Slitherine

berthier wrote: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 loom for another route.

Fair enough. Then, for this example:



Is there any conforming? And, if so, how?

I presume from the discussion that A conforms to the enemy as it is closest to the enemy base. B is pushed to the right overlap position. If however, something blocked B, then they would fight "as is" in an offset position. Is that correct?

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 loom for another route.

Now that's what I'm talking about.

berthier wrote: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 loom for another route.

You are correct. He said that. I did not believe the other authors play that way. It is possible i may be in the wrong.

So we are all wrong, including the authors. Can someone (of the Trinity) please put us all right. Richard, don't tell us you have a life. You not only play toy soldiers you write rules so the rest of us don't have to throw marbles at them. Terry, grow your beard back and show us your back in business*, and Simon, just wake up.

hazelbark wrote:

berthier wrote: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 loom for another route.

You are correct. He said that. I did not believe the other authors play that way. It is possible i may be in the wrong.

The problem with the other interpretation is that there is a diagram in the rules which contradicts it. As authors, we had a debate as to whether we should go with the diagram or declare it an erratum. This could have gone either way, but eventually we decided to accept the implications of the diagram for the present.

However, the situation will be up for grabs again in V2.0, which is under discussion, and we have not yet decided which way to play it for that. I suspect we will change the diagram.

hazelbark wrote:

berthier wrote: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 loom for another route.

You are correct. He said that. I did not believe the other authors play that way. It is possible i may be in the wrong.

Well I am pretty certain Terry at least does not play it that way, and I have never ruled it that way. I'd go as far as to say that I doubt I ever will rule it that way - I always assume that if there appears to be a contradiction between the rules wording and a diagram that the diagram is most likely to be wrong.

WOW!

It has taken me the best part of an hour and two cups of tea to wade through all of that!

I have read arguments based on geometry, semantics and lingusitics. Man, some people really want to argue a point. Is it that important to be right? Take a gold start out of the tin and sit at the front of the class.

At the end of the day - its a game. Your big blocks of troops represent hundreds of little men, who, upon sighting the enemy, will charge and swirl around in the hope of a) staying alive and b) winning the combat to get some loot. Their training will play a major part, but I can't see Gallic troops conforming the charge 'A' to result 'C'.

If you look at the diagram from that perspective 'B' seems reasonable for 'A'. Ultimately though (I can hear the whine of flamethrowers starting up), they have the same result on the ensuing melee combat (4 dice vs 4 dice).

What worries me is that some people would rather spend their wargaming time arguing about such things (and if they are willing to do so, it makes me think there is some 'gamey' advantage to be squeezed out of such actions). Generally I prefer to spend my wargaming Sunday mornings actually wargaming, rather than arguing about millimeters. Normally we look at the situation, apply real world physics and knowledge, come up with a solution and get on with the game. As RBS said - life is short.

And in Shadowdragon's example I would conform so that both red blocks have a base in front to front contact with the enemy. It just seems to make sense and stops people charging at odd angles to get advantageous conforms (something that happened in other systems in the past).

But that's just my 2c worth and I know the FOG police are not going to arrest me for playing 'incorrect'. Well they won't take me without a fight at least

But if you enjoy spending your time arguing, then more power to you.

Malty666 wrote: But if you enjoy spending your time arguing, then more power to you.

Some of us have no life

Malty666 wrote:What worries me is that some people would rather spend their wargaming time arguing about such things

I think most people on forums like this are spending their work time, not wargaming time arguing about and discussing such things.

Malty666 wrote:...., it makes me think there is some 'gamey' advantage to be squeezed out of such actions).

I don't think there is, but it's more a matter of knowing where you will conform to, as that can have an effect on the outcome. I suspect most people aren't bothered what the correct answer is, they just want there to be an answer.

Malty666 wrote:But if you enjoy spending your time arguing, then more power to you.

I think many people prefer spending their time arguing about wargaming than working !

I think many people prefer spending their time arguing about wargaming than working !

I am off work with a slipped disk - so I get time to post. Can I get a job where I can surf forums at work?

That would be soooooooo nice

Malty666 wrote:I am off work with a slipped disk - so I get time to post. Can I get a job where I can surf forums at work?

That would be soooooooo nice

3400+ posts shows how nice it is. Or is that sad?

Definitely goes in the 'sad' category.

There is a life beyond the keyboard...

If you find it, let me know what it is cos I'm still looking

[img][img]http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy8/ ... /ITISC.jpg[/img][/img]

Stop Grovelling

Malty666 wrote: It has taken me the best part of an hour and two cups of tea to wade through all of that!

Hmmm....seems that "having no life" is endemic here.

Malty666 wrote:What worries me is that some people would rather spend their wargaming time arguing about such things (and if they are willing to do so, it makes me think there is some 'gamey' advantage to be squeezed out of such actions). Generally I prefer to spend my wargaming Sunday mornings actually wargaming, rather than arguing about millimeters. Normally we look at the situation, apply real world physics and knowledge, come up with a solution and get on with the game. As RBS said - life is short.

Life is indeed short. I pretty much only play solo these days, so it's real nice to have these discussions to help me understand the rules so that on the rare occasion when I might actually play with someone who *does* know the rules they will have a slightly less chance of thinking, "WTF planet is this guy from". Until that rare occasion - diagrams to the contrary - I will be playing solo and I'll play it according to what's common sense (aka my sense as playing solo implies my sense = common sense).

...and that means:

With my example, I'd conform the 2 red blocks - one front to front edge and one to overlap.

With the other examples, I'd go with Phil 'cause he's Phil, plays with toy solders and has no common sense or life.

philqw78 wrote:Stop Grovelling

Yeah! ...and while you're at it, get a life....

....because at least one person around here around here has to - no matter what RBS says about himself.

philqw78 wrote:

Stop Grovelling

Er sorry,I don't think I was grovelling-it's more extracting the urine.In a friendly way of course!

Yeah! ...and while you're at it, get a life....

....because at least one person around here around here has to - no matter what RBS says about himself.

I have got a good life thanks. The next line of your post I didn't get,sorry. A bit too cryptic for me .

Anyway, here's to the next mega thread discussion on the finer points of the game

Petefloro wrote:philqw78 wrote:

Stop Grovelling

Er sorry,I don't think I was grovelling-it's more extracting the urine.In a friendly way of course!

GOD wrote:"Stop grovelling"

is the first thing God says to Arthur and the Knights of the round table upon appearing in the heavens after the drowning of a witch. Apparently he only dislikes those boring psalms more. So perhaps he should give you a quest or even a blessing if you weren't grovelling. Please make sure you can count to 5 correctly though.

Petefloro wrote:philqw78 wrote:

Stop Grovelling

Er sorry,I don't think I was grovelling-it's more extracting the urine.In a friendly way of course!

Yeah! ...and while you're at it, get a life....

....because at least one person around here around here has to - no matter what RBS says about himself.

I have got a good life thanks. The next line of your post I didn't get,sorry. A bit too cryptic for me .

Anyway, here's to the next mega thread discussion on the finer points of the game

Oh well...failed humour, because if you have to explain it, it's failed!

But....the "get a life" is because of all the posts above referring to people spending too much time on this mega thread (e.g., spending time to create the photo of G*D saying, "It is C"). Of course, the implication is that no one here "has a life", except that RBS had posts implying that he was busy having a life instead of "clarifying" obscure rules with statements like, "It is C". Of course, Phil pointed out how deluded that was....

...or something like that.

Honestly, I use the shotgun approach to humour. Different things strike different people as funny, so rather than figure it out I just shot them out like shotgun pellets. Maybe something hits someone.

As you might guess, one of my principles is that "Life is too short to take seriously".

And, stop grovelling. It doesn't matter what you thought your were doing as perception is all.

rbodleyscott wrote: However, the situation will be up for grabs again in V2.0, which is under discussion, and we have not yet decided which way to play it for that. I suspect we will change the diagram.

It might be better to change the mechanism to something like "conforms to the base it is most in front of" (non-flank flank contacts being an exception as at present).

I would have thought most players can judge this correctly, whereas judging distances in combined two-dimensional translations and rotations (slides and wheels) not unsurprisingly seems to be a problem.