Another argument between me and Mr Ruddock

[nikgaukroger]

Dave, I have seen some odd things written about rules in my time, but this is one of the better ones.

The 4 exceptions, which include the compulsory move one, are exceptions to the BG having to be in a rectangle and are still "normal" formations.

BTW the p70 is an error as The Basics section isn't the one that defines formations.

[peterrjohnston]

The 4 exceptions, which include the compulsory move one, are exceptions to the BG having to be in a rectangle and are still "normal" formations.

My point exactly. Dave keeps quoting "A normal formation is is "a rectangular formation..."", conveniently ignoring the fact it doesn't say a normal formation is a rectangular formation.

[Mehrunes]

Not necessarily rectangular but "in edge and corner contact".

[dave_r]

conveniently ignoring the fact it doesn't say a normal formation is a rectangular formation.

So if I deployed a four base BG with one base in the front rank, two bases in the second rank and a fourth base in the third rank you would be OK with that as it is a normal formation?

I am assuming when it refers to the basics it actually means the "Battle Group Formations" section. This describes "in general" what formations must be. I take this to be what the conforming section refers to as a "normal" formation. Any other reading simply doesn't make sense. Continuing this on, there are four exceptions to this "normal" formation also described on page 23.

If the bit on page 71 didn't specifcally state that a unit must conform in a normal formation then I would agree it would step forward as this would be covered by exception 3 - i.e. compulsory moves can temporarily force a battle group out of formation until it reforms. However it does.

Since "normal formation" isn't mentioned anywhere else I can't see how anybody could think otherwise?

[peterrjohnston]

So if I deployed a four base BG with one base in the front rank, two bases in the second rank and a fourth base in the third rank you would be OK with that as it is a normal formation?

That would be an abnormal formation (unless it arose as an extremely unlikely result of a compulsory move, in which case it would be a normal formation).

Normal formations are defined in "Battle Group Formations". In general they are rectangular, but can also be one of the four exceptions listed to the general case. Anything else is abnormal and not permitted.

[dave_r]

So if I deployed a four base BG with one base in the front rank, two bases in the second rank and a fourth base in the third rank you would be OK with that as it is a normal formation?

That would be an abnormal formation (unless it arose as an extremely unlikely result of a compulsory move, in which case it would be a normal formation).

Normal formations are defined in "Battle Group Formations". In general they are rectangular, but can also be one of the four exceptions listed to the general case. Anything else is abnormal and not permitted.

Actually, they aren't. Normal formations aren't described anywhere, which I thought was the crux of your argument!

I would interpret this as here are normal formations and here are the exceptions.

Why on earth would you describe every possible formation as normal? Clearly there are formations that BG's can get themselves into that aren't normal. Hence the need to describe what a normal formation is and then the exceptions.

[shadowdragon]

Normal formations are defined in "Battle Group Formations". In general they are rectangular, but can also be one of the four exceptions listed to the general case. Anything else is abnormal and not permitted.

It's somewhat circular logic to say that a "normal formation" is rectangular with an exception that says where a compulsory move forces it out of formation (pg. 23, battle group formations) and then to have a compulsory rule that says it must end the move in "normal formation" (pg. 70-71, conforming to enemy in close combat, 2nd bullet).

As I read the 2nd bullet on pg. 70-71 it refers to files not yet in contact with the enemy...."...except that each file steps forward to line up with the nearest enemy already in contact...". The pertinent bullet is actuall the 1st on pg. 70, which states that, "Conforming usually means lining up each base in full front edgue to front edge contact...". Combined with the picture on pg. 72 (Front and Flank contact - somewhat of a misnomer as the charging unit could not have executed a proper flank charge and ended in that position) which shows a unit that is not in a proper rectangular formation, it shows that the philosophy of the rules are that conforming base-to-base takes precedence over maintaining a proper rectangle.

To Dave's point, the rules don't explicitly say this, but - to Dave, *sensible* people would conform.

[philqw78]

To Dave's point, the rules don't explicitly say this, but - to Dave, *sensible* people would conform.

But sensible people don't play toy soldiers at our age.

[shadowdragon]

To Dave's point, the rules don't explicitly say this, but - to Dave, *sensible* people would conform.

But sensible people don't play toy soldiers at our age.

Aye! So, expecting a sensible argument where none can be had and using the the forms of sensibility to to make such arguments are a defining characteristic of wargamers of advanced age....

.....and just what age are you, Phil. I could be much, much younger and hence could sensibly play with toy soldiers.

[footslogger]

Do we have an eating popcorn icon?

[philqw78]

To Dave's point, the rules don't explicitly say this, but - to Dave, *sensible* people would conform.

But sensible people don't play toy soldiers at our age.

Aye! So, expecting a sensible argument where none can be had and using the the forms of sensibility to to make such arguments are a defining characteristic of wargamers of advanced age....

.....and just what age are you, Phil. I could be much, much younger and hence could sensibly play with toy soldiers.

I quote:
"Sensible argument". If sense prevailed there would be no argument
"Forms of sensibility." Do you work for the governement? There is no such thing as a sensible form
"Sensibly play with toy soldiers." Back to the begining again. Speak to your non toy soldier playing best/girl/boy friend about this statement. Unless the friend is a pre pubescent boy the sentence, again, does not make sense

I have retired, so now have to work for a living to pay for my house and kids. Therefore since I am heading towards senility I should soon have the mind of a 12 year old and happily play soldiers knowing that it all makes sense. And if you don't play by my rules I'm taking my toys home and telling your mum.

[philqw78]

Do we have an eating popcorn icon?

[batesmotel]

Clearly in this instance then if my BG were to conform then it would not be a normal formation (as described in the basics section) and I can't step forward to line up with the nearest file already in contact. Therefore with the RAW it is an illegal conform.

A compulsory move, which this is, can leave a battle group out of rectangular formation. See the basics section, p23, point 3. This is still a normal formation.

It isn't a normal formation. A normal formation is "a rectangular formation with all bases facing in the same direction, in edge and corner contact with each other. Only the rear rank of a battle group is allowed to have fewer bases, so for example, a battle group of 8 bases could be deployed 1 wide and 8 deep, 2 wide and four deep, 3 with only 2 bases in the third rank, 4 wide and 2 deep and so on.

There are four exceptions to this general case:"

Therefore this clearly isn't a normal formation. However, it does say that following a compulsory move you can temporarily force a battle group out of formation"

This, however, is overruled by the fact it specifically states in the conforming section on pg 70 that it _MUST_ be in a normal formation as described in the basics.

From the rules, page 70:

The battle group must end in a normal formation ... except that each file steps forward to line up with the nearest file already in contact with the enemy"

This sounds to me like the one specific exception allowed in the conforming rule to the normal formation requirement as defined in the Basics. The conform as proposed by Hammy clearly is a legal formation with the exception that one file is stepped forward relative to the other and hence covered by the exception allowed in the conforming rules. Conforming is mandatory movement so the group does not have to be in a normal formation but in one that is normal except that it may have the files stepped forward as described. Seems pretty clear to me even following Dave's reasoning for the most part.

Chris

[dave_r]

From the rules, page 70:
The battle group must end in a normal formation ... except that each file steps forward to line up with the nearest file already in contact with the enemy"


This sounds to me like the one specific exception allowed in the conforming rule to the normal formation requirement as defined in the Basics. The conform as proposed by Hammy clearly is a legal formation with the exception that one file is stepped forward relative to the other and hence covered by the exception allowed in the conforming rules. Conforming is mandatory movement so the group does not have to be in a normal formation but in one that is normal except that it may have the files stepped forward as described. Seems pretty clear to me even following Dave's reasoning for the most part.

But the exception isn't allowed in the conforming rules - it clearly states that "each file steps forward to LINE UP WITH THE NEAREST FILE already in contact with the enemy" (bits in caps are my emphasis). Since they aren't stepping forward to line up with friendly troops already in contact then it isn't allowed as an exception.

Bit convoluted though. I can see why all you lot are getting it wrong

[hazelbark]

Bit convoluted though. I can see why all you lot are getting it wrong

Dave, I think you have sand in your eyes again. Wipe it out and concede.

[shadowdragon]

I see that attempts to hijack the thread have failed.

"Sensible argument". If sense prevailed there would be no argument

I disagree.

"Forms of sensibility." Do you work for the governement? There is no such thing as a sensible form

Sensible. And government. Should never be used in the same sentence.

"Sensibly play with toy soldiers." Back to the begining again. Speak to your non toy soldier playing best/girl/boy friend about this statement. Unless the friend is a pre pubescent boy the sentence, again, does not make sense

I have many friends, the overwhelming majority not of the type you describe. Most know that I play with toy solders. They have not had the response to which you refer. I suggest you should find a better class of friends.

"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." - C.S. Lewis

I should soon have the mind of a 12 year old and happily play soldiers knowing that it all makes sense. And if you don't play by my rules I'm taking my toys home and telling your mum.

My wife teaches 12 year olds. I consulted with her; and she said, "Never argue with a 12 year old."

Here endeth the argument.

[shadowdragon]

Do we have an eating popcorn icon?

Equally useful would be a "We've been around the buoy 'X' times" counter.

[batesmotel]

From the rules, page 70:
The battle group must end in a normal formation ... except that each file steps forward to line up with the nearest file already in contact with the enemy"


This sounds to me like the one specific exception allowed in the conforming rule to the normal formation requirement as defined in the Basics. The conform as proposed by Hammy clearly is a legal formation with the exception that one file is stepped forward relative to the other and hence covered by the exception allowed in the conforming rules. Conforming is mandatory movement so the group does not have to be in a normal formation but in one that is normal except that it may have the files stepped forward as described. Seems pretty clear to me even following Dave's reasoning for the most part.

But the exception isn't allowed in the conforming rules - it clearly states that "each file steps forward to LINE UP WITH THE NEAREST FILE already in contact with the enemy" (bits in caps are my emphasis). Since they aren't stepping forward to line up with friendly troops already in contact then it isn't allowed as an exception.

Bit convoluted though. I can see why all you lot are getting it wrong

As a question, can you describe a situation where your reading of the rule would allow a legal formation with some files stepped forward? Is the difference here that you would need to pivot to be facing parallel to the defending unit's front? I think you are trying to read the rule a bit more literally than it actually bears. Seems to me I also remember a similar issue with the timing of arrival of flank marches a while back which was finally clarified by RBS.

Chris

[dave_r]

As a question, can you describe a situation where your reading of the rule would allow a legal formation with some files stepped forward?

Certainly. This is to cover the situation whereby one file of a BG has stepped forward at an angle to contact enemy, but the file next door hasn't. It would be easier to show on table, or with some fancy diagrams.

I think you are trying to read the rule a bit more literally than it actually bears

Sorry for reading the rule literally - how would I be expected to read it?

[nikgaukroger]

Sorry for reading the rule literally - how would I be expected to read it?

Sensibly. Oh, hang on ...