Can't turn wont turn

[philqw78]

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.

Sorry but I play a fair proportion of my games whilst under the inluence. Its 5 past 2 in the morning, I'm drunk, but saying it could have but didn't means it can

[bbotus]

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.

Sorry but I play a fair proportion of my games whilst under the inluence. Its 5 past 2 in the morning, I'm drunk, but saying it could have but didn't means it can

How so? Page 61 says that bases contacted on a side or rear edge , or a rear corner, by an enemy flank/rear charge are turned (dropped immediately) 90 or 180 to face. This is a mandatory turn. It does not give you an option. The example on page 175 shows a base contacted by a flank charge and hit in the rear corner. It had the ability to turn 180. It did not. There are only 2 conclusions:

1. (argued by Dave) The examples are wrong.

2. Bases do not turn 180 to face a flank charge.

You don't get to pick and choose. If the examples are wrong, then 'immediately' takes precedent; we are back where we started and Graham's good point is out the window.

P.S. I'd like to comment on your drunken stupor, but i'm in a hurry. I'm on my way to do the same.

[philqw78]

P.S. I'd like to comment on your drunken stupor, but i'm in a hurry. I'm on my way to do the same.

Good man

[dave_r]

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.

Sorry but I play a fair proportion of my games whilst under the inluence. Its 5 past 2 in the morning, I'm drunk, but saying it could have but didn't means it can

How so? Page 61 says that bases contacted on a side or rear edge , or a rear corner, by an enemy flank/rear charge are turned (dropped immediately) 90 or 180 to face. This is a mandatory turn. It does not give you an option. The example on page 175 shows a base contacted by a flank charge and hit in the rear corner. It had the ability to turn 180. It did not. There are only 2 conclusions:

1. (argued by Dave) The examples are wrong.

2. Bases do not turn 180 to face a flank charge.

You don't get to pick and choose. If the examples are wrong, then 'immediately' takes precedent; we are back where we started and Graham's good point is out the window.

That also isn't correct - you only turn bases after all charges are complete. We've had that argument as well.

[pyruse]

We've had that argument, and the only 'proof' offered that you turn after all charges was the diagram on page 175, which folks are now saying is wrong.
The rules and diagram are inconsistent with each other.
I think people need to make up their minds which is right, the rules or the diagram, and then go with that.
I don't think you can sometimes pick the rules and sometimes the diagram.

If the rules are right, you can choose to turn 90 or 180 degrees in response to a flank or rear charge, and bases turn immediately when contacted; not after you've completed all charges.
If the diagram is right, you turn 90 degrees in response to a flank charge, and 180 for a rear (and don't turn at all if you can't), and turning happens after you've completed all charges.

[dave_r]

We've had that argument, and the only 'proof' offered that you turn after all charges was the diagram on page 175, which folks are now saying is wrong.
The rules and diagram are inconsistent with each other.
I think people need to make up their minds which is right, the rules or the diagram, and then go with that.
I don't think you can sometimes pick the rules and sometimes the diagram.

If the rules are right, you can choose to turn 90 or 180 degrees in response to a flank or rear charge, and bases turn immediately when contacted; not after you've completed all charges.

Sorry - that's a load of rubbish. You turn bases immediately when charges have completed - that is what the rules state. Since the step forward is an inherent part of the charge then you only turn once bases have been stepped forward.

You seem to insist on making life difficult - why? RBS has always stated that if they had to make the rules as watertight as DBM then the rulebook would have been 1000 pages long. If you insist on attempting to break the rules by arguing minutiae points then good luck. But any half decent umpire will rule against you.

If you do the step forward and then turn to face it's much easier and as per the rules intent. Why is this such a problem?

[pyruse]

We've had that argument, and the only 'proof' offered that you turn after all charges was the diagram on page 175, which folks are now saying is wrong.
The rules and diagram are inconsistent with each other.
I think people need to make up their minds which is right, the rules or the diagram, and then go with that.
I don't think you can sometimes pick the rules and sometimes the diagram.

If the rules are right, you can choose to turn 90 or 180 degrees in response to a flank or rear charge, and bases turn immediately when contacted; not after you've completed all charges.

Sorry - that's a load of rubbish. You turn bases immediately when charges have completed - that is what the rules state. Since the step forward is an inherent part of the charge then you only turn once bases have been stepped forward.

You seem to insist on making life difficult - why? RBS has always stated that if they had to make the rules as watertight as DBM then the rulebook would have been 1000 pages long. If you insist on attempting to break the rules by arguing minutiae points then good luck. But any half decent umpire will rule against you.

If you do the step forward and then turn to face it's much easier and as per the rules intent. Why is this such a problem?

The only problem is one of your own making.
Earlier you said you wanted to read the rules literally, in fact I've seen numerous threads on here were you argued vigorously over your interpretation of the rules, yet now suddenly that's a bad thing, and now you are saying we should know the intent.
The rules do not state 'immediately when charges have completed'. They say bases contacted turn 'immediately'. Which part of 'immediately' is not clear?
Interpreting the rules this way doesn't break anything, it's not any harder to implement; it may change a few situations, but nothing breaks.
The example on page 175 (which I would say *does* show the rules intent), shows bases turning after charges are completed, but it also shows a base not turning when hit in the flank.

This may surprise you, but I have no particular interest in which interpretation is right.
Personally, I've always played the situation as per the example on page 175; it was only when you pointed out that it was contradicted by the text on page 61 that I looked more closely, at which point I realised that the rules also mandate turning as soon as contact is made. You can't have it both ways; either the rules have precedence, or the example does.
I think you have to decide to either go with page 61 or page 175; not the bits which happen to suit your point of view from either.

[dave_r]

We've had that argument, and the only 'proof' offered that you turn after all charges was the diagram on page 175, which folks are now saying is wrong.
The rules and diagram are inconsistent with each other.
I think people need to make up their minds which is right, the rules or the diagram, and then go with that.
I don't think you can sometimes pick the rules and sometimes the diagram.

If the rules are right, you can choose to turn 90 or 180 degrees in response to a flank or rear charge, and bases turn immediately when contacted; not after you've completed all charges.

Sorry - that's a load of rubbish. You turn bases immediately when charges have completed - that is what the rules state. Since the step forward is an inherent part of the charge then you only turn once bases have been stepped forward.

You seem to insist on making life difficult - why? RBS has always stated that if they had to make the rules as watertight as DBM then the rulebook would have been 1000 pages long. If you insist on attempting to break the rules by arguing minutiae points then good luck. But any half decent umpire will rule against you.

If you do the step forward and then turn to face it's much easier and as per the rules intent. Why is this such a problem?

The only problem is one of your own making.
Earlier you said you wanted to read the rules literally, in fact I've seen numerous threads on here were you argued vigorously over your interpretation of the rules, yet now suddenly that's a bad thing, and now you are saying we should know the intent.
The rules do not state 'immediately when charges have completed'. They say bases contacted turn 'immediately'. Which part of 'immediately' is not clear?

You are taking the word immediately out of context. The full comment is:

"Bases contacted on a side or rear edge, or a rear corner, by an enemy flank or rear charge are immediately turned to face".

The use of the word by means something that has happened in the past. In this case a charge. Since the charge has happened in the past, it must have finished, therefore it must have completed. Therefore the step forward must have happened because this is part of the charge.

Interpreting the rules this way doesn't break anything, it's not any harder to implement; it may change a few situations, but nothing breaks.
The example on page 175 (which I would say *does* show the rules intent), shows bases turning after charges are completed, but it also shows a base not turning when hit in the flank.

This may surprise you, but I have no particular interest in which interpretation is right.
Personally, I've always played the situation as per the example on page 175; it was only when you pointed out that it was contradicted by the text on page 61 that I looked more closely, at which point I realised that the rules also mandate turning as soon as contact is made. You can't have it both ways; either the rules have precedence, or the example does.
I think you have to decide to either go with page 61 or page 175; not the bits which happen to suit your point of view from either.

As I have previously explained, there are other instances where diagrams contradict the rules. The precedence is rules over diagrams.

However, that does not mean I think your interpretation of the rules is correct. As I put forward above

The diagram on page 175 does not fit this scenario in any case, as it is a different BG that is preventing the 90 degree turn AND one base has already been turned to face. As previously noted, the fact you do not turn to face does not preclude you from fighting.

If somebody contacted me in the flank or rear, and I wangled it such that because I turned 90 or 180 this prevented a step forward, meaning that only one base fought rather than two bases each (which would be two dice each as opposed to four dice against three) and then say I won that melee and my opponent lost a base and disrupted - do you think that my opponent would not believe that was a big fault in the rules?

[pyruse]

If somebody contacted me in the flank or rear, and I wangled it such that because I turned 90 or 180 this prevented a step forward, meaning that only one base fought rather than two bases each (which would be two dice each as opposed to four dice against three) and then say I won that melee and my opponent lost a base and disrupted - do you think that my opponent would not believe that was a big fault in the rules?

Yes, they would. What about the case where you are contacted in the flank, and choose to turn 180 degrees and thereby change the result of the melee? Of when you are contacted in rear and choose to turn 90?
The intent of the rules (and what I suspect most people would instinctively do) is surely that you turn 90 for a flank charge and 180 for rear, and if you can't turn you don't (as per page 175).
But as you've correctly pointed out, that is not what the rules say on page 61.
If we are going with what feels right (or just what doesn't feel like cheesy rules manipulation) then I'd say go with the diagram on page 175.
Why do you think it OK to interpret the rules literally but counter-intuitively in one case but not another?

[dave_r]

If somebody contacted me in the flank or rear, and I wangled it such that because I turned 90 or 180 this prevented a step forward, meaning that only one base fought rather than two bases each (which would be two dice each as opposed to four dice against three) and then say I won that melee and my opponent lost a base and disrupted - do you think that my opponent would not believe that was a big fault in the rules?

Yes, they would. What about the case where you are contacted in the flank, and choose to turn 180 degrees and thereby change the result of the melee?

That wouldn't change the result of the melee.

Of when you are contacted in rear and choose to turn 90?

That wouldn't change anything either.

The intent of the rules (and what I suspect most people would instinctively do) is surely that you turn 90 for a flank charge and 180 for rear, and if you can't turn you don't (as per page 175).
But as you've correctly pointed out, that is not what the rules say on page 61.
If we are going with what feels right (or just what doesn't feel like cheesy rules manipulation) then I'd say go with the diagram on page 175.
Why do you think it OK to interpret the rules literally but counter-intuitively in one case but not another?

I've never said that.

[philqw78]

Why do you think it OK to interpret the rules literally but counter-intuitively in one case but not another?

You are taking the word immediately out of context. The full comment is:

"Bases contacted on a side or rear edge, or a rear corner, by an enemy flank or rear charge are immediately turned to face".

The use of the word by means something that has happened in the past.

Rather than a charge that happened in the future.

[dave_r]

Why do you think it OK to interpret the rules literally but counter-intuitively in one case but not another?

You are taking the word immediately out of context. The full comment is:

"Bases contacted on a side or rear edge, or a rear corner, by an enemy flank or rear charge are immediately turned to face".

The use of the word by means something that has happened in the past.

Rather than a charge that happened in the future.

You can't be contacted by something that happens in the future?

[titanu]

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.

P61 SAYS that flank or rear bases turn 90 or 180. The P175 IMPLIES only a 90 degree turn.

If bases turn IMMEDIATELY why have the figures in the top picture p175 not turned BEFORE the final cavalry charge? Again the IMPLICATION is that no turn is made until all charge movement finishes!!

You cannot have it both ways

[vexillia]

The use of the word by means something that has happened in the past.

No it doesn't. We've been through this before and repeptition won't make it right:

"By" can be either a preposition or an adverb and in this case is used to indicate how something is done not when. The use of "contacted" and "immediately" in the sentence do however indicate a sequence in time. See http://bit.ly/1bNyoGn

See http://bit.ly/1bIu9cM for your original error.

Sits back with lots of popcorn.

[zoltan]

If bases turn IMMEDIATELY why have the figures in the top picture p175 not turned BEFORE the final cavalry charge? Again the IMPLICATION is that no turn is made until all charge movement finishes!!

And should we also be considering the previously discussed (elsewhere) alternative viewpoints of:

Step 1. do all charges on the table
Step 2. do all responses to charges on the table
Step 3. fight impact

versus

Step 1. do one charge and all responses to it, fight impact
Step 2. do another charge and all responses to it, fight impact etc etc

[vexillia]

If bases turn IMMEDIATELY why have the figures in the top picture p175 not turned BEFORE the final cavalry charge? Again the IMPLICATION is that no turn is made until all charge movement finishes!!

Well said Bob. I suspect this may actually point to the nub of the problem.

Dave is stating the convention he (and others) use when they play. Like all conventions they are plausible but they remain conventions. Unfortunately, the text and diagrams are ambiguous and, as such, readily support alternative intepretations. No wonder Dave's been struggling to provide definitve proof for his views.

I remember DBMM had a lot of problems with conventions and I am sad to see this happpening here. When the DBMM author wouldn't help, the issues were tackled by the "group of wise men" who produced the DBMM Commentary. No need for this with FOG as the errata exist and this next comment points the way to a simple solution:

And should we also be considering the previously discussed (elsewhere) alternative viewpoints of:

Step 1. do all charges on the table
Step 2. do all responses to charges on the table
Step 3. fight impact

versus

Step 1. do one charge and all responses to it, fight impact
Step 2. do another charge and all responses to it, fight impact etc etc

Viewed this way it's just a clarification of the sequence of play. Surely the authors can sort this out rather than this circular and unedifying discussion.

[zoltan]

[Viewed this way it's just a clarification of the sequence of play. Surely the authors can sort this out rather than this circular and unedifying discussion.

The authors appear to be MIA with little interest in the ongoing development of FoG AM TT - no doubt fed up with our bickering on this forum.

Despite the early marketing hype, the promised regular digital updates have not materialised (Luddite effect) so those of us who joined the revolution are stuck with stranded assets.

I remain unclear as to whether or not the v.1 FAQs apply to the thoroughly reviewed and amended v.2. I would have expected the v.1 FAQs to be rendered irrelevant by the issue of a new version of the rules.

[dave_r]

The use of the word by means something that has happened in the past.

No it doesn't. We've been through this before and repeptition won't make it right:

"By" can be either a preposition or an adverb and in this case is used to indicate how something is done not when. The use of "contacted" and "immediately" in the sentence do however indicate a sequence in time. See http://bit.ly/1bNyoGn

See http://bit.ly/1bIu9cM for your original error.

Sits back with lots of popcorn.

No need for popcorn. The whole tense of the entire sentence is past. Contacted is another example indicating something that has happened previously.

[vexillia]

The whole tense of the entire sentence is past.

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"

As I said earlier the use of contacted and immediate gives a sequence in time but this does not mean the sentence is written in the past tense. This is in one of the complex future tenses. Not sure which and life's too short. To help you try this edit:

"[When] Bases [are] contacted on a side or rear edge, or by a rear corner, by an enemy flank or rear charge [they] are immediately turned 90 or 180 degrees" - Future tense.

This is slightly more elegant:

"[When] contacted on a side or rear edge, or by a rear corner, by an enemy flank or rear charge [bases] are immediately turned 90 or 180 degrees" - Future tense.

No one would ever write a set of instructions (rules) in the past tense. They are not history. They must always describe events yet to happen to the reader, or to put it another way they must tell the reader what to do when something happens at some point in the future.

[bbotus]

I remain unclear as to whether or not the v.1 FAQs apply to the thoroughly reviewed and amended v.2. I would have expected the v.1 FAQs to be rendered irrelevant by the issue of a new version of the rules.

I have not done a v1 FAQ comparison to the v2 RAW but I remember many clarifying points covered in the v1 FAQs are now in v2. I'm guessing the FAQs are no longer relevant.

btw, this discussion has gotten to the point where I don't know who is arguing what anymore.