Can't turn wont turn

[dave_r]

The point is, we don't discard the information given in the diagram because we think something else should have happened.
Page 175 shows bases not turning 90 because they are blocked by another battlegroup which has charged the target's rear. They do not turn 180. Your claim that the rule allows both is disproven by the statement that the bases contacted by the flank charge would turn 90 if there was room to do so, but they do not turn at all. It goes further to say that both contacted bases fight, which I don't like, but that's what the rules say, so I'm stuck with it. The diagram shows the final position of all battlegroups involved in the combat, it does not show interim steps, like stepping forward because they are irrelevant in this case.
The charge depicted in the OP is a flank charge as defined on page 60, not a rear charge, so you don't turn 180. That's just lazy carryover from V1 when flank and rear charges weren't defined, and by convention people just did whatever seemed best. We now have defined parameters for both flank charges and rear charges and the example of play clearly shows that bases contacted by a flank charge do NOT turn 180. I accept the examples of play as integral to the rules. To choose to ignore them is presumptuous and places you in an awkward position of defending the rules against themselves.

So I claim that the rules are right and the diagrams are misleading

You claim the diagrams are right and the rules are misleading

The rules clearly state it is possible to turn 180 degrees to meet a flank charge yet you insistently seem to claim they don't?

[kevinj]

The one thing that is apparent is that this is one of those situations that the rule book would need to be 1000 pages long to accomodate. Fortunately, it is likely to occur very rarely. In these circumstances you are going to be disappointed if you are seeking precise instructions from the rules and are going to have to settle for an interpretation. If you're playing at home you'll have to muddle through, in a tournament you can ask an umpire. Personally, in circumstances like this I would apply the general principal that those mechanisms that facilitate the important parts of the game (e.g. moving and combat) take precedence over those that are essentially aesthetic/cosmetic, such as conforming bases. So, bearing in mind that each situation of this nature will have its own circumstances (e.g. other BGs in the way etc) the way that I would interpret the circumstances in Bob's original query are:

1) The target BG has been hit by a legitimate flank charge and suffers the appropriate consequence.
2) The charging BG has completed their charge move with a legitimate (and in fact compulsory) step forward, resulting in 2 of its bases contacting 2 bases of the target.
3) Both sides therefore fight with the appropriate amount of dice for 2 bases at impact.
4) Since there is room and nothing will prevent it the charging BG should now conform. Turn the base that was first contacted so that it is at 90 degrees to the one next to it, line up the base that hit it with that and place the base that stepped forward as an overlap.
5) In melee, the target BG counts a fighting in 2 directions.

The overriding principle that I would apply is that you should not expect to use the aesthetic/cosmetic mechanisms to gain an advantage or deny one to your opponent.

[petedalby]

An excellent summary Kevin - well done.

[gozerius]

Why do you assume that I am trying to cheat the charger out of an extra base in impact? I am trying to save the defender from being cheated by the charger.
When this thread started I gave my objective interpretation of the rules as written. Since I was neither the charger nor the charged I was disinterested. My interpretation was based on two key elements
1. The charger qualified for a flank charge, but not a rear charge. The rules speak of turning 90 or 180 to face the charger. Since the charge is a flank charge the affected base turns 90. As explicitly covered in the diagram on page 175.
2. The affected base is turned immediately. The rule for turning is unambiguous. The base is turned and moved back to remain in contact with its BG. Then the charger moves forward into contact again - as stated plainly in the text. This establishes its initial point of contact for stepping forward. This is also clear in the rules. This is why the rule specifically states that the forward move to contact the turned base can exceed the original charge allowance of the charger. Waiting until all stepping forward has occurred creates several problems for the Both BGs. Bases that have charged are now in the way of the turn. The charging BG could be further forward, with more step forward opportunities. Conforming is now confused because the charge which did not qualify as a rear charge is now a de facto rear charge. The charger has just executed a cheesy charge by a ignoring the whole rule and only playing a part of it in an effort to gain unfair advantage. Not that the OP intended to gain unfair advantage, but wanted to know how the interaction was played. Rather the particularist interpretation which focusses solely on the single sentence on page 61, which when taken alone seems to permit a 180 degree turn to those charged in the flank, gives the charger an unfair advantage described above. I would guess that the charged BG has no interest in turning 180, since that allows extra contacts on his BG, but is being forced to accept a disadvantageous rule interpretation for the benefit of the charger. As if being flank charged isn't bad enough.
The rule for charging states that a charging BG moves until a legal contact is made. Then if it is possible, bases must step forward etc.
So again there is that pesky "then". Initial contact comes first, bases contacted immediately lose a cohesion level, turn to face, then the charger completes its move, including stepping forward etc.
Bad things happen to charged BGs immediately upon initial contact, then the charge is completed.

PS: Merry Christmas!

[kevinj]

I'm not assuming anything about you, my prinicples for interpretations are based on experience of the UK tournament community, of which I don't think you're a member. Most of us don't mind being beaten by superior tactics, a better designed army or just plain luck, but one of the things that kills a game is exploitation of rules quirks/anomalies by experienced players to gain an advantage over less experienced opponents. Many of the more glaring examples (e.g. Leap-frogging, teleport interpenetrations, cheesy corner pins) were eliminated in V2. If those terms mean nothing to you then you may consider yourself lucky!

Merry Christmas to you too!

[gozerius]

Fortunately I play with people who play to enjoy the game and all of its little nuances. Since we don't play to time constraints, the pressure to win quickly isn't there.
I believe that in tournament play, efforts to speed up the game leads to taking shortcuts. Nothing wrong with moving out of sequence when it doesn't affect play, but when the shortcut becomes the accepted way of applying the rule, even when it does affect play, you've crossed the line, broken the rules.
So when I'm told that a base hit by a flank charge does not immediately turn, then can't turn 90 because the charger has stepped forward and blocked the turn, and now must turn 180, I find that completely at odds with the rule as written, giving an unfair advantage to the charger. And the error compounds itself going into the melee phase and beyond.
If the base turns immediately, it faces the flank, it may prevent the next base from stepping forward into the next file of the defending battlegroup, and when its time to conform, no one will have forgotten that it was a flank charge and not a rear charge, so the charger will line up at 90 degrees to the original front of the defending battlegroup instead of the rear. The authors spent a lot of ink describing the difference between a flank and rear charge. It must be important.

PS: I'm sorry that your only experience is with the UK tournament scene. I play regularly with an expat Brit who had completely given up on ancients until we were able to rehabilitate him with a kinder, gentler style of play.

[batesmotel]

The example on page 24-6 of the Reference section (digital version) does seem quite clear that the step forward from the charge does occur before any bases are turned to face so this does seem to be the correct interpretation despite the use of "immediately" in the rules. In this case "immediately" in the rules seems to be immediately after the charge move completes (including stepping forward) rather than immediately an individual base is contacted during the charge move.

Chris

[RobKhan]

So, is the diagram the rule or the written text? It is blindingly obvious from all the previous discussion that it can be interpreted in two ways. In general, my way of reading rules is that text has priority over the diagram. What adverb can you come up with that is stronger than "immediately"?

Author Author!!!!!!!

An after the fact Merry Christmas and a great New Year to all. May your dice be 5's and 6's except against me.

Cheers
Robkhan

[philqw78]

What adverb can you come up with that is stronger than "immediately"?

Perhaps it is used conjunctively

May your dice be 5's and 6's except against me.

But Rob, knowing your dice, we only need 4's

[gozerius]

Since the diagram shows 3 separate charges, It is clear that the authors are compressing several actions into a single illustration. The conclusions to be drawn are that a frontal charge does not cause bases to turn, a rear charge causes bases to turn 180, and that a flank charge causes bases to turn 90 (and NOT 180), except in this case the bases on the flank are blocked from turning by the presence of the previously actioned rear charge. The authors are applying a common shortcut in which actions that don't interfere with other actions can be performed out of sequence. That does not permit one to ignore the imperative to turn immediately (ie. without delay) when contacted, when to delay would cause the subsequent actions of the charger to interfere with the turn, which is what you are advocating. Does a lone general not move to safety from a moving enemy BG until after the BG has passed through it? Of course not. It moves as soon as the move reaches it, or in the case of a missile armed BG, when the general falls within the arc and range of the shooters. That is the meaning of immediately .

Moving to Contact and Stepping Forward

clearly divides the initial move to contact as separate from the subsequent step forward.

Charging a Flank or Rear

Makes explicit that first contact determines the type of charge. And the rule is clear that the charged bases turn immediately, ie. when first contacted. If you delay implementing the turn until after making subsequent contacts the flanked BG's ability to respond in accordance with the rule is compromised, leading to the implementation of the rule to be changed from must turn immediately 90 or 180 to face the chargers to - must wait until the charge is complete and then turn in whatever direction it can still turn. Not what the rule says at all.
In many cases It does not matter whether you turn immediately or wait until all stepping forward is complete, so as a shortcut people turn the bases at the end of all movement. But in certain cases, like this one, when delaying will lead to a different outcome, the turn to face must be performed immediately, to preserve the integrity of the rule.
You have adopted the shortcut as the rule at the expense of the rule.

[RobKhan]

What adverb can you come up with that is stronger than "immediately"?

Perhaps it is used conjunctively

May your dice be 5's and 6's except against me.

But Rob, knowing your dice, we only need 4's

Hi Phil, you are right, after the Berlin experience I know I have the only Mongol Tumens that can't string their bows before battle:x
In my last game I had some Armored Knights surrounded with 4 BG's and reduced by 25% and still couldn't get enough hits
And I am still amazed at your ability to function after the night out you and Dave had before you met up with Ferdi across the table.

I agree with Gozerius on this one. It is an adverb not a conjunction, because it has no clause supporting the wrong view of this issue to "conjunct" with.
I am not in support of written rules being modified by a diagram, when the general purpose of a diagram is to illustrate what is written, emphasize.....written. Immediately means exactly that in my view. The diagram is not necessary to understand the rule as written.

Have a good New Year
Robkhan

[philqw78]

And I am still amazed at your ability to function after the night out you and Dave had before you met up with Ferdi across the table.

IIRC, and I probably don't, Dave had the morning shift against Ferdi and I had the afternoon shift, so not as bad for me.

I agree with Gozerius on this one. It is an adverb not a conjunction, because it has no clause supporting the wrong view of this issue to "conjunct" with.
I am not in support of written rules being modified by a diagram, when the general purpose of a diagram is to illustrate what is written, emphasize.....written. Immediately means exactly that in my view. The diagram is not necessary to understand the rule as written.

I just have the viewpoint that it should turn if possible at all, perferably 90 if hit in the flank, but 180 if it can't turn 90. I have nothing other than 'it seems right' and my 'native'* use of the English language to support this

*Native here can be used in the old English colonial sense were all natives were considered a bit thick. How odd that a colonial can make me feel native just by using words like adverb and conjunction

Have a good New Year All of You

(well almost all of you)

[bbotus]

Been gone for Christmas. I'm surprised this thread is still going on.

[AlanCutner]

Been gone for Christmas. I'm surprised this thread is still going on.

I've lost interest in it. There is clearly no consensus and won't be until/unless an author makes a ruling. And if the authors aren't going to be involved any more it'll need a 'body of experts' to start making rulings if this set of rules is to have any future.

[Blathergut]

We've had no author(s) postings on FoGN in over a month. Seems a bit odd.

[dave_r]

Since the diagram shows 3 separate charges, It is clear that the authors are compressing several actions into a single illustration. The conclusions to be drawn are that a frontal charge does not cause bases to turn, a rear charge causes bases to turn 180, and that a flank charge causes bases to turn 90 (and NOT 180)

In your opinion only obviously.

except in this case the bases on the flank are blocked from turning by the presence of the previously actioned rear charge. The authors are applying a common shortcut in which actions that don't interfere with other actions can be performed out of sequence.

In your opinion only obviously.

That does not permit one to ignore the imperative to turn immediately (ie. without delay) when contacted

Even though that's not what the rules actually state....

when to delay would cause the subsequent actions of the charger to interfere with the turn, which is what you are advocating

Yes.

Does a lone general not move to safety from a moving enemy BG until after the BG has passed through it? Of course not. It moves as soon as the move reaches it, or in the case of a missile armed BG, when the general falls within the arc and range of the shooters. That is the meaning of immediately .

As ever, immediately indicates sequence, in this case, the immediately occurs following completion of the charge.

Moving to Contact and Stepping Forward clearly divides the initial move to contact as separate from the subsequent step forward.

Although this is entirely irrelevant because both are part of the charge and turning to face happens subsequent to the charge.

Charging a Flank or Rear

Makes explicit that first contact determines the type of charge. And the rule is clear that the charged bases turn immediately, ie. when first contacted.[/quote]

It absolutely does not.

If you delay implementing the turn until after making subsequent contacts the flanked BG's ability to respond in accordance with the rule is compromised, leading to the implementation of the rule to be changed from must turn immediately 90 or 180 to face the chargers to - must wait until the charge is complete and then turn in whatever direction it can still turn. Not what the rule says at all.

Only if you can't understand written English.

In many cases It does not matter whether you turn immediately or wait until all stepping forward is complete, so as a shortcut people turn the bases at the end of all movement. But in certain cases, like this one, when delaying will lead to a different outcome, the turn to face must be performed immediately, to preserve the integrity of the rule. You have adopted the shortcut as the rule at the expense of the rule.

The integrity of what rule? The only rule you seem to claim that has been broken is the one you've made up in that you must turn 90 degrees to face a flank charge and 180 degrees to face a rear charge, which isn't in the rules at all.

[gozerius]

Dave,
I'm tired of your replies. Your lack of reasoning and your particularisms are notorious throughout the FOG community. In virtually every opinion you give you are proven wrong.
I would hate to meet you in person because you are a liar and a bully.

Gregory Boeser

[kal5056]

I have never know Dave to be a Liar.

Gino
SMAC

[AlanCutner]

Daves views ares sincerely held even though he strongly disagrees with you. Having known him for several years I would never describe him as a liar or bully. However I do think this thread has gone on long enough. As stated previously there will be no resolution without author intervention, and that looks unlikely.

[pyruse]

The integrity of what rule? The only rule you seem to claim that has been broken is the one you've made up in that you must turn 90 degrees to face a flank charge and 180 degrees to face a rear charge, which isn't in the rules at all.

Page 175, as has been mentioned quite a few times. Amazing selective memory you have there.

Look, there are two issues on which the rules are not clear (and indeed contradict each other)

1. When a base is hit in the flank, does it :
a) get to choose to turn 90 or 180 degrees (page 61)
b) Turn 90 if it can, and not turn at all if it can't (page 175)

2. Does the turn to face happen:
a) immediately, before stepping forward is done (page 61, depending on how immediate you want immediately to be)
b) After the charge moves including any stepping forward is done (page 175)
c) After *all* charge moves are done (This seems to be the way everyone does it, but hard to find support in the text anywhere)

I don't know what the consensus is on question 1. On question 2 it seems to be c, although the word immediately on page 61 suggests b is the right answer. But then a base could turn twice - once when hit by chargers in the flank, then again back to the front when hit by another charge. That doesn't seem right either.

We are not going to get clarification from the authors. Bickering about past tenses and wording is futile, as this thread has shown. The rules support all the options above depending on how you read them.
Why doesn't someone compile a sticky post with suggested interpretations for umpires and decide which option is the most reasonable in each case?
Then at least competition organisers can decide and players know what the rules are.
Anyone playing in their own group can do whatever they feel best, of course; this only matters for competitions.