Slitherine

I have always played the rules as written and the diagrams certainly illustrate the one option only interpretation. Allowing a base to slide in the direction of the path of least resistance is NOT supported by this diagram.

Depends when you define the 1 option. Most things in the rules are defined at the time the BG is moved. If one treats this the same same way there is only 1 option ever, but as other troops move it can be different from the one that existed before that. This is true of evades, charges etc.

The diag is not conlcusive either way as it shows a position, and the words are technically correct in both cases for that position.

What it fails to deal to say is what happens if the Cv conform first and are now not where they are in the diag. So ambiguous on the diag. I have a feeling it might have started life as the first of two. The rules as written would to my mind support the Cv moving first and then conforming becoming possible.

As I said, interesting that one. Need to consult with my friends on it and sounds like it needs a consensus view and an FAQ. Don't think it affects life much in either case. May need to change the way I play it myself.

Si

Well the argument that the MF on the right, unable to conform to the right, could have slid left, but was blocked by the cav doesn't wash because the diagram clearly states

The foot would normally slide to the right, but cannot because of the presence of the second enemy battle group. They therefore stay where they are.

Seems pretty conclusive to me.
As to the argument that a base could be blocked from conforming by intervening bases which then move away, I would say that all possible conforms must be completed. There may be cases where more than one base could conform to the same enemy base, but the rules state that the base which has the shortest distance to conform fights against it.

Fighting offset "as if conformed" is preferable to someone deploying behind impassable terrain or angling toward the table edge to force an uncontestable overlap.

The foot would normally slide to the right, but cannot because of the presence of the second enemy battle group. They therefore stay where they are.

And this is indeed exactly true with the bases set out as they stand.

However, it does nothing at all to address the issue of what they then do if the Cav are not there but now conformed. Hence it is rather incomplete.

Certainly I have played from the outset that they would conform if room were available at the time they conform, which is to my mind what the rules say and what I thought we intended. I grant you that it is at first glance different to the diagram.

Suggest we store this one for now as arguments we need to go back to what we intended and we want to happen.

Simon

Here we have a case of a diagram depicting how to conform and what happens when you cannot. The caption clearly describes the procedure and arrows show the resultant outcome. The cav slide to their left (their valid conform, moving the shortest distance to line up with the enemy). This is consistant with all other illustrations of conforming in the book. The foot cannot conform by moving the shortest distance to line up (to the right) due to the presence of the enemy BG to their right. When a BG cannot conform by the shortest move it remains in place. The caption and diagram are not ambiguous.

There is no mention of the cav hindering a conform because in this case it doesn't. You can't claim that the cav could have blocked the conform of the foot before the cav conformed. The foot are required to conform if possible. If it were legal to conform to the left, the foot would have done so after the cav conformed.

Why am I arguing for the proper interpretation of the rules as illustrated in the rulebook with an author of said rules?
Am I nuts?

gozerius wrote: Am I nuts?

Do we need to answer that?

The diagram as I have said repeatedly is entirely unambiguous in the situation it represents, the issue is not that at all but whether it is incomplete. As far as I recall it is entirely correct in its intent on the specifics as shown. This is not the issue and you don't need to convince me of anything.

Here's the rub at a broader level that concerns me with my rather broader authors hat on ...

.... XXXX . YYYY. ZZZZ
.........AAAA.BBBB.CCCC

a) How does this confrom in your games given your interp please, assuming a,b,c are active?
b) Does it make any sense?
c) Do you think it matches the spirit of the rules?
d) Do you think it matches the authors intent?

Si

There has been a previous thread on this topic. Terry pointed out that there was nothing in the rules to suggest BG's conform one BG at a time, something some of us had been doing. The diagram is misleading, in that in illustrating one rule it ignores another.
Presumably this needs a FAQ correction about the diagram to state that the cavalry conforming permits the foot to conform.

Yes indeed. Terry certainly conforms them in order all the time in games we have played ... It clearly needs an FAQ, as the diag is misleading, unless we intended that to happen rigorously each time.

However if the diag comment was a rigorous rule without any ordering, then in the example above only AAAA would conform ..... and BBBB and CCCC would stay where they are. In 2 years of play I have never seen anyone do anything other than conform all 3 in such a situation and that clearly is the intent. I think I can safely assume that the vast majority of people playing the game would and have conformed all 3 in such siutations. Actually we did so with your Cv and Kn charging my Christian Nubians at the challenge (on my right). Is there anyone out there who hasn't conformed when having 2 BGs fighting 2 BGs in a straight line???

Hope that makes sense on the broader issues. Am consulting with RBS and TS at present....

Si

shall wrote:Yes indeed. Terry certainly conforms them in order all the time in games we have played ... It clearly needs an FAQ, as the diag is misleading, unless we intended that to happen rigorously each time.



Si

If the foot should conform to the left, then the diagram is just plain wrong and needs an erratum, not an FAQ.

You probably still need an FAQ to explain that a BG whose conform was formerly blocked by a BG that has since conformed must then conform.

There was a time when we conformed BG's one at a time by the phasing players choice of order. I certainly wasn't the only one doing it. It was Terry's reply to a previous thread that stopped us doing it. I do not remember how we started to conform one BG at a time. It would have been consistent with the diagram. I.e. foot first - can't conform so do not, cavalry do. A bound later the foot would then conform.

Now we just need some bright spark to invent an ambiguous situation for multiple BG's conforming (I can't think of one immediately, but I bet someone can.)

Certainly if my conform view is the one we want, then the Diagram has an important ommission that needs correcting, so yes this would need to go into the errata and ommissions bucket. Of course Terry and Richard may yet disagree with me - its happened before!

Do you all see my point though about a simple 2BG vs 2BG conform being illegal if you follow the diagram rigourously. Or am I missing something in my baby fatigue haze? It is such general objectives that conern me - certainly our objective is to tidy up the battlefield as much as possible with conforms. If you do not conform in order then you will have bizzare situations where 1 BG can conform but the other can't.

Roger, when your Hussite knights and cav charged my 4 wide archers we conformed both BGs - this seems eminetly sensible. But if one takes things as not ordered at all you could only have conformed the knights on my left section as the Cv couldn't move across to conform until the Knights had moved .... etc. This would happen in almost every game where more than a single BG charges .... or am I missing something obvious? And does anyone really onyl conform 1 BG in such a situation - I have never seen it done yet.

Can anyone direct me to this post of Terry's? Seems unlikely to me given how he conforms his figures in games, but of course anything is possible.

Si

As you say, we have a fundamental disagreement about the specifics of the information provided by the diagram on page 87. I accept the information presented as conclusive that the cav has conformed by the shortest move and the foot is unable due to the presence of the enemy to its right. This supports my contention that if it is physically impossible to move by the shortest distance to conform due to terrain impassible to the troops attempting to conform, a table edge, friends that cannot be shifted, or enemy, the troops do not conform, but fight as if conformed, as described on page 86.
You suggest that the information contained in the diagram is incomplete. If the diagram does not reflect the totality of the decision cycle which produced the result shown, or if the diagram fails to correctly conform the two battle groups in question, then it is broken and my arguments are chaff in the wind.

Simon, I can't remember the incident in our game. I don't think we are disagreeing though. The way I am playing it now ends up with the most conforming. In the book diagram both BG would be conformed left in the same bound.
It might be difficult to phrase a precise rule for the FAQ. The outcome for the book diagram should be explained, but I would leave it at that. The general rule is that BG's conform where they can by the shortest move. Phrasing a precise rule for multiple BG situations would probably be somewhat legalistic and lead to more problems.
We are having no problems with conforming in our games by applying the general principle. If there is only one way that all the BG's involved can conform, then that one way is, by definition, the shortest possible move. I think experience shows that there can be too many written rules. Tournament play leads to a custom and practice on interpretation, a case law approach. There are enough players on line for these interpretations to become wide spread.

Here we would conform the BG possible and then the 2nd once it was possible. I think we read 'shortest possible; to mean "not the shortest so if i can't i don't" but "that one is longer but possible so that's the one that's possible"...tho I agree the diagram shows the opposite.

Indeed I think we are agreeing and I think general practice is not literally consistent with the diagram.

I have deleted the drafts now but I have a feeling the diagram started life as 2 with the second showing the foot now conforming as therre was room and wonder whether in shedding one of them we forgot to add a sentence to the text in the diag.

Anyway the general principle is to conform as much as possible, and to allow that you have to allow sequencing.

Terry is in the US at present but I see him next week and will check with him too. RBS I know is not keen on anything that means the straight lines above wouldn't conform.

I don't think it needs much in an FAQ, just to say that if conforming one BG now allows another to conform then this is how it goes ... need to find some accurate words to do it though.

Thanks for all the input everyone.

Si

You all are in agreement that it's OK to ignore the rules as they are printed in the book. That is not playing by the rules. It is playing by convention. Pardon me if I accept the official rules definition of conforming as shown in the diagrams in the the rulebook. There is no need to rewrite the rules if you play the way the rules are written. Conforming requires the move that is the shortest to line up in full frontal contact, or overlap with an enemy base in contact. Every diagram in the book is consistant with that approach, even the one on page 87. In no example of play does a base move away from the shortest move necessary to line up. Page 87 clearly demonstrates that when the shortest move is blocked, you do not line up on the next best target. It is perfectly logical. If I am mostly squared off against A, I'm not going to sidestep over to B. In the diagram on page 87 several things are illustrated.
1. Bases must move the shortest distance necessary to line up (see page 70). The Cav move their shortest move to the left. The shortest move to line up the foot is to the right.
2. Bases that cannot conform by the shortest move do not conform (see page 86). The foot are unable to conform by the shortest move necessary and stay put.
3. The center base of the enemy BG fights as if the foot has conformed to the right and so counts as an overlap against either the cav or the foot.
Examples of conforming are given on page 72, page 87 and the sequence on pages 91 and 93. If there was even one instance of conforming to the nearest available unobstructed space when the shortest move is obstructed I would accept your argument.

shall wrote: This would happen in almost every game where more than a single BG charges .... or am I missing something obvious? And does anyone really onyl conform 1 BG in such a situation - I have never seen it done yet....Si

No. Never. It just seems so counterintuitive I'd never thought of it.

Otherwise when two battle lines clash slightly offset only one bg at the far flank would ever conform.

I dont think its necessary however the turn sequence could have a clarification to cover it:
"conform any BGs that can followed by any BGs that can conform due to space made by conforming BGs" (or something along those lines)

anthony

Does the description on page 72 mean nothing to you people?
"Bases move the shortest distance possible... to line up opposite enemy troops", the other bases of the battlegroup move to maintain formation. What you are failing to accept is that all bases in contact are required to line up on the base that is reached by the shortest move. Then the rest of the BG forms up on the conformed bases. This is confirmed by the diagram on page 87 which states that the foot, unable to line up "normally" ie. by the shortest move, remain in place.
I think what is tripping everyone up is the caveat "up to a base width" which seems to cause people to think that any base within a basewidth is a valid target of a conform. This is invalidated by the diagram on page 87 which clearly shows that the leftmost base of the foot must conform to the rightmost base of the enemy to its front. a careful reading of page 86 would seem to confirm this in that a base that cannot line up fights the one it most completely covers. Why? Because it is the base which should be conformed to. While sliding the opposite direction may be tidier in some instances, in others it just creates more confusion as bases that should be alligning are bumped out of the way to make room for bases that should by the rules be unable to conform. In many cases these "untidy" unconformed situations will not last long because the other player will have to try to conform in his own bound anyway. Some may argue that what's the big deal which way a base conforms. I would say it can have a huge impact on a combat. If my bases are forced to conform against the grain, I might lose an overlap, or the enemy might gain one. A line that is just a few "gnat's todgers" behind the corner of an impassible feature gets a free overlap. If the battlegroup angles toward the edge of the table, again a free overlap. And who wouldn't want a free advantage that close to the table edge, where losing is that much more risky?
I say stop trying to ignore the printed rules and play according to the examples of play provided in the book.

I think here we read 'shortest move possible' to be the one that is possible...so if 'your' shortest move isn't possible but what i would do once BG A conforms and leaves room for BG B to conform the other way, then that is the shortest move possible. I mean, maybe there is a bit of confusion w that diagram, but I truly think the spirit of the rules would have BGs conform if possible even after others have. But I can't say I'd get/stay too worked up about it.