Slitherine

Thanks guys

Keep it coming constrcutively.

Clearly there is some confusion that needs clearing up one way or another in a consdired manner.

Si

shall wrote:All


Just to clarify my understanding of wheere the thoughts processes are coming from and whether it is all coming from diag on 87 which isn't in fact in the conforming section of the rules, and if played that way would result in everyone having to not conform a simple BL vs BL offset fight (which I have never seen anyone do yet in perhaps 1000 games of play and umpiring).



Si

This diagram is in the section "Melees that cannot line up", and is entitled "Melees that cannot line up". Most readers would conclude from this that the diagram shows a melee that cannot line up.

In addition the notes say that the infantry "Stay where they are", i.e. they do not line up. They also explain why they don't line up: because they would normally slide to the right but are blocked from doing so.

Now, if this diagram in fact shows a melee that can line up, then the diagram is wrong you need to issue an erratum to delete or replace it and I think page 70-71 would probably be interpreted correctly with no changes (i.e. you do the minimum necessary to conform, ignoring conform positions that are impossible).

Well, almost: There is a contradiction in these rules in that the first para on p70 tells you to conform to "the enemy bases in contact", but if a BG did a non-flank charge into a non-front rank base, the relevant bullet tells you to conform to the front rank base, which is not in contact.


In a simple offset BL vs BL fight, all BGs slide the same direction, so they do not obstruct each other from lining up, evn with the page 87 interpretation.

lawrenceg wrote:This diagram is in the section "Melees that cannot line up", and is entitled "Melees that cannot line up". Most readers would conclude from this that the diagram shows a melee that cannot line up.

This is a reasonable assumption Lawrence

The rules seem clear to me that there is no option to line up other than the move which is the shortest - if that is blocked then the figures remain stationary and the combat is played as if this conform had been made.

It is of course quite possible I am wrong, but I have yet to see a rules-based argument indicating another interpretation.

Now, if this diagram in fact shows a melee that can line up, then the diagram is wrong you need to issue an erratum to delete or replace it and I think page 70-71 would probably be interpreted correctly with no changes (i.e. you do the minimum necessary to conform, ignoring conform positions that are impossible).

Well, almost: There is a contradiction in these rules in that the first para on p70 tells you to conform to "the enemy bases in contact", but if a BG did a non-flank charge into a non-front rank base, the relevant bullet tells you to conform to the front rank base, which is not in contact.


In a simple offset BL vs BL fight, all BGs slide the same direction, so they do not obstruct each other from lining up, evn with the page 87 interpretation.

Largely my thoughts at present. On the BL one the fact that they all slide tes same direction is irrelevant if taken literally as the diag. If there is no ordering that released other BGs to then move, then a BG cannot slide into the normal position as it cannot shunt another one that is in contact already. Unless I am missing soemthing.

So

AAA BBBB
...xxxx.yyy

X and Y should go left. But if I take the argument made literally then yyy cannot due to xxx bocking such a confrom and it cannot be shunted as in edge contact ... etc. down a massive BL fight.

Si

shall wrote: In a simple offset BL vs BL fight, all BGs slide the same direction, so they do not obstruct each other from lining up, evn with the page 87 interpretation.

Largely my thoughts at present. On the BL one the fact that they all slide tes same direction is irrelevant if taken literally as the diag. If there is no ordering that released other BGs to then move, then a BG cannot slide into the normal position as it cannot shunt another one that is in contact already. Unless I am missing soemthing.

So

AAA BBBB
...xxxx.yyy

X and Y should go left. But if I take the argument made literally then yyy cannot due to xxx bocking such a confrom and it cannot be shunted as in edge contact ... etc. down a massive BL fight.

Si[/quote]

No need for yyy to shunt xxxx out of the way. xxxx will move out of the way of its own accord when it conforms.

If p87 is cancelled, then by your "made literally" argument you would get yyy going right, then xxxx going left if you chose to move yyy first, otherwise both going left. Is that what you intended? THis is actually a different argument from the one based on P87.

IMO conforming of different battlegroups can be simultaneous and if any are not simultaneous then the order must be the one that minimises the distance moved by each BG.

No need for yyy to shunt xxxx out of the way. xxxx will move out of the way of its own accord when it conforms.

If p87 is cancelled, then by your "made literally" argument you would get yyy going right, then xxxx going left if you chose to move yyy first, otherwise both going left. Is that what you intended? THis is actually a different argument from the one based on P87.

IMO conforming of different battlegroups can be simultaneous and if any are not simultaneous then the order must be the one that minimises the distance moved by each BG.

This exactly my point but a number of people are saying that this is not the case. FWIW I have always taken maximum conforming as the principle and if conforming A allows B to do so then A goes first.

Others have argued that there is no order, or simultaneous, and that it is as at seen at the start of the conform stage. In truth nowhere do we say that they are simultaneous, or that one chooses the order to max conforms - which is a general principle when order matters within a sub-phase. I think this is the source of the issues and the "rule lawyer" argument has been that the diag on 87 is only valid if there is no ordering - which is fair - or in fact it would be a melee that can conform - to the left in both cases.

My personal view is that the diag lost some text from a sequence of 2 and became something else alas. I seem to recall it being the first of two.

Any further thoughts?

Si

shall wrote:All

As there is some confusion over conforming - and we have 7 options here - I am prioritising an official clarry on it for the next FAQ and working on it next week. We all agree that we do not want an "I spoke to Phil" mentality, and indeed the forum and FAQ are the tools for that. Anything on the forum is a personal position of an author until and FAQ - albeit often it is simply a clarification that needs nothing further.

I have asked all 3 authors what they intended on this one. The general principle of conforming is very simple - tidy up as much room allows. It is not IMHO healthy to have some minor technicality get in the way of it, although given we have set the rules up to work perfectly well with no conforming it doesn't do great harm either.

A couple of genuine questions to assist me creating this as I am swamped at present so cannot spend my usual time going through everything ...

1) Where do we say a BASE must conform to an enemy in contact with it? This seems to be cited a lot. Unless I am missing something I think we have said a BG must conform to bases in contact with it ... which is rather different. See opening para on page 70 read exaclty as written. Or am I missing something else? So the BG cannot conform to other things, and must stay in contact, but not necessarily the same bases. Haven't looked at the above enough yet to see if it makes any difference, but on a first read just saw things quoted that seems different.

I don't think you do. I suspect the problem is that you line up with enemy bases and people are assuming that that means bases line up with bases - but you are actualy talking about BGs not bases.

2) We say that you go up to 1 base-width sideways on the shortest distance possible in the conform section (but then as I have said have a diag which is incomplete later in the book in a different section on page 87 that need clarifiying one way or the other). Taking conforming alone, why wouldn't you go a longer distance if there is one that is possible and the other isn't at the time of doing (all the rules working that way).

No you don't - no maximum distance is ever specified - if it were it would preclude the "teleporting" effect of a non-flank charge that hit the flank conforming to the front.

Just to clarify my understanding of wheere the thoughts processes are coming from and whether it is all coming from diag on 87 which isn't in fact in the conforming section of the rules, and if played that way would result in everyone having to not conform a simple BL vs BL offset fight (which I have never seen anyone do yet in perhaps 1000 games of play and umpiring).

While it isn't in the rules on conforming it does rely on them, and uses them as written. A BL would only not conform if both ends needed to conform towards the middle. If you say a BG conforms to the nearest available position you start to get strange effects - like a valid rear charge on the middle of a line conforming to the front side of the line.

Thanks for the help. Will fix with a good clarry once all thoughts gathered with your help.

Si

shall wrote:

No need for yyy to shunt xxxx out of the way. xxxx will move out of the way of its own accord when it conforms.

If p87 is cancelled, then by your "made literally" argument you would get yyy going right, then xxxx going left if you chose to move yyy first, otherwise both going left. Is that what you intended? THis is actually a different argument from the one based on P87.

IMO conforming of different battlegroups can be simultaneous and if any are not simultaneous then the order must be the one that minimises the distance moved by each BG.

This exactly my point but a number of people are saying that this is not the case. FWIW I have always taken maximum conforming as the principle and if conforming A allows B to do so then A goes first.

Others have argued that there is no order, or simultaneous, and that it is as at seen at the start of the conform stage. In truth nowhere do we say that they are simultaneous, or that one chooses the order to max conforms - which is a general principle when order matters within a sub-phase. I think this is the source of the issues and the "rule lawyer" argument has been that the diag on 87 is only valid if there is no ordering - which is fair - or in fact it would be a melee that can conform - to the left in both cases.

My personal view is that the diag lost some text from a sequence of 2 and became something else alas. I seem to recall it being the first of two.

Any further thoughts?

Si

I think you need to have conforming done one BG at a time - and you keep going untill no BG can conform. Conforming is not a series of discrete actions that take place one after another, it is the reforming that happens as the combat spreads from discrete charges to continuous amorphus melee and also a game mechanic that simplifies the situation by tidying up to show who is fighting who.
P87 clearly shows that the foot never considers going left - the only reason given for not aligning is that the enemy blocks them - if conforming left was a possability it would have to say why it can't conform left.

shall wrote:My personal view is that the diag lost some text from a sequence of 2 and became something else alas. I seem to recall it being the first of two.

Any further thoughts?

Si

I'm still convinced conform rules should state in primis what should be the final result. Then, rules should list the options you can have to achieve this. The philosophy of the rules should be to conform BGs as much as possible. IMO, just the Cat of the photo couldn't conform, because they contacted opponent which have different angle, and foot are contacted also by other opponent (the Cavs) so they cannot conform too. There could be an extreme option: you can conform in turn of either side and you can rotate/shift all BG involved to achieve conformation. I mean RH BG of foot could rotate to align in facing to LH BG of foot and so also Cat can conform. I guess this could be too extreme and could led to more problem than this can resolve

Just to say the team has reconvened and is in action on this one.

More thoughts soon.

Si

All the thought and effort is appreciated. Also, that you guys take time to still connect here to help with questions and things.

Always a pleasure .. maybe I can get a game and beer next time I visit my friends in London Ontario!

Si

shall wrote:Always a pleasure .. maybe I can get a game and beer next time I visit my friends in London Ontario!

Si

hey..anytime....am an hour from there...i'll even drag Deadtorius along

I would most certainly be dragged willingly even
better save my pocket change to buy some beers for our potential English ambassodor of FoG

Everyone is in agreement that to conform every base in contact with the enemy must pivot and/or slide the minimum necessary to line up on an enemy base or a valid overlap position. We are not in agreement as to what those words mean. Fortunately the authors have provided several diagrams with text which, when studied and accepted, further clarify the exact meaning of those words. The diagrams in question are on page 72 and 87. Page 72 shows how bases are to correctly conform when contacting the enemy at different angles. Page 87 shows what happens when the valid conform position is physically blocked. If blocked they do not move at all. That a conforming base may end up lining up on an enemy base which it did not contact in the impact phase is clearly shown to be legal by the positions of the conformed troops in the diagrams on page 72 and 87, as well as the Impact/Melee combat sequence shown on pages 91 and 93. That the minimum distance necessary is the shortest distance regardless of other factors is clearly demonstrated by the diagram on page 87. I assume that all conforming is simultaneous because otherwise we run into the situation of troops whose conforms are mutually blocked. If all conforming is simultaneous however, adjacent BGs which are required to conform will never block each other except in those instances where two bases would be conforming to the same space, or when some outside influence prevents a conform.

Again, despite Simon's protestations to the contrary, I find the diagram on page 87 to be fully compliant with the rules as written. It clearly shows a situation in which the BG of foot is prevented from moving its bases the minimum distance necessary to fully line up with the enemy by the presence of the enemy BG to its right. Therefore it stays put, fighting as if it had conformed, as described on page 86.
The rules and diagrams on pages 70-72 and 86-87 are complimentary and harmonious. They must be read and interpreted as a whole and not as two distinctly seperate subjects.
There are three possible conforming situations:
Simple (or normal) conform - Lining up bases in full frontal contact or overlap whith the enemy's front.
Conforming after a flank charge.
Conforming after contacting the enemy flank (only) by other than a legal flank charge.
If physically impossible to conform according to the requirements of each situation, there is no conform.
If there is no conform you fight as if you had conformed.
Nowhere in the rules does it say or show that if you can't line up by the shortest move, you line up by the next shortest move. In each diagram, bases move the shortest distance to fully line up, or in the case of page 87, where the shortest move is blocked and the bases remain in place.
If the authors intended something else then the diagrams and rules sections need to be reviewed, retracted, and replaced.

I don't think it is balck and white as written yet I'm afraid but we are in dicsussion to fix it with an FAQ.

In the diag on page 72 it says you go "shortest distance possible, up to 1 base width in order to line up".

the issue is what is defined as "shortest distance possible" ... is that pre or post the impossibility created by the obstacle.

I am not wedded to either view, and indeed have seen 100s of people play it slightly differently, so would prefer to clarify one way or the other - be it my own preference or a different one.

Hope that makes sense.

Si

shall wrote:I don't think it is balck and white as written yet I'm afraid but we are in dicsussion to fix it with an FAQ.

In the diag on page 72 it says you go "shortest distance possible, up to 1 base width in order to line up".

the issue is what is defined as "shortest distance possible" ... is that pre or post the impossibility created by the obstacle.

I am not wedded to either view, and indeed have seen 100s of people play it slightly differently, so would prefer to clarify one way or the other - be it my own preference or a different one.

Hope that makes sense.

Si

NB On page 70 the text says "minimum necessary" and it is not limited to 1 base width.

My preference would be for conforming to be taken out of the rules altogether as the combat system works perfectly well without it. However, the authors have made clear on numerous occasions that that'll only happen at the Greek ides, so I'll be happy with any conclusion that makes all references in the rules conform to each other.

Ha ha very good !!

We will see what we can do. Indeed it is an area that seems to work via partial text and two diagrams, which is creating a little fun a we hammer the details to breaking point. However it isn't really a major problem in games with mildly different versions even.

The game works fine without conforms. To be honest we considered it and just felt it might be a step too far in vs 1.0 ...now when we get to 2.0 of course with everyone now comfortable with the main mechanics....who knows.

Haven't had a game for 3 weeks so off to box up some figures!!! Hurrah!

Si

shall wrote:I don't think it is balck and white as written yet I'm afraid but we are in dicsussion to fix it with an FAQ.

In the diag on page 72 it says you go "shortest distance possible, up to 1 base width in order to line up".

the issue is what is defined as "shortest distance possible" ... is that pre or post the impossibility created by the obstacle.

I am not wedded to either view, and indeed have seen 100s of people play it slightly differently, so would prefer to clarify one way or the other - be it my own preference or a different one.

Hope that makes sense.

Si

What it actually says is
"Bases move (shift or pivot or both) the shortest distance possible, and sideways up to 1 base width in order to line up opposite enemy troups."
The way I read that is that the sideways shift is not restricted by the minimum distance requirement, and that the shift/pivot is not restricted by the up to 1 base width limit.

shall wrote:Ha ha very good !!

We will see what we can do. Indeed it is an area that seems to work via partial text and two diagrams, which is creating a little fun a we hammer the details to breaking point. However it isn't really a major problem in games with mildly different versions even.

The game works fine without conforms. To be honest we considered it and just felt it might be a step too far in vs 1.0 ...now when we get to 2.0 of course with everyone now comfortable with the main mechanics....who knows.

Haven't had a game for 3 weeks so off to box up some figures!!! Hurrah!

Si

When I first read FoG, my feeling about the conforming rules was that it seemed like a good solution to many of the the geometry artifacts that plagued DBx and introduced much of the game-iness that those rules had. So far in the games of FoG that I've played, I haven't seen issues with conforming but it appears that they may arise. One thing I would be concerned about would be if conforming was to be dropped without enough consideration of whether it would introduce issues like the DBx geometric ones where getting exactly the right angle for your troops, or having a corner of an element in exactly the right place could be decisive in a game. I'm by no means certain that removing conforming would break the rules but my feeling its that it might have some potential to do so.

Chris