Slitherine

Easy:

Good call. Never thought of it, possibly because I'd never charge like that. Doesn't mean no-one else would though. Does put the chargers in a rather precarious position.

The yellow BG could be of the same side as the blue one...

Then it would normally be opushed out of the way, unless an enemy BG blocks that

Maybe there is a blocking BG or terrain or it's an enemy BG facing the other direction. We do not need to discuss this. The possibilites are endless. My point was that I can construct an obstacle to either way of conforming. This leads to those arguments being pretty pointless.

The thing is that you do not have to pivot then conform, do either or both and at the same time or separately

What he said ?

Mehrunes wrote:Easy:

Assuming the yellow block (whatever it might be) can't be pushed out of the way it's C since B isn't possible. C is the only possible conforming move, so the "minimum move necessary" is irrelevant. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't be B otherwise.

Everyone agrees that conforming is BG on BG and not only on the specific bases in contact. Since the Lord has spoken, we all now now we can "pivot then conform, do either or both and at the same time or separately". The only issue is the "minimum move necessary" where there are options for conforming. As I posted earlier the two schools sort of come down to (a) the point in contact (which to some degree is a holdover from a pivot then slide view) or (b) some consideration for the BG has a whole (which for simplicity "minimum" is taken to refer to the largest distance moved by any corner of the BG's bases - aka the Phil School of Thought). I can see valid arguments for both but prefer (b) since it seems that I agree with Phil on so many issues that some might think it's pathological (and that's not withstanding the aberation of agreeing with Dave R on another conforming thread just for the heck of it as I actually agreed with Phil there too. OMG, I think I should check into a clinic ASAP.

shadowdragon wrote: Assuming the yellow block (whatever it might be) can't be pushed out of the way it's C since B isn't possible. C is the only possible conforming move, so the "minimum move necessary" is irrelevant. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't be B otherwise.

That is incorrect. If B is the correct conform position (because it is the shortest move) and you cannot conform to position B because of bases being in the way, then you don't conform at all.

You don't say "I can't conform to the closest conform position so I'll do the next closest" as you are stating.

Polkovnik wrote:

shadowdragon wrote: Assuming the yellow block (whatever it might be) can't be pushed out of the way it's C since B isn't possible. C is the only possible conforming move, so the "minimum move necessary" is irrelevant. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't be B otherwise.

That is incorrect. If B is the correct conform position (because it is the shortest move) and you cannot conform to position B because of bases being in the way, then you don't conform at all.

You don't say "I can't conform to the closest conform position so I'll do the next closest" as you are stating.

I have the page on the rule book open before me and I do not see that it says what you say. It says...

"...the active player's batle groups already in close combat with the enemy must (unless otherwise stated below or physically impossible) pivot and/or slide bases by the minimum necessary to conform to the enemy bases in contact."

In the case shown with the yellow block (that is not movable - whether terrain, enemy BG, etc.) is not physically possible. Conform B is not possible and therefore is not a "correct conform position". Why would you say it cannot conform to C in this casel? The rules do not say that if you can't conform to the enemy by the minimum move (regardless of blocking terrain, BG, etc.) then you don't conform. It says (clearly) that if it's physically possible to conform you do and you do so by the minimum move necessary. Only if there is no legal conform position will the BG not conform. C is a legal conform position.

Put another way...

In the original case, there are two valid conform positions B and C. The move required for B is less than C, so the BG conforms to position B. In the case with the yellow block there is only one legal conform position which is C, so the BG conforms to C. The presence of the yellow block makes all the difference. Invoking a different case - without the yellow block - to say C isn't possible opens up a whole lot of potential trouble.

In the original case, there are two valid conform positions B and C. The move required for B is less than C, so the BG conforms to position B. In the case with the yellow block there is only one legal conform position which is C, so the BG conforms to C. The presence of the yellow block makes all the difference. Invoking a different case - without the yellow block - to say C isn't possible opens up a whole lot of potential trouble.

Have a look at the diagram on page 87.

I think there was a major discussion on this a while back (can't find the thread tho).

The conclusion,if I recall correctly, was if you can't conform by the minimum necessary then you don't conform at all.

That's the way we've played it since. Hope that's right

Petefloro wrote:

In the original case, there are two valid conform positions B and C. The move required for B is less than C, so the BG conforms to position B. In the case with the yellow block there is only one legal conform position which is C, so the BG conforms to C. The presence of the yellow block makes all the difference. Invoking a different case - without the yellow block - to say C isn't possible opens up a whole lot of potential trouble.

Have a look at the diagram on page 87.

I think there was a major discussion on this a while back (can't find the thread tho).

The conclusion,if I recall correctly, was if you can't conform by the minimum necessary then you don't conform at all.

That's the way we've played it since. Hope that's right

So, if I understand this right, you must conform by the minimum move (as if there were no blocking terrain, BG, etc.) and if you can't the BG doesn't conform. Hmmmm....makes the definition of "minimum move" a lot more important since it could (as in the case of the diagram on page 87) change the number of bases fighting.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong,but you fight with the same bases as if they had conformed by the minimum necessary - so I believe.

Petefloro wrote:Somebody correct me if I'm wrong,but you fight with the same bases as if they had conformed by the minimum necessary - so I believe.

It says (under "Melees that cannot line up" that BGs fight with the same number of bases as if they had conformed, but "if two bases would conform to the same enemy base then the one which has the shortest distance to conform fight against it."

If I follow the "minimum move" argument above (i.e. the minimum move defines the only valid conform position) then the situation where "two bases would conform to the same enemy base..." would only apply if the two bases were from different BG.

Which brings me to a question, "if there are two attacking BG and the "legal conform" move as defined by the minimum move for each would result in the two attacking BG's overlapping. Then what? Do they both fight offset? Does the one with the shortest move conform with the other fights offset? Or, does the other BG align to the enemy bases but get pushed to the left/right?" (I've checked it out and, yes, it is possible.)



I am now intrigued by the answer....the minimum conform move for both would have them both in edge to edge contact with the enemy. Until now I would have put B into edge to edge contact and A into an overlap position since this would be the minimum overall but with both A and B in valid contact or overlap positions. Now I would leave them as is.

shadowdragon wrote:

Polkovnik wrote:

shadowdragon wrote:
I have the page on the rule book open before me and I do not see that it says what you say. It says...

"...the active player's batle groups already in close combat with the enemy must (unless otherwise stated below or physically impossible) pivot and/or slide bases by the minimum necessary to conform to the enemy bases in contact."

I realise that I am in a minority of 1 in the whole world, and that RBS is having "It is C" engraved over the entrance to Britcon, but I don't understand how "conform to the enemy bases in contact" can read in any other way than "conform to the ~same~ bases in contact".

I'm pretty sure that's the only way I've seen it played too. In an angled charge there is no ambiguity, no measuring, no trigonometry, just square up the bases with whatever they contacted.

Of course, you rely on the people teaching you not to lead you astray. I blame Hammy

Petefloro wrote:

In the original case, there are two valid conform positions B and C. The move required for B is less than C, so the BG conforms to position B. In the case with the yellow block there is only one legal conform position which is C, so the BG conforms to C. The presence of the yellow block makes all the difference. Invoking a different case - without the yellow block - to say C isn't possible opens up a whole lot of potential trouble.

Have a look at the diagram on page 87.

I think there was a major discussion on this a while back (can't find the thread tho).

The conclusion,if I recall correctly, was if you can't conform by the minimum necessary then you don't conform at all.

That's the way we've played it since. Hope that's right

A pretty perverse conclusion IMO - and certainly doesn't fit with Richard's statement of "The idea is to achieve the maximum amount of conformation".

peteratjet wrote:

shadowdragon wrote:
I have the page on the rule book open before me and I do not see that it says what you say. It says...

"...the active player's batle groups already in close combat with the enemy must (unless otherwise stated below or physically impossible) pivot and/or slide bases by the minimum necessary to conform to the enemy bases in contact."

I realise that I am in a minority of 1 in the whole world, and that RBS is having "It is C" engraved over the entrance to Britcon, but I don't understand how "conform to the enemy bases in contact" can read in any other way than "conform to the ~same~ bases in contact".

I'm pretty sure that's the only way I've seen it played too. In an angled charge there is no ambiguity, no measuring, no trigonometry, just square up the bases with whatever they contacted.

Of course, you rely on the people teaching you not to lead you astray. I blame Hammy

Agree, but according to the rules conforming means you can "square up" in edge to edge contact or move to a valid overlap position which gives you a couple options. Hence the measuring....

Petefloro wrote:Somebody correct me if I'm wrong,but you fight with the same bases as if they had conformed by the minimum necessary - so I believe.

true

Petefloro wrote:
The conclusion,if I recall correctly, was if you can't conform by the minimum necessary then you don't conform at all.

That's the way we've played it since. Hope that's right

Sorry. If you can't conform to a position. Then by definiation it is not "the minumum necessary" because it does count. So it becomes irrelevant and find the one that does.

If someone gives you driving instructions and says turn right. You don't turn if there is no approprirate place to turn your car into. You turn at the next appropriate place.

Dan, check this thread:

viewtopic.php?t=15746&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20

On the 2nd page of the discussion, RBS stated that if the conform to the minimum was blocked you did not look for another route.