Conforming on an angled charge

[rbodleyscott]

However, from the posts above, it seems this simplistic straight line approach may not be correct!

johno

No Johno, some people think your method is more complex. I think shortest for all corners, pivoting and sliding at the same time (which BTW can never stop a possible conform despite some above arguments).

Correct.

[philqw78]

Big Brother has spoken

[nikgaukroger]

Dannie Martz and I have been having an argument about this for a few weeks now. We discussed it on the American FoG Yahoo Group thing, but he wants an official ruling from the people here, so I'm posting it here as well.

I have a diagram:



Basically the root question is, is a base that adds dice on impact required to conform frontally to the base it threw dice against on impact, or does it conform to an overlap position if that is the shorter distance.

Thanks.

It is C.

I'm wondering if that statement is consistent for example A with:

However, from the posts above, it seems this simplistic straight line approach may not be correct!

johno

No Johno, some people think your method is more complex. I think shortest for all corners, pivoting and sliding at the same time (which BTW can never stop a possible conform despite some above arguments).

Correct.

[Polkovnik]

However, from the posts above, it seems this simplistic straight line approach may not be correct!

johno

No Johno, some people think your method is more complex. I think shortest for all corners, pivoting and sliding at the same time (which BTW can never stop a possible conform despite some above arguments).

Correct.

So what do you actually measure to determine which is the shortest conform ?
The corner that travels furthest ?
Total distance all corners move ?
Distance moved by centre of base ?

Looking at example A, the the shortest conform move for three of the corners and the centre of the base would be B. The front right corner is the only one that has a shorter move to C.

I think this may be what Nik was getting at above.

[nikgaukroger]

No Johno, some people think your method is more complex. I think shortest for all corners, pivoting and sliding at the same time (which BTW can never stop a possible conform despite some above arguments).

Correct.

So what do you actually measure to determine which is the shortest conform ?
The corner that travels furthest ?
Total distance all corners move ?
Distance moved by centre of base ?

Looking at example A, the the shortest conform move for three of the corners and the centre of the base would be B. The front right corner is the only one that has a shorter move to C.

I think this may be what Nik was getting at above.

Indeed - the answer "It is C" needs an explanation to be understood by all.

[rbodleyscott]

Looking at example A, the the shortest conform move for three of the corners and the centre of the base would be B. The front right corner is the only one that has a shorter move to C.

On that basis there is room for discussion. (My first impression was that C was clearly shortest).

I don't think you are going to be able to extrapolate an answer to the above point from the rules, so there is no basis on which to make a "ruling".

If there is no clear correct answer, throw a dice.

Life is too short.

[Polkovnik]

If there is no clear correct answer, throw a dice.

Sounds like the sort of thing you see written in some less tightly written sets of rules ....

so there is no basis on which to make a "ruling".

Surely as the rules author, you don't need a basis on which to make a ruling. If a point in the rules is ambiguous (which you have just stated this is) then you can make a ruling on it.

The way I see it there are two possibilities :
1) Free pivot on point of base in contact with enemy (to line up) then slide shortest distance - this is the way a lot of people play it and would give C as the outcome.
2) Some way of measuring shortest distance. One way would be from centre of base. In effect, you would conform to whichever enemy base the centre of your base is in front of (which would mean no measuring is actually required). This would give outcome B.

[nikgaukroger]

Looking at example A, the the shortest conform move for three of the corners and the centre of the base would be B. The front right corner is the only one that has a shorter move to C.

On that basis there is room for discussion. (My first impression was that C was clearly shortest).

I don't think you are going to be able to extrapolate an answer to the above point from the rules, so there is no basis on which to make a "ruling".

If there is no clear correct answer, throw a dice.

Life is too short.

Works for me - whatever looks right

Will annoy the angels on a pin brigade

[philqw78]

So,
The conform is done to whichever base looks the shortest move pivotting and shifting at the same time. If it looks the same roll a dice. Fair enough.

[Polkovnik]

So A would conform to B then. No dice roll required here.

[berthier]

So basically, if you can't decide between yourselves, whatever the referee says goes. And A & D still go to C.

Gino, thats the way I see it and will rule at HUBCON.

[philqw78]

So basically, if you can't decide between yourselves, whatever the referee says goes. And A & D still go to C.

Gino, thats the way I see it and will rule at HUBCON.

Where it goes all depends on who the referee is. But what the referee says is always law, unless playing association football. I would say B as it is shortest move.

[rbodleyscott]

so there is no basis on which to make a "ruling".

Surely as the rules author, you don't need a basis on which to make a ruling. If a point in the rules is ambiguous (which you have just stated this is) then you can make a ruling on it.

Many people would disagree with this, even if I was the sole rules author.

However, I am not the sole rules author, I am one of three.

So there are no "official" rulings except those in the FAQ, which have been agreed by all three authors.

Any other "rulings" we may give are roughly equivalent to umpire's rulings, and subject to fallibility (and the possible disagreement of the other authors).

And if you really think that the three authors are going to have a committee meeting to discuss and issue a ruling on each unusual situation discussed on the board......

As I say, life is too short, and FOG is just a game, and the authors have real lives and day jobs too.

[shadowdragon]

Will annoy the angels on a pin brigade

Not necessarily. Think of infinite number of ways they can extrapolate from the single datum of thus saith the Lord, "It is C" - especially when the Lord has bad eyesight or at least "impressions" ("My first impression was that C was clearly shortest" - no idea of the Lord's subsequent impressions).

But I agree with the Lord, life is short and roll the dice. A "ruling" should only be necessary if the results have a systematic effect on the game's outcome (vice minor random effects / differences that cancel out over a game).

[shadowdragon]

However, I am not the sole rules author, I am one of three.

Oh no, the Lord is a "Holy Trinity".

Any other "rulings" we may give are roughly equivalent to umpire's rulings, and subject to fallibility.

So then, the Lord / Holy Trinity is fallible but the Lord's representative on the game board is infallible. I'm sure the Vatical....oh, strike that we don't need that kind of discussion here.

As I say, life is too short, and FOG is just a game, and the authors have real lives and day jobs too.

Amen.

[philqw78]

.... especially when the Lord has bad eyesight or at least "impressions"

Watch out, I heard he does a mean Shipman impression.

[shadowdragon]

An interesting thread, but....to follow on my (hopefully) humourous replies above...

The desire to have absolute clarity in all circumstances can only be accomplished in a fairly rigidly defined game like chess, checkers, go, etc. Rules for these are "closed contracts" (i.e., they define outcomes for all possible circumstances). In a free form game, like table top miniature wargames, all rules will be in the form of an "open contract". The desire to turn an "open contract' into a "closed contract" can only have one result in the end which is an incomprehensible, often contractictory, mammoth set of rules. (For example, check out government procurement rules....no, don't do that. Life is too short.) As I wrote above, an official "ruling" should only be for those circumstances which result in a systematic bias to the results. In this case, the options are essentially boil down to:

1) Shortest move for the corner in contact, or
2) Shortest move for all corners.

I favour 2) - consider a contact angle of 89 degrees just to the left (from the attacker's perspective) of centre. Would people still think D since it's the shortest according to 1?

However, there are valid arguements for each view. If it's an issue, then it's a simple matter to clarify that at a tournament and ensure consistency in umpire rulings, but I would hope such a "ruling" would not affect how players decide their strategy and tactics for a game.

[rbodleyscott]

.... especially when the Lord has bad eyesight or at least "impressions"

Watch out, I heard he does a mean Shipman impression.

I thought that was Terry.

Anyway, I don't take my black bag to wargames tournaments.

[shadowdragon]

.... especially when the Lord has bad eyesight or at least "impressions"

Watch out, I heard he does a mean Shipman impression.

Then "mean" = "bad" = "good"?????

[shadowdragon]

.... especially when the Lord has bad eyesight or at least "impressions"

Watch out, I heard he does a mean Shipman impression.

Which Shipman? The British cricketer (Alan), serial killer (Harold) or driver (Mark)...or perhaps one of the many famous American Shipmans?