Slitherine

Perhaps we would all get lucky and it would auto break from all that stuff that hit it and then it would vapourize making conforming a non issue and save many headaches.
Personally I think the two bases turn, either ending up 1 behind the other, 1 contacting cav ends up as an overlap or
both turn and end up side by side the contacting cave ends up front to front contact with the legions.
makes the most sense to this fuddled mind anyway

Page 91, Deciding how many dice to roll, In the impact phase, column two, second bullet point:
"If the number of eligible bases in unequal, both sides fight with the lower number of bases."

This permits fewer stands than hit (or were hit) to be fighting during the impact phase.

So, a flank charge where two stands hit two stands, after the normal rules for turning both 'hit' stands, seems to certainly result as the rules are written in one stand on one stand fighting in impact.

fgilson wrote:Page 91, Deciding how many dice to roll, In the impact phase, column two, second bullet point:
"If the number of eligible bases in unequal, both sides fight with the lower number of bases."

This permits fewer stands than hit (or were hit) to be fighting during the impact phase.

It does?

This allows for a BG 3 bases wide to charge a BG 2 bases wide with the bases offset so 3 bases contact 2 and both sides fight with 2 bases.

The bit I was refering to is the start of the second paragraph of the in the impact phase section.

"Only bases coming into contact as a result of a charge in this impact fight."

I have never seen anyone play that a flank charge that contacts with 2 bases on 2 bases only fights 1 base because of the turn.

You would fight as they hit at impact would you not, then move them into the possible conform after impact has been resolved?

deadtorius wrote:You would fight as they hit at impact would you not, then move them into the possible conform after impact has been resolved?

I think that Alan's problem is that the rules state that contacted bases turn to face immediately.

hammy wrote:I think that Alan's problem is that the rules state that contacted bases turn to face immediately.

So they turn, as individual bases, not as a pair, and end as I have shown above. Both still ending in contact, and just as importantly turning in the position they would turn as an individual base, then moving back to stay in contact with the BG.

philqw78 wrote:

hammy wrote:I think that Alan's problem is that the rules state that contacted bases turn to face immediately.

So they turn, as individual bases, not as a pair, and end as I have shown above. Both still ending in contact, and just as importantly turning in the position they would turn as an individual base, then moving back to stay in contact with the BG.

The rules are clear that they don't turn as individual bases. The BG follows the normal rules for turning.

where. p56 last bullet, "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 using the normal rules for turning" So they use the normal rules for each base turning. Where do you get the idea they turn one behind the other. If they don't turn as individual bases how do Kinghts or 1 deep cavalry turn? Indeed how does a single contacted base turn.

philqw78 wrote:where. p56 last bullet, "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 using the normal rules for turning" So they use the normal rules for each base turning. Where do you get the idea they turn one behind the other. If they don't turn as individual bases how do Kinghts or 1 deep cavalry turn? Indeed how does a single contacted base turn.

The only rules in the game for turning are the ones on P44 and 45. I assume that these are the 'normal rules for turning'

hammy wrote:

philqw78 wrote:where. p56 last bullet, "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 using the normal rules for turning" So they use the normal rules for each base turning. Where do you get the idea they turn one behind the other. If they don't turn as individual bases how do Kinghts or 1 deep cavalry turn? Indeed how does a single contacted base turn.

The only rules in the game for turning are the ones on P44 and 45. I assume that these are the 'normal rules for turning'

So if there was a mixed BG of HF/LF and it was contacted in the rear the HF would swap places with the LF upon turning. Same if a flank charge contacted only the LF. Happy now thats cleared up.

philqw78 wrote:

hammy wrote:

philqw78 wrote:where. p56 last bullet, "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 using the normal rules for turning" So they use the normal rules for each base turning. Where do you get the idea they turn one behind the other. If they don't turn as individual bases how do Kinghts or 1 deep cavalry turn? Indeed how does a single contacted base turn.

The only rules in the game for turning are the ones on P44 and 45. I assume that these are the 'normal rules for turning'

So if there was a mixed BG of HF/LF and it was contacted in the rear the HF would swap places with the LF upon turning. Same if a flank charge contacted only the LF. Happy now thats cleared up.

Well as things are written that is definitley the case.

I have always played that the impact is worked out on the contacted bases but that the BG then turns as required.

Mixed BGs are an interesting complication.

I definitley think your stepped turn to face is wrong.

hammy wrote:

fgilson wrote:Page 91, Deciding how many dice to roll, In the impact phase, column two, second bullet point:
"If the number of eligible bases in unequal, both sides fight with the lower number of bases."

This permits fewer stands than hit (or were hit) to be fighting during the impact phase.

It does?

This allows for a BG 3 bases wide to charge a BG 2 bases wide with the bases offset so 3 bases contact 2 and both sides fight with 2 bases.

The bit I was refering to is the start of the second paragraph of the in the impact phase section.

"Only bases coming into contact as a result of a charge in this impact fight."

I have never seen anyone play that a flank charge that contacts with 2 bases on 2 bases only fights 1 base because of the turn.

Hammy so what have you actually seen in this instance then?

You said

"I have always played that the impact is worked out on the contacted bases but that the BG then turns as required."

IMO on p56 the rules require an immediate turn to face, not one that is done after the impact phase. Then the impact is fought as things stand currently (ie after the turn). I can see why you do things the way you do but with the greatest of respect that doesn't appear to be what the rules say, at least in my view.

I feel this is an important point especially for those of us who own nippy cavalry armies that can get around the back of folks, and come to that those of us who, like myself, prefer foot sloggers and not sissy boy horsey troops!

I personally don't have a problem with it being 1 base versus 1 base after the conforming in this instance. It's maybe a quirk in the rules but so what? It's no more of a quirk than when my Macedonian pike have to shuffle back a bit and sideways a bit to contact enemy front when they don't count as charging a flank!!!

The cavalry are after all on ++ vs -- and will get overlaps in the melee phase so the end outcome should be historical in that the foot should be heavily defeated by the flank charge.

On re reading the rules I believe you are correct about the conforming foot ending one base behind the other, but I would at least like to show Phil the courtesy of seeing how he views it, we may be right and he may be wrong. Either way it does seem like quite a major grey area and it isn't IMO one those situations that will hardly ever come up. Nevertheless it does seem to me that if one plays the rules as written the cavalry will get less bases in due to the infantry conforming.

AlanYork wrote: Hammy so what have you actually seen in this instance then?

I am not 100% sure that I have seen a rear corner contact with a stepped forward base making contact with the front rank. I have definitely seen a flank charge with 2 bases contacting the flank of 2 bases in an infantry formation which is to all intents the same

You said

"I have always played that the impact is worked out on the contacted bases but that the BG then turns as required."

IMO on p56 the rules require an immediate turn to face, not one that is done after the impact phase. Then the impact is fought as things stand currently (ie after the turn). I can see why you do things the way you do but with the greatest of respect that doesn't appear to be what the rules say, at least in my view.

The rules do indeed say that the bases turn immediately but they also say that bases that come into contact in the impacr phase fight.

I have never seen anyone play a two base flank contact converting to a one base one because of the turn.

That said two base flank contacts are actually quite rare, perhaps once in 10 games or so in my experience.

I feel this is an important point especially for those of us who own nippy cavalry armies that can get around the back of folks, and come to that those of us who, like myself, prefer foot sloggers and not sissy boy horsey troops!

Foot sloggers are fine in FoG. They very rarely get clobbered in the flank in the games I play.

I personally don't have a problem with it being 1 base versus 1 base after the conforming in this instance. It's maybe a quirk in the rules but so what? It's no more of a quirk than when my Macedonian pike have to shuffle back a bit and sideways a bit to contact enemy front when they don't count as charging a flank!!!

That is a different issue. FoG makes flank charges hard to get (unlike for example DBM). You need to start behind the flank.

Conforming is perhaps something that could be removed from the rules. That said if there was no conforming things would probably be more complicated on the table.

Your pikes sliding back and round is an artefact of conforming.

The cavalry are after all on ++ vs -- and will get overlaps in the melee phase so the end outcome should be historical in that the foot should be heavily defeated by the flank charge.

Actually 2 bases vs 2 on a flank attack is massively better than 1 on 1. With 1 on 1 you cannot do more than 2 casualties and there is a fair chance you will only win by 1. With 2 bases on 2 the chargers get 4 dice to 3 so will almost certainly win by 2 and inflict 1HP3B so most likely put an extra -2 on the targets CT.

Should a solid charge into the full flank of a BG be more effective than one that just catches it with a corner? IMO it should.

On re reading the rules I believe you are correct about the conforming foot ending one base behind the other, but I would at least like to show Phil the courtesy of seeing how he views it, we may be right and he may be wrong. Either way it does seem like quite a major grey area and it isn't IMO one those situations that will hardly ever come up. Nevertheless it does seem to me that if one plays the rules as written the cavalry will get less bases in due to the infantry conforming.

It is possible to interpret the rules differently. I am sure that the next time Phil and I are at the club we will have a discussion.

I agree that the cavalry will end with fewer bases in contact after the turn BUT I am not convinced that if the cavalry contact two bases with two of their own bases that the combat should be one base on one base as two bases on each side have "come into contact during the impact phase".

AlanYork wrote: prefer foot sloggers and not sissy boy horsey troops!

And how long have you had this feeling off liking sissy foot sloggers over proper, brave, manly Horsey boys

hammy wrote: It is possible to interpret the rules differently. I am sure that the next time Phil and I are at the club we will have a discussion.

I agree that the cavalry will end with fewer bases in contact after the turn BUT I am not convinced that if the cavalry contact two bases with two of their own bases that the combat should be one base on one base as two bases on each side have "come into contact during the impact phase".

But you are using an interpretation that you feel like. Not one that is backed up by the rules. In your interpretation:

the bases turn immediately
as if a BG turning,
not as individual bases,
even though the whole BG does not turn,
only those bases contacted,
and then fight as if they hadn't turned.

If they were LF in a mixed BG I suppose they would be replaced by HF, but fight as if they hadn't been replaced.

philqw78 wrote:

hammy wrote: It is possible to interpret the rules differently. I am sure that the next time Phil and I are at the club we will have a discussion.

I agree that the cavalry will end with fewer bases in contact after the turn BUT I am not convinced that if the cavalry contact two bases with two of their own bases that the combat should be one base on one base as two bases on each side have "come into contact during the impact phase".

But you are using an interpretation that you feel like. Not one that is backed up by the rules. In your interpretation:

the bases turn immediately
as if a BG turning,
not as individual bases,
even though the whole BG does not turn,
only those bases contacted,
and then fight as if they hadn't turned.

If they were LF in a mixed BG I suppose they would be replaced by HF, but fight as if they hadn't been replaced.

Actually I am stating what I seem to have seen during the games I have played. I have never seen anyone try to claim that a double base contact on a line of for example 2 deep spear results in only 1 base fighting after they turn to face.

Well perhaps I have brought up a point here that simply wasn't envisaged when the rules were written.

It seems to me there are 3 possible interpretations here.

1. Mine; in that the contacted bases both turn immediately, then the impact is fought. This IMO is correct to the letter of the rules, or at least the MOST correct to the letter of the rules but leaves the problem that a cavalry contact with 2 bases becomes a contact with just 1 base.

2. Hammy's; that the contacted bases turn but the impact is fought as though they hadn't. That solves the problem of a 2 base contact becoming a 1 base contact but is IMO not what the rules say. After all they don't distinguish between what happens when a single base hits 2 enemy bases squarely in flank (both flanked bases turn immediately and it's one base against one base in the impact phase) and what happens when the flankers hit a rear corner and step forward...adopt a different procedure as Hammy appears to be advocating??? I don't see where it says any kind of different procedure applies in the rules, all I see is that contacted bases turn immediately and that on p91 it states that the turning happens before the impact phase combat starts.

I will say though that the sentence on p 91 "All bases that charge into front edge contact with enemy, or into front corner contact with an enemy edge, are eligible to fight" could be used to justify Hammy's take on this though it seems pretty clear to me that what is actually meant is for players to firstly take care of the turning to face and then look and see who is in contact and who isn't, then sort out the dice, a logical step by step approach rather than "going back in time" and seeing who WAS in contact with who.

Hammy said

I am not 100% sure that I have seen a rear corner contact with a stepped forward base making contact with the front rank. I have definitely seen a flank charge with 2 bases contacting the flank of 2 bases in an infantry formation which is to all intents the same.

I'd be very interested to know what the players did there as you are right an immediate 90 degree turn with one base behind the other would present the same problem ie less bases fighting. If we can't agree on an interpretation of the rules as written we can at least get an idea of what is "standard practice" when playing.

3. Phil's idea of individual bases turning. I'm not convinced this works geometrically but as I said I'd like to give him the courtesy of demonstrating his theory.

Could it simply be (types softly as this is a bit heretical) that the rules here are just not quite thought out properly or not conveyed in a clear manner or even that nobody actually thought about this type of situation?

After all they don't distinguish between what happens when a single base hits 2 enemy bases squarely in flank (both flanked bases turn immediately and it's one base against one base in the impact phase) and what happens when the flankers hit a rear corner and step forward...

If more than one base hits just one opposing base then the combat is fought between the single enemy base and one of the other bases as chosen by the player with the larger number of bases. That is an easy one.

If you resolve fighting bases after the turn then it is impossible to charge the rear rank of a formation from the flank. Regardless of which base you hit you will end up fighting the front rank which can make a difference even at impact if the rear rank is a different troop type to the front.

I accept that it would appear that under close examination the rules here are not totally clear but as they have been published for nearly 2 years now and this issue has never to my knowledge been raised on the forum it can't be a very common problem.

Well, whenever I have hit anybody in the rear only the rear ranks have turned. Indeed after impact the player of the BG hit can then opt to turn the remainder of the ranks, but often doesn't as this would mean being hit in the rear again from troops currently to their front.

philqw78 wrote:Well, whenever I have hit anybody in the rear only the rear ranks have turned. Indeed after impact the player of the BG hit can then opt to turn the remainder of the ranks, but often doesn't as this would mean being hit in the rear again from troops currently to their front.

A rear contact is different to a rear corner flank contact.

The issue relates to rear corner flank contacts or 2 base flank contacts.