Game report: Sicilian versus Communal Italian, c 1250 AD

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 4:22 pm

rogerg wrote:The real test of the need for more rules will be the number of umpire rulings required. In the example we are discussing, no-one has suggested that base '3' should be able to fight. We are merely suggesting that 'some people' might suggest it does. If no-one actually does suggest it, there is no need to expand the rules. Even then, adding more rules always seems to generate more areas to dispute and also adds to the complexity.

Another advantage of less explicit rules is that when the umpire does get called he can give a quick ruling without getting bogged down in the semantics of the wording. (Mind you, I usually adopt the "Ghengis Khan" school of Umpiring and rule on the situation without entering into any discussion on the fine points of the semantics - and walk away quickly before anyone can prove me wrong.)

jre · Post by **jre** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 4:47 pm

rogerg wrote:"A base with a neighbouring base of the same BG in side contact can only be overlapped by ONE enemy file."

But if this base is stepped forward in a file by more than a base depth this would be an exception. Already we are heading for a complex definition, and we are starting to dig again.

If it is stepped forward in a file more than a base depth, then it has no base on the side...

That depends on what is wanted by the designers, but in the example:

XXXXX
XXXXX
AAA
AAAYYYY
AAAAA
AAAAA
AAAAA

I would not mind it if the rules allowed A to be overlapped twice by X and once by Y. Although that would bring up also the problem whether the third rank, bold A, could overlap Y, if it is not giving a POA bonus to its file.

If you want to keep the rules as they are, exchange bases by files in my proposed text...

José

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 9:34 am

Your diagram illustrates my point well. You have found a situation I had not even thought about. You suggest a further extension to the rules. Looking at the diagram, I would suggest X gets the overlap on A and Y is overlapped on one side by A. This seems obvious from what I understand as 'overlap'. If 90% of players would also agree, then trying to get a precise rule definition gives the rule writers a big problem and players a lot of reading we can do without.

shall · Post by **shall** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 7:11 am

This would be my interpetation too. I don't think we need more.

a) unpires can deal with things well if principles are well established - so I prefer to go for solid principles

b) we can easily put authors interps onto the web for any siutaiton arising and I have little doubt that any umpire will rapidly say - refer to RBS/SAH/TS posting on the FOG website for the answer

Otherwise one gets into huge amounts of clutter that are necessary for only 5% of players and put off the other 95% unecessarily. So lets clutter a website for those 5% who are interested and keep the book that all 100% need nice and clean.

Si

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:13 am

Spot on!

Pete

jre · Post by **jre** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:22 am

Although I agree, in general, I still am not sure how many overlaps would A suffer in my example, and if Y will be overlapped or not. In the original wording X would only overlap on one side, so I would assume that if RBS was umpiring he would allow one but if Roger (or me) were, it would get two.

That is, for me, a problem. So we need a rule for overlaps, even if the one for front to front contact stays simple.

José

shall · Post by **shall** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:29 am

I think the new rules define and edge as of any base.... I will check. This is more a matter of making the principles accurate than adding details.

Si

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:22 pm

jre wrote:Although I agree, in general, I still am not sure how many overlaps would A suffer in my example, and if Y will be overlapped or not. In the original wording X would only overlap on one side, so I would assume that if RBS was umpiring he would allow one but if Roger (or me) were, it would get two.

OVERLAPS

Restrictions:
 A battle group can only be overlapped by one file at each end of any of its edges.

The intention of this rule is that in the example X should only get one overlap.

Allowing X to have 2 overlaps is a recipe for ripe cheese - the situation is too easy for XY to deliberately engineer - you can deliberately set back a BG to make the enemy step forward one file into a position where it will be double-overlapped.

jre · Post by **jre** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:26 pm

Those two posts are my point...

Simple is good, but competing views are not.

José

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:27 pm

jre wrote:Simple is good, but competing views are not.

You are right.

I think this brings us back to:

MELEES THAT CANNOT LINE UP
If it is not possible for battle groups in contact to line up, they continue to fight in an offset position with the same number of bases counting as ‘in front edge contact’ or 'overlapping' as if they had conformed. If two battle groups would conform to the same enemy base then the one which has the shortest distance to conform fights against it. If the distance is equal their player chooses which fights.

Only the ends of a line of bases counting as 'in front edge contact' can be overlapped, even if it is stepped forward. One enemy file can fight as an overlap at each end.

Because this can also happen when it is lined up but stepped forward, the overlap restriction needs to change to:

OVERLAPS

Restrictions:
 A battle group can only be overlapped by one file at each end of any of its four edges, even if it is stepped forward.

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:08 pm

MELEES THAT CANNOT LINE UP
If it is not possible for battle groups in contact to line up, they continue to fight in an offset position with the same number of bases counting as ‘in front edge contact’ or 'overlapping' as if they had conformed. If two battle groups would conform to the same enemy base then the one which has the shortest distance to conform fights against it. If the distance is equal their player chooses which fights.

Only the ends of a line of bases counting as 'in front edge contact' can be overlapped, whether or not it is stepped forward. One enemy file can fight as an overlap at each end.

That might be better as

If two bases would conform to the same enemy base

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:12 pm

lawrenceg wrote:
MELEES THAT CANNOT LINE UP
If it is not possible for battle groups in contact to line up, they continue to fight in an offset position with the same number of bases counting as ‘in front edge contact’ or 'overlapping' as if they had conformed. If two battle groups would conform to the same enemy base then the one which has the shortest distance to conform fights against it. If the distance is equal their player chooses which fights.

Only the ends of a line of bases counting as 'in front edge contact' can be overlapped, whether or not it is stepped forward. One enemy file can fight as an overlap at each end.
That might be better as
If two bases would conform to the same enemy base

Probably so

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:33 pm

Given that the conforming rules already say that you conform using the shortest move, and the overlapping rules (will) cover the only one overlap at each end bit, all that is really needed is:

OVERLAPS

Restrictions:
 A battle group can only be overlapped by one file at each end of any of its four edges, even if it is stepped forward.

MELEES THAT CANNOT LINE UP
If it is not possible for battle groups in contact to line up, they continue to fight in an offset position with the same number of bases counting as ‘in front edge contact’ or 'overlapping' as if they had conformed.

or would the more explicit wording in my previous post be better?

jre · Post by **jre** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:13 pm

Using edges, rather than corners, means that a chariot BG fighting in two directions may suffer 4 overlaps, two on the same corner, one on each edge, while smaller base size BGs would not.

As for the rest, I think simple is enough.

José

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:37 pm

jre wrote:Using edges, rather than corners, means that a chariot BG fighting in two directions may suffer 4 overlaps, two on the same corner, one on each edge.

I don't understand this. How would it be physically (geometrically) possible for 2 files to be in an overlap position against one corner? (Moreover, there is a rule that prevents even one overlap if both sides of the corner have enemy in front edge contact).

jre · Post by **jre** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:42 pm

The example I was thinking about was a 4 base chariot BG, contacted at the front by a 10 base MF BG (for instance) and a 6 cavalry BG hitting the flank first (so that base is turned). Let's see if I can diagram it:
BBAAAAA
BBAAAAA
BBCCCC
BB

José

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:10 pm

jre wrote:The example I was thinking about was a 4 base chariot BG, contacted at the front by a 10 base MF BG (for instance) and a 6 cavalry BG hitting the flank first (so that base is turned). Let's see if I can diagram it:
BBAAAAA
BBAAAAA
BBCCCC
BB

José

In this case there is no overlap on the top corner of C because

 A base that is in contact with the front edge of enemy bases on more than one of its edges cannot be overlapped on the corner between two contacted edges.

In the melee the left hand A would fight because it is in front edge contact with the flank of the left hand C. It is not acting as an overlap.