Another argument between me and Mr Ruddock

[dave_r]

No it's not.

The concensus is that everybody would LIKE Dave to be wrong. Unfortuantely, the rules as written don't support this.

Therefore Dave is either

- Being Cheesy
- Reading the rules in a perverse manner

[peterrjohnston]

The concensus is that everybody would LIKE Dave to be wrong. Unfortuantely, the rules as written don't support this.

Is that a suggestion for the FAQ? The rules should say Dave is always wrong?

[dave_r]

There are those who would strongly support this being added to the FAQ.

[philqw78]

There are those who would strongly support this being added to the FAQ.

But "Is Dave wrong?" is not frequently asked. People just take it for granted

[nikgaukroger]

No it's not.

The concensus is that everybody would LIKE Dave to be wrong.

The consensus is Dave is wrong - for most definitions of wrong

Unfortuantely, the rules as written don't support this.

In DaveWorld - which is a small island just offshore from TerryWorld ...

Therefore Dave is either

- Being Cheesy
- Reading the rules in a perverse manner

Or, more likely, is deluded

[shadowdragon]

Can one expect anything other than more spam here?

I believe that good natured humour has an important social value and hence is not "spam". You might want to note Shakespeare's use of small, comedic scenes within otherwise very serious plays. Such scenes might call these "spam" scenes, which I seem to recall have been known to add "value" (????) to Monty Python films, if such value added were possible at all.

Is there a consensus now?

No, there is no consensus (i.e., everyone agrees). Dave, does not agree with the rest....and, strictly for the record, I don't either. Dave has explained several times. Now I will explain from my perspective – bolding added to draw attention to particular parts of the rules and non-relevant parts summarized in brackets:

Relevant Rules:

Battle Group Formations (page 23):

In general, troops must be in a rectangular formation (followed by an explanation of a rectangle for does who don't know).... There are four expections to this general case:

1) (Exception for kinky columns on roads)
2) (Battle group fighting in two directions)
3) A compulsory move specified by the rules can temporarily force a battle group out of formation until it reforms.
4) (Orb formations)

Interpretation – with regards to the argument at hand: BG’s must be in a rectangle unless forced by a compulsory rule to be otherwise. That should be clear to everyone and there does appear to be consensus on this.

Impact Phase – Charging to Contact and Stepping Forwards: (pages 54-55)

To charge, move your battle group forward, making any wheels or formation changes allowed until, a “legal” contact is made. If it is now possible to get more bases into contact with the same or different battle groups, you MUST step them forward to make further contacts, unless exempted by the following rules.

To step forward after initial contact, slide any files of your battle group not yet in contact straight forward until the front base makes contact with enemy bases, subject to the following conditions:
• No bases can be stepped forward more than 2 MU from the original line of contact
• Every stepped forward front rank base must end in contract with an enemy
• Every base in a file must step forward the same distance as the front rank base
• A battle group cannot separate to form multiple groups of bases. There must be at least be corner to corner contact throughout
• (stepped forward movement is additional to the normal move plus variable move…)
• (skirmishers don’t have to step forward to contact non-skirmishers)

Stepping forward therefore results in a battle group having an uneven line.

Interpretation: This compulsory rule WILL force battle groups out of a rectangular formation. However, it DOES NOT apply to the original circumstance since ALL front rank bases are in contact. Note that, in other cases, front rank bases that could NOT contact an enemy base by stepping forward would remain at the original line of contact.

This rule hasn’t been quoted (if I recall correctly), but it is relevant….see below.

Manoeuvre Phase – Conforming to the Enemy in Close Combat: (pages 70-71)

At the start of the manoeuvre phase, the active player’s battle groups already in close combat with the enemy must (unless otherwise stated below or physically impossible) pivot and / or slide bases by the minimum necessary to conform to the enemy bases in contact:

• Conforming usually means lining up base in full front edge to front edge contact with an enemy base, or conforming to an overlap position. (Description for conforming for a flank of bases that were unable to turn.)
• The battle group must[\b\ end its conform move in a normal formation, except that each files steps forward to line up with the nearest file already in contact with the enemy. (Additional battles groups might be contacted as a result.)
• (Bases in contact with a flank base as a result of a charge that didn’t qualify as a flank charge must conform to the front of the enemy or to an overlap position if that’s not possible.)
• (Friendly battle groups not in contact get shifted out of the way).
• Troops that cannot conform by any of the above methods do not move but continue to fight in an offset formation. (May conform later.)
• (Exception for fighting in 2 directions)
• (Exception for wagons, etc.)

Interpretation: Those that suggest that the 2nd bullet forces Dave’s unit out of a rectangular formation are NOT correct. The exception refers to files NOT in contact lining up with files already in contract. So, if the files already in contact are in a rectangular formation the result WILL BE a rectangle. If the files already in contact aren’t in a rectangular formation – due to stepping forward under the IMPACT rules, the result will be a split formation.

The part about pivoting / sliding a minimum is important for the figure on the following page (page 72) entitled, “Front and Flank Conform”. In this figure a unit, which obviously has not had a legal flank charge has contact an enemy. The left most file has stepped forward to contact the flank of the enemy base. In the manoeuvre phase it conforms to an overlap position BY THE MINIMUM necessary and results in a formation that is not a rectangle.

Consensus: Dave’s unit MUST maintain contact with both enemy BG.

Disagreement: Dave’s FILES IN CONTACT must conform front edge to front edge with the enemy and end up in an offset formation. Most misquote the 2nd bullet under conform, which does not refer to moving files already in contact but those not in contact.

Dave’s point – as I understand it: Under conform the only MUST is that the unit must end in a normal (i.e, rectangular formation unless compelled to be otherwise).

My view: The conform rules only compel Dave’s unit to pivot/slide the minimum necessary and to remain in a rectangle. Conforming front edge to front edge is NOT compulsory but only that this is “usual”. Therefore, there is no compulsory rule that forces Dave’s unit out of its rectangular formation.

Convention: Most players will conform front edge to front edge and accept an offset formation. I admit that – until now – I would have followed that convention.

So, there you are. I started disagreeing with Dave, but now agree with him. Dave’s camp is growing in size. Ergo – no consensus until everyone agrees with Dave, which will be slightly after “When Hell Freezes Over”.

[hammy]

But isn't conforming compulsary (OK, it might not be possible because of obstructions but you cannot choose not to conform and in my book that is compulsary)?

[Mehrunes]

@shadowdragon

Nothing against a good joke. But my observations are that many rule questions threads end in oafishnesses with nothing ontopic anymore. See this thread with nearly 20 posts in a row with only jokes where the topic isn't solved yet. But I'm interested in a solution and have only limited time to read the forums, so it is not always funny to read offtopic posts over and over again.

So, thank you for your additions to the topic. I'm with you there, especially here:

Disagreement: Dave’s FILES IN CONTACT must conform front edge to front edge with the enemy and end up in an offset formation. Most misquote the 2nd bullet under conform, which does not refer to moving files already in contact but those not in contact.

I'm still waiting for someone quoting rules as written that defeat Dave's point of view.

[shadowdragon]

But isn't conforming compulsary (OK, it might not be possible because of obstructions but you cannot choose not to conform and in my book that is compulsary)?

But what does "conforming" mean? The conforming rule goes into quite a number of clauses, some with "musts" and some without "musts". The rules mention that conforming MUST be with the minimum of shifting / pivoting and USUALLY* means front edge to front edge contract but that the unit MUST be in a normal formation at the end of the turn** and if it can't do conform by "any of the above methods"*** it remains where it is.

* What are the "unusual" cases? - Is the flank contact case mentioned the only allowed exception? Then the rule shouldn't say "usually" but MUST with exceptions listed.
** The Exception for this is peculiar since it refers to files not in contact LINING UP with files in contract. How does "lining up with another file" force a unit out of a rectangular formation? An explanation of when you wouldn't be in rectangular formation would be most helpful.
*** This is a catch all term - if you can't do it, remain in place. Obstalces are not mentioned. Are there other reasons you can't "conform by any of the above methods"? Note: that the "continue to fight in an offset formation" is a part of the conform rules and therefore has a "if the others clauses don't apply then this is how you conform" nature to it.

The rules for conforming have a contradiction between conforming (as in "usually" bases in contact lining up with enemy basees) and remaining rectangular formation which must be maintained without a "must" excpetion rule. So in the end it's a player choice between the desirablity of edge to edge contract versus maintain a regular formation. (DBM legacy base-to-base versus BG integrity?)

A small clarification would helpful.

My preference is still to conform edge to edge in this case. That may be what was intended by the rules, but it's not what it says in the rules.

[shadowdragon]

But my observations are that many rule questions threads end in oafishnesses with nothing ontopic anymore. See this thread with nearly 20 posts in a row with only jokes where the topic isn't solved yet. But I'm interested in a solution and have only limited time to read the forums, so it is not always funny to read offtopic posts over and over again.

So, thank you for your additions to the topic. I'm with you there.... I'm still waiting for someone quoting rules as written that defeat Dave's point of view.

Agree with your observations. I'd also point out that it's not informative to read the same arguments over and over again - and definitely not funny either, well, okay, sort of funny. I admit to adding to the oafishness, but my original reply was to contrast between "rules as written" and "convention". I was taught, in defensive driving courses, to drive in the world of "convention" and not in the world of the "traffic law as written" as doing the latter could be dangerous. The convention here seems to be to align bases edge to edge even if that's not what the rules say as written. It's a simple matter to acknowledge that Dave's right, in a pedantic sort of way, but that many don't play the rules that way....so let's put it to a vote. So, unless someone has new insight - versus repeating the same arguments - does "common law" override the "rules as written" in this case?

I'm undecided how I would answer that question. So, put me in the ??? camp.

[johno]

Someone already made this point, but it seems to have got lost in the noise:

As I understand it, if Dave had charged directly forward opposite the join of the two target units, his chargers would have ended up in exactly the same position as his opponent wanted him to conform into. Since this is clearly permitted, most players will assume (not unreasonably) that conforming to the same position is also permitted.

It seems to me that the rules interpretation effort required to justify not permitting it is so large - witness ShadowDragon's excellent exposition above - as to instantly give your opponent the feeling that you are rules-lawyering for some advantage, or simply misinterpreting the rules, which probably explains the instant reaction of "Dave's wrong".

Having said that, I can't make my own rules-based comment, since my last opponent managed to walk off with my rule book as well as his own at my last club meeting!

One thing that does strike me: Dave's argument seems to revolve around not increasing the distance between the front edges of his two files. That is, if he conforms with his rightmost file, the leftmost file will have to slide forward to maintain contact. He cites the additional requirement that files not in contact must slide forward to line up with a file that is in contact as a reason why his leftmost shouldn't slide forward - it is already in contact so this rule clearly doesn't apply. I agree, but don't see why that prevents the leftmost file (which IS in contact) conforming - it is a red herring in this case.

The conform rules require the leftmost column to conform, and permit it to slide or pivot the minimum needed to do so, so nothing in that portion of the rules prevents the column conforming. Except, of course, Dave's insistence that this would mean it wouldn't be a "normal" formation, so can't conform.
But if Dave had charged frontally, he would be in exactly the same formation, which is apparently not "normal", but is correct.

Which brings me back to the earlier point: if it's a legal formation when you "conform" after charging frontally, why isn't it a legal formation when you conform after charging at an angle?

[david53]

Having said that, I can't make my own rules-based comment, since my last opponent managed to walk off with my rule book as well as his own at my last club meeting!

Ah the old can I borrow your rule book trick ops of track BTW I'm with nobody here I'm having to lie down its all too much.

[petedalby]

As I understand it, if Dave had charged directly forward opposite the join of the two target units, his chargers would have ended up in exactly the same position as his opponent wanted him to conform into. Since this is clearly permitted, most players will assume (not unreasonably) that conforming to the same position is also permitted.

Exactly so Johno. Which is why, despite the excellent argument put forward by shadowdragon, I would still conform as Hammy suggested originally.

And if you need a new rule book - I will be raffling one, hopefully signed by all of the authors, at Britcon if you're going?

[expendablecinc]

I'm still waiting for someone quoting rules as written that defeat Dave's point of view.

It specifically permits stepping forward as an exception to rectangular formation when conforming. That should do the trick.

In addition, being other then rectangular is normal if you are forced out of it by a compulsory move (eg a viable conform) - thats normal too.

How could the rule possibly permit stepping forwards as part of a conform which would put you out of rectangle mode if it wasnt permitted?

[peteratjet]

I'm still waiting for someone quoting rules as written that defeat Dave's point of view.

It specifically permits stepping forward as an exception to rectangular formation when conforming. That should do the trick.

In addition, being other then rectangular is normal if you are forced out of it by a compulsory move (eg a viable conform) - thats normal too.

How could the rule possibly permit stepping forwards as part of a conform which would put you out of rectangle mode if it wasnt permitted?

We've seen the explanation above. However, you would have to be loopy to actually play it that way. The consensus (note that a consensus is not the same thing as universal acceptance.), is that a BG must conform to the target BGs after the impact phase if it can, stepping forward as necessary, while maintaining contact with all the opposing BGs.

Rules lawyering is of course a priceless super-power when developing and maintaining a ruleset, so we should all thank Dave for identifying a weakness in the rules, which should be fixed in the next release and addressed in the FAQ in the meantime.

[dave_r]

I like the way you assume you are correct - as I have previously stated this can cause problems with base removal.

[philqw78]

I like the way you assume you are correct - as I have previously stated this can cause problems with base removal.

Only once 2 bases are lost. But so what?

[dave_r]

Just stating that not-conforming in this case could solve potential problems later.

Anyway, as most agree, with the RAW then the charging BG wouldn't conform, so to those who believe this was against the rule writers intent / cheesy / whatever then I am afraid that isn't my problem.

[expendablecinc]

Just stating that not-conforming in this case could solve potential problems later...

I agree that it would help to prevent issues due to base loss but any BG fighting more than one opponent may face this so its hardly a fix.

...Anyway, as most agree....

Looking back I think I count two, perhaps three who agree.

... with the RAW then the charging BG wouldn't conform, so to those who believe this was against the rule writers intent / cheesy / whatever then I am afraid that isn't my problem.

With the RAW... in a conform you can also step forward into enemy as well that you are fighting. You shouldnt need to go to other sections of the rules on normal or rectangular formation if its explicit in the section specifically pertaining to conforming.

[nikgaukroger]

...Anyway, as most agree....

Looking back I think I count two, perhaps three who agree.

Dave was never good at counting ...