Can't turn wont turn

[dave_r]

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

Resorting to petty insults.

Clearly lost the argument.

[gozerius]

Oddly, Rob opened my eyes by stating an obvious fallacy - that the text takes primacy over the examples. Since he was agreeing with me, I knew I needed to reevaluate my position.
Apologies to all.
I am not happy to admit it, but, yes, I have lost the argument.
My way is so much cooler, but it is not supported by the example of play.

[pyruse]

Oddly, Rob opened my eyes by stating an obvious fallacy - that the text takes primacy over the examples. Since he was agreeing with me, I knew I needed to reevaluate my position.
Apologies to all.
I am not happy to admit it, but, yes, I have lost the argument.
My way is so much cooler, but it is not supported by the example of play.

The text on page 61 says they immediately turn 90 or 180 degrees *to face the attackers*.

That last bit means a base hit in the flank must often turn 90 - 180 is not an option as it will not face the attacker.

[dave_r]

Oddly, Rob opened my eyes by stating an obvious fallacy - that the text takes primacy over the examples. Since he was agreeing with me, I knew I needed to reevaluate my position.
Apologies to all.
I am not happy to admit it, but, yes, I have lost the argument.
My way is so much cooler, but it is not supported by the example of play.

The text on page 61 says they immediately turn 90 or 180 degrees *to face the attackers*.

That last bit means a base hit in the flank must often turn 90 - 180 is not an option as it will not face the attacker.

What does "face the attacker" mean? The direct reasoning would mean staring straight ahead. If you had been contacted on any sort of angle then facing the attacker could mean turning 180.

[gozerius]

The illustration on 175 clarifies that bases hit by a flank charge turn 90 or not at all. Are you arguing against the illustration? Are you trying to have things both ways? Either the illustration shows the proper interpretation of the text or I will...
re-recant!!!!

[pyruse]

Oddly, Rob opened my eyes by stating an obvious fallacy - that the text takes primacy over the examples. Since he was agreeing with me, I knew I needed to reevaluate my position.
Apologies to all.
I am not happy to admit it, but, yes, I have lost the argument.
My way is so much cooler, but it is not supported by the example of play.

The text on page 61 says they immediately turn 90 or 180 degrees *to face the attackers*.

That last bit means a base hit in the flank must often turn 90 - 180 is not an option as it will not face the attacker.

What does "face the attacker" mean? The direct reasoning would mean staring straight ahead. If you had been contacted on any sort of angle then facing the attacker could mean turning 180.

I agree; if you are hit on a rear corner, you get to choose.
But if hit entirely from the flank (no part of enemy base to your rear), then turning 180 isn't an option, as you are not turning to face.
Likewise if hit entirely from the rear you can't turn 90 degrees.

[gozerius]

look at the pictures on page 175. That is the authors intent. Flank charges mean turn 90. Rear charges turn 180. The base hit on the rear corner by the flank charge does not turn 180. It's in the rules. The examples clarify authors intent.

[dave_r]

look at the pictures on page 175. That is the authors intent. Flank charges mean turn 90. Rear charges turn 180. The base hit on the rear corner by the flank charge does not turn 180. It's in the rules. The examples clarify authors intent.

It certainly clarifies that you make all changes and step forwards prior to turning, but it directly contradicts the statement that you can turn 180 when charged in the flank as long as you face the attacker.

Given your above statement that "the text takes primacy over the examples" I'm not sure where this leaves your argument.

[bbotus]

look at the pictures on page 175. That is the authors intent. Flank charges mean turn 90. Rear charges turn 180. The base hit on the rear corner by the flank charge does not turn 180. It's in the rules. The examples clarify authors intent.

It certainly clarifies that you make all changes and step forwards prior to turning, but it directly contradicts the statement that you can turn 180 when charged in the flank as long as you face the attacker.

Given your above statement that "the text takes primacy over the examples" I'm not sure where this leaves your argument.

I'd say gozerius has a very good argument. Dave, you continue to say, "the text takes primacy over the examples". You are basically hinging your whole position on that phrase. Where does it say that in the rules? If you read page 8, it says,"To make the rules easier to follow, we have included numerous diagrams and photographs....". It goes on "...but these have been put in appendices at the end so as to make the reading of the core rules easier." Nothing about text primacy. Rather, the examples are to help explain the meaning of the text. You choose to ignore page 175 because it contradicts your position.

Page 56 does say, "...by an enemy flank or rear charge are immediately turned 90 or 180 degrees to face the chargers,..." You read it as license to turn 90 or 180 against a flank charge depending on the angle of incident of the flank attack (which did not happen on page 175). I think Gozerius reads it (as I do) that the options are relational in the sentence. It is "flank or rear" and "90 or 180". The 90 relates to the flank and the 180 to the rear. Apparently you cannot see that possibility--at least you have never acknowledged that it is one possible reading of the sentence.

Now lets take the last part of the sentence on page 56, "to face the chargers," and look at "CONFORMING" on pages 70 and 71. If we turn a base 180 to face a flank attack, then we end up with either the attacker lining up in the rear of the unit to face or the attacker lining up on the side of the 180 turned base. Either outcome makes no sense to me. I cannot see how that would be the authors' intent.

Gozerius' position is consistent with the rules as a whole including the examples. Dave, your position requires a narrow reading of the rules, you must state that the example is wrong, and you have no evidence to support your position that the example is wrong other than the circular argument: My reading is right, the example doesn't support me, so the example is wrong because I'm reading it right.

I agree with you that 'immediately' on page 56 means after the 'step forward' because of the example on page 175. But barring author intervention agreeing with you, I think your argument about getting to choose to turn 90 or 180 to a flank attack, is tenuous at best and it results in strange counter-intuitive movement on the tabletop.

If you have any new evidence, I'd love to see it.

EDIT: Apologies. All references to page 175 should be page 167 instead. My error.
Re-edit: Page 167 is V1 and page 175 is V2. Oh well.

[dave_r]

look at the pictures on page 175. That is the authors intent. Flank charges mean turn 90. Rear charges turn 180. The base hit on the rear corner by the flank charge does not turn 180. It's in the rules. The examples clarify authors intent.

It certainly clarifies that you make all changes and step forwards prior to turning, but it directly contradicts the statement that you can turn 180 when charged in the flank as long as you face the attacker.

Given your above statement that "the text takes primacy over the examples" I'm not sure where this leaves your argument.

I'd say gozerius has a very good argument. Dave, you continue to say, "the text takes primacy over the examples". You are basically hinging your whole position on that phrase. Where does it say that in the rules? If you read page 8, it says,"To make the rules easier to follow, we have included numerous diagrams and photographs....". It goes on "...but these have been put in appendices at the end so as to make the reading of the core rules easier." Nothing about text primacy. Rather, the examples are to help explain the meaning of the text. You choose to ignore page 175 because it contradicts your position.

As I have said several times on this thread, the authors themselves have said text takes primacy over diagrams.

Page 56 does say, "...by an enemy flank or rear charge are immediately turned 90 or 180 degrees to face the chargers,..." You read it as license to turn 90 or 180 against a flank charge depending on the angle of incident of the flank attack (which did not happen on page 175). I think Gozerius reads it (as I do) that the options are relational in the sentence. It is "flank or rear" and "90 or 180". The 90 relates to the flank and the 180 to the rear. Apparently you cannot see that possibility--at least you have never acknowledged that it is one possible reading of the sentence.

I don't believe that your (and indeed Gozerius) interpretation is a valid reading of that sentence. The use of the word "or" would indicate a choice and the lack of the word "respectively" means it is an open choice.

Now lets take the last part of the sentence on page 56, "to face the chargers," and look at "CONFORMING" on pages 70 and 71. If we turn a base 180 to face a flank attack, then we end up with either the attacker lining up in the rear of the unit to face or the attacker lining up on the side of the 180 turned base. Either outcome makes no sense to me. I cannot see how that would be the authors' intent.

Why would it make no sense? It is a game mechanism to simulate the unit being in deep trouble.

Gozerius' position is consistent with the rules as a whole including the examples. Dave, your position requires a narrow reading of the rules, you must state that the example is wrong, and you have no evidence to support your position that the example is wrong other than the circular argument: My reading is right, the example doesn't support me, so the example is wrong because I'm reading it right.

No - you've got that all wrong. Gozerius position is only consistent if you read the statement "you turn 180 or 90" to mean you must turn 90 given this circumstance and you must turn 180 given this circumstance, which is not a valid use of the word "or" at all. It is clear that the example on page 175 is incorrect for a number of reasons - i.e. why is it not possible to turn 180 and how it ended up in that position and where the units started from. It's not the best example.

I agree with you that 'immediately' on page 56 means after the 'step forward' because of the example on page 175. But barring author intervention agreeing with you, I think your argument about getting to choose to turn 90 or 180 to a flank attack, is tenuous at best and it results in strange counter-intuitive movement on the tabletop.

If you have any new evidence, I'd love to see it.

I don't need any more evidence than the rule as written on page 56. If you continue to misread that sentence then I can't help any further. Essentially, the way I would do it is easier, provides a better result and is the current normal way of handling this situation.

The way yourself and Gozerius would like to do this would cause a whole host of subsequent problems that could cause big problems, such as a unit not ending up fighting in two directions if contacted by a flank charge, which is just plain wrong. What everybody else is saying is that the diagram on page 175 is a bit of a puzzler, we can just ignore that in this circumstance and use the rules as written to get to the situation we all believe to be correct.

[gozerius]

Dave, I can't accept the authors would draw examples of play to include in the book and then say, "but they don't really mean anything. Interpret the rules as you choose." Without those diagrams I choose to interpret the meaning of "turn immediately" as "turn as soon as contacted". In fact the paired examples on 175 are the only reasons that I entertain your claim that immediately means "after all charges are complete." Since according to my interpretation the bases in question would turn immediately on contact 90 vs a flank charge and 180 vs a rear charge, they would indeed be facing the chargers. By turning immediately as opposed to after all charges are complete there would be no argument about which direction they turn, nor could a charging BG block the required turn by stepping forward. The step forward would occur after the turn. The only change in interpretation that would be required is that we would have to recognize that a flank charge causes all bases in the contacted file to turn (minus any already fighting to their front), "using the normal rules for turning" on page 45, which says that a 90 degree turn treats the old side edge as the new front edge. This would eliminate the inevitable argument about which bases must turn and whether their comrades block them. This has always seemed to me a very artificial argument based on a fixation on individual bases as opposed to the BG as a whole. (Carry over from that other game?) This can be seen in the debates about conforming when people desperately want to maintain contact with the base they initially contacted instead of conforming as the examples show. It would streamline the whole flank charge dynamic. Of course, some would see it as cheating the charger out of an even more advantageous position, but I see the current interpretation as unfairly punishing the target. As I said before, according to your convention, the charger can gain a de facto rear charge by stepping forward before the defender turns, pinning him and forcing him to turn 180. This does not happen when the turn happens before stepping forward. One concession would be that a charge that started with at least one base entirely directly behind the target would count as a rear charge even if the first contact was on a rear corner.This would answer Graham's objections based on his scenario of a charger entirely behind but hitting a rear corner first.
The only way a BG would not be fighting in two directions is if there were not two BGs fighting in different directions. Are you proposing that a single flank charge could force some bases to turn 90 and others to turn 180 so you could claim that they are fighting in two directions? That is not possible because fighting in two directions requires two BGs fighting the target BG on different facings. It can't be done by a single BG because all bases turn the same way to face a charging BG.

[dave_r]

Dave, I can't accept the authors would draw examples of play to include in the book and then say, "but they don't really mean anything. Interpret the rules as you choose."

I assume you have spoken to them as I have? I also didn't say "interpret the rules as you choose" but instead "interpret the rules as they are written" so I think you need to read what the response are and stop the hyperbolic conclusions you seem to be grasping from nowhere.

Without those diagrams I choose to interpret the meaning of "turn immediately" as "turn as soon as contacted".

"choose to interpret" that's just another way of saying "guesswork".

In fact the paired examples on 175 are the only reasons that I entertain your claim that immediately means "after all charges are complete." Since according to my interpretation the bases in question would turn immediately on contact 90 vs a flank charge and 180 vs a rear charge, they would indeed be facing the chargers.

Which is exactly why you are wrong as the rules as written do not support this interpretation.

By turning immediately as opposed to after all charges are complete there would be no argument about which direction they turn, nor could a charging BG block the required turn by stepping forward. The step forward would occur after the turn. The only change in interpretation that would be required is that we would have to recognize that a flank charge causes all bases in the contacted file to turn (minus any already fighting to their front), "using the normal rules for turning" on page 45, which says that a 90 degree turn treats the old side edge as the new front edge.

The vast majority of flank charges are at an angle - in that case it is not possible to turn 90 degrees, as has been previously stated in this thread (and absolutely ignored by you) there is no mechanism to move the chargers back to accomodate this turn. This is supported by the diagram on page 175.

This would eliminate the inevitable argument about which bases must turn and whether their comrades block them. This has always seemed to me a very artificial argument based on a fixation on individual bases as opposed to the BG as a whole.

Nope - it's the enemy that would block them. Something you singularly have failed to understand?

This can be seen in the debates about conforming when people desperately want to maintain contact with the base they initially contacted instead of conforming as the examples show. It would streamline the whole flank charge dynamic. Of course, some would see it as cheating the charger out of an even more advantageous position, but I see the current interpretation as unfairly punishing the target.

So you think that cleverly positioning a unit that is about to get charged in the flank is a good thing?

As I said before, according to your convention, the charger can gain a de facto rear charge by stepping forward before the defender turns, pinning him and forcing him to turn 180.

A flank and rear charge are very clearly defined in the rules. The turning to face rules are not governed by the fact the charge is in the flank or in the rear - again something you are failing to understand.

This does not happen when the turn happens before stepping forward. One concession would be that a charge that started with at least one base entirely directly behind the target would count as a rear charge even if the first contact was on a rear corner.This would answer Graham's objections based on his scenario of a charger entirely behind but hitting a rear corner first.
The only way a BG would not be fighting in two directions is if there were not two BGs fighting in different directions. Are you proposing that a single flank charge could force some bases to turn 90 and others to turn 180 so you could claim that they are fighting in two directions? That is not possible because fighting in two directions requires two BGs fighting the target BG on different facings. It can't be done by a single BG because all bases turn the same way to face a charging BG.

???? I am saying that according to your (incorrect) logic that if you can't turn 90 degrees then you aren't fighting in two directions. Again this is very clearly laid out in the rulebook.

The problem we are all having is that you completely refuse to listen to what we are all saying and insist on following the incorrect reading of the sentence on page 75 governing turning to face. If you can't understand written english I suggest you request additional help in understanding what the word "or" means.

[AlanCutner]

This has got really boring now. So I'll just state how I'll aim to play it - unless an umpire rules otherwise. And I'm not going to make a case based on the written rules because its clear there is no definitive right answer.

The player being flank (or rear charged) should turn their bases in a manner which is most disadvantageous to them. Purely because they got themselves into a bad situation and deserve to suffer from it.

So if you play me you know my position.

[gozerius]

So you feel that the charger deserves more than he has earned?

[philqw78]

I feel that Alan should get everything he has earned

[AlanCutner]

So you feel that the charger deserves more than he has earned?

Its clear that no-one can agree on 'what the charger has earned'. This thread has gone on long enough and will not reach resolution without a seemingly unlikely intervention. The arguments now appear to be over english grammer rather than rules intent. So in the interests of moving on I've stated a position that seems (to me) fitting for the tactical situation.

[RobKhan]

Is RBS no longer interested in how his game is played? ".......seemingly unlikely...." is worrying.

Robkhan

[kevinj]

Nobody is trying to give the charger "more than he has earned". The principle of hitting one base and stepping forward is clearly understood. Hitting a corner and stepping forward into a different face is also not a problem. The situation where a charger hits a front corner and steps into a flank edge (which is much more common than this) is also understood and nobody claims that this constitutes a flank charge just as nobody is claiming that this example constitutes a rear charge. There appears to be an acceptance that the step forward is part of the charge move which is "immediately" followed by any turn to face.

All that appear to still be in dispute is whether a base contacted on a flank charge can or should turn 180 degrees if it can't turn 90. If you regard that as significant then you are playing the wrong game.

[gozerius]

I am disputing the belief that chargers "immediately" step forward.
The rule for charging states that "a charging battle group moves forward until it makes a legal contact. Then...it steps forward." These are two distinct and separate acts, governed by there own mechanics. So is turning to face when contacted by a flank or rear charge. The rules governing flank and rear charges are exceptions to the normal flow of the charge sequence. The word "immediately" indicates that the turn occurs as soon as the bases are contacted, not later. By ignoring the rule requiring the turn to occur immediately, you can effectively block a 90 degree turn by stepping forward. Then you say, "Well, a base can always turn 180, so it doesn't matter." It matters a great deal, which is why I continue to fight for the proper reading of the rule.
In any set of instructions the normal layout is general guidelines then specific instructions then exceptions. The rules for FoG are no different.
Your interpretation completely nullifies the word "immediately". Which leads to it being applied in the exact opposite way it actually reads.

[dave_r]

I am disputing the belief that chargers "immediately" step forward.
The rule for charging states that "a charging battle group moves forward until it makes a legal contact. Then...it steps forward." These are two distinct and separate acts, governed by there own mechanics. So is turning to face when contacted by a flank or rear charge. The rules governing flank and rear charges are exceptions to the normal flow of the charge sequence. The word "immediately" indicates that the turn occurs as soon as the bases are contacted, not later. By ignoring the rule requiring the turn to occur immediately, you can effectively block a 90 degree turn by stepping forward. Then you say, "Well, a base can always turn 180, so it doesn't matter." It matters a great deal, which is why I continue to fight for the proper reading of the rule.
In any set of instructions the normal layout is general guidelines then specific instructions then exceptions. The rules for FoG are no different.
Your interpretation completely nullifies the word "immediately". Which leads to it being applied in the exact opposite way it actually reads.

Back to this old chestnut again - I request that you read the responses that refute this incorrect reading of the rules as written that were made earlier on this thread.