Slitherine

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.

Sensible--absolutely. BUT, page 94 "Fighting The Enemy In Two Directions: "A BG only counts as fighting enemy in 2 directions in melee if it has bases turned at 90 or 180 degrees to each other and it is in melee with different enemy BGs on different facings." So it sounds like if a base doesn't have room to turn to face a flank charge, they don't have to take the 2 direction minus POA in melee. UGH! Thoughts?

bbotus wrote:

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.

Sensible--absolutely. BUT, page 94 "Fighting The Enemy In Two Directions: "A BG only counts as fighting enemy in 2 directions in melee if it has bases turned at 90 or 180 degrees to each other and it is in melee with different enemy BGs on different facings." So it sounds like if a base doesn't have room to turn to face a flank charge, they don't have to take the 2 direction minus POA in melee. UGH! Thoughts?

You are still wrong about having to turn 90 degrees to face a flank charge. If you can't you turn 180. Then this problem goes away.

bbotus wrote:

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.

Sensible--absolutely. BUT, page 94 "Fighting The Enemy In Two Directions: "A BG only counts as fighting enemy in 2 directions in melee if it has bases turned at 90 or 180 degrees to each other and it is in melee with different enemy BGs on different facings." So it sounds like if a base doesn't have room to turn to face a flank charge, they don't have to take the 2 direction minus POA in melee. UGH! Thoughts?

You are still wrong about having to turn 90 degrees to face a flank charge. If you can't you turn 180. Then this problem goes away.

You are still wrong about having to turn 90 degrees to face a flank charge. If you can't you turn 180. Then this problem goes away.

Dave, I'm sorry, but I'm not following you. Please rephrase.

bbotus wrote:

You are still wrong about having to turn 90 degrees to face a flank charge. If you can't you turn 180. Then this problem goes away.

Dave, I'm sorry, but I'm not following you. Please rephrase.

This problem occurs when you are unable to turn to face a flank charge - if you turn 180 then you are facing in two directions after the charge.

Therefore no problem.

dave_r wrote:

bbotus wrote:

You are still wrong about having to turn 90 degrees to face a flank charge. If you can't you turn 180. Then this problem goes away.

Dave, I'm sorry, but I'm not following you. Please rephrase.

This problem occurs when you are unable to turn to face a flank charge - if you turn 180 then you are facing in two directions after the charge.

Therefore no problem.

I would agree except for one problem. The example on page 175 shows a base (actually 2 bases) charged in the flank that could turn 90, so they did not turn. They both could have turned 180 and should have following your statement. But they did not. Can you explain why they didn't turn?

bbotus wrote:I would agree except for one problem. The example on page 175 shows a base (actually 2 bases) charged in the flank that could turn 90, so they did not turn. They both could have turned 180 and should have following your statement. But they did not. Can you explain why they didn't turn?

One appreciates that most Americans are intellectually challenged but you do seem to struggle with the simplest of concepts. There is an anomaly between the words in the text and the diagram.

Dave is trying.

No what I meant to say was Dave is trying to explain this in his oafish Northern way

Merry Christmas

titanu wrote:

bbotus wrote:I would agree except for one problem. The example on page 175 shows a base (actually 2 bases) charged in the flank that could turn 90, so they did not turn. They both could have turned 180 and should have following your statement. But they did not. Can you explain why they didn't turn?

One appreciates that most Americans are intellectually challenged but you do seem to struggle with the simplest of concepts. There is an anomaly between the words in the text and the diagram.

Dave is trying.

No what I meant to say was Dave is trying to explain this in his oafish Northern way

Merry Christmas

I really don't care for your insult. I don't think it fits in this forum. What I would like is an explanation of this apparent inconsistency. If you can give a good one, I'll accept it and modify my thinking. So far I have not heard any explanation worth considering.

It's called an impasse. the rules say one thing on one page, indicate another on a different page. Dave and others have chosen to ignore the example of play because it is inconsistent with their interpretation of the rule. Simple as that. No amount of arguing will change their minds, so either accept their version, or choose to play it as you see fit. But know that you are up against a strongly held convention which isn't likely to be changed by any amount of argument. Unless the authors issue a clarification, the impasse will remain. But the authors may side with convention because that is how most people in the UK seem to be playing it.

It's like the story of the person rear ended at a stop sign on a country road. The person who hit him is a local and yells at him for causing the accident because nobody stops for that sign.

gozerius wrote:It's called an impasse. the rules say one thing on one page, indicate another on a different page. Dave and others have chosen to ignore the example of play because it is inconsistent with their interpretation of the rule. Simple as that. No amount of arguing will change their minds, so either accept their version, or choose to play it as you see fit. But know that you are up against a strongly held convention which isn't likely to be changed by any amount of argument. Unless the authors issue a clarification, the impasse will remain. But the authors may side with convention because that is how most people in the UK seem to be playing it.

It's like the story of the person rear ended at a stop sign on a country road. The person who hit him is a local and yells at him for causing the accident because nobody stops for that sign.

Your example is wrong. Consider this purely hypothetical situation - 99% of people are playing the game in a certain way and 1% of the people would like to play it in a different way that causes problems.

Now ask the following question: Are the 99% of people likely to change their playing style?

The authors have previously noted that if their is an anomaly between written rules and a diagram, then the rules take precedence.

I much prefer the original example:

gozerius wrote:It's like the story of the person rear ended at a stop sign on a country road. The person who hit him is a local and yells at him for causing the accident because nobody stops for that sign.

Your choice of example merely serves to imply that your view is right because you are in the 99% category and that crowd wisdom is always correct:

dave_r wrote:Consider this purely hypothetical situation - 99% of people are playing the game in a certain way and 1% of the people would like to play it in a different way that causes problems.

Of course it may not be as these extracts from wikipedia demonstrate:

• Wisdom-of-the-crowds research routinely attributes the superiority of crowd averages over individual judgments to the elimination of individual noise,[5] an explanation that assumes independence of the individual judgments from each other. Thus the crowd tends to make its best decisions if it is made up of diverse opinions and ideologies.
• Crowds tend to work best when there is a correct answer to the question being posed, such as a question about geography or mathematics.[9]
• The wisdom of the crowd effect is easily undermined. Social influence can cause the average of the crowd answers to be wildly inaccurate,

Closed groups, like UK based FOG AM players who play in a lot of competitions, are very vulnerable to groupthink a well known flaw in decision making:

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an incorrect or deviant decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

Merry Christmas.

vexillia wrote:I much prefer the original example:

gozerius wrote:It's like the story of the person rear ended at a stop sign on a country road. The person who hit him is a local and yells at him for causing the accident because nobody stops for that sign.

Your choice of example merely serves to imply that your view is right because you are in the 99% category and that crowd wisdom is always correct:
extracts from wikipedia demonstrate

Must be true. It's on Wikipedia....

Except the problem here is that the problem has been discussed properly. There has been no "crowd wisdom" applied. In fact, the only person whose attempted to guage numbers was the one in the minority.

So your argument is in reality, a load of tosh. But don't stop that from letting you have a merry christmas

dave_r wrote:So your argument is in reality, a load of tosh.

You would say that wouldn't you - especially if my arguement about groupthink is right.

Have fun.

Having read and re-read this thread, book in hand, I've come to my decision - better make it 98% v 2%

vexillia wrote:

dave_r wrote:So your argument is in reality, a load of tosh.

You would say that wouldn't you - especially if my arguement about groupthink is right.

Have fun.

Clearly this argument is non-sensical as it relies on the fact that once everybody comes to the same conclusion, they are then inevitably wrong.

Apart from that it's got loads going for it.

Being way up here in Alaska, I really don't care about group-think. All I want to do is understand the rules correctly. I understand that the authors say the rules take precedent over examples but that does not automatically mean the examples are wrong.

Dave, what evidence do you have that the examples on page 175 are wrong other than the conclusion you have come to about how to interpret the rules? At this point i see 2 propositions, one says the examples are wrong and the other says the examples and rules are in argreement. I cannot in good faith say the examples are wrong based only on an interpretation of the rules. You have to have something more than that. What is it?

The authors said once not to take the examples out of context, and in version one there were a few errata issued dealing with a couple diagrams. But they never gave blanket permission to ignore the examples of play. That would be like ignoring the combat tables.
Case in point: On page 78 there is a BG which is purportedly conforming after a flank charge. The diagram shows the end position of the BG after the charge. The bases on the flank have turned 90 to face (the whole file turned in accordance with the rule for turning 90 degrees (which to me indicates that the second rank base was not eligible to fight in the impact phase. This is appears to be contradicted in the diagram on 175. Hmmmm ) Much discussion was made about whether the charging BG did in fact qualify as a flank charge because the bases seemed not to have met the requirements of a flank charge. The author declared that the discussion was missing the point that the diagram was showing how a BG conforms to a BG which has turned to face, and did not concern itself with whether the BG had met the requirement for a flank charge. By the authority of the diagram the BG had met the requirement and the target BG had responded. Now the example was showing how the BG conforms. It was not to be used to determine eligibility for a flank charge, which is clearly spelled out in the rules. We have to take it on faith that the charger met the requirement and then wheeled to arrive at the final position.
An example purporting to show how a BG reacts to a flank charge and rear charge can hardly be said to be out of context when the rule in question is how does a BG react to a flank charge.

bbotus wrote:Being way up here in Alaska, I really don't care about group-think. All I want to do is understand the rules correctly. I understand that the authors say the rules take precedent over examples but that does not automatically mean the examples are wrong.

Dave, what evidence do you have that the examples on page 175 are wrong other than the conclusion you have come to about how to interpret the rules? At this point i see 2 propositions, one says the examples are wrong and the other says the examples and rules are in argreement. I cannot in good faith say the examples are wrong based only on an interpretation of the rules. You have to have something more than that. What is it?

Are you a complete half-wit?

The rules state (and this has been quoted many times previously):

"Bases contacted on a side or rear edge, or a rear corner, by an enemy flank or rear charge are immediately turned 90 or 180 degrees to face the chargers"

How can you possibly interpret this any other way than saying you turn 90 OR 180 degrees to face a flank or rear charge?

gozerius wrote:The authors said once not to take the examples out of context, and in version one there were a few errata issued dealing with a couple diagrams. But they never gave blanket permission to ignore the examples of play. That would be like ignoring the combat tables.
Case in point: On page 78 there is a BG which is purportedly conforming after a flank charge. The diagram shows the end position of the BG after the charge. The bases on the flank have turned 90 to face (the whole file turned in accordance with the rule for turning 90 degrees (which to me indicates that the second rank base was not eligible to fight in the impact phase. This is appears to be contradicted in the diagram on 175. Hmmmm ) Much discussion was made about whether the charging BG did in fact qualify as a flank charge because the bases seemed not to have met the requirements of a flank charge. The author declared that the discussion was missing the point that the diagram was showing how a BG conforms to a BG which has turned to face, and did not concern itself with whether the BG had met the requirement for a flank charge. By the authority of the diagram the BG had met the requirement and the target BG had responded. Now the example was showing how the BG conforms. It was not to be used to determine eligibility for a flank charge, which is clearly spelled out in the rules. We have to take it on faith that the charger met the requirement and then wheeled to arrive at the final position.
An example purporting to show how a BG reacts to a flank charge and rear charge can hardly be said to be out of context when the rule in question is how does a BG react to a flank charge.

On the example on page 78 we don't know where the charging battle group started, nor how many bases were contacted in the charge. That makes everything you have said guesswork.

The point is, we don't discard the information given in the diagram because we think something else should have happened.
Page 175 shows bases not turning 90 because they are blocked by another battlegroup which has charged the target's rear. They do not turn 180. Your claim that the rule allows both is disproven by the statement that the bases contacted by the flank charge would turn 90 if there was room to do so, but they do not turn at all. It goes further to say that both contacted bases fight, which I don't like, but that's what the rules say, so I'm stuck with it. The diagram shows the final position of all battlegroups involved in the combat, it does not show interim steps, like stepping forward because they are irrelevant in this case.
The charge depicted in the OP is a flank charge as defined on page 60, not a rear charge, so you don't turn 180. That's just lazy carryover from V1 when flank and rear charges weren't defined, and by convention people just did whatever seemed best. We now have defined parameters for both flank charges and rear charges and the example of play clearly shows that bases contacted by a flank charge do NOT turn 180. I accept the examples of play as integral to the rules. To choose to ignore them is presumptuous and places you in an awkward position of defending the rules against themselves.