Slitherine

in the rule the only restriction to form Orb, is to be 4 wide or less. So why a column couldn't expand in two wide to form orb?

the rules also indicate that you cannot form or leave Orb formation in close combat. So How do to do when a 4 Bases BG in two wide in close combat, lost one base? He has got only 3 bases and so can't form ORB ? , but the rule say that he cannot leave the formation. ?????

Rules don't cover that directly, but the principle in mind was a maximum of 2 wide so I would guess all 3 authors would allow it. FWIW I would as clearly in the spirit of the rules. Doubt we really considered a 1 wide 2 deep foramtion. I wouldn't want columns forming orb though so therein lies the trick I suppose.

FWIW if I were to pick a fuller wording to cover this unusual one it would be:

Orb can be formed from a formation 2 bases wide, or 1 base width if only 2 bases deep (and therefore a fighting formation and not a column). A contraction can be included in the move if outside a restricted area.

Not keen to clog up FAQs and rulebooks with too much about orbs.

Si

zeitoun wrote:in the rule the only restriction to form Orb, is to be 4 wide or less. So why a column couldn't expand in two wide to form orb?

the rules also indicate that you cannot form or leave Orb formation in close combat. So How do to do when a 4 Bases BG in two wide in close combat, lost one base? He has got only 3 bases and so can't form ORB ? , but the rule say that he cannot leave the formation. ?????

There is a difference between "forming" and "remaining in".

shall wrote:FWIW if I were to pick a fuller wording to cover this unusual one it would be:

Orb can be formed from a formation 2 bases wide, or 1 base width if only 2 bases deep (and therefore a fighting formation and not a column). A contraction can be included in the move if outside a restricted area.

1 base width 4 elements deep of pike is a fighting formation.

Best wishes,
Matthew

MCollett wrote:1 base width 4 elements deep of pike is a fighting formation.

Best wishes,
Matthew

True, but difficult to realize. I haven't rules at hand, but I don't think pikes BG could be less than 8 bases at start. So if reduced to only 4 bases they are rout unless superior.

IMO, since orb is a defensive formation, a BG should enter in a such formation in a legal way. So, no orb if BG should expand or contract more than 2 files. More, no "hasty squares" possible, because it's out of scope of rules.

shall wrote:All very interesting .... but suggest you all simply read the orb bit in the FAQ/ already on this forum.

Can Orb be formed in a restricted area?
Yes and no. You cannot contract in a restricted area, but you can turn. When forming Orb you contract to 2 wide if not already 2 wide. So you can form Orb in a restricted area if you are already 2 wide and do not need to contract. You cannot form Orb if wider.
Rationale: If you are already in the right formation all you are doing is turning spear points outwards, but to engage in a big contraction just in front of the enemy would be rather dangerous.

Indeed you have to contract to 2 bases to form orb.

You can't contract in an RA so need to be 2 base width already to do it, reflecting complexity thereof when near to enemy.

Outside an RA you can do it from 4 bases wide.

Si

Explain how a BG that is 2 bases wide can contract to 2 bases wide.
Now explain how it contracts to 2 bases wide but doesn't contract.

marioslaz wrote:

MCollett wrote:1 base width 4 elements deep of pike is a fighting formation.

True, but difficult to realize. I haven't rules at hand, but I don't think pikes BG could be less than 8 bases at start.

Most pike are in 8s or 12s, but there are a few 4s (e.g. mercenaries in WotR English, Swiss in Medieval Burgundian).

Best wishes,
Matthew

Explain how a BG that is 2 bases wide can contract to 2 bases wide.

We have said from the outset that the rules are written in a non-legalise way by intent and with a view to the players applying some commmon sense and intelligence in their interpretation. Such an approach has clearly been a big success, and is widely supported.

The problem you have - in nearly every stream - is that despite being told the over-riding philosophy, you seem unable to engage in a discussion within such a philosophy and you are determined by any means possible to create an argument rather than support progress. This is not supposed to be a Monty-Python sketch.

Given the philosophy I don't see why I would need to explain the above would I? Isn't it obvious?

Simon

Indeed the 4 deep pike is awkards because it is a fighting formation rather han representation of a column, so yep would challenge words a bit. I gues one would create an exclusion for Pikes to cover that.

Anyway we are not about to rewrite the words for such a minor issue. FWIW my view on the 2 deep 1 wide trairi if asked to umpire it would be (personal view but I suspect supported by the others):

1. It is a fighting formation not a column
2. It is less than or equal to 2 wide when it forms
3. Thus is should be allowed to form
4. It stayts 2 deep and reverses te rear rank

This abive seems consistent with the intent/philosophy of the rules in a consistent way.

Clearly having not written a legalise book deliberately, it is a special situation that this forum is there to resolve.

Si

shall wrote:

Explain how a BG that is 2 bases wide can contract to 2 bases wide.

We have said from the outset that the rules are written in a non-legalise way by intent and with a view to the players applying some commmon sense and intelligence in their interpretation. Such an approach has clearly been a big success, and is widely supported.

The problem you have - in nearly every stream - is that despite being told the over-riding philosophy, you seem unable to engage in a discussion within such a philosophy and you are determined by any means possible to create an argument rather than support progress. This is not supposed to be a Monty-Python sketch.

Given the philosophy I don't see why I would need to explain the above would I? Isn't it obvious?

Simon

Without some psychic ability to read your mind I can't know what you, or Richard, or Terry, indend. I can only go by what you actually write, thus if you use the word contracting I assume that you intend that a contraction is involved.
Any time I have argued it is because I believed I was supporting progress.

The wording does need to be changed.

I dont see that a column <= 80mm deep could not from orb. If it turned 90 it would be in exactly the right formation.

shall wrote:Indeed the 4 deep pike is awkards because it is a fighting formation rather han representation of a column, so yep would challenge words a bit. I gues one would create an exclusion for Pikes to cover that.

I don't think such an exception should be only for pike - even for spear a 1 wide 4 deep is a better fit.

Anyway we are not about to rewrite the words for such a minor issue. FWIW my view on the 2 deep 1 wide trairi if asked to umpire it would be (personal view but I suspect supported by the others):

1. It is a fighting formation not a column
2. It is less than or equal to 2 wide when it forms
3. Thus is should be allowed to form
4. It stayts 2 deep and reverses te rear rank

This abive seems consistent with the intent/philosophy of the rules in a consistent way.

Clearly having not written a legalise book deliberately, it is a special situation that this forum is there to resolve.

Si

Likewise saying it can't form it at all because you don't want it to fight in ORB is consistent with the intent/philosophy of the rules.

And I can come up with 2 reasons why you might not want small BGs in ORB.
That they were too small to be effective and thus didn't work or weren't used.
If a formation is only two ranks deep in ORB then you can't tell just by looking if it is in ORB, or simply has its back rank turned. You may have intended small BGs to be unable to form ORB to avoid the confusion.

I am remeinded of a show on History where they used about 30 volunteers who were drilled to march in a spear formation and then form orb. To illustrate its effectivness a few mounted riders rode up and tried to get close to the formation, after they were asked what they felt. It was a wall of spears that they could not get close to and they were glad there were no sharp points facing them.

Obviously it does not take hundreds of bodies to make an effective orb. Just enough to get to make a dense formation of spear points that make the enemy less likely wanting to get close and cuddly.

As for being in a column and forming one, I would disagree. Part of the problem is you need a wide and deep formation to form orb in. It did not take long to form it, but if you are strung out in a thin line it would take too long to get the width necessary.

As for being 2 stands forming orb, as long as you inform your opponent I do not see why it can't be done. Perhaps a better wording might have been a BG at least as wide as it is deep or 4 wide eec. to form orb

deadtorius wrote:I am remeinded of a show on History where they used about 30 volunteers who were drilled to march in a spear formation and then form orb. To illustrate its effectivness a few mounted riders rode up and tried to get close to the formation, after they were asked what they felt. It was a wall of spears that they could not get close to and they were glad there were no sharp points facing them.

Obviously it does not take hundreds of bodies to make an effective orb. Just enough to get to make a dense formation of spear points that make the enemy less likely wanting to get close and cuddly.

So a small bunch of modern (unarmoured?) people riding on modern (unarmoured?) horses, operating under modern Insurance and Health and Safety rules - meaning that there must be no risk whatsoever of harming the people on foot, or the horses - being unwilling to approach spears is a good test that highly trained, motivated and armoured men at arms could not use their superior numbers.

You example is weak in showing that steady spear in a small ORB negates lance. It does nothing to address if the small ORB was able to get the other effects - like ignoring overlaps. Or if the corners (the weak parts of the ORB) being such a large part of a small ORB made it vunerable.

As for being in a column and forming one, I would disagree. Part of the problem is you need a wide and deep formation to form orb in. It did not take long to form it, but if you are strung out in a thin line it would take too long to get the width necessary.

If you are in a long thin line then yes - however in FoG a colunm is used both for a long thin column of march, and also a narrow but deep combat formation. Currently a column of 8 spearmen can't form ORB but in a 4 wide line can - yet forming from column may require less movement. Also no column is so long and thin that it can't form a block 3 wide and in most cases this takes more movement than forming ORB would.

As for being 2 stands forming orb, as long as you inform your opponent I do not see why it can't be done. Perhaps a better wording might have been a BG at least as wide as it is deep or 4 wide eec. to form orb

Yes it can be represented - but should it be.

So a small bunch of modern (unarmoured?) people riding on modern (unarmoured?) horses, operating under modern Insurance and Health and Safety rules - meaning that there must be no risk whatsoever of harming the people on foot, or the horses - being unwilling to approach spears is a good test that highly trained, motivated and armoured men at arms could not use their superior numbers.

No it was an attempt to show that a small number of people could form an orb formation, hence the reason why 2 stands should be able to form orb. I made no claims about the fighting effectivenes against their historical opponents other than the horse riders were intimidated by a single line of fake spears and that increasing the number of people in the formation would increase the density of the spear points. It was just a modern attempt to try and get a feel for a historical formation. There is a trend to recreate ancient life so we of the modern world can see the human side of what life might have been like for our ancient relatives.

Yes it can be represented - but should it be.

I dont see any reason why it should not be allowed.

Since a BG represents a number of units, each of these forming an orb, there should be no problem 2 bases forming orb.

Or do all units within a BG form orb together, if so I then contend that any BG that has lost a base not be able to form orb as they would be a bit confused as to where to go.

Oh noooo

now we are confusing the issue even further

deadtorius wrote:

So a small bunch of modern (unarmoured?) people riding on modern (unarmoured?) horses, operating under modern Insurance and Health and Safety rules - meaning that there must be no risk whatsoever of harming the people on foot, or the horses - being unwilling to approach spears is a good test that highly trained, motivated and armoured men at arms could not use their superior numbers.

No it was an attempt to show that a small number of people could form an orb formation, hence the reason why 2 stands should be able to form orb. I made no claims about the fighting effectivenes against their historical opponents other than the horse riders were intimidated by a single line of fake spears and that increasing the number of people in the formation would increase the density of the spear points. It was just a modern attempt to try and get a feel for a historical formation. There is a trend to recreate ancient life so we of the modern world can see the human side of what life might have been like for our ancient relatives.

And all it showed was that a small number of people can stand in orb formation - its worth in determining if a small orb has the necessary resilliance to stand up to battle field conditions is negligable.

I love the time and effort spent on this kind of inconsequential issue.

Hands up how many times you've ever seen orb formed? Me personally - never - by me or any opponent.

Phil - I'd be very happy if you wanted to form orb with a 2BG of Triarii. (or even a 3BG if it had lost its 4th base.)

Sagji - yes - you're correct - the rules could've been more precise - but does it really matter? Si, Terry & RBS continue to support this forum to iron out this kind of minor wrinkle and personally I'm grateful that they continue to do so. It's been asked and answered - why not let it go?

I've deleted the previous last line - it was uncalled for - sorry.

petedalby wrote:
Hands up how many times you've ever seen orb formed? Me personally - never - by me or any opponent.

Well if your opponents formed Orb with those spear units at theend of their line, maybe you wouldn't have so many champioship plaques.

I think middle players in particular should remember this rule when fighting shooty cav armies. Yes the thought is you will jsut stand there and get shot to pieces, but it is better than being flank charged to pieces in many situations.