Conformation

[gozerius]

Jumping back in
The main objection to Graham's and Lawrence's (and the entire editorial board of the BHGS, to whom, as an American, I owe no fealty) is this. They are insisting that maintaining front edge contact with the initially contacted bases takes precedence over the requirement that the bases pivot/shift the minimum necessary to line up with an enemy base or overlap position. Why is this significant?
Because ending in front edge contact with the initially contacted base is not specifically mentioned in the bullets describing how to conform, nor in the examples illustrated. The bullets refer to lining up each base in contact

in full front edge contact with an* enemy base, or conforming to an overlap position.

*Italics mine.
Notice the "an" as opposed to "the". Indefinite vs definite.
This is the simplest application of how to conform, and results in the least distortion in the relative positions of the opposing sides.
And it doesn't require a host of situational caveats, which arise by demanding that bases conform only to those bases initially contacted.
It's really simple.
Pivot from the point of contact until the bases are flush, then adjust to the nearest corner. (This pivoting may be notional, as there may not be room to pivot, then shift.)
The only situation where a base should have to slide more than a half base width is when the only contact with the enemy is a single outside corner, or in the case of contact with a side edge not counting as a flank charge, which is essentially the same thing, but on a grander scale.

[shadowdragon]

Glad you're back!

The bullet does indeed define "conforming", but the rule that uses the term is above the bullet, "must pivot and/or slide bases by the minimum necessary to conform to the enemy bases in contact:". Then comes the bullet...."conforming usually means..." The fact that defining conforming uses the phrase "an enemy base" cannot be seen as negating the previous phrase 'the enemy bases in contact". To be sure there are two interpretations (1) each base conforms to the enemy base it contacted or (2) each base need only conform to any enemy base that has been contacted.

Yes, minimizing physical distortion is desirable, but so too is minimizing logical distortion by which a base fights one base in the impact phase but switches to another in melee....and in the worst extreme fights a base in one BG in the impact but a base from a different one in melee.

So in the OP the Knights are fighting elephants at impact but magically end up fighting archers in the melee.

All the arguments on both sides related to conforming prior to melee were there in the impact phase (e.g., in the OP would not most of the Knights in the base fighting the elephant not, in fact have hit the archers at impact? Does not the smallest of wheels and microns of distance mean fighting a different base at impact?). We don't worry, much less argue, about it because we have a clear rule for which bases fight at impact. So let's get a clear rule here with the minimum of distortions, both physical and logical. Then we can move on.

[gozerius]

You raise good points, but miss mine, in that the lead sentence is an overview and that the term "bases in contact" can be read collectively, ie., not merely the individual bases in contact with the chargers at impact, but all bases of the affected BGs.
We encounter bases in melee fighting against different bases than in impact all the time. If one side has more bases eligible to fight at impact he chooses which ones fight, then prior to melee, each base lines up by the shortest move necessary and fights the base to it's front. Could be the same base, could be a different base, depends on which required the shortest move. The rule says by the minimum necessary.
Why? Impact represents the initial shock of the charge. The men represented by a corner of a base may be in a position to absorb the initial brunt of the charge, but then, like a wave,(pivots and/or shifts the minimum necessary) the rest of the unit spreads along the front and the fighting is directed at whatever is center of mass, while enemy in peripheral contact may only affect the combat as an overlap. They are still in melee with the enemy.
I don't believe that striking the enemy front at an angle should result in conforming differently than if the charger had struck it head on. And the examples support this.

[lawrenceg]

Jumping back in
The main objection to Graham's and Lawrence's (and the entire editorial board of the BHGS, to whom, as an American, I owe no fealty) is this. They are insisting that maintaining front edge contact with the initially contacted bases takes precedence over the requirement that the bases pivot/shift the minimum necessary to line up with an enemy base or overlap position.

I'm not insisting on it, I'm just pointing out that the BHGS umpires declared (however unclearly) in their clarification document that that is how they think it should be played.

Personally I've always advocated getting rid of conformation from the game. Unconformed combats are an accepted part of the game already. Working out where you go when conforming has perennially cropped up as problematic, hence the need for an umpires clarification.

Anyway, we now have a well defined procedure for working out where to conform. If this doesn't match the authors' intention they can issue an erratum.

[ravenflight]

Jumping back in
The main objection to Graham's and Lawrence's (and the entire editorial board of the BHGS, to whom, as an American, I owe no fealty) is this. They are insisting that maintaining front edge contact with the initially contacted bases takes precedence over the requirement that the bases pivot/shift the minimum necessary to line up with an enemy base or overlap position.

I'm not insisting on it, I'm just pointing out that the BHGS umpires declared (however unclearly) in their clarification document that that is how they think it should be played.

Personally I've always advocated getting rid of conformation from the game. Unconformed combats are an accepted part of the game already. Working out where you go when conforming has perennially cropped up as problematic, hence the need for an umpires clarification.

Anyway, we now have a well defined procedure for working out where to conform. If this doesn't match the authors' intention they can issue an erratum.

Tend to agree with this. We know how many bases are in contact and what the factors are without the need for conformation. I guess it may cause issues, but generally I think conforming is a little over-rated.

[philqw78]

........ The rule says by the minimum necessary. ......... They are still in melee with the enemy.

Conforming by the minmimum still leaves you fighting the base that you hit in impact as it is an overlap. It will also stop problems where 2 bases impact the same base and neither can move to overlap. (The diagram that I promised yesterday, but unfortunately didn't have chance, hopefully tonight. But its Friday!)

[petedalby]

Like the new strap line Phil - most appropriate

[shadowdragon]

You raise good points, but miss mine, in that the lead sentence is an overview and that the term "bases in contact" can be read collectively, ie., not merely the individual bases in contact with the chargers at impact, but all bases of the affected BGs.

No, I didn't miss that point. However, that's a liberal interpretation, so would need broad agreement. It would have been easy enough to have written "conform to bases of the BGs contacted". I'm fine if that's the interpretation as long as it's agreed. I only object if it means a BG contacted in impact ends up without a single base in frontal contact. So, a clarification stating that every BG contacted must have one base in frontal contact with one of its bases would be sufficient in my mind.....noting that one can't overlap a base without a friendly base in frontal contact. This would prevent the situation where a BG is contacted in impact but ends up with no enemy fighting it in melee, even if it fights in overlap, as that would mean it would be free to move away in its manoeuvre phase.

[dave_r]

You raise good points, but miss mine, in that the lead sentence is an overview and that the term "bases in contact" can be read collectively, ie., not merely the individual bases in contact with the chargers at impact, but all bases of the affected BGs.

No, I didn't miss that point. However, that's a liberal interpretation, so would need broad agreement. It would have been easy enough to have written "conform to bases of the BGs contacted". I'm fine if that's the interpretation as long as it's agreed. I only object if it means a BG contacted in impact ends up without a single base in frontal contact. So, a clarification stating that every BG contacted must have one base in frontal contact with one of its bases would be sufficient in my mind.....noting that one can't overlap a base without a friendly base in frontal contact. This would prevent the situation where a BG is contacted in impact but ends up with no enemy fighting it in melee, even if it fights in overlap, as that would mean it would be free to move away in its manoeuvre phase.

You can't move in the maneovre phase if you charged in that impact phase. You could of course move away in a subsequent movement phase :p

[shadowdragon]

Conforming by the minmimum still leaves you fighting the base that you hit in impact as it is an overlap. It will also stop problems where 2 bases impact the same base and neither can move to overlap. (The diagram that I promised yesterday, but unfortunately didn't have chance, hopefully tonight. But its Friday!)

Agreed, a rigid interpretation of each base only conforming to the base it contacted doesn't work. I don't need a diagram to see that is true.

Overlap is, of course, only at the end of the line of enemy bases. My only objection is, as stated above, when conforming by the minimum means a contacted BG has no base in frontal contact with one of its bases (which also means no base overlaps that BG even if a base is in corner to corner contact). However, all interpretations of the rule would, in my view, require at least one base in frontal contact with a base of each contacted BG since otherwise it would mean the active player hasn't conformed to that 'contacted BG'.

[shadowdragon]

You raise good points, but miss mine, in that the lead sentence is an overview and that the term "bases in contact" can be read collectively, ie., not merely the individual bases in contact with the chargers at impact, but all bases of the affected BGs.

No, I didn't miss that point. However, that's a liberal interpretation, so would need broad agreement. It would have been easy enough to have written "conform to bases of the BGs contacted". I'm fine if that's the interpretation as long as it's agreed. I only object if it means a BG contacted in impact ends up without a single base in frontal contact. So, a clarification stating that every BG contacted must have one base in frontal contact with one of its bases would be sufficient in my mind.....noting that one can't overlap a base without a friendly base in frontal contact. This would prevent the situation where a BG is contacted in impact but ends up with no enemy fighting it in melee, even if it fights in overlap, as that would mean it would be free to move away in its manoeuvre phase.

You can't move in the maneovre phase if you charged in that impact phase. You could of course move away in a subsequent movement phase :p

That BG would be the passive player's BG, which, of course couldn't move in the active player's maneouvre phase but could move away in its own next maneouvre phase.

[dave_r]

No, I didn't miss that point. However, that's a liberal interpretation, so would need broad agreement. It would have been easy enough to have written "conform to bases of the BGs contacted". I'm fine if that's the interpretation as long as it's agreed. I only object if it means a BG contacted in impact ends up without a single base in frontal contact. So, a clarification stating that every BG contacted must have one base in frontal contact with one of its bases would be sufficient in my mind.....noting that one can't overlap a base without a friendly base in frontal contact. This would prevent the situation where a BG is contacted in impact but ends up with no enemy fighting it in melee, even if it fights in overlap, as that would mean it would be free to move away in its manoeuvre phase.

You can't move in the maneovre phase if you charged in that impact phase. You could of course move away in a subsequent movement phase :p

That BG would be the passive player's BG, which, of course couldn't move in the active player's maneouvre phase but could move away in its own next maneouvre phase.

When you have multiple BG's charging a single BG you can end in the situation where a BG has to move out of frontal contact into an overlap. It would not work to stipulate that you must maintain frontal contact as it's not always possible.

[philqw78]

And the BG no longer in frontal contact still fights in overlap

[shadowdragon]

When you have multiple BG's charging a single BG you can end in the situation where a BG has to move out of frontal contact into an overlap. It would not work to stipulate that you must maintain frontal contact as it's not always possible.

I'm not suggesting that at all. If a BG moves out into an overlap than another friendly BG will still be frontal contact with the enemy BG. That satisfies what I was suggesting....that after the conform there is at least one active player base still in frontal contact with each enemy BG that was in contact at the start of the phase.

So, since it was taken backwards from what I was suggesting....I will try again. I was not suggesting that all active player BG in contact must maintain frontal contact. I was suggesting that a minimum of one base from at least one active player BG in contact with an enemy BG should be in frontal contact. So if three BG contact an enemy BG from the front (or equivalent to front) it may well be the conform move sees one BG in frontal contract and two in overlap. That's consistent with what I'm suggesting.

I'm just looking for a way out of the rabbit hole we've found ourselves in.

[shadowdragon]

And the BG no longer in frontal contact still fights in overlap

But there is still a friendly BG in frontal contact which was all that I was implying....i.e., that if a base fights in overlap than there must be another friendly base in frontal contact (doesn't have to be from the same BG). That's in the definition of overlap.

[ChrisTofalos]

I've re-read the rules and they actually seem pretty clear:

In the 4th bullet point on page 77 it states: "...the battle group must pivot to conform with the front edge of the enemy battle group, sliding the minimum necessary to contact the FRONT EDGE of at least one enemy base, or to an overlap position IF THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE. (my emphasis)

In the illustration, one elephant and two archers are in FRONTAL contact with the knights. I can't see anything anywhere that would force the elephant to become an overlap and the right hand (un-engaged) archer unit to slide left to face the knights.

The situation is further clarified in the illustration on page 78 (Simple conform), which states: "Bases that DO NOT CONTACT ENEMY FRONTALLY move to become an overlap..." The aforementioned elephant and archers HAVE contacted an enemy frontally so, according to the rules, there can be only one possible outcome.

[petedalby]

I've re-read the rules and they actually seem pretty clear:

Quite so Chris. Unfortunately some of our regular contributors / players are not quite so diligent.

[dave_r]

We've discussed the conformation issue further and note the following:

1. Page 77, the conforming section itself. The first paragraph contains what is the primary rule: the active players BGs conform to the enemy bases in contact (NB - no reference anywhere to enemy BGs, just the bases in contact). The following bullets define what conforming means, the formation issues, flank contact conforming, shifting friends to make room and the last four bullets that cover the cases where you do not conform.

2. The most important of these secondary clauses is the one that tells you what conforming means; “Conforming usually means lining up each base in full front edge contact with an enemy base, or conforming to an overlap position (see below).”. Two points to note here; the “usually” covers the fact that the next sentence shows you how to line up with a flank edge and, bold font is normally used throughout the rules to denote important concepts. The definition of overlap positions is not actually physically below but is later in the whole section - see page 82.

3. In the overlaps definition on p82 it makes it clear that an overlap only exists when friendly bases have their front edge either in contact or counting as in contact with enemy. So until there’s a friendly front edge touching, there’s no overlap.

4. One additional point to note is that if that the closest is the only conform you can do and that’s not possible for some reason the rules don't say conform to the next nearest – they state no conformation takes place, but fight as if you had conformed.

In practical terms, taking the above as a whole, you work out what is the shortest shift/pivot that gets you into full frontal contact with the bases that your BG was in contact with or an overlap position (which are always at the end of BGs). This breaks down into two general situations:
- You hit the enemy at the end of their line – as per the cavalry charge in the diagram at the top of p78. In this scenario the cavalry measure the shortest shift/pivot to conform to the bases they hit and the overlap position at the end of the enemy BG. Generally, to conform to the overlap you’ll need to be at least 20mm outside the enemy line, if you’re not you’ll probably end up lining your front bases all in front edge to front edge contact with the enemy bases, as it’s the shortest move.
- You hit in the middle of the enemy line. In this scenario an overlap positions are not relevant as it is too far away. So your BG conforms to FE to FE contact with the bases you start in contact with

In terms of the diagrams in the rules:

P78: These two diagrams show conforming such that you BG ends in FE contact with an enemy on the end of the BG, plus to the overlap positions as it’s the shortest move.

P93: My cavalry BG has charged flush and hit the end base of the legion and the front base marked X. They conform about 13mm to the left as this gets them to FE with one base they hit and also in the overlap position. Both of these are allowed by the definition of what conforming is. It would be a longer move (27mm) to go to the right and conform FE to FE with the bases they contacted.

P93. My warband hit X and a second legion base. The shortest move is to shift right 13mm to face the base on the end of the line and the overlap position. They are blocked from doing so by the second legion. They cannot shift left 27mm to conform to X and the other base they touch because this is not the shortest move to conform – they are not allowed this as a “plan B” – so no conform takes place.

We believe the clarifications support the above interpretations.