Slitherine

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

Perfect

There is a solution to this problem of flank/rear charges. Just ban them

There are enough inconsistencies in the rules that without official input from the authors in the form of a FAQ we will never get anywhere.

To those who are interested, this is my approach:
Upon initial contact by the charger (see page 59), battle groups contacted by a flank charge (see page 60) immediately turn the file on that flank 90 degrees, in conformance with the rules for turning (see page 45), shifting back to maintain contact with the rest of the BG if necessary. If this is blocked by the charging BG, the charger is shifted straight back along its charge path to make room. The charging battle group then completes its charge.
Battle groups contacted by a rear charge (see page 60) turn the contacted bases 180 immediately upon contact.

gozerius wrote:There are enough inconsistencies in the rules that without official input from the authors in the form of a FAQ we will never get anywhere.

To those who are interested, this is my approach:
Upon initial contact by the charger (see page 59), battle groups contacted by a flank charge (see page 60) immediately turn the file on that flank 90 degrees, in conformance with the rules for turning (see page 45), shifting back to maintain contact with the rest of the BG if necessary. If this is blocked by the charging BG, the charger is shifted straight back along its charge path to make room. The charging battle group then completes its charge.
Battle groups contacted by a rear charge (see page 60) turn the contacted bases 180 immediately upon contact.

That would be my choice, too, and the simplest (my opinion only). However, the rules say different, unfortunately. As Graham astutely pointed out, the first example on page 175 shows the charge contact and step forward. Then the second example shows the bases turning. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. The diagrams make the wording clear.

In addition. the two diagrams also show that a base may not turn 180 if hit by a valid flank charge. Again, the diagrams make the wording about turning 90 or 180 on page 61 clear.

These conclusions are inescapable unless and until the authors advise of an error in text and/or picture.

bbotus wrote:That would be my choice, too, and the simplest (my opinion only). However, the rules say different, unfortunately. As Graham astutely pointed out, the first example on page 175 shows the charge contact and step forward. Then the second example shows the bases turning. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. The diagrams make the wording clear.
In addition. the two diagrams also show that a base may not turn 180 if hit by a valid flank charge. Again, the diagrams make the wording about turning 90 or 180 on page 61 clear.
These conclusions are inescapable unless and until the authors advise of an error in text and/or picture.

You’re not Sarah Palin in disguise are you

bbotus wrote:

gozerius wrote:There are enough inconsistencies in the rules that without official input from the authors in the form of a FAQ we will never get anywhere.

To those who are interested, this is my approach:
Upon initial contact by the charger (see page 59), battle groups contacted by a flank charge (see page 60) immediately turn the file on that flank 90 degrees, in conformance with the rules for turning (see page 45), shifting back to maintain contact with the rest of the BG if necessary. If this is blocked by the charging BG, the charger is shifted straight back along its charge path to make room. The charging battle group then completes its charge.
Battle groups contacted by a rear charge (see page 60) turn the contacted bases 180 immediately upon contact.

That would be my choice, too, and the simplest (my opinion only). However, the rules say different, unfortunately. As Graham astutely pointed out, the first example on page 175 shows the charge contact and step forward. Then the second example shows the bases turning. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. The diagrams make the wording clear.

In addition. the two diagrams also show that a base may not turn 180 if hit by a valid flank charge. Again, the diagrams make the wording about turning 90 or 180 on page 61 clear.

These conclusions are inescapable unless and until the authors advise of an error in text and/or picture.

These conclusions are yours, and yours alone.

Clearly the diagrams and rules, and importantly text on the diagrams contradict each other.

The only logical conclusion is that one of the three is wrong.

bbotus wrote:

gozerius wrote:There are enough inconsistencies in the rules that without official input from the authors in the form of a FAQ we will never get anywhere.

To those who are interested, this is my approach:
Upon initial contact by the charger (see page 59), battle groups contacted by a flank charge (see page 60) immediately turn the file on that flank 90 degrees, in conformance with the rules for turning (see page 45), shifting back to maintain contact with the rest of the BG if necessary. If this is blocked by the charging BG, the charger is shifted straight back along its charge path to make room. The charging battle group then completes its charge.
Battle groups contacted by a rear charge (see page 60) turn the contacted bases 180 immediately upon contact.

That would be my choice, too, and the simplest (my opinion only). However, the rules say different, unfortunately. As Graham astutely pointed out, the first example on page 175 shows the charge contact and step forward. Then the second example shows the bases turning. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. The diagrams make the wording clear.

In addition. the two diagrams also show that a base may not turn 180 if hit by a valid flank charge. Again, the diagrams make the wording about turning 90 or 180 on page 61 clear.

These conclusions are inescapable unless and until the authors advise of an error in text and/or picture.

I view it a little differently.

In terms of the page 175 diagram the bases hit by the flank charge cannot turn 180 to face the chargers. Or at least the top right base can't because you must not only turn but must also face the chargers. The top right base has been hit on it's flank edge. So a 180 turn would not face the chargers - assuming that means "the guy who hit you" sadly not defined.

I think the "face the chargers" aspect of the rule in effect means that if you are hit on a flank edge, you must turn 90 and can't turn 180. Similarly it means for a rear charge (which of course hits a rear edge) the target must turn 180 and not 90. So hopefully this might narrow the dispute to troops struck on a rear corner.

You seem terribly caught up in the letter of the law. But you must admit that your interpretation is just that, an opinion, reinforced by your local conventions.

gozerius wrote:You seem terribly caught up in the letter of the law. But you must admit that your interpretation is just that, an opinion, reinforced by your local conventions.

Well, in the field of rules following the letter is normally the standard approach unless there's a clear reason not to. And yes, because the rules here are not very tightly written there are some elements where you have to interpret what the meaning is and people interpret this in different ways.

What I was actually trying to do, and perhaps failing in your case, was to point out that the "facing the charges" part of the rule means that bases hit on a flank edge must turn 90 and do not have the option of turning 180.

gozerius wrote:You seem terribly caught up in the letter of the law. But you must admit that your interpretation is just that, an opinion, reinforced by your local conventions.

This is often the case where people like Graham who umpires at big shows. And to give him his due does so very well** and where required deviates from the written word. Whereas RBS will not hesitate to overwrite the written word with common sense.

If the rules contradict or appear to do so the umpire can only give an 'opinion' based on his knowledge of the ethos of the rules as a whole. Which if I may be so bold is 'to let troops get into contact where possible and not to let the minutiae get in the way'.

**Except for one appalling ruling at BritCon which meant my army collapsed in literally 2 minutes

Maybe its that ethos I oppose. I don't like playing a game in which one player or another uses a loophole or uberliteral interpretation to get an unintended advantage, especially when there are other aspects of the rules which point to other conclusions. I don't like the idea that the overriding consideration in a game is "As long as more bases can fight, it's legal." It leads to all sorts of odd results. "Flank" charges converting to rear charges, bases shooting twice at impact, arguments about just who turns to face, etc.
There is enough really good stuff in the rules that with just a bit more editing it could be a much more streamlined, and for me, enjoyable game. But I'm sure that every one on this site has an opinion on what that should be, and I'm also sure that we all don't agree on what would make the game more enjoyable.

Graham, you have beaten me.
I can't argue for logic in the face of evidence of illogical rulings by the authors themselves. Nor can I argue against the RAW that shows the bases not turning until after all charges are complete.

Greg Boeser

I think the "face the chargers" aspect of the rule in effect means that if you are hit on a flank edge, you must turn 90 and can't turn 180. Similarly it means for a rear charge (which of course hits a rear edge) the target must turn 180 and not 90. So hopefully this might narrow the dispute to troops struck on a rear corner.

Good, it narrows to the rear corner issue. I'm looking at the diagram and it shows the top right base hit on the side and the bottom right base hit on the rear corner. Granted the top right has no room to turn 90 but that does not prevent the bottom base from turning 180 and yet it didn't. Why not? It meets all the requirements of being forced to turn. And it clearly has room to turn 180.

P.S. to Dave

Clearly the diagrams and rules, and importantly text on the diagrams contradict each other.

The only logical conclusion is that one of the three is wrong.

If we set up an hypothesis and test it against the facts (diagrams, rules, text on the diagrams) and find the hypothesis does not fit, we don't say the facts are wrong. We through out the hypothesis.

gozerius wrote:Maybe its that ethos I oppose. I don't like playing a game in which one player or another uses a loophole or uberliteral interpretation to get an unintended advantage,
I can't argue for logic in the face of evidence of illogical rulings by the authors themselves.
Greg Boeser

I think if you and bbotus put a little more effort into receive rather than transmit you would get more from this forum. It was my original post and I was not trying to gain an advantage just work out an amicable solution to the unusual problem

Again with the authors 'illogical rulings' if you read what I said it was exactly the opposite. It was a strange situation where two battle lines met but by a fluke situation I would have had a file less fighting due to an internal overlap. RBS ruled that the file could fight in this situation.

We wish a Merry Christmas to all our readers

titanu wrote:

gozerius wrote:Maybe its that ethos I oppose. I don't like playing a game in which one player or another uses a loophole or uberliteral interpretation to get an unintended advantage,
I can't argue for logic in the face of evidence of illogical rulings by the authors themselves.
Greg Boeser

I think if you and bbotus put a little more effort into receive rather than transmit you would get more from this forum. It was my original post and I was not trying to gain an advantage just work out an amicable solution to the unusual problem

Again with the authors 'illogical rulings' if you read what I said it was exactly the opposite. It was a strange situation where two battle lines met but by a fluke situation I would have had a file less fighting due to an internal overlap. RBS ruled that the file could fight in this situation.

We wish a Merry Christmas to all our readers

That sounded almost civil Bob. Have you been on the sherry?

dave_r wrote:That sounded almost civil Bob. Have you been on the sherry?

Yes had a couple of pints last night

gozerius wrote:There is enough really good stuff in the rules that with just a bit more editing it could be a much more streamlined, and for me, enjoyable game. But I'm sure that every one on this site has an opinion on what that should be, and I'm also sure that we all don't agree on what would make the game more enjoyable.

Graham, you have beaten me.
I can't argue for logic in the face of evidence of illogical rulings by the authors themselves. Nor can I argue against the RAW that shows the bases not turning until after all charges are complete.

Greg Boeser

One of the things I like about this game is that there is less than 1% of this sort of stuff in the rules. 99%+ they are clear. Better than DBM was, for example.

One of the good things about having this debate, though there are still elements of impasse in it, is that it's made me aware that there are two ways to read this particular rule, so thanks to those who have pointed out those ways. If this comes up in one of my games now that'll help stop raised voices. To be honest it's the sort of thing where I'd probably go with whatever my opponent feels right. It's unlikely to matter much most of the time.

Not sure what I'll do when umpiring if this comes up; probably whatever seems most sensible at the time.

bbotus wrote:

I think the "face the chargers" aspect of the rule in effect means that if you are hit on a flank edge, you must turn 90 and can't turn 180. Similarly it means for a rear charge (which of course hits a rear edge) the target must turn 180 and not 90. So hopefully this might narrow the dispute to troops struck on a rear corner.

Good, it narrows to the rear corner issue. I'm looking at the diagram and it shows the top right base hit on the side and the bottom right base hit on the rear corner. Granted the top right has no room to turn 90 but that does not prevent the bottom base from turning 180 and yet it didn't. Why not? It meets all the requirements of being forced to turn. And it clearly has room to turn 180.

Yes that's a good point. I had been reading the meaning "the bases (plural) must turn to face the chargers so both bases must turn the same way". But there's nothing to support that in the rules (well, not without considerable twisting). Perhaps what the authors are trying to convey is "look; the main thing is being charged other than from the front is bad. We want it to be -- at impact and then - in melee for two directions. You turn 90 to flank attack and that in v2 that includes the rear corner. Yes the bases don't fit so you might not be able to turn them 90 but fight as if they do including take a minus for two directions."

I think the way I'll play this in future is step forward happens first. Then bases hit rear corner turn 90 (and if they don't fit leave them where they are but count them as having turned) any hit rear edge only turn 180 - latter to stop rear charge cheesiness.

grahambriggs wrote: Not sure what I'll do when umpiring if this comes up; probably whatever seems most sensible at the time.

Word is you're a great umpire, maybe that's why.

I think the way I'll play this in future is step forward happens first. Then bases hit rear corner turn 90 (and if they don't fit leave them where they are but count them as having turned) any hit rear edge only turn 180 - latter to stop rear charge cheesiness.

That was my other question. If the base doesn't turn, does it still count as fighting in 2 directions (because it isn't)? It gets to fight all dice against the front brigade with a better chance to beat it. Doesn't seem right.

bbotus wrote:

grahambriggs wrote: Not sure what I'll do when umpiring if this comes up; probably whatever seems most sensible at the time.

Word is you're a great umpire, maybe that's why.

I think the way I'll play this in future is step forward happens first. Then bases hit rear corner turn 90 (and if they don't fit leave them where they are but count them as having turned) any hit rear edge only turn 180 - latter to stop rear charge cheesiness.

That was my other question. If the base doesn't turn, does it still count as fighting in 2 directions (because it isn't)? It gets to fight all dice against the front brigade with a better chance to beat it. Doesn't seem right.

I'm of a normal size, unlike most people who are small; that helps in the trickier umpiring decisions...

Re the "fighting in two directions" thing. It does fight to flank/rear in the impact phase. And the rule says "fighting" not "facing". I think you have to treat it as fighting in two directions. Though I can't recall the exact wording of the close combat section, I think all sensible people would play it that way.