Slitherine

rbodleyscott wrote:

rogerg wrote:You got it wrong.

The charge path cannot include any wheeling past the point at which the enemy would be contacted if they didn't evade.

This, of course, is not explicitly stated in the rule book, but is clarified in the FAQ.

It's clear in the FAQ but what is the rationale for making it that way Richard? I've had this happen to hoplites who just needed a slight wheel to hit some juicy MF only to be 'todgered' by some light foot. It seemed a bit daft that the hoplites wouldn't try and stick it to both. Or is it meant to be a 'tunnel vision' type of thing? It they were allowed to wheel more is there some ghastly cheese as a consequence?

grahambriggs wrote:It's clear in the FAQ but what is the rationale for making it that way Richard? I've had this happen to hoplites who just needed a slight wheel to hit some juicy MF only to be 'todgered' by some light foot. It seemed a bit daft that the hoplites wouldn't try and stick it to both. Or is it meant to be a 'tunnel vision' type of thing? It they were allowed to wheel more is there some ghastly cheese as a consequence?

More's to the point, and with no disrespect intended, but perhaps the FAQ is mis-named.

I mean an FAQ can't change a rule. An FAQ (to my way of thinking) is a document that helps people to understand the rules. So you get a bunch of people who frequently ask the question 'how many ranks shoot' and you say 'two... it's on page blah blah'. It's purpose is to answers the question and points them to the rules.

I don't believe we can have an FAQ that says 'this is how we're going to do it, but it isn't in the rules, so... well... just do it that way coz the FAQ says so'.

In this case it isn't interpreting a rule, it's creating a rule, and I'm not sure if that's such a good idea.

As the organiser of BMW said, "if it isn't in the rules I don't care what they say on the slitherine site..."

It's complicated, and I don't want to be a pain or anything like that, but it strikes me that if we start getting a list of 'official rulings' we'll end up with another "I called Phil last night"... which isn't the way I want this ruleset to go. I'm really enjoying playing with these rules. They are by far my ruleset of choice, and if I have to constantly updated an interp to be able to play I'll be saddened in the same way as I was saddened when DBM went to DBM version 7384118beta - which sorry we won't publish, we're just going to dump it somewhere on the net.

In my opinion a player who knows the rules well should be able to locate the relevant rule within the rule book. They should be able to say "this is the way it is played, and I'm so well versed in the FAQ that I don't need to look at it, I know where to find the reason for the interp within the rules... and here it is, you can't wheel past the point of contact, it's on page 7 para 3."

Sorry if I sound disrespectful, I'm certainly not meaning to come across that way, I'm just a little scared that's all!

Ian

Surely the solution here Ian is for the organisers to make it clear from the outset whether they intend to follow the FAQ or not?

I agree that, in principle, FAQs should only clarify. However, given the twin realities that the rule book it unlikely to be reprinted at all soon and that you can't catch everything in pre-launch testing it seems sensible to use the vehicle of the FAQ to be "clarifications and we didn't mean to write it that way"

grahambriggs wrote:Surely the solution here Ian is for the organisers to make it clear from the outset whether they intend to follow the FAQ or not?

I agree that, in principle, FAQs should only clarify. However, given the twin realities that the rule book it unlikely to be reprinted at all soon and that you can't catch everything in pre-launch testing it seems sensible to use the vehicle of the FAQ to be "clarifications and we didn't mean to write it that way"

Yes, I accept that. However, we also have to remember that the FAQ shouldn't additionally be used as a vehicle to highlite changes to the rules because 'well, it will be like that in version 2'. I mean, lets be realistic, we may not ever see a version 2. We may, and I hope we do, but nobody knows if it will definitely happen... and the Lord knows that I pray that FoG doesn't turn into an ongoing ever changing 'we'll never get it right, but >11 editions with clarrifications intermixed might be close'.

By all means the FAQ should be used as "Yes, this was fully what was intended under the writing of the rules, and we just didn't word it correctly", but I feel that it would be used beyond it's calling if it was used as "Yes, that's not what we wrote, but we're going to change it, so we might as well get used to it now".

If it's the latter... let me know now, coz I want to get off the boat.

We all know that version 2 is going to be so dramatically different from version 1. Cavalry may be more affected by terrain, Knights might be more expensive, Elephants may be allowed in BG's of 3. Who knows what it's going to look like (hopefully the authors have a vague idea) but I don't want the FAQ to turn into 'well, Elephants in BG's of 3 sounds like a good idea, lets put it in the FAQ', which I think this 'wheeling contact thingie' is risking becoming.

To clarrify my piont here...

If a solid line of Hoplites start to charge an enemy who are going to evade, the evaders are going to bug out as soon as possible. They are getting the hell out of dodge, and anyone left straggling is 'on their own'. They would probably start moving as soon as the trumpets were signalling the prepare for charge, thus they arent' there to move into contact with. If they are... they are dead. The VMD does a nice job of 'is the charge a feint or is it a "lets get 'em". Why the commander of the solid line can't say "We're going to charge. It's likely the skirmishers will run, so we're going to charge toward that OTHER unit over there... and if the skirmishers stay... well, we'll sandwich them".

I can't see a rationale for anything other than the above, and the rules as written don't disagree with my interp. The FAQ does... and I think that's dangerous, unless, as you say the authors original intent was to limit the wheel in charge.

Regards

Ian

I am not aware that the FAQ has changed the rules or introduced anything new. FoG is being widely played and some users interpret things in a way that was not conceived of by the original writers and testers.

For example, the current discussion about wheeling, just clarifies that the charge declaration comes before the evade, so cannot assume that there actually will be an evade. Hence, the direction of charge declaration is limited to what is possible with the bases in the position at the time of the declaration.
This is not a rule change. If a new version were published, this section might be expressed differently to avoid confusion.

rogerg wrote:I am not aware that the FAQ has changed the rules or introduced anything new. FoG is being widely played and some users interpret things in a way that was not conceived of by the original writers and testers.

For example, the current discussion about wheeling, just clarifies that the charge declaration comes before the evade, so cannot assume that there actually will be an evade. Hence, the direction of charge declaration is limited to what is possible with the bases in the position at the time of the declaration.
This is not a rule change. If a new version were published, this section might be expressed differently to avoid confusion.

Erm, no. It changes the rule. The rules as written say that I can put put the direction of my charge down with a big wheel. All that's required is that it can't be so big that it reduces the number of bases that would contact if the LF stand still. Of course, if they're right up close it wont. Seems cheesy to me. I can't see that the hoplites would much care if the LF were up close or a bit further away. But in game turns it makes a big difference.

grahambriggs wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

rogerg wrote:You got it wrong.

The charge path cannot include any wheeling past the point at which the enemy would be contacted if they didn't evade.

This, of course, is not explicitly stated in the rule book, but is clarified in the FAQ.

It's clear in the FAQ but what is the rationale for making it that way Richard?

It was a committee decision by the rules writing team following disputes (on this board) about which way it should be played.

grahambriggs wrote:Erm, no. It changes the rule.

Clearly those who interpret the RAW the other way will regard it as a change in the rules, but those who interpreted the rules in the same way as the FAQ won't.

The FAQ is just a way to resolve potential disputes.

If you prefer the "full half hour" argument, feel free to ignore the FAQ.

Hmm.... I think we should go back to determing the size of a gnats todger.....

grahambriggs wrote:

rogerg wrote:I am not aware that the FAQ has changed the rules or introduced anything new. FoG is being widely played and some users interpret things in a way that was not conceived of by the original writers and testers.

For example, the current discussion about wheeling, just clarifies that the charge declaration comes before the evade, so cannot assume that there actually will be an evade. Hence, the direction of charge declaration is limited to what is possible with the bases in the position at the time of the declaration.
This is not a rule change. If a new version were published, this section might be expressed differently to avoid confusion.

Erm, no. It changes the rule. The rules as written say that I can put put the direction of my charge down with a big wheel. All that's required is that it can't be so big that it reduces the number of bases that would contact if the LF stand still. Of course, if they're right up close it wont. Seems cheesy to me. I can't see that the hoplites would much care if the LF were up close or a bit further away. But in game turns it makes a big difference.

What you are doing is declaring an impossible move according to the current state of the board. Seems perfectly logicial that it be classed illegal even under the current rules so I dont see it as a rule change in any case. Something may occur later to make it possible (an evade) and something may occur to prevent a possible move (an intercept or a low VM roll). There is even a related precedent in the part where it says you cant make moves contingent on other outcomes.

Oh right, my apologies. I couldn't see how the RAW could be interpreted that way but clearly others can so that's fine. Odd though as the para giving the detailed sequence of player actions for charge and responce seems very specific. Not to worry.

Graham, I think this was the long and somewhat involved discussion that resulted in the FAQ item:

viewtopic.php?t=6312

Regards,
Peter

On this I happen to agree with Graham but I can loads of potential in how the FAQ can be applied. Mr Porter will love it, yet more evidence of how FoG stops you contacting lights. However now we are all clear that is how we will all play it.

Now that we have this FAQ, we need a new system of measurement to determine how you get a unit less than a gnat's todger away from it's enemy. Is measuring it in PicoTodgers appropriate? We have Movement Unit (MU), now what we we need is something less. How about Closer Up than a Gnat's Todger (CUGT for short)?

timmy1 wrote:On this I happen to agree with Graham but I can loads of potential in how the FAQ can be applied. Mr Porter will love it, yet more evidence of how FoG stops you contacting lights.

How exactly does this ruling stop you contacting lights? It in fact prevents you from reducing your chance of contacting them.

Richard

Sorry I was being provocative. However it can stop wheeling an attacking formation to get an extra base into contact, unless I have misread the FAQ (which is always possible).

timmy1 wrote:Richard

Sorry I was being provocative. However it can stop wheeling an attacking formation to get an extra base into contact, unless I have misread the FAQ (which is always possible).

What the FAQ 'ruling' prevents is charges ignoring the presence of enemy troops. If the skirmishers are willing to get really up front and personal with battle troops then they can distract them for a turn with the downside that they could well get caught if charged.