Slitherine

lawrenceg wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:No, it says something different to what you are readuing it to say: "the active player‟s battle groups already in close combat with enemy must (unless otherwise stated below or physically impossible) pivot and/or slide bases by the minimum necessary to conform to the enemy bases in contact"

The last three words are the important bit. Your conform to the enemy bases in contact, which in my example are the central two bases. You may well also end up contacting other enemy bases and IIRC the diagrams show this but you must line up with the central two bases.

Also worth noting that it is active player battlegroups (not bases) and enemy bases so you have to conform to the enemy bases in contact, but not necessarily using the bases that are initially in contact with them. It could be other bases of the battlegroup.

So in the OP case, can the whole MF BG slide over one base to allow the knights to conform to the enemy knights? If not, why not?

shadowdragon wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:No, it says something different to what you are readuing it to say: "the active player‟s battle groups already in close combat with enemy must (unless otherwise stated below or physically impossible) pivot and/or slide bases by the minimum necessary to conform to the enemy bases in contact"

The last three words are the important bit. Your conform to the enemy bases in contact, which in my example are the central two bases. You may well also end up contacting other enemy bases and IIRC the diagrams show this but you must line up with the central two bases.

Also worth noting that it is active player battlegroups (not bases) and enemy bases so you have to conform to the enemy bases in contact, but not necessarily using the bases that are initially in contact with them. It could be other bases of the battlegroup.

So in the OP case, can the whole MF BG slide over one base to allow the knights to conform to the enemy knights? If not, why not?

I can't see how this would meet the requirements of the rule. The BGs are only allowed to move bases by the minimum necessary to conform to the enemy bases in contact. If the MF are in contact with enemy bases, I imagine "the minimum" will be less than moving all the MF by a base width.

Of course it is difficult to work it out without a photograph.

grahambriggs wrote:

shadowdragon wrote:

lawrenceg wrote: Also worth noting that it is active player battlegroups (not bases) and enemy bases so you have to conform to the enemy bases in contact, but not necessarily using the bases that are initially in contact with them. It could be other bases of the battlegroup.

So in the OP case, can the whole MF BG slide over one base to allow the knights to conform to the enemy knights? If not, why not?

I can't see how this would meet the requirements of the rule. The BGs are only allowed to move bases by the minimum necessary to conform to the enemy bases in contact. If the MF are in contact with enemy bases, I imagine "the minimum" will be less than moving all the MF by a base width.

Of course it is difficult to work it out without a photograph.

I think the issue is the MF don't need to move for the MF BG to conform but unless they move the knights can't conform. If the knights requirement to conform is not a consideration for the MF's "minimum move" to conform, then in effect the conforming moves of the two BG (i.e., the MF and knights) are independent which is back to my original question.

I had thought that it was the "minimum move" necessary (for both the MF and knights combined) so for all BG (both the MF and the knights) to conform to the bases of the enemy BG which had been contacted.

shadowdragon wrote:
I think the issue is the MF don't need to move for the MF BG to conform but unless they move the knights can't conform. If the knights requirement to conform is not a consideration for the MF's "minimum move" to conform, then in effect the conforming moves of the two BG (i.e., the MF and knights) are independent which is back to my original question.

I had thought that it was the "minimum move" necessary (for both the MF and knights combined) so for all BG (both the MF and the knights) to conform to the bases of the enemy BG which had been contacted.

I would have thought that the minimum move necessary would be for the third file of bowmen to be moved forward to contact the enemy knight file facing it and the friendly knights would conform to the overlap position? That entails less movement that shifting everything a base sideways.

In essence, the fiendly knights were a little too far away to save their bowmen. Let's hope the double overlap helps!

grahambriggs wrote:

shadowdragon wrote:
I think the issue is the MF don't need to move for the MF BG to conform but unless they move the knights can't conform. If the knights requirement to conform is not a consideration for the MF's "minimum move" to conform, then in effect the conforming moves of the two BG (i.e., the MF and knights) are independent which is back to my original question.

I had thought that it was the "minimum move" necessary (for both the MF and knights combined) so for all BG (both the MF and the knights) to conform to the bases of the enemy BG which had been contacted.

I would have thought that the minimum move necessary would be for the third file of bowmen to be moved forward to contact the enemy knight file facing it and the friendly knights would conform to the overlap position? That entails less movement that shifting everything a base sideways.

In essence, the fiendly knights were a little too far away to save their bowmen. Let's hope the double overlap helps!

You might be right, Graham, but wouldn't the 2nd bullet ("the BG must end its conform move in a normal formation, except that each file steps forward to line up with the nearest file already in contact with the enemy") since the nearest file already in contact is the middle MF file?

By the way, thanks for taking the time to work through this. It's helpful.

lawrenceg wrote:Hunting for a parachute, apparently.

Maybe Graham found it.

Graham's statement that bases conform to the base they are in contact with is in direct contradiction to the diagrams which show conforming to be the minimum adjustment to line up either in contact with the enemy or a legal overlap. Check out the pictures on page 72, 87 and 91-93. In each case bases slide off the base they initially contacted because to line up in contact with the initially contacted base would require a greater adjustment than the minimum necessary to line up with an enemy base or legal overlap.

Study the pictures. That's why they are there.

In most instances where more than one BG contacts the enemy both will conform unless they are blocked by enemy, impassible terrain or friendly troops already in close combat, or they have contacted more than one enemy BG which are not lined up.

In this case it is one BG contacting two enemies. The MF Bow are already conformed base to base, they just have a wasted file as it can't overlap on the side where the knights are, but they cannot be moved becuase the unit is already overlapping on the other side so there is no way they can add dice or a POA to the melee - the criteria for feeding more bases into melee movement. So, I don't see any reason they should be allowed to move in any way.

They KN of the Bow player cannot conform without some movement of the bow or changing formation radically. I think we looked and they didn't even fit going from 2x3 to 3x2. It would have taken an irregular formation like a rank of 3 a rank of two and a third rank of 1... leaving empty spaced on the side with his Bow unit to notch in there.

gozerius wrote:Graham's statement that bases conform to the base they are in contact with is in direct contradiction to the diagrams which show conforming to be the minimum adjustment to line up either in contact with the enemy or a legal overlap. Check out the pictures on page 72, 87 and 91-93. In each case bases slide off the base they initially contacted because to line up in contact with the initially contacted base would require a greater adjustment than the minimum necessary to line up with an enemy base or legal overlap.

Study the pictures. That's why they are there.

In most instances where more than one BG contacts the enemy both will conform unless they are blocked by enemy, impassible terrain or friendly troops already in close combat, or they have contacted more than one enemy BG which are not lined up.

Generally speaking the text takes precedence over diagrams - as has been pointed out (I think by one of the authors) in a previous discussion about conforming.

With respect to this thread, the question, at least for me , is taken from you statement:

BG will conform unless they are blocked by friendly troops already in close combat. So, in the OP case where there are two BG in contact with one enemy BG, can the conform move of one of the BG (#1) be blocked by the other BG (#2) when no obstruction prevents the other BG (#2) from shifting/sliding/pivoting in a way that allows BG #1 to conform.

Normally, when in doubt I leave the BG's in the original position and treat "as is" conformed".

Interestingly, from the section on "Feeding More Bases into an Existing Melee", it would appear that the file of MF bowmen could be moved to the other side of the BG since the rule says that the active player can "expand its frontage by one file on one side only" using bases that are "not in a position to contribute combat prior to be moved". These bases can be "moved out from rear ranks that are not fighting, or from an unengaged end of the line to the other end". The rules don't state that the expansion requires the "expanded" file contribute to the melee. Only in the case of contracting (moving bases to a rear rank) does it require that the bases in the rear rank position contribute to melee. I had always thought that the moved bases had to move into a position where they contributed (whether a rear rank or an expanded file).

This doesn't help conforming since conforming is done before feeding more bases into melee.

Also, on thinking (far too much) about this case, it may be that Graham is right, which is that the left flank file of the MF should slide forward to contract the enemy knights while their friendly knights slide over into an overlap position as this is the minimum move to to conform.







If that is the case, then even if the BG's don't move but fight "as if" they had conformed, shouldn't that be how they fight (i.e., 2 bases of MF in frontal contact with the knights with 1 file of MF overlapping on one side with the knights overlapping on the other)? I'm not sure many player would fight the "as if" they had conformed that way.

Wouldn't this apply to every case where an intercepting BG ends up in an angled position less than one base width in front of the friendly BG that was the original target and blocking one file of the chargers so that it stops within one base width of the original target.