Slitherine

hazelbark wrote:

petedalby wrote:For me, I think this is another of those 'once in a blue moon' cases where there's not too much to get worked up about. Just work it through with the rules as written and trying to avoid any cheese or unintended consequences.

I think this is the most sensible. However...since Ruddock is now aware.

I would also say the ruling should not reward cheese.

Furthermore consider if the column wasn't kinked, but the player claimed the column was in such a position that the point first contacted would be the front corner of the succeeding bases. I.e. That infintessimal place between bases. This is an attempt to move in that direction which is also worse.

So the ruling must be to punish cheesey attempts to manipulate the rules beyond sensibility.

Sign me up for this option, please. It makes the most sense. This will be a wonderfully rare occurrence.

Marc

babyshark wrote: This will be a wonderfully rare occurrence.

Marc

In pursuit maybe, but not in normal play

hazelbark wrote:
I would also say the ruling should not reward cheese.

Furthermore consider if the column wasn't kinked, but the player claimed the column was in such a position that the point first contacted would be the front corner of the succeeding bases. I.e. That infintessimal place between bases. This is an attempt to move in that direction which is also worse.

So the ruling must be to punish cheesey attempts to manipulate the rules beyond sensibility.

While I appreciate the sentiment I suggest it's dangerous to change a rule which is clear but you think is cheesy. It creates a massive precedent. What happens if my opponent thinks something cheesy but is clearly stated in the rules and may even have been the author's explicit intent?

For example, I've seen players who feel it is cheesy that they can march HF up to 6.00000001 MU of the enemy but cannot charge in in two turns: "but that represents hardly any distance in reality; surely they would reach the extra toenail?" Those who've been aware of debate with the authers will know it's a deliberate mechanism, not cheese; but others could be forgiven for thinking otherwise.


I'd suggest the originally posted unusual case is just played RAW.

I think the marching thing is sufficiently well understood and can be reduced to the basic principle that march moves stop over 2 but less than 3 moves for Heavy Foot to make contact. I think we've had that basic premise since march moves were introduced in WRG 7th edition.

The difference here is that it potentially allows gamey positioning of the bases to negate a threat, which to my mind contravenes the principles under which Fog was designed. I habitually depict kinked columns by joining the rear corner of the leading base to the front corner of that following on the inside of the curve which prevents this arising, but I can see how Lawrence's depictions could also be valid. While this may be a rare situation currently, I think that interpreting it Graham's way, while technically correct, at the very least opens up the possibility of time wasting by people looking for more advantageous positioning of the individual bases of a kinked column. I'm much happier with the simple principle that anything behind the front edge is a flank.

kevinj wrote:I think the marching thing is sufficiently well understood and can be reduced to the basic principle that march moves stop over 2 but less than 3 moves for Heavy Foot to make contact. I think we've had that basic premise since march moves were introduced in WRG 7th edition.

The difference here is that it potentially allows gamey positioning of the bases to negate a threat, which to my mind contravenes the principles under which Fog was designed. I habitually depict kinked columns by joining the rear corner of the leading base to the front corner of that following on the inside of the curve which prevents this arising, but I can see how Lawrence's depictions could also be valid. While this may be a rare situation currently, I think that interpreting it Graham's way, while technically correct, at the very least opens up the possibility of time wasting by people looking for more advantageous positioning of the individual bases of a kinked column. I'm much happier with the simple principle that anything behind the front edge is a flank.

Does that mean I am allowed to ignore rules I don't like because it "contravenes" the principles under which fog was designed?

kevinj wrote:The difference here is that it potentially allows gamey positioning of the bases to negate a threat, which to my mind contravenes the principles under which Fog was designed. I habitually depict kinked columns by joining the rear corner of the leading base to the front corner of that following on the inside of the curve which prevents this arising, but I can see how Lawrence's depictions could also be valid.

Ooh! Do I need to get more popcorn?

Does that mean I am allowed to ignore rules I don't like because it "contravenes" the principles under which fog was designed?

No but I'm sure you can provide some more ideas that will convince Graham that my approach of cheese avoidance is sensible.

Note: buy shares in wherever Martin gets his popcorn...

kevinj wrote:

Does that mean I am allowed to ignore rules I don't like because it "contravenes" the principles under which fog was designed?

No but I'm sure you can provide some more ideas that will convince Graham that my approach of cheese avoidance is sensible.

Note: buy shares in wherever Martin gets his popcorn...

The problem is that it isn't sensible since you aren't playing the RAW.

Different umpires will no doubt have different views of what is cheesy or not and it ends up being a complete lottery as to what happens when you call an umpire, based on whether he favours one person, if he has a hangover, etc, etc

I think we can all agree that the RAW is perfectly adequate for the normal circumstance where the front corner only applies to the front rank base and this only arises where a second or subsequent rank base is sticking out at an odd angle due to forming a kinked column. I think most people would be comfortable with the concept that this should be a flank.Thankfully I've not seen it occur but I think it could probably be usefully covered by an errata entry to avoid the possibility of anyone exploiting it.

kevinj wrote:I think we can all agree that the RAW is perfectly adequate for the normal circumstance where the front corner only applies to the front rank base and this only arises where a second or subsequent rank base is sticking out at an odd angle due to forming a kinked column. I think most people would be comfortable with the concept that this should be a flank.Thankfully I've not seen it occur but I think it could probably be usefully covered by an errata entry to avoid the possibility of anyone exploiting it.

And presumably a clarification on "facing in two directions"?

kevinj wrote:anyone exploiting it.

ANYONE???? Or just someone

dave_r wrote:
Does that mean I am allowed to ignore rules I don't like because it "contravenes" the principles under which fog was designed?

It means all umpires should be prepared to rule against you in particular.

A greater solution (but it would be an amendment) would be just say that a kinked column contacted by either a legal flank charge, or contact on ANY base other than its lead base is ALWAYS adjudicated as a flank charge with all the effects.

Kinked column ought not to be occuring near the battle zone.

A greater solution (but it would be an amendment) would be just say that a kinked column contacted by either a legal flank charge, or contact on ANY base other than its lead base is ALWAYS adjudicated as a flank charge with all the effects.

I think that could be handled by an errata entry as I don't think the Front Corner rule was ever intended to include front corners of non front rank bases at odd angles. But you'd have to also allow for the possibility of a Rear Charge.

It means all umpires should be prepared to rule against you in particular.

This is probably one for the FAQ. It would probably be more widely used than the kinked column one. I'd also replace "prepared" with "instructed"!

Or we could just agree that maneuvering in columns and modeling kinking of such at all is stupid for this scale of game anyway and not allow it. Can anyone give me an example of infantry in March order involved in any kind of set piece battle? Let's not bother with the the ambush in the German Wood......

hazelbark wrote:... a kinked column contacted by either a legal flank charge, or contact on ANY base other than its lead base is ALWAYS adjudicated as a flank charge with all the effects.

Should this read:

a kinked column contacted on ANY base other than its lead base is ALWAYS adjudicated as a flank charge with all the effects.

Because:

• The rules for a legal flank charge apply anyway.
• This is simpler as it deals with the special case without mixing the two.
• Much easier for those that haven't read this thread.

Having said all of that, what if you can just catch the side edge of the first base and it's not a legal flank charge?

IanB3406 wrote:Or we could just agree that maneuvering in columns and modeling kinking of such at all is stupid for this scale of game anyway and not allow it. Can anyone give me an example of infantry in March order involved in any kind of set piece battle? Let's not bother with the the ambush in the German Wood......

Lake Trasimene.

the reason they have kinking in the rules is there is worse cheese ifyou just keep the column straight

vexillia wrote: Should this read:

a kinked column contacted on ANY base other than its lead base is ALWAYS adjudicated as a flank charge with all the effects.

Because:

• The rules for a legal flank charge apply anyway.
• This is simpler as it deals with the special case without mixing the two.
• Much easier for those that haven't read this thread.

Having said all of that, what if you can just catch the side edge of the first base and it's not a legal flank charge?

I'd be fine with that. You could include the side edges of the front base or not. I don't really care. The reason to make the front base normal is just to prevent some other knock on effect. It may be easy to manage a step forward into contact with a side edge or 2nd base. But anything in this neighborhood is fine by me.

grahambriggs wrote:

IanB3406 wrote:Or we could just agree that maneuvering in columns and modeling kinking of such at all is stupid for this scale of game anyway and not allow it. Can anyone give me an example of infantry in March order involved in any kind of set piece battle? Let's not bother with the the ambush in the German Wood......

Lake Trasimene.

the reason they have kinking in the rules is there is worse cheese ifyou just keep the column straight

Wasn't it the Romans at Trasimene who were bascially ambushed in road column? Or is that to simple of a description.

hazelbark wrote:A greater solution (but it would be an amendment) would be just say that a kinked column contacted by either a legal flank charge, or contact on ANY base other than its lead base is ALWAYS adjudicated as a flank charge with all the effects.

Kinked column ought not to be occuring near the battle zone.

What happens if the kinked column is as a result of a compulsory move?