Conform question

bahdahbum · Post by **bahdahbum** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:28 am

During a game yesterday we had an interesting situation :

A BG of knights charged some defensive spearmen medium foot . Has the medium foot were just near a forest , when the knights had to conform they were obliged to slide in the forest ( the spearmen were still in the open ) . I found nothing in the rules says that if the terrain would disorder you, you do not have to conform . Is this correct ?

After, the KN BG did recoil and was of course in charge range but partially already in the forest . So do they have to test not to charge or may they not charge . The charge will end in very difficult terrain, but they already are partially in very difficult terrain and so severly disordered !

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:53 am

There is indeed nothing to stop troops from being forced to conform into difficult terrain so you did that bit right.

As you have said that once conformed any charge by the knights would have ended partially in difficult terrain you have answered your own question. The knights don't have to test to not charge.

shall · Post by **shall** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:56 am

Yes you do conform - thus MF near some friendly terrain have a better chance than in the open.

No you don't need to shock troop test as your move would end in terrain (it already being in some doesn't matter here, its where the charge would take you that does).

Si

madcam2us · Post by **madcam2us** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:48 am

Since the "move" (the impact phase) occured totally in the open, why wouldn't the knights have to test?

Its not till the movement phase do they conform.

Please explain.

Madcam.

bahdahbum · Post by **bahdahbum** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 12:18 pm

The first move was in the open, but as the KN BG shifted to conform, it was in the forest and stayed partialy in the forest when it recoiled ( 1 MU only )

ratprince · Post by **ratprince** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 2:52 pm

He is saying that AFTER the conform, they brokeoff in the breakoff portion. IN his next turn he would NOT have to take a CMT to hold back the knights because they would be charging in disordering terrain.

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:25 pm

I had an interesting (not quite the term I'd use, but...) 'conform' situation at BMW.

My unit of Cataphracts charged a MF unit of Offensive Spear. After the Impact they had to conform into a situation where my friendly troops stopped a withdrawal move.

It seemed a bit odd to me that because I had a solid line, and charged straight forward that I was pulled into a spot where I couldn't withdraw. I would have thought that this was covered in 'exceptions' but if it is I didn't find it.

My 'second unit' didn't charge because it was charged the previous turn by so was blocked from coming forward (which was the plan).

Ian

shall · Post by **shall** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:54 pm

He is saying that AFTER the conform, they brokeoff in the breakoff portion. IN his next turn he would NOT have to take a CMT to hold back the knights because they would be charging in disordering terrain.

Exactly assuming I have understood the scenario correctly.

Si

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:36 pm

DaiSho wrote:My unit of Cataphracts charged a MF unit of Offensive Spear. After the Impact they had to conform into a situation where my friendly troops stopped a withdrawal move.

It seemed a bit odd to me that because I had a solid line, and charged straight forward that I was pulled into a spot where I couldn't withdraw. I would have thought that this was covered in 'exceptions' but if it is I didn't find it.

Has happened a few times. Also as a results of feeding bases into combat. From a macro point of view the mounted that want to break off are getting caught up with the advancing friends and it is becoming a general mess.

If the rule didn't work this way you could engineer some neat (read: cheesey) tactics where you charge in at an angle and when you break off the unit you struck is now facing something else potentially restricting it to its front or shooting or funtionally drawing you into another unit. Instead we have this if you shove too much into a too small a place and the enemy is steady you have disorder.

shall · Post by **shall** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:44 am

If the rule didn't work this way you could engineer some neat (read: cheesey) tactics where you charge in at an angle and when you break off the unit you struck is now facing something else potentially restricting it to its front or shooting or funtionally drawing you into another unit. Instead we have this if you shove too much into a too small a place and the enemy is steady you have disorder.

Indeed - one found in testing.

Si

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:21 am

hazelbark wrote:
DaiSho wrote:My unit of Cataphracts charged a MF unit of Offensive Spear. After the Impact they had to conform into a situation where my friendly troops stopped a withdrawal move.

It seemed a bit odd to me that because I had a solid line, and charged straight forward that I was pulled into a spot where I couldn't withdraw. I would have thought that this was covered in 'exceptions' but if it is I didn't find it.
Has happened a few times. Also as a results of feeding bases into combat. From a macro point of view the mounted that want to break off are getting caught up with the advancing friends and it is becoming a general mess.

If the rule didn't work this way you could engineer some neat (read: cheesey) tactics where you charge in at an angle and when you break off the unit you struck is now facing something else potentially restricting it to its front or shooting or funtionally drawing you into another unit. Instead we have this if you shove too much into a too small a place and the enemy is steady you have disorder.

Yeah, I accept that possibility of cheese, but I'm talking about a situation where you've got this:

I:evil:

I= a less than 1 base space.

=enemy line

= friendly foot

= friendly cataphracts

On contact you get:

I

Where

is nothing (spacers)

Then after manouver you get:

I

I

... and an inability to withdraw, and thus a disrupted and evetnually fragmented mounted unit.

Now, if there was some sort of 'cheese' involved to try to get an advantage I can understand a rule limiting this, but I was just walking forward in a solid line. The fact that the enemy was not in corner to corner alignment with me it seems is the cataphracts fault!

Ian

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:33 am

DaiSho wrote:Now, if there was some sort of 'cheese' involved to try to get an advantage I can understand a rule limiting this, but I was just walking forward in a solid line. The fact that the enemy was not in corner to corner alignment with me it seems is the cataphracts fault!

What were your infantry doing in the movement phase after the impact? Surely you could have moved them in some way to allow the break off?

Remember that if you advance you can slide half a base to avoid clipping friends.

In this situation were you testing not to charge with the cataphracts? If so why not etc.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:43 am

DaiSho wrote:Now, if there was some sort of 'cheese' involved to try to get an advantage I can understand a rule limiting this, but I was just walking forward in a solid line. The fact that the enemy was not in corner to corner alignment with me it seems is the cataphracts fault!

Why didn't the cataphracts wheel to the right hand end of the enemy line (from the cats pov), this would have stopped the problem. Looks like there are a number of things that could be done to stop this happening. However in a big line of mixed types of troops, some foot, some mounted, some shock, some not, this will hapopen.

But then I'm sure the writers said on a different thread that they wanted to avoid things like foot fighting alongside mounted; shock troops in formation with defensive troops; as it rarely happened and was hard to co-ordinate. So perhaps the rules work.

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:47 am

hammy wrote:
DaiSho wrote:Now, if there was some sort of 'cheese' involved to try to get an advantage I can understand a rule limiting this, but I was just walking forward in a solid line. The fact that the enemy was not in corner to corner alignment with me it seems is the cataphracts fault!
What were your infantry doing in the movement phase after the impact? Surely you could have moved them in some way to allow the break off?

They were charged the previous turn by enemy lancers so were somewhat 'preoccupied'. I think I mentioned this in the previous message.

hammy wrote:In this situation were you testing not to charge with the cataphracts? If so why not etc.

Yup, tried and failed. Either which way, I don't think you should be so harshly treated for not being able to withdraw. A guaranteed 'drop in level' is pretty harsh. You can end up with a situation where you win the impact phase - they pass their disruption test. You win the Melee phase - they pass their disruption test. You can't withdraw and you're automatically disrupted - no test!!

Ian

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:50 am

philqw78 wrote:
DaiSho wrote:Now, if there was some sort of 'cheese' involved to try to get an advantage I can understand a rule limiting this, but I was just walking forward in a solid line. The fact that the enemy was not in corner to corner alignment with me it seems is the cataphracts fault!
Why didn't the cataphracts wheel to the right hand end of the enemy line (from the cats pov), this would have stopped the problem. Looks like there are a number of things that could be done to stop this happening. However in a big line of mixed types of troops, some foot, some mounted, some shock, some not, this will hapopen.

You want troops to actually decrease the number of bases they would otherwise be able to use in combat? Seems odd. Either which way there wasn't room to wheel in this particular circumstance.

philqw78 wrote:But then I'm sure the writers said on a different thread that they wanted to avoid things like foot fighting alongside mounted; shock troops in formation with defensive troops; as it rarely happened and was hard to co-ordinate. So perhaps the rules work.

Who said anything about the foot being defensive troops. The exact same thing could happen with Gepid Shock mounted and Impact Foot. They could have both been slavering for blood, and the situation could still occur.

Ian

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am

DaiSho wrote:Who said anything about the foot being defensive troops. The exact same thing could happen with Gepid Shock mounted and Impact Foot. They could have both been slavering for blood, and the situation could still occur.

Ian

But they should have been slavering for blood in different parts of the battlefield.

You want troops to actually decrease the number of bases they would otherwise be able to use in combat? Seems odd. Either which way there wasn't room to wheel in this particular circumstance.

How does wheeling or deploying troops in functional groups reduce the number in combat?

The thing is if you use troops that function differently together you need to plan better.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:02 am

DaiSho wrote:Yup, tried and failed. Either which way, I don't think you should be so harshly treated for not being able to withdraw. A guaranteed 'drop in level' is pretty harsh. You can end up with a situation where you win the impact phase - they pass their disruption test. You win the Melee phase - they pass their disruption test. You can't withdraw and you're automatically disrupted - no test!!

The auto drop was put in after someone managed to deliberatley prevent one of their mounted BGs from breaking off in a combat where they were far better off in the melee than at impact.

Your infantry being preoccupied reduces your options but I am not sure what was preventing your cavalry from wheeling outwards so that they conformed the other way.