Clear clarifications please

[LaurenceP]

I decided to try FoG AM, so I read with interest some rules questions in the Forum as well.

I noticed that if somebody posts a rule question, it is more often followed by opposite replies of, I guess, experienced players or rule team members, see recent example: "Battle wagons CMT for simple move".
So the issue may remain unclear and provokes unnecessary discussion during a game - best you had an errata v2 published in the FoG page to avoid such.

So I kindly ask the rule team, if necessary to discuss internal but not public in the Forum, but then post a final clarification to a specific rule question in the Forum. Each player can finally refer to it, either for personal or tournament gaming.

And keep the explanations in English simple please, because English is not everybody's mother tongue...it was hard enough to translate DBM... .

[spike]

Laurence
There is only one problem with your request, in that as with all things there are opinions expressed in a "technical" language, that is a set of rules.

There are forum sections in other languages where prople could express answers in languages other than English if that helps. But it does not help that those of us who speak "English", don't always write in correct language or punctuate correctly. We pick up bad habits, and expect you to understand us- All I can add is sorry, and I apologise

Lastly we may seem to be rude to each other, but sometimes this is friendly banter between people who know each other- this of course does not help either.

Spike

[LaurenceP]

I think the binding rule answers can only be found in the English Forum. I guess those rule answers in other Forum sections/other languages cannot be considered as official clarifications, they are likely "nice to discuss", correct?

[grahambriggs]

Laurence welcome! I hope you will find that 99% of issues are clear in the rules. This forum covers the 1% that is not clear.

Unfortunately, the authors do not appear here so much as in the past. So those of us who have played the game a lot try and help. Sometimes we do not agree! Usually we do agree.

[philqw78]

Sometimes we do not agree! Usually we do agree.

No we don't

[gozerius]

Sometimes we do not agree! Usually we do agree.

No we don't

Yes we do!

[bbotus]

Sometimes we do not agree! Usually we do agree.

No we don't

Yes we do!

That about sums it up perfectly.

The one nice thing about the discussion is that sometimes it helps pick up the significance of something that was overlooked in reading the rules.

But sometimes words can be read with different meanings and it would be nice to have the authors step in on occasion.

[pyruse]

There is no 'rules team' on this forum most of the time - the people posting here are generally experienced players, but may have differing opinions.
We'd all like a set of definitive answers from the rules team to some of these questions, but we are not going to get one.

[gozerius]

And even then you will have people who reject the author's declared intent, citing that it isn't in the rules.
In general the best way to understand the rules is to read them in their entirety, using the examples of play when available.
Also keep in mind that the rules follow a format common to most technical writing.
General rule, specific mechanics, exemptions to the general rule.

For example:
In the case of moving with battle wagons or artillery
General rule: Battle groups that fail a CMT can always perform a simple move.
Specific exception: Battle wagons or artillery or a battle line containing these must pass a CMT to make any move, whether simple or complex.
The general rule deals with the normal operation of the rule. A battle group that makes a CMT is normally attempting a complex move. If it fails, it can still perform a simple move, assuming that it can legitimately make a simple move. A an undrilled battle group that is less than its normal move distance from the enemy may find that no simple moves are available to it.
The specific exception deals with move restrictions unique to battle wagons and artillery. A battle group of BW or LArt or HArt must pass a CMT to make even a simple move. So it cannot move at all if it fails the test.
Similarly, a person who wishes to move a battle line containing BW or Art must make a CMT to move at all. Battle line moves are limited to advances. Advances with a general are always simple. But a battle line is restricted to the movement restrictions of its least capable troop type in the terrain crossed by any portion of the battle line. Since the battle line contains BW or Art it must make a CMT to make a simple move. A failure means that no portion of the battle line may move at all. Once the roll is made the battle line must remain together for the rest of the maneuver phase.

Most disagreements deal with either an incomplete reading of the rules, or confusion in applying general and specific rules and their exceptions.

[RobKhan]

Yes, No, I think so too:-))))
Robkhan

[AlanCutner]

Maybe there should be a rules committee established to provide clear guidance. This has been done very successfully in the past (eg. DBM).

[spotteddog]

Okay - at the risk of popping ma heid o'er the parapet I will suggest a committee of Phil, Dave, Kevin, Pete and Alan to pronounce on any grey areas for the UK. We're not saying they'll be "corrrect" but when I'm running the competitions north of the wall we will be bound by them and hopefully Sarf of the wall as well. You'll notice I punted 5 names forward so that a majority will prevail. I haven't off course asked them if they'd be willing but if they were ............ Hunter

[petedalby]

Maybe there should be a rules committee established to provide clear guidance.

I'm not convinced there are enough grey areas to warrant this. Most issues arise because some people don't read all of the rules or try to wring some dubious advantage from a potentially ambiguous wording. And any guidance is also open to interpretation.

Thanks to Hunter for his vote of confidence. I think I have a reasonable grasp of the rules but I still get things wrong. I read them from cover to cover before every competition, including the FAQs - but I'll happily cede my 'place' to Graham Briggs. He still plays regularly with 2 of the original authors, regularly umpires and tends (in my view) to read the rules in the right way.

[AlanCutner]

I'll happily cede my place to almost anyone. I don't own a set of the V2 rules and never read them.

I'm not convinced there are enough grey areas to warrant this. Most issues arise because some people don't read all of the rules or try to wring some dubious advantage from a potentially ambiguous wording. And any guidance is also open to interpretation.

There aren't many areas needing clarification, but would it hurt to have a way to obtain clarification for those occasions where it is needed? We've had a few topics on here recently where it would have been useful to refer the matter to a rules committee.

Theres nothing to make them compulsory, but if tournaments adopted those clarifications they'd carry a lot of weight for all games.

[gozerius]

There are two considerations.
Rules as Written (RAW): what the rules actually say
and
Conventions as Played (CAP) How the people who play the game actually play it

There are several areas in the rules that are indeed ambiguous. Other areas where the authors and playtesters have adopted conventions which are not supported by the rules as written. Some of this is due to contradictory wording that needs to be rationalized. In other areas it is simple convention overtaking the RAW.

A classic example is the disconnect between the RAW for bases contacted on a flank edge by a normal charge and the impact phase combat table. The rules say all bases in contact fight and that missile armed troops behind can support shoot.
The combat table lists only front rank bases and support shooters as contributing dice. There is no rule covering how non front rank bases in contact fight other than saying that a contact on a flank by a normal charge is treated as a hit on the enemy front. The rule for support shooting is specific: each base of support shooters contributes one die to the impact combat, subject to the normal reductions for LF, disruption, etc.
A straight reading of the RAW leads to two conclusions:
1. A non front rank base contacted by a normal charge is, for the purpose of impact combat, a front rank base, and uses its own impact POAs. A missile armed base so contacted cannot shoot as it is fighting as a front rank base.
2. A support shooter contributes only one die of support, subject to the normal reductions for LF, disruption etc. no matter how many bases are fighting in front of it.

By convention the rule covering second rank bases in the melee phase has been loosely adopted. To whit all bases contacted fight with the same POAs and dice as the front rank base. A further convention is that all bases fighting are eligible for support shooting if there is a missile armed base in the file capable of supporting the front rank. This leads to a single base of missile armed troops contributing up to 4 dice to the impact combat, two combat dice for itself, one support shooting die for itself and one for the front rank base.

This is so not RAW its not funny. But even RBS stands by it.

Go figure.

[philqw78]

1. A non front rank base contacted by a normal charge is, for the purpose of impact combat, a front rank base, and uses its own impact POAs. A missile armed base so contacted cannot shoot as it is fighting as a front rank base.

This is not the correct reading of the RAW at all. A charge that contacts a rear rank base that is not a flank or rear charge counts as if it contacts the front rank base of the file contacted. POA's and dice used for both are FRONT rank.

So a third rank LF contacted behind 2 Spear uses spear POA and dice, 2 dice getting a single +

Yes,

Go figure.

[grahambriggs]

Maybe there should be a rules committee established to provide clear guidance. This has been done very successfully in the past (eg. DBM).

I was in that international group that sorted out the clarifications of DBM. It was more needed in that rule set as there were far more grey areas. I don't think you need it with FOG as the grey areas that do exist don't come up very frequently and an umpire can usually sort it out. Also, the authors do from time to time provide input; though they have been absent for some months.

The DBM clarifications tended to be:

- situations where the rules did actually say what happened but the writing style of the rules confused people, particularly those who were not native speakers of English.

- situations where it depended on how you use English as to the meaning you take from the rule. People who speak English as a first language tend to assume their version of what the language means is the only one. For example, the phrase "a or b" was read by some as "a or b but not both" and others as "a or b or both", and that happened to make a difference. Because it was obvious to all that their version was the correct one they assumed that 'the other side' were being deliberately obtuse, so discussions could be heated. True story: a British colleague and I flew non stop from London to San Francisco. He had the normal desultory conversation with the American guy in the next seat and they discovered enough common group to get on well enough. This all fell apart on landing when my colleague announced "thank heavens we're here, I'm dying for a fag".

[grahambriggs]

A classic example is the disconnect between the RAW for bases contacted on a flank edge by a normal charge and the impact phase combat table. The rules say all bases in contact fight and that missile armed troops behind can support shoot.
The combat table lists only front rank bases and support shooters as contributing dice. There is no rule covering how non front rank bases in contact fight other than saying that a contact on a flank by a normal charge is treated as a hit on the enemy front. The rule for support shooting is specific: each base of support shooters contributes one die to the impact combat, subject to the normal reductions for LF, disruption, etc.
A straight reading of the RAW leads to two conclusions:
1. A non front rank base contacted by a normal charge is, for the purpose of impact combat, a front rank base, and uses its own impact POAs. A missile armed base so contacted cannot shoot as it is fighting as a front rank base.
2. A support shooter contributes only one die of support, subject to the normal reductions for LF, disruption etc. no matter how many bases are fighting in front of it.

By convention the rule covering second rank bases in the melee phase has been loosely adopted. To whit all bases contacted fight with the same POAs and dice as the front rank base. A further convention is that all bases fighting are eligible for support shooting if there is a missile armed base in the file capable of supporting the front rank. This leads to a single base of missile armed troops contributing up to 4 dice to the impact combat, two combat dice for itself, one support shooting die for itself and one for the front rank base.

This is so not RAW its not funny. But even RBS stands by it.

Go figure.

I suspect much of this sort of thing stems from the authors being clear how they want things to work but they can't find language that is concise, apposite and limited.

In your example a pedant might argue that the shooters get one die but roll it twice. Kidding.

[spike]

Okay - at the risk of popping ma heid o'er the parapet I will suggest a committee of Phil, Dave, Kevin, Pete and Alan to pronounce on any grey areas for the UK. We're not saying they'll be "corrrect" but when I'm running the competitions north of the wall we will be bound by them and hopefully Sarf of the wall as well. You'll notice I punted 5 names forward so that a majority will prevail. I haven't off course asked them if they'd be willing but if they were ............ Hunter

Which Dave?

[LaurenceP]

On the Rules book v2 back cover it says "the complete rules with clear explanations of how to play".
Looking at the many topics in Rules Forum, it does not seem clear, even not to English speaking players, for various reasons as explained above.

My understanding of a Rules Forum is that you post a question and you receive ONE offical answer of rules author(s) - whatever they decide, players and umpires have to accept and to refer to.

If a rules error should be identified, the rule committee to actualize a corrections list within appropriate time, best way to do with a Errata v2, online.

This is my expectation of the FoG "After-Service" considering its importance in the ancient wargame tournament scene today.

I understand this means a challenge for the rules specialists in terms of presence, coordination and time.