Another argument between me and Mr Ruddock

[Mehrunes]

With the RAW... in a conform you can also step forward into enemy as well that you are fighting.

And that is NOT what the rules say. But people keep to misquote this. There is an exception when stepping forward is allowed. Which is not the case in the current example.

[peteratjet]

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

A red-herring is sighted ! Stepping forward can cause problems with base removal, whether it happens in the impact phase or afterwards.

It's interesting to consider the consequence if Dave's BG does not conform. In Hammy's turn, assuming the melee is still on, his BGs would be able to conform without compromising their rectangularity, so the outcome would be that the original defender would get pulled round out of position to face the original charger. In general, this could be done to any pair of BGs echeloned forward as in this example. Facing can be critical for a number of reasons, so this isn't a trivial outcome.

[dave_r]

That is exactly what did happen.

It also happens frequently in lot's of cases. I had a game last night and that happened. It is a trivial outcome.

[philqw78]

That is exactly what did happen.

It also happens frequently in lot's of cases. I had a game last night and that happened. It is a trivial outcome.

No it stopped me being charged in the flank when I conformed. Not trivial at all at the time. Although it did just delay the ineveitable. Having used all my good dice in the race to Arnhem, beating Hammy in every dice roll bar one, the dice then averaged out against Dave.

[dave_r]

That is exactly what did happen.

It also happens frequently in lot's of cases. I had a game last night and that happened. It is a trivial outcome.

No it stopped me being charged in the flank when I conformed. Not trivial at all at the time. Although it did just delay the ineveitable. Having used all my good dice in the race to Arnhem, beating Hammy in every dice roll bar one, the dice then averaged out against Dave.

I'd already clocked that you would conform when I moved my Lancers up. Even if you hadn't conformed it wouldn't have been a valid flank charge as my first point of contact would have been your front corner.

Phils dice weren't great.

[expendablecinc]

With the RAW... in a conform you can also step forward into enemy as well that you are fighting.

And that is NOT what the rules say. But people keep to misquote this. There is an exception when stepping forward is allowed. Which is not the case in the current example.

Look at the 2nd picture as a specific example of a comform on page 72. The right hand group of Cav conform and end thier move in a paranormal formation. You can end a conform in some formation other than rectangular.

If not it opens up all sorts on non trivial gamey techniques wherby chargers angle slightly in thier charge to pull battle lines out of formation and into flank charge vulnerability. Its an art, but an ugly one.

[dave_r]

With the RAW... in a conform you can also step forward into enemy as well that you are fighting.

And that is NOT what the rules say. But people keep to misquote this. There is an exception when stepping forward is allowed. Which is not the case in the current example.

Look at the 2nd picture as a specific example of a comform on page 72. The right hand group of Cav conform and end thier move in a paranormal formation. You can end a conform in some formation other than rectangular.

If not it opens up all sorts on non trivial gamey techniques wherby chargers angle slightly in thier charge to pull battle lines out of formation and into flank charge vulnerability. Its an art, but an ugly one.

The diagram on page 72 is a very different kettle of fish because the Cavalry are an overlap and not fighting frontally. Nobody is arguing that you can't end a conform move out of a normal formation, just not in this instance.

There are restrictions on charges and such like to prevent cheesy moves like this.

[johno]

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.

I certainly don't agree, and neither do most of the respondents in this discussion. Your assertion that the RAW supports your case is not proven, either.

Your main thrust seems to be that you couldn't conform into a normal formation, but point 3 on page 23 explicitly allows compulsory moves - such as conforming - to leave you out of formation until you reform. Clearly, you are wrong on this point.

Conforming is required, except in very narrow circumstances, and allows sliding and pivoting by the minimum required to conform - note that such sliding and pivoting has no limitation on direction or distance, except an implied use of the "shortest route" - the "minimum required" mentioned above.

Your continual reference to the exception regarding stepping forward of files not in contact, and pointing out that it doesn't apply because all your files are in contact is another hareng rouge.

It clearly doesn't apply, but that doesn't prevent the file from sliding forward into contact because they are required to slide and pivot any distance needed to conform to enemy bases in contact. Which means you are wrong on this point as well.


I do hope I'm not going to encounter this sort of facetious rules interpretation at the Devizes doubles in July. It's one of the reasons I gave up playing DBM...

[david53]

I'm sure Dave was'nt doing any

'facetious rules interpretation

just saying what he believes is right which everyone is entitilled to do if your in an event there is always an umpire for any problums with the rules

[johno]

david53: that may not have been his intent, but someone who doesn't know him (such as myself) might well draw that conclusion.

Especially given the number of tangled rules discussions on this forum where he seems to be a significant protagonist.

I don't feel I can be blamed for thinking that where there is smoke, there might be fire...

johno

[nikgaukroger]

david53: that may not have been his intent, but someone who doesn't know him (such as myself) might well draw that conclusion.

Especially given the number of tangled rules discussions on this forum where he seems to be a significant protagonist.

I don't feel I can be blamed for thinking that where there is smoke, there might be fire...

johno

I would not recommend drawing conclusions about people's personalities from on-line postings, they are often quite different in real life as I have found on many occasions - often dramatically different. Judge them on how they behave at the games table IMO.

[philqw78]

I don't feel I can be blamed for thinking that where there is smoke, there might be fire...

johno

I would not recommend drawing conclusions about people's personalities from on-line postings, they are often quite different in real life as I have found on many occasions - often dramatically different. Judge them on how they behave at the games table IMO.

Burn him, he's a witch.

[johno]

I would not recommend drawing conclusions about people's personalities from on-line postings, they are often quite different in real life as I have found on many occasions - often dramatically different. Judge them on how they behave at the games table IMO.

Fair comment, Nik, and I certainly try to give any player the benefit of the doubt until I've played at least a couple of games against him - if the first game was bad, he might just have been having an off day.

Anyway, I'm half convinced that the whole point of the exercise was to wind up his regular opponent - hence my use of "facetious"

After all, he can't really mean this is how he reads the text, can he? Seriously?

johno

[timmy1]

John

I would venture to suggest from the length of this thread, that this is EXACTLY how Dave reads the text.

[johno]

timmy1: yeah, I suppose you're right. But there was always the chance he was simply Trolling for his own amusement!

johno

[david53]

After all, he can't really mean this is how he reads the text, can he? Seriously?

johno

If you only knew him like we know him.

Then you too would say burn him!

[shadowdragon]

Wow!

I guess I'm about to defend Dave (*may God have mercy upon my soul*), which is strange since clearly Dave needs no defending.

I started off thinking that Dave was wrong, but I did try to understand his side of the argument and eventually came to his conclusion that to a degree he was right. Dave might be guilty of obstinately reading the rules in a way that is inconsistent with "common sensibility" (i.e., according to the norm of the social group). However, I should point out that I haven't noticed too many posts from the dominant "social group" (i.e., everyone on this thread but Dave and one or two others) considering the even most remote possibility they might be wrong. But then, historically, the dominant "social group" has hardly ever though they were wrong and has usually, er, as required by law except in narrow circumstances, burnt the heretics, er, witches, at the stake for being right...er, wrong. And, as we all know, the dominant “social group” is never, ever obstinate.

So, what do I think are the points of contention:

BG's don't have to be in rectangular formation all the time. - We all agree. Compulsory moves, for example, can force a unit out of rectangular formation.

Charging BG's can step forward out rectangular formation. - We all agree. It's a compulsory move in the IMPACT PHASE. In fact, Dave's charging BG has done this.

Conforming is a compulsory move. - We all agree. We do not agree on what "conforming" means.

Conforming "edge to edge" (square up with hammy's BGs in this case) is required except narrow circumstances. - We do not agree. The rule says "Conforming usually means…". Too bad it didn't say, "Conforming means, except for circumstances specified in these rules”, but, alas, it doesn’t. It says, “Conforming usually means”. (By the way, I’ve just checked wiki to see if the definition of “usually” had changed, but, no. It’s still the same.)

Then we have the troublesome bit, which is the rule that states, “The battle group must end its conform in a normal formation, except that each file steps forward to line up with the nearest file already in contact with the enemy.”. Too bad it didn’t read that, “The battle group must end its conform in a normal formation, except files that have already stepped forward into contact with the enemy conform as state above. Other files step forward to line up with the nearest file already in contact with the enemy.” But it doesn’t. So we disagree on the application of the rule as to whether or not units must end their conform move in rectangular formation or not.

(By the way I’d like to ask, what’s the purpose of stating here the Battle Groups must end the conform move in normal formation? There’s already an earlier rule about the need to be in a rectangular formation unless exceptions apply. Lining up files with files in contact isn’t going to force a BG into a non-rectangular formation. So I understand the rationale for the last bit of the rule. I just don’t see the point of the first bit. If you conform to an enemy in rectangular formation, you’ll be in a rectangular formation. If you conform to a staggered enemy you will not be in a rectangular formation. As most people play the game, ending up in “normal formation” can mean just about anything since this is a compulsory move and exempts a rectangular formation. In that case the rule seems pointless. Similar logic, I understand, is applied by investment banks for their codes of ethics – i.e., here’s our code but by-the-by we reserve the right for an exemption.)

The figure on page 72 provides evidence of not needing to be in a rectangular formation. – We don’t agree. The diagram is supposed to be an illustration of a rule. But I’m not sure which one. In fact, I’m not entirely sure why the BG doesn’t conform into a rectangular formation. The file that has stepped forward in the figure would still fight the same (as an overlap) in either case. The only reason can be that the move by the outermost file is “greater”. Is it really true that “minimum” moving takes precedence over BGs being in normal formations?

By the way, I’ve just completed a game where, in quite a number of circumstances, I had to apply the “Troops that cannot conform by any of the above methods do not move but continue to fight in an offset formation: rule because the charging BG had contacted two separated enemy BG and conforming would have split the charging BG. This caused no problems at all, but I maybe in a competition….

[nikgaukroger]

Wow!

I guess I'm about to defend Dave (*may God have mercy upon my soul*),

On the fire with you as well then

Then we have the troublesome bit, which is the rule that states, “The battle group must end its conform in a normal formation, except that each file steps forward to line up with the nearest file already in contact with the enemy.”. Too bad it didn’t read that, “The battle group must end its conform in a normal formation, except files that have already stepped forward into contact with the enemy conform as state above. Other files step forward to line up with the nearest file already in contact with the enemy.” But it doesn’t. So we disagree on the application of the rule as to whether or not units must end their conform move in rectangular formation or not.

This is not troublesome, it is irrelevant to the case in question - it does not apply and brining it in is just adding confusion. Leave it out as not applicable, as is correct in this case, and the solution is clear (and Dave is wrong).

[shadowdragon]

Then we have the troublesome bit, which is the rule that states, “The battle group must end its conform in a normal formation, except that each file steps forward to line up with the nearest file already in contact with the enemy.”. Too bad it didn’t read that, “The battle group must end its conform in a normal formation, except files that have already stepped forward into contact with the enemy conform as state above. Other files step forward to line up with the nearest file already in contact with the enemy.” But it doesn’t. So we disagree on the application of the rule as to whether or not units must end their conform move in rectangular formation or not.

This is not troublesome, it is irrelevant to the case in question - it does not apply and brining it in is just adding confusion. Leave it out as not applicable, as is correct in this case, and the solution is clear (and Dave is wrong).

It's troublesome because we disagree on the relevance.

I'll try to express the options more simply - ignoring other situations, exceptions, etc. under the conform rule:

1) BG's must either (a) conform and end in a normal formation, which is a rectangle or (b) remain where they are; or
2) BG's must conform and WILL be, by definition, in a normal formation, whether that is a rectangle or not. They remain where they are if they cannot do so (for other reasons such as splitting BG integrity).

Obviously, with interpretation 2) the clause is irrelevant, but with interpretation 1) it is relevant. So, the argument is over relevance.

It’s my view that if the intention was either 1) or 2), the rule is written strangely.

Also, despite the arguments here, I would never play the game according to 1). Personally, I would like to see the discussion on how we would like to play the game (for this case) and how clearer rules can express that. Figuring out who’s right in terms of what the “rules as written” say is the true irrelevance.

Oh how I miss the days of spam on this thread!

[nikgaukroger]

I'll try to express the options more simply - ignoring other situations, exceptions, etc. under the conform rule:

1) BG's must either (a) conform and end in a normal formation, which is a rectangle

Well that option is based on the an incorrect assumption - that a rectangle is the only normal formation - so must be discarded. This leaves you with option 2, and the conclusions that naturally follow that.