Can't turn wont turn

[bbotus]

The problem with your entire argument is that it makes the game easier in this instance to turn 180 degrees. That way everybody fights, nobody get's displaced and you don't end up in awkward situations.

OK, the knights turn 180 and you end up with the following after conforming:


How is this not awkward?


This is how it should work


Contact


Turn 90


Step forward

It is still possible to engage a 2nd base of knights but that base doesn't turn and still fights at impact.




P.S. Thanks again to Phil for showing me how to use Photobucket

[gozerius]

Dave r wrote:

The problem with your entire argument is that it makes the game easier in this instance to turn 180 degrees. That way everybody fights, nobody get's displaced and you don't end up in awkward situations.

The only problem with your argument is that it ignores that the charge is a flank charge and not a rear charge. If the authors had meant bases contacted on their rear corner be treated as a rear charge they would not have made the clear distinction between the rear corner and rear edge when describing flank and rear charges. I am far less interested in what is easier (for you), than in what is correct. A BG contacted first on its rear corner has been charged in the flank. The contacted base turns to face the charge, not what is more convenient for you. The displacement is a necessity and is covered in the rules.

[zoltan]

So in the case of bbotus' last photo how does the charger conform in the manoeuver phase 'if possible'? Because it's not possible the charger does not conform and melee is fought in the position depicted in the photo. Similarly, in the defender's next move, because the knights can't conform they don't and the melee continues in the position depicted.

[bbotus]

So in the case of bbotus' last photo how does the charger conform in the manoeuver phase 'if possible'? Because it's not possible the charger does not conform and melee is fought in the position depicted in the photo. Similarly, in the defender's next move, because the knights can't conform they don't and the melee continues in the position depicted.

This case seems to be left out of the rules, doesn't it. 1st bullet on page 77 says that if fighting against a flank that is unable to turn, then you'd line up in front edge contact with the side of the enemy base as in the very 1st pic I posted. The 3rd bullet says that if you contact a flank that does not qualify as a flank charge, then you pivot to conform to the front. Personally, i'd pivot them to the side similar to the very 1st pic with the knights turned 90. I'm sure some won't agree with that but it fits the spirit of the rules.

[zoltan]

So in the case of bbotus' last photo how does the charger conform in the manoeuver phase 'if possible'? Because it's not possible the charger does not conform and melee is fought in the position depicted in the photo. Similarly, in the defender's next move, because the knights can't conform they don't and the melee continues in the position depicted.

This case seems to be left out of the rules, doesn't it. 1st bullet on page 77 says that if fighting against a flank that is unable to turn, then you'd line up in front edge contact with the side of the enemy base as in the very 1st pic I posted. The 3rd bullet says that if you contact a flank that does not qualify as a flank charge, then you pivot to conform to the front. Personally, i'd pivot them to the side similar to the very 1st pic with the knights turned 90. I'm sure some won't agree with that but it fits the spirit of the rules.

But wouldn't your proposed pivot result in the chargers having an overlap in melee (2 files versus 1 file) whereas if the bases are not moved after initial impact the defenders would have an overlap (3 files versus 2 files). So your proposal makes quite a change to the situation at impact.

[dave_r]

Dave r wrote:

The problem with your entire argument is that it makes the game easier in this instance to turn 180 degrees. That way everybody fights, nobody get's displaced and you don't end up in awkward situations.

The only problem with your argument is that it ignores that the charge is a flank charge and not a rear charge. If the authors had meant bases contacted on their rear corner be treated as a rear charge they would not have made the clear distinction between the rear corner and rear edge when describing flank and rear charges. I am far less interested in what is easier (for you), than in what is correct. A BG contacted first on its rear corner has been charged in the flank. The contacted base turns to face the charge, not what is more convenient for you. The displacement is a necessity and is covered in the rules.

I look forward to you quoting the part of the rules where it states that you must turn 90 degrees to face a flank charge and 180 degrees to face a rear charge.

[dave_r]

The problem with your entire argument is that it makes the game easier in this instance to turn 180 degrees. That way everybody fights, nobody get's displaced and you don't end up in awkward situations.

OK, the knights turn 180 and you end up with the following after conforming:


How is this not awkward?

Why would you conform to the flank of the element? You conform to the front of the element?

[batesmotel]

If your interpretation of the rules is correct that the base may turn 90 or 180 to face the flank charge, then I assume it is the owning player's choice as to which way to face the base which must turn. I see nothing in the rules which say s the base must turn in the way that is most convenient to the charger. Hence if the target of the charge chooses to turn 90 degrees this seems legitimate.

Chris

[dave_r]

If your interpretation of the rules is correct that the base may turn 90 or 180 to face the flank charge, then I assume it is the owning player's choice as to which way to face the base which must turn. I see nothing in the rules which say s the base must turn in the way that is most convenient to the charger. Hence if the target of the charge chooses to turn 90 degrees this seems legitimate.

Chris

Except the base can't turn 90 degrees because the enemy base is in the way - therefore it must turn 180 degrees.

[bbotus]

So in the case of bbotus' last photo how does the charger conform in the manoeuver phase 'if possible'? Because it's not possible the charger does not conform and melee is fought in the position depicted in the photo. Similarly, in the defender's next move, because the knights can't conform they don't and the melee continues in the position depicted.

This case seems to be left out of the rules, doesn't it. 1st bullet on page 77 says that if fighting against a flank that is unable to turn, then you'd line up in front edge contact with the side of the enemy base as in the very 1st pic I posted. The 3rd bullet says that if you contact a flank that does not qualify as a flank charge, then you pivot to conform to the front. Personally, i'd pivot them to the side similar to the very 1st pic with the knights turned 90. I'm sure some won't agree with that but it fits the spirit of the rules.

But wouldn't your proposed pivot result in the chargers having an overlap in melee (2 files versus 1 file) whereas if the bases are not moved after initial impact the defenders would have an overlap (3 files versus 2 files). So your proposal makes quite a change to the situation at impact.

Not sure I understand your comment. Why would the defenders get an overlap when they are already fighting other troops to their front?

Assuming no one to the front then the non-active knights would feed in a base to match the overlap, then expand another file when they are active. Not to allow both sides to reform and conform so as to prevent overlaps and feeding in more bases based on a technicality would get you the cheese hat in our group.

Except the base can't turn 90 degrees because the enemy base is in the way - therefore it must turn 180 degrees.

And the hat for you, too.

[gozerius]

Dave r wrote:

The problem with your entire argument is that it makes the game easier in this instance to turn 180 degrees. That way everybody fights, nobody get's displaced and you don't end up in awkward situations.

The only problem with your argument is that it ignores that the charge is a flank charge and not a rear charge. If the authors had meant bases contacted on their rear corner be treated as a rear charge they would not have made the clear distinction between the rear corner and rear edge when describing flank and rear charges. I am far less interested in what is easier (for you), than in what is correct. A BG contacted first on its rear corner has been charged in the flank. The contacted base turns to face the charge, not what is more convenient for you. The displacement is a necessity and is covered in the rules.

I look forward to you quoting the part of the rules where it states that you must turn 90 degrees to face a flank charge and 180 degrees to face a rear charge.

Page 175 - Appendix 7, Turning when charged in Flank 2, The bases contacted by the flank charge are prevented from turning 90 degrees by the presence of another enemy BG to their rear. They do not turn at all. They do not turn 180.

[dave_r]

Except the base can't turn 90 degrees because the enemy base is in the way - therefore it must turn 180 degrees.

And the hat for you, too.

I've been waiting for this - I don't agree with what you say, but the rules don't say so, therefore you must be being unsporting.

An easy way out.

[bbotus]

Except the base can't turn 90 degrees because the enemy base is in the way - therefore it must turn 180 degrees.

And the hat for you, too.

I've been waiting for this - I don't agree with what you say, but the rules don't say so, therefore you must be being unsporting.

An easy way out.

Did you read gozerius' reference (Page 175 - Appendix 7, Turning when charged in Flank 2) showing that troops hit in the flank don't turn 180 before you replied? That should pretty much close this thread.

[zoltan]

Page 175 - Appendix 7, Turning when charged in Flank 2

So this appears to confirm the following:

1. Troops hit in the flank only have the option of turning 90 degrees to face the enemy, not 180 degrees
2. If there is insufficient room for the troops to turn 90 degrees due to the position of enemy bases, they do not turn at all
3. If the troops do not turn at all, they still count as if they have been hit in the flank

In an example where troops were hit in both the front and in the flank by separate opponents, but were unable to turn 90 degrees to face the flank charge due to interposing enemy, it would appear that they do not suffer a - for fighting in two directions; because the do not face in two directions.

[bbotus]

Zoltan, it appears that you are correct. I checked the definition of fighting in 2 directions on page 142 and at least 1 base must be turned 90 or 180. So if you charge into the flank at enough of an angle that there is no room for the defender to turn, you are doing him a favor (no ' - ' for fighting in 2 directions) unless you are LH and want 2 extra dice without having anyone fight back.

Now I have a question on your 2nd point.

2. If there is insufficient room for the troops to turn 90 degrees due to the position of enemy bases, they do not turn at all

In the example on page 175, the defender doesn't turn because the turn is blocked by a 3rd BG. Would the authors not want the base to turn if the reason for the block was the position of BG charging its flank and forcing the turn?

[dave_r]

.

An easy way out.

Did you read gozerius' reference (Page 175 - Appendix 7, Turning when charged in Flank 2) showing that troops hit in the flank don't turn 180 before you replied? That should pretty much close this thread.

Haven't had a chance to look at the rules yet.

[grahambriggs]

The problem with your entire argument is that it makes the game easier in this instance to turn 180 degrees. That way everybody fights, nobody get's displaced and you don't end up in awkward situations.

OK, the knights turn 180 and you end up with the following after conforming:


How is this not awkward?


This is how it should work


Contact


Turn 90


Step forward

It is still possible to engage a 2nd base of knights but that base doesn't turn and still fights at impact.




P.S. Thanks again to Phil for showing me how to use Photobucket

Excellent diagrams! I think in the first one, the auxiliaries would conform to the front of the turned mounted base, no? and so they can also conform to the other base they have touched. Plus, they can then expand out to get all 6 bases fighting.

Re the second and third diagrams, if you charge the auxilia in at a slightly different angle, you can get to a position where even if the mounted base turns 90 and moves back to "maintain contiguity", it still can't avoid being placed on top of the auxilia base. Which could cause a "what do we do now?" problem.

[grahambriggs]

Graham, You are keen to not put words in, but you are more than happy to drop words out of the rule you are discussing. The rule for turning a base to face a charging enemy specify that a base is immediately turned and shuffled back to remain in contact with its fellows, the charging BG then moves forward to remain in contact, even if this would exceed its normal move distance. The sequence of action being charger contacts target base, contacted base immediately turns, sliding back to remain in contact with its fellows if necessary, charger moves to remain in contact with charged base, then any stepping forward. The rule does not specify that the base that makes the initial contact be the one that maintains contact after the turn. The rule says "turns to face the chargers" which in my understanding includes the possibility that bases other than that making the initial contact can come in contact with the turned base. As to the author's decision to word the rule without specific instructions as to the direction a base must turn to face a flank, as opposed to a rear charge, my previous comment stands. When a base turns to face a flank charge it must face that flank, to face a rear charge, the rear. Else it will be out of position to fight in the melee phase. You do not have the freedom to alter a flank charge into a conform on the rear of the charged BG.

Happy with the first half of this. However, I don't agree with "When a base turns to face a flank charge it must face that flank, to face a rear charge, the rear. Else it will be out of position to fight in the melee phase. You do not have the freedom to alter a flank charge into a conform on the rear of the charged BG"

Of course we have a difference of opinion in that you feel in the circumsatnces discussed you must turn 90 and I feel you must turn but that can be 90 or 180. But, and bear with me a moment, say the mounted base has turned 180. The charge then contacts that base and the one next to it (which does not turn).

We then progress to the movement phase. Why don't the Auxilia just conform that they are lined up with the front of the base that turned 180 and the rear of the base next to it? I see nothing in the conforming rules to say they wouldn't do that? I don't understand your point about not altering a flank charge to a conform on the rear. Why not? Indeed, it seems to me the only way to conform to the enemy bases in contact. If they were to conform to the flank position they would surely lose contact with the second mounted base?

[grahambriggs]

You face a flank charge by turning 90 degrees. A rear charge by turning 180. It's academic. You are not facing a flank charge if you turn 180. You are facing the rear. You guys are engaged in a poor case of legalisms, suspending good judgment for the sake of argument. The rules are clear, the application straightforward. But because the rule does not explicitly state that a base turn 90 to face a flank charge and 180 to face a rear charge, you will continue to argue that it could be either. And you wonder why the sport is dying.

There's no need to be intemperate. I genuinely believe that's the way to do it, that that is what the rules both say and mean and that it what the authors intended. I also believe that in the great majority of situations it doesn't really matter, so would be quite happy to play it your way in a game. You seem to think I'm willfully interpreting this incorrectly as some sort of cheesiness. Whereas actually I'm thinking more "how would I umpire this if the players disagreed?".

You say it must turn 90 to face to the flank but I believe (and forgive me I don't have my rules with me) it's a different wording to that - "to face the chargers". As it happens, neither a 90 nor a 180 will directly face the contacting base, but both partially will. And I imagine it's this base that is meant by "the chargers". Though I suppose you could make the case (looking at the OP) that turning 90 faces 3 bases of the chargers and turning 180 faces 4.

[bbotus]

Graham, thanks on the diagram comment. Gozerius found the reference and zoltan summed it up nicely:

Page 175 - Appendix 7, Turning when charged in Flank 2

So this appears to confirm the following:

1. Troops hit in the flank only have the option of turning 90 degrees to face the enemy, not 180 degrees
2. If there is insufficient room for the troops to turn 90 degrees due to the position of enemy bases, they do not turn at all
3. If the troops do not turn at all, they still count as if they have been hit in the flank

In an example where troops were hit in both the front and in the flank by separate opponents, but were unable to turn 90 degrees to face the flank charge due to interposing enemy, it would appear that they do not suffer a - for fighting in two directions; because the do not face in two directions.

I still have a nagging question in the back of my mind. If the flank charging BG is the reason the defender can't turn a base, would the authors still not let the base turn? We'll probably never get that answer.