Can't turn wont turn

[dave_r]

I'd be interested to know if anyone else agrees with dave, please speak up now and state what makes you think so. I'm thinking we have a minority of one on this issue.

This statement appears to have backfired somewhat.

[bbotus]

I'd be interested to know if anyone else agrees with dave, please speak up now and state what makes you think so. I'm thinking we have a minority of one on this issue.

This statement appears to have backfired somewhat.

Why? Because I was interested to know what others thought? I am considering their responses.

imho, the purpose of this forum is to better understand the rules, which, I happen to like.

[dave_r]

I'd be interested to know if anyone else agrees with dave, please speak up now and state what makes you think so. I'm thinking we have a minority of one on this issue.

This statement appears to have backfired somewhat.

Why? Because I was interested to know what others thought? I am considering their responses.

imho, the purpose of this forum is to better understand the rules, which, I happen to like.

No, because you assumed that I was wrong and that everybody would disagree with me.

[bbotus]

No, because you assumed that I was wrong and that everybody would disagree with me.

I admit that I was very surprised by your position and the recent responses. I am still trying to fit your comments and the others with the written text. I am finding it difficult and will report my thoughts later. I did not assume you were wrong. In fact you insistence on your position gave me pause to consider which is why I asked the question in the first place.

[gozerius]

Question:
Why make a big deal in the rules about the difference between what constitutes a flank charge and a rear charge if the defender can convert a flank charge into a rear charge based on the direction they respond to the contact? Since a conforming base conforms to the front edge of the turned base?
Obviously Dave's adamant rejection of the greater logic behind the rules as a whole for the sake of the sanctity of the one sentence on page 61 and his staunch defense of his position has driven those who want to play intuitively off the thread.
A flank charge does not conform to the rear of the BG any more than a frontal charge conforms to the flank!!!!!!!!
And, no, it doesn't make the game easier to do as you please when your opponent expects the mechanics to work in agreement with simple logic.

I know, "show me in the rules where it says that!"

I'm glad I don't play wherever you play.

[petedalby]

I'm glad I don't play wherever you play.

That's a shame. I've played Dave several times and enjoyed every game immensely. He's played in the States, and across Europe (can't remember if he made it to Oz?) and I believe those who played him enjoyed those games.

Just because he defends his position passionately (on this obscure topic that I have never seen occur in x years of playing FoG ) does not make him a bad person.

Like others I visit this forum to increase my knowledge of the rules. When someone posts something it is an opportunity to review the rules and see what they say. Regarding the OP the rules are not explicit on this point. They are open to interpretation. Getting upset doesn't change that.

[dave_r]

No, because you assumed that I was wrong and that everybody would disagree with me.

I admit that I was very surprised by your position and the recent responses. I am still trying to fit your comments and the others with the written text. I am finding it difficult and will report my thoughts later. I did not assume you were wrong. In fact you insistence on your position gave me pause to consider which is why I asked the question in the first place.

The reason why I am arguing as I am is that if you turn as soon as you are contacted and / or different directions is that you could prevent bases making contact by choosing to turn in a strange direction.

Some might regard this as cheese and I think the underlying principle of the rules for charges is that the maximum bases fight. So wangling it so they don't appears wrong to me.

[AlanCutner]

Whats the real shame is that this topic has gone on for quite a while, but none of the authors has been available to give their opinion.

[dave_r]

Whats the real shame is that this topic has gone on for quite a while, but none of the authors has been available to give their opinion.

And neither are they likely going to be. So if something needs sorted, then we need to sort it on here.

So if you have an opinion it makes sense to express it or forever hold your peace.

[philqw78]

Just because he defends his position passionately (on this obscure topic that I have never seen occur in x years of playing FoG ) does not make him a bad person.

There are other things though Pete

[bbotus]

Well, we have to assume that the RAW is correct until proven otherwise. On that basis, Graham made an excellent point showing that the 2 diagrams on page 175 show the step forward happening in figure 1 before showing turns in figure 2. So contact, step forward, turn to face appears to be the winning argument for me. Dave is right. Frankly, with that conclusion, I find the use of the word 'immediately' on page 61 both curious and superfluous. Neither of which the authors are prone to do.

They did not turn the one base 180 for the flank charge which they could have done on page 175. So I still say that you turn 90 to face a flank and 180 to face a rear charge. Which, if you argue based on the diagrams, is a consistent position and not picking or ignoring the RAW as necessary to support a position.

So we now have the situations that any flank charge exceeding 45 degrees on the rear corner and any flank charge with a step forward contacting the rear of the unit will not allow room for the base to turn. Therefore, in melee the defender will not be fighting in 2 directions. That is another outcome which I do not like and seems intuitively wrong to me.

[petedalby]

There are other things though Pete

Good point Phil - and way too many to list on this Forum.

[grahambriggs]

Well, we have to assume that the RAW is correct until proven otherwise. On that basis, Graham made an excellent point showing that the 2 diagrams on page 175 show the step forward happening in figure 1 before showing turns in figure 2. So contact, step forward, turn to face appears to be the winning argument for me. Dave is right. Frankly, with that conclusion, I find the use of the word 'immediately' on page 61 both curious and superfluous. Neither of which the authors are prone to do.

They did not turn the one base 180 for the flank charge which they could have done on page 175. So I still say that you turn 90 to face a flank and 180 to face a rear charge. Which, if you argue based on the diagrams, is a consistent position and not picking or ignoring the RAW as necessary to support a position.

So we now have the situations that any flank charge exceeding 45 degrees on the rear corner and any flank charge with a step forward contacting the rear of the unit will not allow room for the base to turn. Therefore, in melee the defender will not be fighting in 2 directions. That is another outcome which I do not like and seems intuitively wrong to me.

I suspect the word "immediately" has been used imprecisely in the rules. What they seem to have meant was "as soon as the charger has stopped moving his bases, including any step forward". i think we'll have to 'agree to disagree' on the 90/180 flank/rear thing.

Re the fighting in two directions or not point, I haven't read the specific parts of the rules recently. I play it that a BG hit with a valid flank or rear charge while fighting frontally does count as fighting in two directions, even if they are not facing in two directions. After all, they will fight to the flank/rear in the impact phase.

[philqw78]

Re the fighting in two directions or not point, I haven't read the specific parts of the rules recently. I play it that a BG hit with a valid flank or rear charge while fighting frontally does count as fighting in two directions, even if they are not facing in two directions. After all, they will fight to the flank/rear in the impact phase.

A base can always turn 180 so its irrelevant

[pyruse]

A base can end up turning twice.
It is hit from the rear by enemy BG1 and turns 180, then it gets hit from the front by enemy BG2 and turns 180 again (as required by the rules) leaving the BG facing the same way it started.

[dave_r]

A base can end up turning twice.
It is hit from the rear by enemy BG1 and turns 180, then it gets hit from the front by enemy BG2 and turns 180 again (as required by the rules) leaving the BG facing the same way it started.

Since you only turn after charges have been made this will never occur.

[vexillia]

A base can end up turning twice.
It is hit from the rear by enemy BG1 and turns 180, then it gets hit from the front by enemy BG2 and turns 180 again (as required by the rules) leaving the BG facing the same way it started.

Since you only turn after charges have been made this will never occur.

Don't you mean "after all charges"?

Unfortunately, this isn't excatly what the rules say. I believe it was you who first quoted:

Pg 61: "Bases contacted on a side or rear edge, or by a rear corner, by an enemy flank or rear charge are immediately turned 90 or 180 degrees"

I'll get my croissants as it's too early for popcorn.

[dave_r]

A base can end up turning twice.
It is hit from the rear by enemy BG1 and turns 180, then it gets hit from the front by enemy BG2 and turns 180 again (as required by the rules) leaving the BG facing the same way it started.

Since you only turn after charges have been made this will never occur.

Don't you mean "after all charges"?

Unfortunately, this isn't excatly what the rules say. I believe it was you who first quoted:

Pg 61: "Bases contacted on a side or rear edge, or by a rear corner, by an enemy flank or rear charge are immediately turned 90 or 180 degrees"

I'll get my croissants as it's too early for popcorn.

Already proven - see grahams post above. No croissants here I'm afraid.

[bbotus]

Already proven - see grahams post above. No croissants here I'm afraid.

What's proven?
1. The step forward happens before the turn - Yes.
2. That a base can turn 180 in response to a flank charge - No.

The example that Graham quoted to prove #1 also showed a base that could have turned 180 in response to a flank charge that did not make that turn. If anything, it supports the argument that a base contacted with a flank charge turns 90 not 180 or it doesn't turn at all if no room is available for the 90.

[dave_r]

Already proven - see grahams post above. No croissants here I'm afraid.

What's proven?
1. The step forward happens before the turn - Yes.
2. That a base can turn 180 in response to a flank charge - No.

The example that Graham quoted to prove #1 also showed a base that could have turned 180 in response to a flank charge that did not make that turn. If anything, it supports the argument that a base contacted with a flank charge turns 90 not 180 or it doesn't turn at all if no room is available for the 90.

The rules clearly state you can turn either 90 or 180 degrees to face a flank or rear charge.