away from adjacent friends, but that is the cost of battle I guess.
and that is part of playing the game. How to break up your opponent.

I wouldnt say its part of the game - but more an unavoidable sacrifice for game simplicity.

The by design "Game" aspect of breaking up your opponent is reflected in teasing shock troops into charging, flank harrasment, outmanouvering and crescent of death battle lines.

graym · Post by **graym** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:00 am

Hang on boys!!

I brought this up a while ago with big units " doin the shwing " on the conform.

Because Mancunia hadnt envisaged the tactical developments it was treated lightly

But as far as I can ascertain the swing was ok as long as you EXACTLY matched up to the SWINGEE. As against the SWINGER.

Didnt really get a ruling on whether you swing a bit / swing on skirmishers / do they evade / dont conform at all .

my gut feeling is no one really knows which makes these good rules [ sans clarifications as they are] not up to international exposure.

But sorely in need of some housekeeping.

pcelella · Post by **pcelella** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:22 pm

So when you conform as the active player, if your new position also brings you into contact with another BG, then you are also in melee with that BG, even though you did not charge it? I thought it was impossible to initiate combat against another unit unless a charge was involved unless it is movement into an overlap position.

Peter C

Active Player Conforming - Subsequent Moves

Active Player Conforming - Subsequent Moves

not part of the game ... part of the gamey