Clear clarifications please

[mdruiz]

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.

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.

Good luck.

[gozerius]

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.

If it counts as contacting the front of the file contacted, that would be great!
Because then if the front of the file was already engaged the rule about pairing off opponents would mean that the charger would only be able to fight that file with one of his bases!
But that's not what you are saying. You are saying that the rear rank base fights as a complete file of the same configuration. This is problematic for me because it violates the RAW, which only allows each front rank base to fight one opponent, and each support shooting base to shoot once. You are saying they do double duty.

[dave_r]

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.

If it counts as contacting the front of the file contacted, that would be great!
Because then if the front of the file was already engaged the rule about pairing off opponents would mean that the charger would only be able to fight that file with one of his bases!
But that's not what you are saying. You are saying that the rear rank base fights as a complete file of the same configuration. This is problematic for me because it violates the RAW, which only allows each front rank base to fight one opponent, and each support shooting base to shoot once. You are saying they do double duty.

You are just making things up again. Would you care to provide quotes from the rules to support your wild statements?

[zoltan]

So in the following two examples how many bases on each side fight at impact (and at what factors - assume all bases are unprotected)?

Example 1


Example 2

[bbotus]

Both examples have the same result: Per Page 62, v2, an attack hitting the side edge but not counting as a flank charge is treated as a normal charge on the enemy front. So 2 bases in contact per side. 4 dice at ++ (Lance, and Cav vs MF/LF) for the cav. MF are 4 dice at double minus and 1 die at + for 2 LF bow support shooting vs unprotected cav.

If the MF were also spearmen, then the cav would fight 2 ranks of steady spearmen at evens and the spearmen would get the 1 die at + for the bow support.

[kevinj]

There's plenty going on here so this is a bit of a catch up for me. (Edited following having been beaten by a shorter reply!)

Firstly, to answer some of Laurence's original points:

1) There is no "Rules Team" associated with this site. There is a team of authors who can produce Errata to cover mistakes in the original rules. In the past they have also created FAQs to cover general areas of misunderstanding. These are the only official changes/interpretations of the rules. Some players like to report incidents that happened in their games that they have found unclear and a number of us are prepared to offer opinions based on our understanding to aid in dealing with a similar situation should it arise.

2) As Graham said regarding the completeness of the rules, they will cover the vast majority of situations that will be encountered in a normal game. What you will often see here is something that is new to people who have been playing these rules for 5 years or more. They are thus sufficiently rare that you are unlikely to encounter them. However, should something arise then in a friendly game you can come to an amicable solution with your opponent or, in a tournament, call on an umpire. I think that it would be unfair to expect all of these incidents to have been anticipated and covered without the rulebook being massive (and probably constantly on draft form).

3) It is my belief that these unusual situations where they do arise are either based on an unfamiliarity with particular area of the rules (the recent discussion on Battle Wagons/Artillery largely resulted from the widespead opinion that these troop types are rubbish so most people don't use them or know the rules about them) or a situaton that is specific to the game in question. In the first of these the solution is clearly to go back to the rules, in the second any decison can only apply to that game and should not be regarded as a precedent for something that looks similar. For that reason I am strongly opposed to use of the "Clarifications" which I consider to have been a bane of previous rulesets and do not wish to participate in introducing them to FoG, although I am grateful to Hunter for his confidence in my abilities

I am of course happy to continue to participate as an enthusiastic amateur in helping people to find solutions to issues that they struggle with because I enjoy playing both FoG AM and R and would like to see them continue. So to consider Zoltan's examples with a bit more background in how I look at them may be useful. (Or not!). So, on to the example:

For me this is covered in the rules by P9-7 (digital version, P67 in the book according to bbOtus). This states that a charge that does not qualify as a flank charge can contact a flank edge if the target base is not counted as being in melee to its front. Specifically this "is treated as a normal charge on the enemy front". So I would regard both of Zoltan's examples as the same as a flank edge has been contacted by something not counting as a flank charge. So, in Impact (assuming open terrain, no cohesion issues and as summarised by bbotus):

The Cavalry (2 bases) have hit 2 enemy bases, therefore both sides will fight with 2 bases.
The Cavalry get + for Lance and + for fighting MF in the open.
The MF get nothing as there is no Impact POA for Javelin.
So the Cavalry get 4 dice at ++, the MF get 4 dice at --
The MF however have LF bow who are entitled to shoot in support at impact. The Cavalry are Unprotected in more than one rank so this wil be at + POA.
As thus is treated as a normal charge on the front, both MF bases are counted as such and therefore are entitled to 1 dice support shooting from the rear rank. However, as the rear rank is LF this is reduced by 1 dice per 2 so they only get one.So, in summary:

Cavalry 4 dice at ++
MF 4 Dice at --, 1 at +

Some people have an issue with this as it appears that some bases are being counted twice (and indeed it would be further complicated if the MF were bowmen where a second rank base can appear to be fighting as a front rank and providing support shooting to both the actual front rank base and itself) so in these cases I believe it is helpful to pay less attention to the tabletop depiction (i.e. the bases and toy soldiers on them) and more to what is being represented.

The configuration of the MF BG is such that the MF are in optimum formation for fighting (indicated by being 2 bases deep, the most that they will get benefit from in the rules) with a thinner rank of bowmen to provide support by shooting overhead. The width of the formation is indicated by the frontage of the bases, but it is known that the depth of these is proportionately much greater than would be necessary for the frontage due to the size of the figures used. So the bases give a general indication of the location of the BG but I would regard the situation where the cavalry have hit a front corner of one base and stepped forward into that behind as being one where the actual position of the infantry formation is a line approximately from the front of the leftmost file to the back of the right hand one, i.e. a diagonal line in the optimised fighting formation. So a charge that doesn't count as a flank charge (for which the rules are pretty clear) hits the front of this line and therefore the combat is calculated accordingly.

I think that the other major consideration when trying to resolve these issues is to consider the effect of the alternative. In the situation where a 2 deep formation of MF with Bow has been impacted on the front corner and the chargers have stepped forward into the second rank base, the obvious other interpretation of a scenario like this would be that:
Both MF bases fight at --
The first rank base does not benefit from support shooting as the base behind it is fighting
The second rank bas does not beneft from supprt shooting as there is no other base to provide it

The outcome of applying this interpretation would be that there is an avantge to be gained from charging a front corner and stepping forward into a second rank base, thus creating a new type of partial flank charge in addition to those provided for in the rules which are Front, Flank or Rear.

[gozerius]

And yet if both bases of cav hit the front base only, they would not both fight. Steeper angle, same configuration, slightly different end position, totally different outcome. Why?
"The front rank bases are the key troops at impact..."
The effect of the current interpretation is that you have created a situation where the charger can gain an advantage by charging obliquely into a semi-flank charge. Because the impact rolls more dice by contacting non-front rank bases. This is an advantage to the charger, since he can set up the charge to his benefit.

[kevinj]

So are you arguing that the base that steps forward shouldn't fight? Not only is that contrary to the rules, it would create opportunities for negative play designed to minimise the effect of Impact. The accepted interpretation favours more aggressive play, which mst of us think is a good thing.

[gozerius]

Yes. I'm saying that a base that steps forward into the same file should not fight. Just as it does not fight when stepping forward into the side of the same front rank base base. As you say, your interpretation is guided by a particular ethos that favors aggressive play. Mine is guided by the principle that a base cannot count more than once in combat. Either treat each contact as fighting individually on its own merits or treat all contacts on the same file as in contact with the front rank base, as opposed to multiple files of the same configuration. And its not contrary to the rules, just how you have interpreted them.

[dave_r]

Yes. I'm saying that a base that steps forward into the same file should not fight. Just as it does not fight when stepping forward into the side of the same front rank base base. As you say, your interpretation is guided by a particular ethos that favors aggressive play. Mine is guided by the principle that a base cannot count more than once in combat.

Which is your principle alone - it's simply not supported in the rules, nor is it desired by anybody other than yourself.

Either treat each contact as fighting individually on its own merits or treat all contacts on the same file as in contact with the front rank base, as opposed to multiple files of the same configuration. And its not contrary to the rules, just how you have interpreted them.

Not true - that is how the rules are written and it's the correct interpretation. It's just not _your_ interpretation which is why you are getting so annoyed about the whole thing.

[dave_r]

It's a pity that the contacting of a side edge wasn't put in the FAQ's. Something like this might suffice:

"CHARGES NOT QUALIFYING AS A FLANK CHARGE CONTACTING THE FLANK EDGE OF AN ENEMY BASE
What POAs are used?
The normal POAs are used as if the charge had contacted the front of the enemy file. Thus, for example, if the 3rd rank base of a 4 rank deep pikemen battle group is contacted, the pikemen use their normal POAs for 3 ranks deep pikemen and for the 4th rank."

That would have covered it.....

[zoltan]

So to illustrate Dave's example:
Example 3

Both sides roll 4 dice at impact - 2 files fighting per side.
The POAs for both files are identical - both files of pike contacted count as if they are 4 ranks of pike deep (one clearly is, the other clearly is not but counts as if it is).

[gozerius]

Yes. I'm saying that a base that steps forward into the same file should not fight. Just as it does not fight when stepping forward into the side of the same front rank base base. As you say, your interpretation is guided by a particular ethos that favors aggressive play. Mine is guided by the principle that a base cannot count more than once in combat.

Which is your principle alone - it's simply not supported in the rules, nor is it desired by anybody other than yourself.

Either treat each contact as fighting individually on its own merits or treat all contacts on the same file as in contact with the front rank base, as opposed to multiple files of the same configuration. And its not contrary to the rules, just how you have interpreted them.

Not true - that is how the rules are written and it's the correct interpretation. It's just not _your_ interpretation which is why you are getting so annoyed about the whole thing.

That is not how the rules are written. No one could reach that conclusion from the text. It may be the official interpretation. It is definitely NOT my interpretation. And, yes, it annoys me. As much as flying elephants and leapfrogging cavalry used to. Many people liked those things too.

[bbotus]

It's a pity that the contacting of a side edge wasn't put in the FAQ's. Something like this might suffice:

"CHARGES NOT QUALIFYING AS A FLANK CHARGE CONTACTING THE FLANK EDGE OF AN ENEMY BASE
What POAs are used?
The normal POAs are used as if the charge had contacted the front of the enemy file. Thus, for example, if the 3rd rank base of a 4 rank deep pikemen battle group is contacted, the pikemen use their normal POAs for 3 ranks deep pikemen and for the 4th rank."

That would have covered it.....

But Dave, they did put it in the rules. Read top of page 62. It's the last bullet hidden in the section titled "CHARGING A FLANK OR REAR". Not sure why they put it there since it isn't a flank.

Gozerius, read the last sentence on page 100 ending on 101. The authors acknowledge that the side impact on a 2nd or 3rd or 4th base in a file is an anomaly for playing on the tabletop. So they put in a work-around for that situation- treat the bases hitting the side and not counting as a flank charge as actually hitting the front of the enemy BG. You might say that in 'reality?' the base hitting the side would really be in overlap and not eligible to fight in impact. The authors are allowing the impact but only on the front of the unit.

[dave_r]

Yes. I'm saying that a base that steps forward into the same file should not fight. Just as it does not fight when stepping forward into the side of the same front rank base base. As you say, your interpretation is guided by a particular ethos that favors aggressive play. Mine is guided by the principle that a base cannot count more than once in combat.

Which is your principle alone - it's simply not supported in the rules, nor is it desired by anybody other than yourself.

Either treat each contact as fighting individually on its own merits or treat all contacts on the same file as in contact with the front rank base, as opposed to multiple files of the same configuration. And its not contrary to the rules, just how you have interpreted them.

Not true - that is how the rules are written and it's the correct interpretation. It's just not _your_ interpretation which is why you are getting so annoyed about the whole thing.

That is not how the rules are written. No one could reach that conclusion from the text. It may be the official interpretation. It is definitely NOT my interpretation. And, yes, it annoys me. As much as flying elephants and leapfrogging cavalry used to. Many people liked those things too.

Do you actually play FoG? Do you enjoy it? It seems to me you are attempting to completely mis-read how the rules are written to deliberately cause arguments and problems.

You very rarely actually provide any examples and describe what you mean in logical and rational terms, instead resorting to wild statements that are in now way backed up by anything solid. The basis for any discussion on rules is

- firstly quote the rule in question
- secondly state how this works in practice
- thirdly provide examples of why it is right and how it works better than the way everybody is playing it

If nobody has an issue with one specific area of the rules and it all seems to get the result that everybody wants that seems vaguely historical and right from a gaming perspective then why are you attempting to change the way a particular scenario works?

You seem to come up with interpretations that are wildly different to everybody else so I'm just interested to know what you are trying to achieve? I've played against just about every nationality of FoG player including* New Zealanders, Australians, Americans, Germans, French, Portugese, English, Irish, Scottish, Spanish, Finnish, Italian, Belgian and even Welsh and have not had anything like the problems you seem to be wanting to include.

* apologies if I've missed a nation. Can't remember if I've played against a Swede or not

[dave_r]

It's a pity that the contacting of a side edge wasn't put in the FAQ's. Something like this might suffice:

"CHARGES NOT QUALIFYING AS A FLANK CHARGE CONTACTING THE FLANK EDGE OF AN ENEMY BASE
What POAs are used?
The normal POAs are used as if the charge had contacted the front of the enemy file. Thus, for example, if the 3rd rank base of a 4 rank deep pikemen battle group is contacted, the pikemen use their normal POAs for 3 ranks deep pikemen and for the 4th rank."

That would have covered it.....

But Dave, they did put it in the rules. Read top of page 62. It's the last bullet hidden in the section titled "CHARGING A FLANK OR REAR". Not sure why they put it there since it isn't a flank.

Gozerius, read the last sentence on page 100 ending on 101. The authors acknowledge that the side impact on a 2nd or 3rd or 4th base in a file is an anomaly for playing on the tabletop. So they put in a work-around for that situation- treat the bases hitting the side and not counting as a flank charge as actually hitting the front of the enemy BG. You might say that in 'reality?' the base hitting the side would really be in overlap and not eligible to fight in impact. The authors are allowing the impact but only on the front of the unit.

You missed the ironic nature of my statement. What I quoted is verbatim in the FAQs....

[bbotus]

[dave_r]

Lost in translation perhaps? That's a good name for a film thinking about it

[gozerius]

Dave,
Yes, I do play FoG. I do enjoy it. My interpretations are based on a thorough reading and cross referencing of the rules. I have always provided quotations from the text to support my arguments. In fact I quote them in the order of precedence that leads me to the conclusions I have reached, along with the logic applied in reading them. For my pains I'm told that the rules don't say what I'm reading.

[bbotus]

For my pains I'm told that the rules don't say what I'm reading.

And sometimes I agree with you, like the long thread we had on turning to face--I'll make one last comment in it shortly. But on this one, it is in the rules, top of page 62. Read it again. It specifically says to treat it as a charge on the enemy front not the front of the base contacted. There have been long threads in the past. Please don't make me go search for them.