Conforming : 2 interpretations

This forum is for any questions about the rules. Post here is you need feedback from the design team.

Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design

bahdahbum
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1950
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:40 pm

Conforming : 2 interpretations

Post by bahdahbum »

On pg 70 it is clearly written : Conforming usually means lining up each base in full front edge to full front edge contact with an ennemy base, OR conforming to an overlap position .

You have to slide the base by the MINIMUM necessary to conform .

So let's say the attacking unit has a 2 base front and he hits his intendend target frontally but one of the 2 bases is at the extreme left of the target, the base touching frontaly but by a few millimiters . everybody has 2 bases for impact, easy we roll 4 dices . But how to conform .

During one tournament I heard : you have to conform by the MINIMUM necessary , so the whole attacking unit slides on the right ( remember it did hit the extreme left of the target and is in contact by only a few mm ) and so you have one base in full frontal contact and one base as overlap . All charging bases still fight .

During another tournament it was said that : you have first to conform full front edge to full edge, so you must slide to the left to have both initial attacking bases in full contact , not only one of the bases in full contact and the other in overlap .

So what is the right solution .


Regards

Jacques
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8842
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 »

The first one.

IMO :)
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Post by hazelbark »

There is nothing in the rules that specific first slide to full edge. The rules do specify minimum.

So the first one.
Polkovnik
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1004
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:16 pm

Post by Polkovnik »

It is C.
hammy
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 5440
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Stockport
Contact:

Post by hammy »

Polkovnik wrote:It is C.
:shock:
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8842
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 »

You missed the joke Hammy. Never mind. Just tell us what it is for next weekend
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger »

philqw78 wrote:You missed the joke Hammy. Never mind. Just tell us what it is for next weekend
It will be as per the rules - by the minimum necessary :wink:
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
hammy
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 5440
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Stockport
Contact:

Post by hammy »

philqw78 wrote:You missed the joke Hammy. Never mind. Just tell us what it is for next weekend
Err, no, I didn't. I know all about C being the answer...... ;)
BrigPaul
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 2:06 pm

Post by BrigPaul »

I reckon its the second one, rules say "minimum neccessary to conform to the enemy bases in contact" - 2 bases in contact after impact so both must be conformed to - or am i missing something?
Paul.
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8842
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 »

BrigPaul wrote:I reckon its the second one, rules say "minimum neccessary to conform to the enemy bases in contact" - 2 bases in contact after impact so both must be conformed to - or am i missing something?
Paul.
The bit were you can conform into an overlap position. And you are still in contact, even if only corner to corner
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
hammy
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 5440
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Stockport
Contact:

Post by hammy »

philqw78 wrote:
BrigPaul wrote:I reckon its the second one, rules say "minimum neccessary to conform to the enemy bases in contact" - 2 bases in contact after impact so both must be conformed to - or am i missing something?
Paul.
The bit were you can conform into an overlap position. And you are still in contact, even if only corner to corner
But you cannot be in an overlap if there are no bases in frontal contact......
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8842
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 »

hammy wrote:But you cannot be in an overlap if there are no bases in frontal contact......
But you can conform to overlap.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
hammy
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 5440
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Stockport
Contact:

Post by hammy »

philqw78 wrote:
hammy wrote:But you cannot be in an overlap if there are no bases in frontal contact......
But you can conform to overlap.
Indeed

But in order to conform to an overlap there has to be a base in frontal contact to make the overlap position an overlap in the first place.
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8842
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 »

hammy wrote:But in order to conform to an overlap there has to be a base in frontal contact to make the overlap position an overlap in the first place.
Well if there wasn't the base would not be conforming to overlap so could not conform to that position. Thats why its called conforming to an overlap position
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
hammy
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 5440
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Stockport
Contact:

Post by hammy »

philqw78 wrote:
hammy wrote:But in order to conform to an overlap there has to be a base in frontal contact to make the overlap position an overlap in the first place.
Well if there wasn't the base would not be conforming to overlap so could not conform to that position. Thats why its called conforming to an overlap position
Not sure what you are saying there Phil.

Consider:

Code: Select all

    xxxx
 aaaa
In this situation where BG a (a column) just hits the end of BG x then BG a will slide over to frontal contact as it cannot slide to an 'overlap' position because the moment it stop being in frontal contact the overlap position does not exist.

If the situation were:

Code: Select all

    xxxx
 aaaabbbb
Then BG a would slide to an overlap as BG b would be doing the fighting and thus creating the overlap position.
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8842
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 »

And I don't understand why you are telling me this Hammy, since if you go back to the start of the thread I clearly understand what is going on.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger »

philqw78 wrote:And I don't understand why you are telling me this Hammy, since if you go back to the start of the thread I clearly understand what is going on.
He does indeed :shock:
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8842
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 »

Image

In this image dark green conforms left as it ends in an overlap position and it is the shortest conform. Light green cannot conform. In the next turn light red would conform. Also by going left (as we view it) as, even though going right is shorter, it would not be in an overlap by going right
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Post by hazelbark »

philqw78 wrote:Image

In this image dark green conforms left as it ends in an overlap position and it is the shortest conform. Light green cannot conform. In the next turn light red would conform. Also by going left (as we view it) as, even though going right is shorter, it would not be in an overlap by going right
I think both conforms as you state invoke the RBS punch in the face gamey tactic. Especailly if engineered.

The intent of the rules is not to have units richocheting away out of contact. This if adopted bodes ill.

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :evil:
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8842
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 »

How is the light red conform a punch in the face? The dark green is odd. But that is what the rules say. I find your stance on this quite odd Dan.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”