Slitherine

(hit send before I finished my thought)

I had thought that the conform would be Dave's rightmost base lined up in contact with the base that it is currently in contact with and Dave's leftmost base lined up and in contact with the base it is currently in contact with.

peterrjohnston wrote:

dave_r wrote: Clearly in this instance then if my BG were to conform then it would not be a normal formation (as described in the basics section) and I can't step forward to line up with the nearest file already in contact. Therefore with the RAW it is an illegal conform.

A compulsory move, which this is, can leave a battle group out of rectangular formation. See the basics section, p23, point 3. This is still a normal formation.

It isn't a normal formation. A normal formation is "a rectangular formation with all bases facing in the same direction, in edge and corner contact with each other. Only the rear rank of a battle group is allowed to have fewer bases, so for example, a battle group of 8 bases could be deployed 1 wide and 8 deep, 2 wide and four deep, 3 with only 2 bases in the third rank, 4 wide and 2 deep and so on.

There are four exceptions to this general case:"

Therefore this clearly isn't a normal formation. However, it does say that following a compulsory move you can temporarily force a battle group out of formation"

This, however, is overruled by the fact it specifically states in the conforming section on pg 70 that it _MUST_ be in a normal formation as described in the basics.

If you can't conform you fight as is conformed no? Surely the logical result is the yellow BG has a file against each enemy BG and is overlapped by each enemy BG too. I thought the point was to avoid the use of game mechanics to prevent troops from fighting that in the real world would get stuck in?

What am I missing?

Steve

dave_r wrote: It isn't a normal formation. A normal formation is "a rectangular formation with all bases facing in the same direction, in edge and corner contact with each other. Only the rear rank of a battle group is allowed to have fewer bases, so for example, a battle group of 8 bases could be deployed 1 wide and 8 deep, 2 wide and four deep, 3 with only 2 bases in the third rank, 4 wide and 2 deep and so on.

There are four exceptions to this general case:"

Therefore this clearly isn't a normal formation.

That's not what it says. It says "In general, troops must be in a rectangular formation...". (my emphasis)

peterrjohnston wrote:

dave_r wrote: It isn't a normal formation. A normal formation is "a rectangular formation with all bases facing in the same direction, in edge and corner contact with each other. Only the rear rank of a battle group is allowed to have fewer bases, so for example, a battle group of 8 bases could be deployed 1 wide and 8 deep, 2 wide and four deep, 3 with only 2 bases in the third rank, 4 wide and 2 deep and so on.

There are four exceptions to this general case:"

Therefore this clearly isn't a normal formation.

That's not what it says. It says "In general, troops must be in a rectangular formation...". (my emphasis)

It states "in general" then goes onto give the exceptions afterwards. See my previous argument as to why these exceptions aren't appropriate.

stenic wrote:If you can't conform you fight as is conformed no? Surely the logical result is the yellow BG has a file against each enemy BG and is overlapped by each enemy BG too. I thought the point was to avoid the use of game mechanics to prevent troops from fighting that in the real world would get stuck in?

What am I missing?

Steve

Nothing - that is exactly how we played it, irrelevant of whether they had conformed or not. Hammy had 4 + 4 dice against my 2 + 2 dice.

As I previously mentioned, it is much easier if you don't conform to deal with base losses. It is actually against the rules as written to conform.

dave_r wrote:Nothing - that is exactly how we played it, irrelevant of whether they had conformed or not. Hammy had 4 + 4 dice against my 2 + 2 dice.

Actually it did matter. You lost a base and disrupted one of my BGs had you conformed you would have had to lose a base fighting the disrupted BG not the steady one.

As I previously mentioned, it is much easier if you don't conform to deal with base losses. It is actually against the rules as written to conform.

Well it is contrary to your opinion Dave but every one else seems to dissagree.

hammy wrote:

dave_r wrote:Nothing - that is exactly how we played it, irrelevant of whether they had conformed or not. Hammy had 4 + 4 dice against my 2 + 2 dice.

Actually it did matter. You lost a base and disrupted one of my BGs had you conformed you would have had to lose a base fighting the disrupted BG not the steady one.

As I previously mentioned, it is much easier if you don't conform to deal with base losses. It is actually against the rules as written to conform.

Well it is contrary to your opinion Dave but every one else seems to dissagree.

Everybody at the club agreed with me and I can't find anybody who has been able to put forward a viable argument from the rules as written on the intertent as to why I was wrong.

Everybody at the club agreed with me and I can't find anybody who has been able to put forward a viable argument from the rules as written on the intertent as to why I was wrong.

Most others agree they'd conform - so why bother to argue with you?

We already have a question on the FAQs sticky - does the need to maintain formation apply in combat situations? Until we have a definitive answer we go round and round in circles.

I'm not sure what the morbid fascination with staying in a legal formation is Dave

Especially since your BG is already in a non-legal at impact.

Hammy's interpretation would mean yor BG would end up in the same situation it would have been in if it had charged from directly in front of the join between his two BGs, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to me (especially given the idea that bases hitting the flank of a file also contacted in the front, but not as part of a legal flank charge) should be treated as a frontal contact. i.e. the rules try not to give special treatment and possible advantage to these angled charges.

The conforming rules do seem to cause a few murky problems in some cases, although in the majority of cases they have the advantage of leading to nice tidy combats. I wouldn't have a problem with the interpretation that your BG should not conform, except that the possible necessity for Hammy's BGs to conform in his turn might seem unfair, depending on the situation of other BGs around. That's the reason I think that if conforms are kept in the game at all, we should also be trying to minimise the number of cases where confirms cannot happen, especially if it is due to some technicality of reading the RAW as opposed to situations where there really isn't any room to conform into.

Most others agree they'd conform - so why bother to argue with you?

Yes, but they do so without actually qualifying this belief by quoting any actual rules. Much like Hammy shouting "Dave you're wrong" on the night but then not providing any hard evidence to support the assertion.

We already have a question on the FAQs sticky - does the need to maintain formation apply in combat situations? Until we have a definitive answer we go round and round in circles.

Surprising as it may seem I don't have knowledge of every post on this forum. I didn't and don't know it was covered in the FAQs sticky.

@DaveR - WTF! re-read third post when I gave you page numbers supporting my position...



Madcam.

madcam2us wrote:@DaveR - WTF! re-read third post when I gave you page numbers supporting my position...

Madcam.

Did you miss the bit where I responded?

Here is your quote

BGs must end its confrom move in a normal formation, EXCEPT that each file steps forward to line up with the nearest file already in contact with the enemy

How exactly does any of my bases "step forward to line up with the nearest file already in contact"?

They most certainly will not line up with the nearest file already in contact and they most certainly will not be in an overlap position.

Therefore they don't is my argument. As previously mentioned I was more than happy to have four dice against eight, so it wasn't as if I was gaining an unfair advantage by not conforming and also as previously mentioned it makes base loss much easier if you don't conform.

simply b/c you've ignored the first indented sentence whereby those units in contact line up opposite the units they touched during impact...

These two parts force you into the formation you've de-cried as not allowed. here its explicitly allowed and mandated.

Madcam.

madcam2us wrote:simply b/c you've ignored the first indented sentence whereby those units in contact line up opposite the units they touched during impact...

These two parts force you into the formation you've de-cried as not allowed. here its explicitly allowed and mandated.

Madcam.

Thats because you have ignored the bit where it states "the battle group must end its conform move in a normal formation (see the basics section)".

Clearly this overides the previous bit where it states "conforming usually means lining up each base in full front edge to front edge contact with an enemy base, or conforming to an overlap position"

peterrjohnston wrote: A compulsory move, which this is, can leave a battle group out of rectangular formation. See the basics section, p23, point 3. This is still a normal formation.

This is correct - I think it is the bit Dave is missing somewhere.

I agree with Dave here. I had the question some time ago and it was said that I had to conform in an offset formation. I never understood that because the rules didn't support that.

nikgaukroger wrote:

peterrjohnston wrote: A compulsory move, which this is, can leave a battle group out of rectangular formation. See the basics section, p23, point 3. This is still a normal formation.

This is correct - I think it is the bit Dave is missing somewhere.

No I'm not! I am fully aware of that and here is the reply I gave earlier in this thread

"A normal formation is "a rectangular formation with all bases facing in the same direction, in edge and corner contact with each other. Only the rear rank of a battle group is allowed to have fewer bases, so for example, a battle group of 8 bases could be deployed 1 wide and 8 deep, 2 wide and four deep, 3 with only 2 bases in the third rank, 4 wide and 2 deep and so on.

There are four exceptions to this general case:"

Therefore this clearly isn't a normal formation. However, it does say that following a compulsory move you can temporarily force a battle group out of formation"

This, however, is overruled by the fact it specifically states in the conforming section on pg 70 that it _MUST_ be in a normal formation as described in the basics."

So the definition of rectangular is the problem.

Only to Hammy