Kinky columns

n10cd12 · Post by **n10cd12** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:33 pm

Well you could always just measure your move distance from the rear base. This would force the front base to move less than its base move rate, but they would stay in formation.

Quite the penalty for being in column

paulcummins · Post by **paulcummins** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:51 pm

batesmotel wrote:
So forget having a battle line of Nikephorian Byzantine cataphracts flanked by cavalry since it can't wheel apparently.

How on earth did you conclude this

if a bg of 2 bases in column has to kink when it turns, and it is moving along flanked by cav

the inside Cav BG wheels, the cats follow the turn, which kinks the column, which then leaves a corner sticking out to prevent the outside BG of cav slotting in nice and neat.

I think thats the problem

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 5:09 pm

This is just getting silly now. Let's not invent difficulties just for the sake of it. Clearly a battle line is not a column of march, nor can a BG that is part of a battle line be a column of march.

Yes, of course the rules can be interpreted that way, but it would be silly, wouldn't it?

If people really want a 20 page FAQ we can FAQ every silly over-literal interpretation of the wording, but we would prefer not to. This sort of nit-picking is not what FOG is about.

No doubt it will be argued (by some) that rules cannot be interpreted over-literally because who should decide what is over-literal, but I think that the 90% rule comes in on this one.

If 90% of players think that an interpretation is silly, then we don't need to add a negation of it to the FAQ. Umpires are entitled to use common sense, and not be bludgeoned into accepting a minority interpretation, particularly when it leads to obviously silly results.

The problem with taking nit-picking seriously is that it just encourages more nit-picking.

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:31 pm

If it's causing a problem that is being exploited, is there an argument for getting rid of kinked columns entirely, other than when following a road?

And when was the last time anyone followed a road in a game anyway?

So why not just get rid?

Pete

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:39 pm

petedalby wrote:If it's causing a problem that is being exploited, is there an argument for getting rid of kinked columns entirely, other than when following a road?

And when was the last time anyone followed a road in a game anyway?

So why not just get rid?

We are coming round to that view Pete, but we don't plan on issuing amendments any time soon.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:40 pm

rbodleyscott wrote: The problem with taking nit-picking seriously is that it just encourages more nit-picking.

I agree. But the problem arises as people transition from a different rule set culture to the new one. An old culture seemed to develop around nit-picking.

And it is probably more of an issue fo those in tournaments.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:40 pm

I use roads

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:43 pm

Surely that's a road, singular?

And you could have a nice straight one?

Pete

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:44 pm

No, I have used different roads on different occassions, but only one at a time

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:44 pm

hazelbark wrote:
rbodleyscott wrote: The problem with taking nit-picking seriously is that it just encourages more nit-picking.
I agree. But the problem arises as people transition from a different rule set culture to the new one. An old culture seemed to develop around nit-picking.

And it is probably more of an issue fo those in tournaments.

True, but to prevent this type of culture developing in FOG I would prefer to see assertive umpires willing to disallow silly interpretations even if they do represent one possible reading of the rules.

The alternative is a morass of clarifications or worse, amendments, clarifications of amendments and so on, ad infinitum. We have seen it all before, and it ain't pretty.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:48 pm

Note the recent US discussions of games sans Umpires.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:03 pm

hazelbark wrote:Note the recent US discussions of games sans Umpires.

Indeed. But the ready availability of the Errata/FAQ did not help, did it?

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:08 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
hazelbark wrote:Note the recent US discussions of games sans Umpires.

Indeed. But the ready availability of the Errata/FAQ did not help, did it?

So you want us to also READ the rules? Gosh you are progressive.

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:30 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:

There is nothing in the rules on battlelines that requires a kinked part of the battleline to "unkink".

I quite agree. The kink can move around as part of the rigid block. Or it could drop out if the battleline advanced past the location of the kink.

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:33 pm

babyshark wrote:Something of this sort came up in one of my games this past weekend. If a column (say, of Lh) kinks between base 1 and base 2 can base 2 still shoot just as if it were lined up in edge and corner contact behind base 1?

Marc

2nd rank bases are not required to be lined up in edge and corner contact behind a front rank base in order to shoot. If they are 2nd rank bases, then they can shoot.

batesmotel · Post by **batesmotel** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:57 pm

If it wasn't someone as experienced as Nik who made the comment that the rules didn't exclude the kinking for a batteline, I would have considered it as nit-picking. Coming from Nik gave it more authority than that even if it doesn't make if "official".

Thanks for clarifying this at any rate.

Chris

rbodleyscott wrote:This is just getting silly now. Let's not invent difficulties just for the sake of it. Clearly a battle line is not a column of march, nor can a BG that is part of a battle line be a column of march.

Yes, of course the rules can be interpreted that way, but it would be silly, wouldn't it?

If people really want a 20 page FAQ we can FAQ every silly over-literal interpretation of the wording, but we would prefer not to. This sort of nit-picking is not what FOG is about.

No doubt it will be argued (by some) that rules cannot be interpreted over-literally because who should decide what is over-literal, but I think that the 90% rule comes in on this one.

If 90% of players think that an interpretation is silly, then we don't need to add a negation of it to the FAQ. Umpires are entitled to use common sense, and not be bludgeoned into accepting a minority interpretation, particularly when it leads to obviously silly results.

The problem with taking nit-picking seriously is that it just encourages more nit-picking.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:45 am

batesmotel wrote:If it wasn't someone as experienced as Nik who made the comment that the rules didn't exclude the kinking for a batteline, I would have considered it as nit-picking. Coming from Nik gave it more authority than that even if it doesn't make if "official".

I'm at least as fallible as any one else